Person_Man's Niche Ranking System

[Person_Man]

Debates about Tiers (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266559) and class design are a regular feature on this forum. So I thought it might be handy if we actually made and discussed a list of all of the different niches a class can generally fill in a typical D&D game. This is my current list:


1) Battlefield Control: Prevent enemies from taking their normal actions and/or movement.

2) Buffer: Increase the abilities of allies.

3) Curiosity: Rarely used but helpful in some meaningful way. (Examples: Forgery, Tongues, Slow Fall, etc)

4) Debuffer: Reduce the abilities of enemies, usually by inflicting status effects.

5) Dominator: Take functional command of enemies.

6) Game Changer: Can proactively reshape the game (or realty) to suit your goals. (Examples: Wish, Miracle, Gate, Psychic Reformation, anything that completely breaks the action economy, etc)

7) Healer: Can restore hit points and remove harmful status effects for allies in combat.

8) Meat Shield: Can stand in the front line of combat with a reasonable chance of not getting killed.

9) Melee Damage: Deal meaningful damage to enemies within reach.

10) Mobility: Can circumvent battlefield control and barriers, and quickly pursue or retreat from enemies.

11) Party Face: Interacts with NPCs in a way that gets desirable results.

12) Ranged Damage: Deal meaningful damage to enemies at a range.

13) Sage: Knows or can find useful information.

14) Scout: Locates enemies, threats, and other useful things while remaining hidden.

15) Thief: Can take things from an enemy and enemy locations without being discovered.

16) Summoner: Can summon allies (or make them) that fills other niches without putting the character directly in harms way.

17) Trapfinder: Find and disarm or bypass traps.


Now that we have a mostly workable list (some things could be split up or combined, depending on your games) I propose to rank each class according to how well they fill each niche. Here are my proposed rankings:


1 = The class is unambiguously one of the best possible classes to fill that niche effectively and efficiently. Example: Druid can Summon Nature's Ally spontaneously and has full spell progression, and is thus one of the best possible classes to fill the Summoner niche.

2 = The class can fill that niche effectively and efficiently, it's just not as amazing at it as other classes that fill that niche. Example: The Ranger gets bonus archery Feats, Favored Enemy, and a few useful low-mid archery related spells, but he's not nearly as efficient or effective at dealing Ranged Damage as a Sorcerer with some blasty spells known.

3 = The class can fill that niche, but it's not particularly effective or efficient at it when compared to most other classes that fill that niche. For example, the Monk theoretically has a lot of attacks and scaled unarmed damage, but in practice it usually sucks at dealing damage Melee Damage when compared to most other classes that fill that niche.

4 = The class offers absolutely nothing to support this niche. There's really no way a Barbarian is going to reasonably fill the Healer niche using Barbarian class abilities.

For the purposes of scoring on this rubric, I would add the important caveat that a class shouldn't be counted as truly filling a niche unless they can do so effectively (ie, their raw numbers are high enough that you do whatever you're trying to so fairly well) and efficiently (ie, you can carry out the niche effectively without having to make an investment of other resources, such as Feats/magic items/PrC/etc, which are for the most part available to every class). For example, a Monk can theoretically fill the melee damage niche, but he does not do so effectively compared to most other classes, or it requires a serious investment of magic items and/or non-bonus Feats and/or PrC/multi-classing to do so effectively.


Here is my twenty-third draft of rankings:




Class
Book
BFC
Buff
Curios
Debuff
Dominate
Game C.
Heal
Meat S.
Melee
Mobility
Party Face
Ranged
Sage
Scout
Thief
Summon
Trapfind
Total


Adept
DMG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
57


Archivist
HoH
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
28


Ardent
CPsi
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
37


Aristocrat
DMG
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
65


Artificer
ECS
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
3
1
1
2
3
2
2
31


Barbarian
PHB
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
60


Bard
PHB
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
3
2
2
1
2
3
35


Battle Dancer
DComp
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
2
4
4
56


Beguiler
PHBII
2
3
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
3
1
37


Binder
ToM
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
4
3
4
43


Cleric
PHB
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
26


Commoner
DMG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
68


Crusader
ToB
2
2
4
3
4
4
3
1
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
54


Death Master
DComp
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
2
3
47


Divine Mind
CPsi
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
52


Dragon Shaman
PHBII
4
3
2
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
57


Dragonfire Adept
DMag.
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
4
3
2
45


Dread Necro.
HoH
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
3
49


Druid
PHB
1
2
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
1
3
31


Duskblade
PHBII
2
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
1
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
54


Expert
DMG
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
63


Factotum
Dung
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
36


Favored Soul
CDiv
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
32


Fighter
PHB
2
3
4
3
4
4
4
2
2
4
3
2
4
4
4
4
4
57


Healer
Min
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
53


Hexblade
CWar
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
51


Incarnate
MoI
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
43


Jester
DComp
3
3
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
47


Knight
PHBII
2
4
4
3
4
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
57


Lurk
CPsi
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
1
3
3
43


Magewright
ECS
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
61


Marshal
Min
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
3
3
4
4
4
4
57


Monk
PHB
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
55


Mountebank
DComp
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
4
1
52


Mystic
Dlance
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
33


Ninja
CAdv
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
2
2
3
2
4
2
2
4
2
52


Noble
Dlance
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
2
3
4
4
4
62


Paladin
PHB
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
53


Psion
EPH
2
3
2
1
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
3
2
2
2
3
36


Psychic Rogue
Web
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
3
1
38


Psychic Warrior
EPH
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
46


Ranger
PHB
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
49


Rogue
PHB
4
4
2
3
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
1
44


Samurai
OA
2
4
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
4
3
2
4
4
4
4
4
57


Samurai
CWar
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
2
2
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
61


Savant
DComp
3
3
1
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
2
2
4
1
44


Scout
CAdv
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
4
3
3
2
3
4
2
56


Shadowcaster
ToM
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
48


Sha'ir
DComp
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
27


Shaman
OA
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
3
43


Shugenja
OA
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
41


Shugenja
CDiv
2
2
3
2
4
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
4
3
4
47


Sohei
OA
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
57


Sorcerer
PHB
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
29


Soulborn
MoI
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
54


Soulknife
EPH
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
62


Spellthief
CAdv
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
47


Spirit Shaman
CDiv
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
4
1
3
42


Swashbuckler
CWar
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
59


Swordsage
ToB
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
2
1
3
3
4
2
3
4
4
52


Totemist
MoI
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
1
2
3
2
3
3
3
4
4
51


Truenamer
ToM
3
3
2
3
4
3
2
4
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
57


Urban Druid
DComp
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
37


Warblade
ToB
2
2
4
3
4
3
4
2
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
54


Warlock
CArc
2
3
3
2
2
4
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
45


Warmage
CArc
2
4
3
2
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
1
4
4
4
3
4
56


Warrior
DMG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
65


Wilder
EPH
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
44


Wizard
PHB
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
28


Wu Jen
CArc
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
42




I kept low numbers as better ratings for easier comparison to the Tier system.

For my rating system, I do not assume the use of alternate class abilities, racial substitution levels, web material, magazines, 3rd party, home brew, obscure supplementary material, or optimization tricks that a reasonable DM might not allow in a RAW game. If you are using these, then a resourceful player can probably move almost any class up at least one ranking in almost any niche.

When evaluating the "Total" score, you should ask yourself a very simple question. Does each niche listed commonly come up in the games you play? For example, in the old school D&D games I grew up playing combat was very deadly and gaining gp = gaining xp, so filling the Thief niche instead of trying to kill every enemy was really common and worthwhile. But if you're playing a hack and slash game where you're expected to fully clear every level of the dungeon, then that Niche is either meaningless or unimportant, and you should just subtract it from the Total of all classes before considering them.

If you believe that I am in error on the 1/2/3/4 ranking for a class, please cite a clear example of how that class can effectively and efficiently fill that niche compared to other classes that can also fill that niche.
At this point, I believe I have ranked all 3.5 classes. When I'm done defining and rebalancing each niche ranking in detail, I'll make a separate chart for Pathfinder classes.

Thanks to everyone for your feedback.

[Evandar]

Question: How does the scoring system work in relation to classes that can do multiple things at once versus classes that are forced to focus on just one thing? These forums have made me painfully aware that Wizards can do essentially everything at the same time with horrific efficiency.

[BornValyrian]

Hey, a scoring system that actually shows what they are good at. For the record, truenamer definitely scores high in sage while low to moderate in the other things he was supposed to do (damage, buff, debuff)

[Just to Browse]

Summoner should probably be labeled Proxy Fighter or something like that, since it conceptually covers summoning, armies of followers, and undead legions.

[Darrin]

What about Blaster? Or is that already part of Ranged Damage?

[Gwendol]

I guess they would score high in all areas they are good at.

Speaking of which, the niches are lacking a few areas: blaster, manipulator (messing with peoples minds and perception, either magically or not), healer (HP, ability, and other conditions).

[Kuulvheysoon]

I guess they would score high in all areas they are good at.

Speaking of which, the niches are lacking a few areas: blaster, manipulator (messing with peoples minds and perception, either magically or not), healer (HP, ability, and other conditions).

Blaster likely fits under Ranged Damage, while I'd guess Manipulator would fall under Dominator. Healer, however, should probably have a category (at least for ability damage/other conditions).

[danzibr]

Minor, minor note. Debuffer is missing the t in "the."

I'm quite interested to see this grow.

[Deox]

Healer may fall under Buffer, but I feel it may warrant its own category.

[OverdrivePrime]

What about Social Interaction: Good at getting desirable results from NPCs - information and clues, side-quests, favorable prices and offers of rewards.

[Feytalist]

Where would a shapeshifter fit in this list? A 'morpher could fill many of those roles. A "Shapechanger" could potentially be added to the list. It's an often-encountered archetype, after all.

[Deox]

Where would a shapeshifter fit in this list? A 'morpher could fill many of those roles. A "Shapechanger" could potentially be added to the list. It's an often-encountered archetype, after all.

Seconded. Though how would it measured? Number of useful forms? Roles?

[Joe the Rat]

Great idea.
It might be worth adding a conditional for cases where a class can fill a niche with heavy optimization/investment. "Could be done, but not ideal/sacrifices other options." Perhaps down the road once the foundation is settled, or for discussing niche by class rather than classes by niche.

[JeminiZero]

Healer may fall under Buffer, but I feel it may warrant its own category.
Healer is not typically an in-combat role though. In fact, typical advice is that the "healer" is whoever can use the wand of CLW/lesser vigor which was bought using party funds (which includes everything from the monk rogue with UMD, to the actual divine casters).

The only worthwhile healing spell to cast in combat is "Heal", and that is (generally) only on the list of full blown divine casters.

@Person_man: How about batman utility, stuff outside fights like ropetrick, scry, teleport, commune etc

[Deox]

Healer is not typically an in-combat role though. In fact, typical advice is that the "healer" is whoever can use the wand of CLW/lesser vigor which was bought using party funds (which includes everything from the monk rogue with UMD, to the actual divine casters).


Yes, but I feel that is not the point. It would be a niche though I agree in retrospect maybe not buffer.

[Joe the Rat]

Some of those might fit Curiosity, but "transportation/travel" might be a category worth noting

Healing also covers removing status effects, diseases, ability damage, etc., not just hit point recovery. It's a little trickier to UMD your way through.

[Amphetryon]

What about Social Interaction: Good at getting desirable results from NPCs - information and clues, side-quests, favorable prices and offers of rewards.

Face is probably a reasonable addition, unless it's considered Curiosity, I agree.

[NichG]

'Game Changer' probably shouldn't actually be a separate niche. Its more that someone who is a 'Game Changer' can fulfill the needs of any of the other niches at will and on the fly.

Also, in general for niches I would focus on the consequences of actions, not the style. So for instance, what is the 'consequence' of a summoner - it could be various things: damage output, healing, mobility, tanking, trapfinding. The only really unique thing about a summoner is that it breaks the action economy, so I would for example replace the 'summoner' niche with 'action economy'.

Similarly, just because something is inefficient in D&D (like in-combat healing) doesn't mean that it isn't a niche that can be filled; it just means that there isn't anything in D&D right now that fills it well, and that generally people just use power in other areas to make up for its lack (e.g. avoiding hits or severely reducing incoming damage). If someone made a homebrew class that pumped out 10*level points of healing per round as an aura, it would absolutely be good at the 'Combat Healing' niche even if nothing else really is right now.

[eggynack]

Game changer seems kinda vague. Does it just mean that the class has some ridiculous power that comes into play in the late game, or does it mean, "This character is a caster of some kind." The former actually seems like a reasonable thing, because having a single late game power niche could work, but the latter falls into the same problem that the game itself falls into, in that it's putting game changing, which can do just about anything ever, on the same level as being a meat shield, or having forgery.

As for additional niches, I agree that healer deserves a spot, mostly for status effect removal. Panacea and restoration aren't really buffs, and neither is raise dead. Sometimes, someone is going to go blind, and solving that is going to be an out of pocket expense if you lack a healing guy. Out of combat healing of HP damage is nice too. You may also want a face niche, for effective and efficient use of the face skills.

[JeminiZero]

Where would a shapeshifter fit in this list? A 'morpher could fill many of those roles. A "Shapechanger" could potentially be added to the list. It's an often-encountered archetype, after all.

It depends heavily on the exact rules for shapechanging used. IMHO, in 3.5 there are generally 3 kinds of PCs who use shapeshifting in combat (as opposed to Changelings whose shapeshift is mostly useful out of combat):

1) Druid Wildshape and Wiz/Sorc/Archivist/Psion with Alter Self/Polymorph: Typically used to make yourself into something big and strong. No SLA or SU, hence limited to either Meat Shield and/or Melee Damage forms.

2) Anybody with Shapechange: By RAW, this spell is so broken that alone it automatically pushes the user into Game Changer (Zodar Free Wishes!).

In both case above, the PC are still versatile, because they pack OTHER spell/powers besides being able to shapechange. And number 3:

3) Wildshape Ranger-MoMF: Still mostly Meat Shield (with the added benefit of Ex immunities) or Melee Damage. Although a few forms (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1060931) pack special abilities.

TL;DR: Shapeshifting by itself for PCs, is mostly geared towards Meat Shield/ Melee Damage role, although the Tier 1/2 PCs can do MORE than just shapeshift.

(There is also the Warshaper/Bear Warrior, but from the PrC alone, he/she typically limited to one combat form, and again, most of time works as Meat Shield/Melee Damage).

[Kyeudo]

I'm going to chip my 2cp in:

Game Changer is a poor category - it basically amounts to "can cast 9th level spells"
Thief should probably be renamed "Infiltration" to account for disguise options in addition to Sleight of Hand and Hide
Healer should be a category - yes, a wand can cover it, but there's a difference between a single wand's amount of healing and the raw output of a dedicated Truenamer healer
Mobility should get a category. Paladins are far more mobile than the average rogue, while Wizards are hyper-mobile.
Summoner and Dominator should probably be combined into Minion Mastery.

[Urpriest]

For Game Changer, I think it can be replaced with a few roles:

Rebuilder: Capability to change the bodies and capabilities of partymates or oneself on a permanent basis. Psychic Reformation, the Mind Switch line (and various Tippy tricks therein), Dark Chaos Shuffle, etc. Basically, the sort of capabilities that come in the character building phase, not in-session.

Setting Change: This is everything from the ability to make a keep out of Wall of Stone to destroying a village with Blizzard. Anything that has an effect on a scale larger (either in time or space) than a typical encounter.

[NichG]

For Game Changer, I think it can be replaced with a few roles:

Rebuilder: Capability to change the bodies and capabilities of partymates or oneself on a permanent basis. Psychic Reformation, the Mind Switch line (and various Tippy tricks therein), Dark Chaos Shuffle, etc. Basically, the sort of capabilities that come in the character building phase, not in-session.

Setting Change: This is everything from the ability to make a keep out of Wall of Stone to destroying a village with Blizzard. Anything that has an effect on a scale larger (either in time or space) than a typical encounter.

I agree. I think these are both reasonable and important niches.

[Snowbluff]

For Game Changer, I think it can be replaced with a few roles:

Rebuilder: Capability to change the bodies and capabilities of partymates or oneself on a permanent basis. Psychic Reformation, the Mind Switch line (and various Tippy tricks therein), Dark Chaos Shuffle, etc. Basically, the sort of capabilities that come in the character building phase, not in-session. This is a means, not an end, if you ask me. :smalltongue:


Setting Change: This is everything from the ability to make a keep out of Wall of Stone to destroying a village with Blizzard. Anything that has an effect on a scale larger (either in time or space) than a typical encounter.BFC.

[nedz]

A couple more

Taxi
The guy with the Teleports, Planeshifts, Overland Flight spells.
Typically a Mage but could be a Cleric with the Travel domain or an Horizon Walker

Crafter
Makes stuff for the party

[eggynack]

BFC.
It's often a subset of BFC, but it still feels important and separate. Generally, it would probably mean BFC's of reasonable area and with instantaneous effects. Solid fog isn't really going to change anything in a long term and strategic way, but surrounding a village with walls to keep out invaders might. Like, let's say you use your magic to destroy a house, because that is a thing you want. Would you call that a BFC, if destroying the house doesn't have any immediate tactical ramifications? It's all about affecting change over the long term, which doesn't necessarily require a BFC.

[Person_Man]

Question: How does the scoring system work in relation to classes that can do multiple things at once versus classes that are forced to focus on just one thing? These forums have made me painfully aware that Wizards can do essentially everything at the same time with horrific efficiency.

If you can fill a niche effectively and efficiently, then you get credit for it. If you can't, you don't. Being extra super amazing effective is highly dependent on optimization, and thus you don't get extra points for it just because you fill that niche better then everyone else. If a class is focused on a small subset of niches amazingly well, it would rank poorly in this system, and people interested in that class would clearly see that they should only play that class if they want to be great at only those niches.



What about Blaster? Or is that already part of Ranged Damage?

Correct.

Blaster fits under ranged damage. Whether you use a bow to deal 50 points of damage or fireball to deal 50 points of damage is mostly meaningless. You're dealing ranged damage.



Healer, however, should probably have a category (at least for ability damage/other conditions).

Agreed and added.


What about Social Interaction: Good at getting desirable results from NPCs - information and clues, side-quests, favorable prices and offers of rewards.

Agreed. Added Party Face niche.



Thanks for the other feedback everyone. I'll probably be making additional tweaks, especially to the Game Changer niche. But I agree with NichG and Snowbluff comments that niche consideration should focus on the ends, not the means. If someone can Wildshape/Polymorph/etc, I'm not sure that's really a niche. It's an ability that they use which allows them to deal melee damage, be a meat shield, etc.

Similarly, we'll need to carefully consider whether/if/how to include Mobility and/or Transporter or something similar. Being able to move quickly or interdimensionally really doesn't let you fill some meaningful role in the game on a regular basis. You just move around easier. Thinking of it as a niche can be a trap for players - in most cases it doesn't really help you kill enemies or otherwise solve or defeat challenges. And outside of combat, in most games everything moves at the speed of plot. If you can't Teleport somewhere, the dungeon will still be waiting for you when your party walks there.

[Telonius]

I'd add "or allows allies to take additional actions and/or movement" to Battlefield Control. I'm thinking White Raven mainly, but something like Snake's Swiftness would apply as well. I don't think those fall into the Buffing category very cleanly.

[Slipperychicken]

Perhaps melee damage should say "enemies within reach", because characters with reach of 10ft or more can attack non-adjacent opponents.

There is some overlap between "curiosity" and "sage", particularly with the mention of Bardic Knowledge.

We could score each measure on a scale of 0 to 100. In this system, zero means the character is completely incapable of doing it, 50 might mean that it does a sub-par job if it tries, 100 means they can do it with perfect results all the time.

Additionally, sub- categories might be added as needed.

[nedz]

Similarly, we'll need to carefully consider whether/if/how to include Mobility and/or Transporter or something similar. Being able to move quickly or interdimensionally really doesn't let you fill some meaningful role in the game on a regular basis. You just move around easier. Thinking of it as a niche can be a trap for players - in most cases it doesn't really help you kill enemies or otherwise solve or defeat challenges. And outside of combat, in most games everything moves at the speed of plot. If you can't Teleport somewhere, the dungeon will still be waiting for you when your party walks there.

In combat

Counter many BFCs
Disengagement
Pursuit


Out of Combat

Circumvent barriers
Need an item or spell — Teleport to Shop/Temple/Guild, get it, teleport back
Scry + Teleport etc.

[Person_Man]

Perhaps melee damage should say "enemies within reach", because characters with reach of 10ft or more can attack non-adjacent opponents.

There is some overlap between "curiosity" and "sage", particularly with the mention of Bardic Knowledge.


Agreed. I've made the change to Melee Damage, and the examples for Curiosity. The point of the Curiosity niche is that some classes have abilities or Skills that are useful in theory, but in practice they're rarely used in a normal game.



In combat

Counter many BFCs
Disengagement
Pursuit


Out of Combat

Circumvent barriers
Need an item or spell — Teleport to Shop/Temple/Guild, get it, teleport back
Scry + Teleport etc.


OK, you've convinced me. For now, I'm going with Mobility: Can circumvent battlefield control and barriers, and quickly pursue or retreat from enemies.

[mabriss lethe]

I think Game Changer shouldn't be a niche, but should instead be indicative of, or perhaps even the definition of, the highest level score within a niche.

[Epsilon Rose]

Perhaps melee damage should say "enemies within reach", because characters with reach of 10ft or more can attack non-adjacent opponents.

There is some overlap between "curiosity" and "sage", particularly with the mention of Bardic Knowledge.

We could score each measure on a scale of 0 to 100. In this system, zero means the character is completely incapable of doing it, 50 might mean that it does a sub-par job if it tries, 100 means they can do it with perfect results all the time.

Additionally, sub- categories might be added as needed.

I'd just go 0-3,so there's less subjectivity. That way you can have:

0- Does not even attempt to accomplish this.
1- Nominally fills this role. Does not do so effectively.
2- Fills roll competently.
3- Wins at this roll.


So, if we applied that to battle field control, you might have:

0- Vanilla fighter. Cannot natively influence the battlefield.
1- Truenamer. Technically has abilities that can manipulate the battlefield, these abilities are of questionable value, efficacy or reliability.
2- Crusader. Can lock down portions of the battlefield if desired (thicket of blades+standstill).
3- Wizard.


Splitting up individual niches like this would be useful for people trying to get a summary of the class. However, when trying to get an aggregate score to determine overall power, you may want to just count 2s and 3s as 1 point or 2s as 1 point and 3s as 2, because a whole bunch of 1s probably isn't going to increase your power as much as half as many 2s.

I'd also like to suggest weighting certain categories in the aggregate score. It seams odd, too me, that trap finding, curiosity, battle field control, and domination all have the same value.

[Slipperychicken]

The point of the Curiosity niche is that some classes have abilities or Skills that are useful in theory, but in practice they're rarely used in a normal game.

This idea seems like it could be better used as one criterion (among several others) for evaluating a class' performance within a niche.


For example, while a Monk's Slow Fall might be theoretically useful for Mobility, it comes up so rarely that it loses points. Or while a Wizard can buff himself to be good at Melee Damage, preparing and using the spells to do so is resource intensive and incurs opportunity costs such that it will almost never do so (and thus the Wizard will lose points in the Melee Damage niche).

EDIT:


I'd also like to suggest weighting certain categories in the aggregate score. It seams odd, too me, that trap finding, curiosity, battle field control, and domination all have the same value.

Honestly, I think that weighting niche values is best done on an individual basis to help achieve a character concept's goals.

So one roguish concept might weight trapfinding at 0.3, face at 0.2, melee damage at 0.3, and scout at 0.2, while a "Master Swordsman" concept might place a premium on melee damage (0.4) and meat shield (0.4), while only leaving a little (0.1) for Face and (0.1) for Battlefield Control.

[NichG]

For the actual ranking system, is the intent to have people vote on each class/niche and then aggregate the average score? The more gradations you have the higher chance that someone is going to pick an arbitrary 'baseline' for what each score means to them. E.g. is a Commoner a 0 in melee? 20? 30? 40? In that case, where is the monk?

If on the other hand you have very few gradations you can explicitly say what each gradation means, as per the 0-3 suggested by Epsilon Rose.

That said, if you're just going to assign scores and make a document, it doesn't really matter that much since you're going to have a consistent baseline.

[Amphetryon]

As I read it, the originally proposed ranking system of 1 - 16 measures each Class against the others in its role, rather than assigning an otherwise arbitrary rating to a Class.

[nedz]

For the actual ranking system, is the intent to have people vote on each class/niche and then aggregate the average score? The more gradations you have the higher chance that someone is going to pick an arbitrary 'baseline' for what each score means to them. E.g. is a Commoner a 0 in melee? 20? 30? 40? In that case, where is the monk?

If on the other hand you have very few gradations you can explicitly say what each gradation means, as per the 0-3 suggested by Epsilon Rose.

That said, if you're just going to assign scores and make a document, it doesn't really matter that much since you're going to have a consistent baseline.

We're unlikely to get anywhere with the first approach — just 50 pages of opinions. The latter approach is better, we can have meaningful discussions then.

[Icewraith]

Are you weighting these to provide an aggregate score?

"Battlefield control" and "trapfinding" shouldn't have the same weight, for instance, especially since "trapfinding" can be done by minionmancy.

[Epsilon Rose]

Honestly, I think that weighting niche values is best done on an individual basis to help achieve a character concept's goals.

So one roguish concept might weight trapfinding at 0.3, face at 0.2, melee damage at 0.3, and scout at 0.2, while a "Master Swordsman" concept might place a premium on melee damage (0.4) and meat shield (0.4), while only leaving a little (0.1) for Face and (0.1) for Battlefield Control.

Any aggregate score is going to run into that problem. That's why I suggested having separate individual and aggregate scores. The aggregate scores are more to help people (especially DMs) judge the overall power of the class, while the individual scores help you judge how well it fits your concept.

From the perspective of a player wanting to make a rogue-ish character, knowing that the have a 3 in trapfinding and stealth might be highly valuable, but from a DMs perspective that's not going to be overly disruptive to the game (though it does mean you need to expect all traps in their presence to fail). Conversely, having 3s in BFC, Buffing and Debuffing might be a much bigger issue for a DM, even if their total raw score is lower.

[AMFV]

It's worth noting that a barbarian can use the trapkiller ACF to find traps under certain circumstances. Not sure how ACFs factor into this particular system, but if you are factoring them into that then it should probably be upgraded to questionable (because they can't do magical traps and such) if you aren't factoring ACFs you could probably just disregard this.

[Slipperychicken]

So, if we applied that to battle field control, you might have:

0- Vanilla fighter. Cannot natively influence the battlefield.
1- Truenamer. Technically has abilities that can manipulate the battlefield, these abilities are of questionable value, efficacy or reliability.
2- Crusader. Can lock down portions of the battlefield if desired (thicket of blades+standstill).
3- Wizard.


Splitting up individual niches like this would be useful for people trying to get a summary of the class. However, when trying to get an aggregate score to determine overall power, you may want to just count 2s and 3s as 1 point or 2s as 1 point and 3s as 2, because a whole bunch of 1s probably isn't going to increase your power as much as half as many 2s.


In the example you gave, a Fighter is still a presence on the battlefield. He takes AoOs, and as tripper build might be highly valuable.

Perhaps a larger score for each niche (like out of 10) might allow us to further distinguish classes?


Are you weighting these to provide an aggregate score?


I think that any weighting would have to be done on an individual basis, with a player assigning weights to the roles/niches he wants to prioritize, then picking the class which has the maximum score given those weights.

[AMFV]

Additionally since sorcerers don't get Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive as class skills I would likely downgrade them to a questionable rating in terms of being a party face since they're going by only their charisma, which will probably be at least a +15 or so at level 20, but compared to a bard with good charisma and maxed ranks that's pretty ineffective.

[Epsilon Rose]

It's worth noting that a barbarian can use the trapkiller ACF to find traps under certain circumstances. Not sure how ACFs factor into this particular system, but if you are factoring them into that then it should probably be upgraded to questionable (because they can't do magical traps and such) if you aren't factoring ACFs you could probably just disregard this.

Maybe use decimals for that?

A Barbarian is Nominally competent in Trapfinding, which would normally be a 1, but they only have that competency if they take the right acf, so it degrades to a .5.

Similarly, a barbarian is not normally associated with Debuffing, so it might normally be a 0, but with the right ACF they can be pretty good at Intimidate, so it might actually be counted as a 1.5. It would be a 2 if it was a core class feature.

Edit:

In the example you gave, a Fighter is still a presence on the battlefield. He takes AoOs, and as tripper build might be highly valuable.

While I will admit that the fighters rank might be a bit contentious, I don't think it's that contentious. Simply being a presence on the battlefield isn't enough to count as battlefield control, unless you're playing a large number of units. Out of the box, the fighter only gets 1 attack of opportunity a turn, his attacks only do damage, and they only effect a small number of creatures. A fighter can make selections that allow him to do better battlefield control, but this requires a major expenditure of resources (Possibly exotic reach weapon, tripping line of feats, AoO line of feats, ect) which would diminish there ability to perform in other areas and runs into Person Mans caveat:


For the purposes of scoring on this rubric, I would add the important caveat that a class shouldn't be counted as truly filling a niche unless they can do so effectively (ie, their raw numbers are high enough that you do whatever you're trying to so fairly well) and efficiently (ie, you can carry out the niche effectively without having to make a large investment of other resources, such as Feats/magic items/PrC/etc, which are for the most part available to every class).

Edit 2: Put another way, what class wouldn't qualify for BFC under that template? A rogue has a presence on the battlefield and can take AoOs and trip and I'd bet they'd love to have prone enemies. How about a bard? A truenamer? A binder? A totemist?

[danzibr]

I'm totally going to apply the ideas here to my Totemist handbook. Which I'll finally finish over Thanksgiving break.

[Person_Man]

It's worth noting that a barbarian can use the trapkiller ACF to find traps under certain circumstances. Not sure how ACFs factor into this particular system, but if you are factoring them into that then it should probably be upgraded to questionable (because they can't do magical traps and such) if you aren't factoring ACFs you could probably just disregard this.

Many players can't use ACF's (or racial substitution levels), and ACF's are not really part of the classes. So if you can cite an ACF from a non-obscure source that allows a class to fill a role, I'll upgrade it to Q. And I'll update the definition of Q accordingly.

So Barbarian and Ranger have been upgraded to Q in Trapfinding.



Additionally since sorcerers don't get Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive as class skills I would likely downgrade them to a questionable rating in terms of being a party face since they're going by only their charisma, which will probably be at least a +15 or so at level 20, but compared to a bard with good charisma and maxed ranks that's pretty ineffective.

Noted and agreed. Sorcerer downgraded to Q in Party Face.



While I will admit that the fighters rank might be a bit contentious, I don't think it's that contentious. Simply being a presence on the battlefield isn't enough to count as battlefield control, unless you're playing a large number of units. Out of the box, the fighter only gets 1 attack of opportunity a turn, his attacks only do damage, and they only effect a small number of creatures. A fighter can make selections that allow him to do better battlefield control, but this requires a major expenditure of resources (Possibly exotic reach weapon, tripping line of feats, AoO line of feats, ect) which would diminish there ability to perform in other areas and runs into Person Mans caveat:

Yeah, I'm on the border about this as well.

On one hand, Fighter gets a lot of Bonus Feats - it's pretty much the entire class. Plenty of Feats offer meaningful battlefield control options - Knockdown, Knockback, Scorpion's Grasp, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Spiked Chain), and so on. It's most definitely superior to what other classes get for this niche.

On the other hand, it's not nearly as effective or efficient as battlefield control spell, powers, vestiges, maneuvers, stances, soulmelds, Knight class abilities, etc.

So I currently lean towards a Y ranking for Fighter in Battlefield Control. But it's a very soft Y teetering on Q.

[AMFV]

Maybe use decimals for that?

A Barbarian is Nominally competent in Trapfinding, which would normally be a 1, but they only have that competency if they take the right acf, so it degrades to a .5.

Similarly, a barbarian is not normally associated with Debuffing, so it might normally be a 0, but with the right ACF they can be pretty good at Intimidate, so it might actually be counted as a 1.5. It would be a 2 if it was a core class feature.


That is one of the fundamental problems with the list as written. It's a good idea, but without a defined rubric to compare things it's kind of not very effective. As I pointed out earlier, but after what you quoted, a sorcerer is clearly not as effective at being a party face as a bard under almost all circumstances, nor is a barbarian as effective at battlefield control.

I would recommend a rubric such as this

1 - Maximum efficiency at the role at all times and circumstances. Ergo able to do high damage to all enemies including those who are immune to sneak attack, or able to perform battlefield control even when enemies have a blanket immunity (such as to mind effecting), or able to disarm all traps at no penalty regardless of their magical nature.

2 - High efficiency at limited circumstances or acceptable functioning under all circumstances. For example a rogue might be able to do high amounts of damage when he is fighting an adversary that isn't immune to sneak attack or flanking, or a beguiler might be able to do battlefield control well when not facing undead.

For the other circumstance one might examine something like the facotutum for damage, without focused optimization he can do average levels of damage but not exceptional levels of damage.

3 - Medium efficiency under limited circumstances, for example we have the intimidating barbarian who uses fear to manipulate his enemies. This is moderately effective but completely ineffective against something with mind immunity, or we have the warmage attempting battlefield control, which is very limited under most circumstances.

4 - Limited efficiency under all circumstances, for example a sorcerer acting as a party face by value of having supporting ability scores a non-trapkiller barbarian acting as a trapfinder by soaking damage.

5 - Limited efficiency under limited circumstances, for example a wizard acting as a healer using arcane disciple, a bard acting as a damage dealer using UMD

6 - No Ability Whatsoever - For example a barbarian trying to act as a healer.

I tried to make this as close to the tier system we are familiar with as possible, of course this is just a suggestion, but it would be much more unambiguous than the Yes - Questionable - No dynamic.

I do want to say that despite my small criticism and suggestions this is an excellent idea, I'm hoping that this will be helpful.

[eggynack]

Where's druidic domination coming from? Maybe a little bit, but it's generally pretty situational. Separately, now I have to figure out some efficient druid trapfinding methods. My first instinct is the summon elemental reserve feat, or just regular summoning, but it seems rather situational. Second instinct is using the animal companion, and maybe minor healing, for the "barbarian trapfinding method", but it's rather heartless. Could be workable though.

[Epsilon Rose]

Yeah, I'm on the border about this as well.

On one hand, Fighter gets a lot of Bonus Feats - it's pretty much the entire class. Plenty of Feats offer meaningful battlefield control options - Knockdown, Knockback, Scorpion's Grasp, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Spiked Chain), and so on. It's most definitely superior to what other classes get for this niche.

On the other hand, it's not nearly as effective or efficient as battlefield control spell, powers, vestiges, maneuvers, stances, soulmelds, Knight class abilities, etc.

So I currently lean towards a Y ranking for Fighter in Battlefield Control. But it's a very soft Y teetering on Q.

That's part of why AMFV are supporting a slightly more nuanced numerical ranking, rather than the current ternary system of Yes/Questionable/No. As it stands, the categories are incredibly broad if they're counting a wizards BFC as the same as a fighter's. For a person who doesn't know a class well, there's no difference between a 'light' Yes and an 'emphatic' Yes, nor is there a difference in the overall score.

[Slipperychicken]

That's part of why AMFV are supporting a slightly more nuanced numerical ranking, rather than the current ternary system of Yes/Questionable/No. As it stands, the categories are incredibly broad if they're counting a wizards BFC as the same as a fighter's. For a person who doesn't know a class well, there's no difference between a 'light' Yes and an 'emphatic' Yes, nor is there a difference in the overall score.

This is what I've been saying too. We might take a 0-10 ranking, and include benchmarks like this:

0- Cannot perform this niche at all.
1- Can theoretically attempt to perform this niche, but is extremely ineffective, inefficient, and unreliable.
2
3
4
5- Can perform this niche passably. It succeeds often enough to fill a party's need for it, but only barely. It sometimes needs other characters to pick up the slack.
6
7
8- Performs this niche extremely well, rarely fails against level-appropriate challenges, and can do so unassisted.
9
10- Performs this niche perfectly, and will do so many times per day and without preparation or assistance. Always succeeds with flying colors, no matter what. Short of DM fiat or modifications to the game rules, there is no possible way to make this character fail at his job.

[Epsilon Rose]

This is what I've been saying too. We might take a 0-10 ranking, and include benchmarks like this:

0- Cannot perform this niche at all.
1- Can theoretically attempt to perform this niche, but is extremely ineffective, inefficient, and unreliable.
2
3
4
5- Can perform this niche passably. It succeeds often enough to fill a party's need for it, but only barely. It sometimes needs other characters to pick up the slack.
6
7
8- Performs this niche extremely well, rarely fails against level-appropriate challenges, and can do so unassisted.
9
10- Performs this niche perfectly, and will do so many times per day and without preparation or assistance. Always succeeds with flying colors, no matter what. Short of DM fiat or modifications to the game rules, there is no possible way to make this character fail at his job.

This is where I think we disagree. AMFV and I seem to be arguing for strictly defined categories, while you want a scale. The problem with having a scale is that it makes it harder to interpret. For example, what's the difference between a 6 and a 7 or 2-4? Is my 2 the same as your 3? How about Person Mans 3 and your 4? By having defined categories, you can tell at a glance what something can do and it's easier to standardize values across multiple reviewers/viewers.

[Honjuden]

I forsee Psion looking similar to the Wizard except with a Q or Y in heal, and possibly a Y in Thief.

[AMFV]

This is where I think we disagree. AMFV and I seem to be arguing for strictly defined categories, while you want a scale. The problem with having a scale is that it makes it harder to interpret. For example, what's the difference between a 6 and a 7 or 2-4? Is my 2 the same as your 3? How about Person Mans 3 and your 4? By having defined categories, you can tell at a glance what something can do and it's easier to standardize values across multiple reviewers/viewers.

Exactly, and even my categories have some room for subjectivity as does the tier list. The biggest problem is that we have more than two axis of ability, we have total ability, like the charge barbarian who can do massive massive damage under exactly the right circumstances, and then reliability, for example the mailman who can do extremely consistent damage under all circumstances.

I think my idea is probably about as objective categories as you're going to get, although this is PersonMan's rodeo, and my system is just a suggestion. It would also reverse it so that lower numbers would be better, which is the opposite of his, and is probably counterintuitive to some.

[mabriss lethe]

Some thoughts:

An agreed upon baseline:

I propose that the criteria for a 0 or whatever the worst category in a niche will be is a Commoner with 10s in all stats and stripped of skills.

It's the lowest common denominator with the fewest special considerations. Low BAB, saves, no class features, no skills, no modifiers to ability scores. The worst any other class can do in a given niche can be measured against what our theoretical commoner can do under the same constraints.

[Kane0]

Would gamechanger also include breaking the action economy over ones's knee?

[Kyeudo]

Since I'm one of the self-proclaimed experts on the Truenamer class, I might as well do this:
{table=head]Class | BFC | Buff | Curiosity | Debuff | Dominate | Game C. | Heal | Meat S. | Melee | Mobility | Party Face | Ranged | Sage | Scout | Thief | Summon | Trapfind | Total Y | Total Q

Truenamer | Q | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y! | N | N | Q | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | 5 | 2
Kyeudo's Truenamer | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y! | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Q | N | 9 | 1
[/table]
For the regular truenamer, this does assume that they have devoted the required amount of WBL into improving their Truenaming modifier or joined the Paragnostic Assembly for the +10 bonus. If they haven't, they are a No in everything but "Sage".

In terms of raw hp healing, a healing-optimized ToM Truenamer is the single best healer in the game, barring Reserve Feats. In combat, they lack the immediate oomph of Heal, but that's combat healing's problem in general.

[Snowbluff]

You're lying. You must be. :smallsigh:

The best healer is having fast healing.

[eggynack]

In terms of raw hp healing, a healing-optimized ToM Truenamer is the single best healer in the game, barring Reserve Feats. In combat, they lack the immediate oomph of Heal, but that's combat healing's problem in general.
The problem with that is, raw HP healing is only one facet of healing, and a pretty minor one at that. It doesn't really matter how efficient your in combat healing is unless you hit super-efficiency, so mostly you're talking about a role that can be mostly filled by wands and items. The real measure of healing is how many status conditions you can cure, how common it is that you'll have the capacity to cure them, and what level you can gain access to that curing. Truenamers definitely make good damage healers, but I don't think that makes them exclamation point worthy healers.

[Gwendol]

Bard looks a little short-changed. They should have mobility available through Alter Self and teleporting. I suggest having a Q there.
I also think they should have Y on debuff: they get a lot of debuffing spells, and can pick up songs (haunting melody, spellbreaker song, countersong(?)) to do that as well.

[Gwendol]

Paladin's can buff, minimum through Aura of Courage. I suggest a Q there.
I'd say they should have Y on curiosity. They have some features that may be of interest, but rarely comes up.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I'd actually make the argument that monks deserve a Q in BFC. Between (prerequisite free!) Improved Trip and others (through various UA variants), they can get a decently solid base.

[Gwendol]

Rangers can summon. I suggest changing to Q, just because the spells come so late and are so few.
They can also Buff and Debuff. BFC through entangle.

[Snowbluff]

I'd actually make the argument that monks deserve a Q in BFC. Between (prerequisite free!) Improved Trip and others (through various UA variants), they can get a decently solid base.

They get an F in everything. For failure. :smalltongue:

[Kazyan]

{table=head]Class | BFC | Buff | Curiosity | Debuff | Dominate | Game C. | Heal | Meat S. | Melee | Mobility | Party Face | Ranged | Sage | Scout | Thief | Summon | Trapfind | Total Y | Total Q

Binder | Q | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Q | Y | Y | Q | Y | Y | Y | Y | Q | Y | N | 10 | 04
[/table]

[INoKnowNames]

A few random questions and thoughts.

Is Curiosity just random abilities the class has that might actually be useful? Like, a Fighter wouldn't have any Curiosities, but a Ranger has several, and a Druid is chock-full of em?

I question how vital "Dominator" is as a niche. It seems pretty specific of an ability, a bit like shape changer that was mentioned. I mean heck, no core class can dominate as a natural ability, just access spells that do, and doing so usually leads to just one of the other niches (Battlefield Control (in preventing enemies from taking normal actions because they're listening to you), debuff by reducing the abilities of enemies (since enemies are suddenly fighting each other), meat shield (self explanitory), potentially party face (easier for the guards to talk to each other than the spy), scout (likewise), and summoner (getting allies to accomplish other goals for you).... if anything, I'd say Dominating and Summoning should be combined (minion-mancy), since both shift the number of enemies a bit in your direction.

Game Changer... why are -only- 9th level spells listed here? Is having 9th level spells that one can pick from the only way of being a game changer? And how much is that niche really called for in the average set of games? Not being used much in the Oots, for example.

I'd also think that the baseline should be simple and precise. Maybe a 5 point scale, rather than a full 10 points.

How do prestige classes factor into niches, or niche-ability of classes? You'd think they would matter a little, since a lot of classes change in function and such with prestige-ing... and dipping, for that matter.

[Kyeudo]

You're lying. You must be. :smallsigh:

The best healer is having fast healing.

For my truenamer fix, I had a feat that caused a huge amount of trouble when combined with the healing Utterances. This led to calculations showing just how much healing a truenamer could expect to squeeze from his Utterances. It was staggering. Even Minor Word of Nurturing is worth 50 hitpoints if you can make your check at least 50% of the time and use Extend Utterance. Toss Speak Unto The Masses into the mix and you can pump 3000 hit points out of the Critical Word of Nurturing.

The hard part is the "make your check at least 50% of the time". Requires stupid levels of investment into magic items or an item familiar for a standard ToM Truenamer.


The problem with that is, raw HP healing is only one facet of healing, and a pretty minor one at that. It doesn't really matter how efficient your in combat healing is unless you hit super-efficiency, so mostly you're talking about a role that can be mostly filled by wands and items. The real measure of healing is how many status conditions you can cure, how common it is that you'll have the capacity to cure them, and what level you can gain access to that curing. Truenamers definitely make good damage healers, but I don't think that makes them exclamation point worthy healers.

They can cover all of the major bases with a combination of Breath of Recovery and Word of Bolstering. Other affects, like Breath of Cleansing and Essence of Lifespark, are also useful. Unlike a Cleric, a Truenamer who can fix a problem almost always has a chance to fix the problem. Their only problem is that they tend to get the appropriate fix several levels late - one of the major points of my fix was to move those down to about the same level as their equivalent effects.

[INoKnowNames]

@Kyeudo, you note at the beginning of your explanation that it's your Truenamer Fix that does this. Does the Truenamer itself have this ability without your fix? Or the feat that went with it, for that matter? All the classes can have homebrew that lets them do things they can't normally do...

[Kyeudo]

@Kyeudo, you note at the beginning of your explanation that it's your Truenamer Fix that does this. Does the Truenamer itself have this ability without your fix? Or the feat that went with it, for that matter? All the classes can have homebrew that lets them do things they can't normally do...

They have the ability to be excellent healers inherent in the ToM version of the class, provided you can acquire the necessary Truespeak check.

In my explanation, I was talking about how I had arrived at the knowledge that Truenamers can heal an absurd amount of hp damage. If you want to look into the options presented by my fix, they make even better healers. New options, old options at appropriate levels, and several feats that can push that up even higher. A successful Echoing Extended Critical Word of Nurturing with Speak Unto the Masses can reasonably expect to heal 1200 hp over the course of 2 minutes, probably more.

The real trouble with the ToM Truenamer is being good at anything but out-of-combat healing. Buffs are short and low power, debuffs likewise. The Law of Sequence squeezes off your ability to do multiple things at once. Your best battlefield control option is basically Solid Fog. And, to top it off, you must optimize your Truespeak skill like a munchkin in order to perform reliably.

[INoKnowNames]

I apparently need to actually give the Truenamer and Tome of Magic another read, because you suddenly started speaking Latin halfway through about the 5th sentence of your explanation.

[eggynack]

They can cover all of the major bases with a combination of Breath of Recovery and Word of Bolstering. Other affects, like Breath of Cleansing and Essence of Lifespark, are also useful. Unlike a Cleric, a Truenamer who can fix a problem almost always has a chance to fix the problem. Their only problem is that they tend to get the appropriate fix several levels late - one of the major points of my fix was to move those down to about the same level as their equivalent effects.
Yeah, that is a decent amount of stuff, but as you noted it comes a bit on the late side. I can definitely see truenamers as decent healers, but your claim here is effectively that truenamers make better healers than clerics do, and that just seems inaccurate. It just doesn't feel like they deserve some sort of special designation, for down that path lies madness.

[Snowbluff]

For my truenamer fix, I had a feat that caused a huge amount of trouble when combined with the healing Utterances. This led to calculations showing just how much healing a truenamer could expect to squeeze from his Utterances. It was staggering. Even Minor Word of Nurturing is worth 50 hitpoints if you can make your check at least 50% of the time and use Extend Utterance. Toss Speak Unto The Masses into the mix and you can pump 3000 hit points out of the Critical Word of Nurturing.

The hard part is the "make your check at least 50% of the time". Requires stupid levels of investment into magic items or an item familiar for a standard ToM Truenamer.

Linky? Because you are making it sounds like it's a part of your fix. I want the math.

Because having fast healing 1 gives you 14,400 per day.

[Kyeudo]

I apparently need to actually give the Truenamer and Tome of Magic another read, because you suddenly started speaking Latin halfway through about the 5th sentence of your explanation.

I'd suggest reading my fix instead. :smallwink: You won't have to waste time on useless mechanics or boring prestige classes.

Quick Translation:
Critical Word of Nurturing is a 6th level Utterance (equivalent of a 9th level spell) that gives fast healing 15 for five rounds.
Extend Utterance (equivalent to a metamagic feat) doubles this to 10 rounds.
Echoing Utterance (experimental feat from my fix) allows an Utterance to possibly continue reoccuring, generally netting you an extra.
Speak Unto the Masses is a Truenamer class feature (lvl 17 in ToM IIRC) that allows you to target multiple creatures of the same type by increasing your Truespeak check.
Assuming you make the necessary check and have a party of 4 characters, you can expect to get 15 x 5 x 2 x 2 x 4 = 1200 hp out of one Utterance use.


Yeah, that is a decent amount of stuff, but as you noted it comes a bit on the late side. I can definitely see truenamers as decent healers, but your claim here is effectively that truenamers make better healers than clerics do, and that just seems inaccurate. It just doesn't feel like they deserve some sort of special designation, for down that path lies madness.

I believe their dispel magic equilavent shows up at an appropriate time (hard to remember what all I moved since it was almost everything) and they get enough mitigation abilities to muddle through until higher levels (Fortify Armor is actually pretty good). The only effect that I think the ToM Truenamer can't do anything about that a Cleric can is death.

My arguement is that "better than average at status removal" plus "Staff of Healing on demand" does actually make a Truenamer a more capable healer than the Cleric. Given that a normal Truenamer can easily optimize for Healing and still have several "useful" tricks left over and they don't really have anything else they are really good at, I think giving them an ! mark is justified.



Because having fast healing 1 gives you 14,400 per day.

And Regeneration makes you almost unkillable. Your point?

[nedz]

So the rankings end up looking a bit like the Tier system — which is no surprise really. There are a few differences: Wizard seems low and Rogue seems high, but then we are looking at this through a slightly different prism.

[Person_Man]

Per popular request, I've made the rating system a bit more granular. But this is as precise as I'm going to get. Otherwise, any rating would be hopelessly mired in argument, rather then being a useful metric.

I will go through the comments again and do my best to update the rankings and add classes on a regular basis. Thanks to everyone for the comments so far, please keep it up!

[mabriss lethe]

I'd suggest reading my fix instead. :smallwink: You won't have to waste time on useless mechanics or boring prestige classes.

Quick Translation:
Critical Word of Nurturing is a 6th level Utterance (equivalent of a 9th level spell) that gives fast healing 15 for five rounds.
Extend Utterance (equivalent to a metamagic feat) doubles this to 10 rounds.
Echoing Utterance (experimental feat from my fix) allows an Utterance to possibly continue reoccuring, generally netting you an extra.
Speak Unto the Masses is a Truenamer class feature (lvl 17 in ToM IIRC) that allows you to target multiple creatures of the same type by increasing your Truespeak check.
Assuming you make the necessary check and have a party of 4 characters, you can expect to get 15 x 5 x 2 x 2 x 4 = 1200 hp out of one Utterance use.



I believe their dispel magic equilavent shows up at an appropriate time (hard to remember what all I moved since it was almost everything) and they get enough mitigation abilities to muddle through until higher levels (Fortify Armor is actually pretty good). The only effect that I think the ToM Truenamer can't do anything about that a Cleric can is death.

My arguement is that "better than average at status removal" plus "Staff of Healing on demand" does actually make a Truenamer a more capable healer than the Cleric. Given that a normal Truenamer can easily optimize for Healing and still have several "useful" tricks left over and they don't really have anything else they are really good at, I think giving them an ! mark is justified.



And Regeneration makes you almost unkillable. Your point?

For Just HP shenanigans, I've found that one of the best healers I've ever seen was a Binder with Tenebrous and Healing Devotion. You get a wonderful combination of infinite healing and amazing action economy. It normally activates as a swift action but it activates automatically any time the possessor drops below 0 HP without taking an action. The benefit can be passed to others as a full-round action. Tenebrous grants you 1 turn attempt every 5 rounds, letting you stack Healing Devotions onto your allies out of combat that they can then activate when they need it.

[Snowbluff]

And Regeneration makes you almost unkillable. Your point?

It's the number to beat. Clerics can do that much with 1 spell as well, thanks to persistomancy shenanigans.

Also, it seems your calculations uses homebrew. Perform healing per day calculations, please. Target creature 17th level. No custom items, but yes on Item Familiar.

[Talya]

Your ranking of bards is way low in combat.

A bard's melee (and even physical ranged) combat is not a distant 3. The only reason I'd rate them as low as 2 is because in the process of being the best melee fighters in the game, they'll proceed to make even the pathetic fighter into an even better melee fighter than the bard is. (Ultimately, any extra melee damage other classes are doing thanks to the bard would count as bard melee anyway, but I'm not even counting that...if I was they'd be off the chart at 0.) With S.A.D. to hit bonuses upwards of +20 (much of which is only on the bard, but some of it is distributed), and damage bonuses that include handfuls of D6s, a dual wielding IC-focused DFI bard with snowflake wardance is going to be a terror with their blades.

Bard's also about the best Sage in the game. Bardic knowledge (or better yet, Bardic Knack) adds a huge bonus to this category, and they have all knowledge skills as class, and get more skill ranks than anyone else who has all those skills. They also have access to the same spells to find information that primary casters get. I'd say they make a better sage than a sorcerer, who you have listed at 1.

Edit: Huh. I was about to question how you had a Druid at only 2 in melee.
Then I noticed you have not a single class better than 2 in melee. In fact, you have every class as either 2 or 3 in melee, the majority being 2. This... is bad. There's a huge gulf between them. Barbarians should clearly be a 1, as should druids. Likewise, despite being able to do anything else, Wizards and Sorcerers need to be 4.

[INoKnowNames]

I'd suggest reading my fix instead. :smallwink: You won't have to waste time on useless mechanics or boring prestige classes.

Too late. @.@


Quick Translation:
Critical Word of Nurturing is a 6th level Utterance (equivalent of a 9th level spell) that gives fast healing 15 for five rounds.

That's actually the 5th level Utterance. The 6th Level one gives fast healing 20.


Extend Utterance (equivalent to a metamagic feat) doubles this to 10 rounds.

M'kay.


Echoing Utterance (experimental feat from my fix) allows an Utterance to possibly continue reoccuring, generally netting you an extra. Homebrew, thereby not actually counting..

M'kay.


Speak Unto the Masses is a Truenamer class feature (lvl 17 in ToM IIRC) that allows you to target multiple creatures of the same type by increasing your Truespeak check.

M'kay.


Assuming you make the necessary check and have a party of 4 characters, you can expect to get 15 x 5 x 2 x 2 x 4 = 1200 hp out of one Utterance use.

Considering the minimum level of this special requires being level 17, you'd have, for your described scenario, DC 15+34+5+6, for a total of a DC 60 to pull of that check, and it increases by 2 every time you do it in a day.


I believe their dispel magic equilavent shows up at an appropriate time (hard to remember what all I moved since it was almost everything)

Spell Rebirth, Reverse, is capable of being gained at 10th level. Clerics were dispeling magic at 5th, if I remember right.


My arguement is that "better than average at status removal" plus "Staff of Healing on demand" does actually make a Truenamer a more capable healer than the Cleric. Given that a normal Truenamer can easily optimize for Healing and still have several "useful" tricks left over and they don't really have anything else they are really good at, I think giving them an ! mark is justified.


For the purposes of scoring on this rubric, I would add the important caveat that a class shouldn't be counted as truly filling a niche unless they can do so effectively (ie, their raw numbers are high enough that you do whatever you're trying to so fairly well) and efficiently (ie, you can carry out the niche effectively without having to make a large investment of other resources, such as Feats/magic items/PrC/etc, which are for the most part available to every class). For example, a Monk can theoretically fill the melee damage niche, but he does not do so effectively compared to most other classes, or it requires a serious investment of magic items and/or non-bonus Feats and/or PrC/multi-classing to do so effectively.

Considering the amount of optimization it requires to even make the class functional, let alone attempt to beat out the Cleric at healing (and even that is arguable, what with various tricks for out of combat and spells for in combat, none of which needing a Epic Check to do), I see no reason for Truenamer to get anything but a Q at best. It -can- make an effectively healer, but you have to jump through hoops for it to do anything, otherwise it simply -CAN'T- do it.

Edit: Wow, I have no idea how I let myself be told that's how item familiars work... so that check is a heck of a lot easier to do (with one on hand, at least), and so it is possible to perform that ability a decent number of times a day with as much optimization as possible. That ability and the rest, actually. Assuming nothing bad happens to any of your equipment or anything... I'm actually mildly salty about being screwed over the first (and only) time I've tried using an item familiar, and still trying to wrap my head around why the checks for the Truenamer have to be so damn difficult to achieve!

[TuggyNE]

I'm having a hard time figuring out why Clerics get a Y in Thief. :smallconfused: Mind enlightening me?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

RE: Sorcerer vs. Wizard.

You can build a sorcerer for any purpose, as shown by the table, but it's much harder to build a sorcerer for every purpose. I don't think that shows up very well on the table, and hence the Sorcerer has the best ranking.

Also, nitpick: If the Sorcerer > Wizard in being a face just because of his CHA dependence, shouldn't a Wizard > Sorcerer in being a sage due to his INT? He gets all knowledge skills, high INT for bonuses, and INT for skill ranks to actually invest in them. Sure, they have the same spell list, but how many precious spells known is the sorcerer going to devote to being a sage?

Edit: Nitpick #2: If the barbarian doesn't get a 1 in melee combat, and no one else does, who's outshining him?

[Honjuden]

I much preferred the Q,Y,N ratings to the numbered ratings.

[danzibr]

Might as well try my hand at the only class I'm semi-qualified enough to rate.
{table=head]Class | BFC | Buff | Curiosity | Debuff | Dominate | Game C. | Heal | Meat S. | Melee | Mobility | Party Face | Ranged | Sage | Scout | Thief | Summon | Trapfind | Total

Totemist | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 52
[/table]
I'd like to justify these, and I'd like to hear opinions.

Battlefield control: Totemist certainly aren't great at this. They're good grapplers out of the box, and superb (one of the best IMO) if built for it, but... that's grappling, which is suboptimal. They can be built to be a tripper, but they're not great at it.

Buffing: Totemists have (almost) no non-self buffs. Is Lammasu mantle it?

Curiosity: When I gave the 3, I was thinking Beast Tamer Circlet, possibly diplomancing wild beasts.

Debuff: They have a couple soulmelds which give debuffs (shaken, fatigued, poison), but the DC is low.

Dominate: Actually... Totemist can sort of "take functional command" of animals through Wild Empathy. It's not very practical.

Game C.: Yeah, not for Totemist.

Heal: Again, not for Totemist.

Meat S.: Totemists have some good defensive soulmelds, and likely have high Con, but only light armor and nothing spectacular like, say, Vigor. Good, but not the best.

Melee: Maybe I overrated them given nobody else currently has a 1, but this is what Totemist is best at.

Mobility: Totemists have a good number of soulmelds which increase their maneuverability. Short-range tele at will, various fly speeds, good climbing capabilities, same for swimming.

Party Face: Totemists lack all the skills.

Ranged: At low levels, a pure Totemist can consistently spam... decent damage. At higher levels with gear, Manticore Belt is very solid, but for full benefit, depends on rules interpretation.

Sage: They have a couple Knowledge skills... and nabbing some other soulmelds via feats makes this more viable. Right, not great at it.

Scout: Hmm, Totemist might actually deserve a 2 here. They have good detection soulmelds (get scent, detect magic stuff, detect creatures), Hide and Move Silently are class skills but they can substantial bonuses, can go invisible, so to speak, with Shadow Mantle.

Thief: Again, they can be sneaky.

Summon: Nope.

Trapfind: Nope.

[eggynack]

I'm having a hard time figuring out why Clerics get a Y in Thief. :smallconfused: Mind enlightening me?
Can't they pick up thievery through domains or something? I know that there's some sort of cleric based rogue-ish build. I honestly don't really know where thievery fits into the game as a niche, or how most classes fill that niche. It's like scouting+sleight of hand or something.

[Amphetryon]

Can't they pick up thievery through domains or something? I know that there's some sort of cleric based rogue-ish build. I honestly don't really know where thievery fits into the game as a niche, or how most classes fill that niche. It's like scouting+sleight of hand or something.

A couple of Summoning spells can handle Thievery on a minor scale, which is probably why all the PHb Casters with 9th level spells rate the same (a 2) on the Thief scale. A Cleric can also snag Trapfinding through the Kobold Domain, but that's a separate niche in Person_Man's rankings.

[Epsilon Rose]

Edit: Huh. I was about to question how you had a Druid at only 2 in melee.
Then I noticed you have not a single class better than 2 in melee. In fact, you have every class as either 2 or 3 in melee, the majority being 2. This... is bad. There's a huge gulf between them. Barbarians should clearly be a 1, as should druids. Likewise, despite being able to do anything else, Wizards and Sorcerers need to be 4.
I don't think it would be accurate to consign Wizards and sorcerers to 4. On the one hand, Polymorph and similar spells are a staple of pure caster repertoires and they can make mages very powerful combatants. On the other had, they have summoning and planar binding type effects, meaning they can get all sorts of bruisers (including a few Elder Evils) in to do melee combat for them. While I don't think they necessarily deserve a 1, I do think they're well above a 4.


RE: Sorcerer vs. Wizard.

You can build a sorcerer for any purpose, as shown by the table, but it's much harder to build a sorcerer for every purpose. I don't think that shows up very well on the table, and hence the Sorcerer has the best ranking.

Also, nitpick: If the Sorcerer > Wizard in being a face just because of his CHA dependence, shouldn't a Wizard > Sorcerer in being a sage due to his INT? He gets all knowledge skills, high INT for bonuses, and INT for skill ranks to actually invest in them. Sure, they have the same spell list, but how many precious spells known is the sorcerer going to devote to being a sage?
Divination spells probably obliterate the advantage that being int based gives to sage checks and, I'd imagine, any primary caster is going to have a few divination spells.

I also agree with some of the other posters that is odd that there aren't any rank 1 melee classes. Similarly, I also find it odd that lower numbers are better; especially because I think the aggregate scores should be weighted.

I'd also like to call out Wizards and Sorcs being rank 2 summoners while druids are Rank 1. While druids do get spontaneous Summon Nature's Ally, Arcane casters get planer binding and Gate. This gives them access to some stupidly heavy hitters. I don't think the things on SNA IX will readily stand against a few Balors or Archons, let alone an Elder Evil.

[eggynack]

I'd probably raise the druid's ranged potential by one point. They have surprisingly good blasting options at each level. For a quick level by level overview, it goes something like produce flame at first level, splinterbolt and creeping cold at second level, call lightning and hammer of righteousness at third level, boreal wind, produce flame, and vortex of teeth at 4th level, call avalanche and ice flowers at fifth level, and then at around fifth level spells and above, it's all rashemi elemental summoning for cones of cold all the time. It's not the biggest list of options, but as long as there's a really good one at each level, and there is, that's enough. Boreal wind in particular is amazing.

As a side note, putting aggregate point totals on this seems like a mistake. It puts everything on the same level, and a lot of these things don't seem equal at all. This resource feels good as a way to judge how a particular class fits into various roles, but using that to place the classes as a whole doesn't make sense. This is especially true because you have the sorcerer a point above the wizard, when the sorcerer is only good at a number of these roles if they sacrifice some other roles. Also, the curiosity section is weird. I don't know what a class has to do to get there. If an ability is actually useful in some way, then it should likely already fit into one of the other niches. To use the examples you've presented as double examples, tongues can easily be considered a part of the face niche, slow fall can be considered as mobility, or otherwise be disregarded entirely, and forgery is probably some kind of thievery face thing, depending on how you use it.

[TuggyNE]

Can't they pick up thievery through domains or something? I know that there's some sort of cleric based rogue-ish build. I honestly don't really know where thievery fits into the game as a niche, or how most classes fill that niche. It's like scouting+sleight of hand or something.

The Cleric roguery I'm aware of is just traps.


A couple of Summoning spells can handle Thievery on a minor scale, which is probably why all the PHb Casters with 9th level spells rate the same (a 2) on the Thief scale. A Cleric can also snag Trapfinding through the Kobold Domain, but that's a separate niche in Person_Man's rankings.

That's summoning, not thievery, because the description of summoning refers to being able to fill another niche with created minions.

[Kyeudo]

It's the number to beat. Clerics can do that much with 1 spell as well, thanks to persistomancy shenanigans.

Also, it seems your calculations uses homebrew. Perform healing per day calculations, please. Target creature 17th level. No custom items, but yes on Item Familiar.

And DMM Persist is considered one of the most broken things in 3.5. Other than that trick, their best is a bunch of prepared Heal spells, burning slots for Cure spells, or wands/staves the rogue could use. Heal gives Clerics the best in-combat healing, but out of combat, bursts don't matter much.

Here's a Core + ToM + Item Familiar breakdown of how much healing an optimized Truenamer can pull off:

The Truespeak Check:
20 ranks + 7 Intelligence bonus (Grey Elf, 20 starting Int) + 3 untyped (Skill Focus: Truespeak) + 3 circumstance (Masterwork Tool) + 10 enhancement (Greater Amulet of the Silver Tongue) + 5 (Universal Aptitude) + 20 untyped (Item Familiar) = 68. Assuming a roll of 10, that means we auto-hit DC 69, can reliably hit DC 78, and could potentially hit DC 88, given enough time.

Relevant Feats:
Skill Focus (Truespeak), Item Familiar, Extend Utterance

Utterance choices (Lexicon of the Evolving Mind):
1st: Universal Aptitude, Minor Word of Nurturing
2nd: Lesser Word of Nurturing, Perceive the Unseen, Archer's Eye
3rd: Moderate Word of Nurturing, Vision Sharpened, Temporal Spiral, Greater Speed of the Zephyr
4th: Potent Word of Nurturing, Word of Bolstering, Breath of Cleansing, Spell Rebirth
5th: Critical Word of Nurturing, Essence of Lifespark, Energy Negation, Preternatural Clarity

We'll be healing our allies of 17th level, so the base DC to affect them is 49.

I will be abbreviating Speak Unto the Masses as SUTM.

Healing:
Extended Critical Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 4 (Base DC 60): 15 x 5 x 2 x 4 = 600 hp per use. We can reliably get 10 uses, so 6000 hp. We can squeeze another 5 out of it, so another 3000 hp.
Extended Critical Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 3: 15 x 5 x 2 x 3 = 450 hp
Extended Critical Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 2: 15 x 5 x 2 x 2 = 300 hp
Extended Critical Word of Nurturing: 15 x 5 x 2 = 150 hp
2 Critical Words of Nurturing: 15 x 5 x 2: 150 hp

Extended Potent Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 4 (Base DC 60): 10 x 5 x 2 x 4 = 400 hp per use. We can reliably get 10 uses, so 4000 hp. We can squeeze another 5 out of it, so another 2000 hp.
Follow this up with the following:
Extended Potent Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 3: 10 x 5 x 2 x 3 = 300 hp
Extended Potent Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 2: 10 x 5 x 2 x 2 = 200 hp
Extended Potent Word of Nurturing: 10 x 5 x 2 = 100 hp
2 Potent Words of Nurturing: 10 x 5 x 2: 100 hp

Extended Moderate Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 4 (Base DC 60): 5 x 5 x 2 x 4 = 200 hp per use. We can reliably get 10 uses, so 2000 hp. We can squeeze another 5 out of it, so another 1000 hp.
Follow this up with the following:
Extended Moderate Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 3: 5 x 5 x 2 x 3 = 150 hp
Extended Moderate Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 2: 5 x 5 x 2 x 2 = 100 hp
Extended Moderate Word of Nurturing: 5 x 5 x 2 = 50 hp
2 Moderate Words of Nurturing: 5 x 5 x 2: 50 hp

Extended Lesser Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 4 (Base DC 60): 3 x 5 x 2 x 4 = 120 hp per use. We can reliably get 10 uses, so 1200 hp. We can squeeze another 5 out of it, so 600 hp.
Follow this up with the following:
Extended Lesser Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 3: 3 x 5 x 2 x 3 = 90 hp
Extended Lesser Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 2: 3 x 5 x 2 x 2 = 60 hp
Extended Potent Word of Nurturing: 3 x 5 x 2 = 30 hp
2 Lesser Words of Nurturing: 3 x 5 x 2: 30 hp

Extended Minor Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 4 (Base DC 60): 1 x 5 x 2 x 4 = 40 hp per use. We can reliably get 10 uses, so 400 hp. We can squeeze another 5 out of it, so 200 hp.
Follow this up with the following:
Extended Minor Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 3: 1 x 5 x 2 x 3 = 30 hp
Extended Minor Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 2: 1 x 5 x 2 x 2 = 20 hp
Extended Minor Word of Nurturing: 1 x 5 x 2 = 10 hp
2 Minor Words of Nurturing: 1 x 5 x 2: 10 hp


Grand Totals:
Reliable: 15,980 hp
Maximum: 22,780

If you join the Paragnostic Assembly, the "Reliable" numbers become the same as the "Maximum" numbers and the Maximum goes up by another 6,800 hit points. I'm sure a CharOp expert could squeeze a bit more out too by rearranging whether or not to apply SUTM and Extend to a particular roll.


Too late. @.@


You have my sympathy.



That's actually the 5th level Utterance. The 6th Level one gives fast healing 20.


Sorry, was at work and working from the current version of Book of Words. I accidentally deleted the 6th level Word of Nurturing and apparently haven't uploaded the new version yet.



Spell Rebirth, Reverse, is capable of being gained at 10th level. Clerics were dispeling magic at 5th, if I remember right.


Eh, par for the course.



Considering the amount of optimization it requires to even make the class functional, let alone attempt to beat out the Cleric at healing (and even that is arguable, what with various tricks for out of combat and spells for in combat, none of which needing a Epic Check to do), I see no reason for Truenamer to get anything but a Q at best. It -can- make an effectively healer, but you have to jump through hoops for it to do anything, otherwise it simply -CAN'T- do it.

If you are playing a ToM Truenamer, you're jumping through hoops already.


Here's the updated table for the truenamer (and my version):
{table=head]Class | BFC | Buff | Curiosity | Debuff | Dominate | Game C. | Heal | Meat S. | Melee | Mobility | Party Face | Ranged | Sage | Scout | Thief | Summon | Trapfind | Total

Truenamer | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 60
Kyeudo's Truenamer| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 46

[/table]

[eggynack]

The Cleric roguery I'm aware of is just traps.

Yeah, sounds about right. I just don't really get the thievery thing to some extent. I mean, it clearly makes sense in principle, but I'm not sure that it's much of a niche in this game. There's definitely some thiefing stuff you can do, but unless you're pickpocketing, stealth could probably get you most of the way.

[nedz]

The Cleric roguery I'm aware of is just traps.

There are a couple of skill spells. Guidance of the Avatar and another whose name escapes me.

Also there are things like the Trickery domain.

[Amphetryon]

That's summoning, not thievery, because the description of summoning refers to being able to fill another niche with created minions.
I'm sure you're not actually arguing that Summoned creatures are only allowed to fulfill one role. . . .

[eggynack]

Out of combat, bursts don't matter much.
Out of combat, nothing matters all that much. If you can heal 22,780 HP, and your party only takes a few hundred damage over the course of the day, that's about 22,000 HP of potential healing that is just completely pointless to have access to. You'd probably be better off just picking up a few wands of cure lesser vigor, and maybe some healing belts, because that'd do you pretty much fine. Not perfect, because things rarely go perfect, but good enough.

The status condition stuff is the stuff that's difficult to replace, and the truenamer handles that stuff decently. Once again, not perfect, but maybe good enough. Maybe not though, cause you can't raise dead at all, and a lot of the effects are a bit high in level to be relevant. That's really a matter of opinion though, I think. I wonder how the truenamer's condition healing schedule matches up to the druid's. I think the big heal point for the druid is panacea at 9th level, but I haven't done any crazy analysis of this stuff.

[eggynack]

I'm sure you're not actually arguing that Summoned creatures are only allowed to fulfill one role. . . .
I think he may be arguing, if only implicitly, that if summoned creatures are expected to fill a number of niches, then perhaps they shouldn't be a niche. They're really more of a means to an end than an end in and of itself, though SLA's change the math a little. Minionmancy might be a different thing, because that's longer term.

[Kyeudo]

Out of combat, nothing matters all that much.

Depends on the party. Give me a Rogue, a Crusader, and a Warlock and they will love my Truenamer healer to death. The 15 minute adventuring day turns into the 16 hour adventuring day.

[TuggyNE]

There are a couple of skill spells. Guidance of the Avatar and another whose name escapes me.

Also there are things like the Trickery domain.

Most of the really good Clr buffing spells are single-use, which is not all that useful for infiltration. And while Trickery can get you "unseen", it's not as good as actually Hiding and it definitely does nothing at all for Move Silently.


I'm sure you're not actually arguing that Summoned creatures are only allowed to fulfill one role. . . .

Of course not. I am, or was, arguing that the rating under Summon already accounts for essentially all the actual capacity a Cleric might have for Thief, which means that Thief has nothing separate to justify any ranking there.

However, with the reminder of Trickery I could see it getting a Q or whatever we're doing now.

[INoKnowNames]

Here's a Core + ToM + Item Familiar breakdown of how much healing an optimized Truenamer can pull off:

The Truespeak Check:
20 ranks + 7 Intelligence bonus (Grey Elf, 20 starting Int) + 3 untyped (Skill Focus: Truespeak) + 3 circumstance (Masterwork Tool) + 10 enhancement (Greater Amulet of the Silver Tongue) + 5 (Universal Aptitude) + 20 untyped (Item Familiar) = 68. Assuming a roll of 10, that means we auto-hit DC 69, can reliably hit DC 78, and could potentially hit DC 88, given enough time.

Relevant Feats:
Skill Focus (Truespeak), Item Familiar, Extend Utterance

Utterance choices (Lexicon of the Evolving Mind):
1st: Universal Aptitude, Minor Word of Nurturing
2nd: Lesser Word of Nurturing, Perceive the Unseen, Archer's Eye
3rd: Moderate Word of Nurturing, Vision Sharpened, Temporal Spiral, Greater Speed of the Zephyr
4th: Potent Word of Nurturing, Word of Bolstering, Breath of Cleansing, Spell Rebirth
5th: Critical Word of Nurturing, Essence of Lifespark, Energy Negation, Preternatural Clarity

We'll be healing our allies of 17th level, so the base DC to affect them is 49.

I will be abbreviating Speak Unto the Masses as SUTM.

Healing:
Extended Critical Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 4 (Base DC 60): 15 x 5 x 2 x 4 = 600 hp per use. We can reliably get 10 uses, so 6000 hp. We can squeeze another 5 out of it, so another 3000 hp.
Extended Critical Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 3: 15 x 5 x 2 x 3 = 450 hp
Extended Critical Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 2: 15 x 5 x 2 x 2 = 300 hp
Extended Critical Word of Nurturing: 15 x 5 x 2 = 150 hp
2 Critical Words of Nurturing: 15 x 5 x 2: 150 hp

Extended Potent Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 4 (Base DC 60): 10 x 5 x 2 x 4 = 400 hp per use. We can reliably get 10 uses, so 4000 hp. We can squeeze another 5 out of it, so another 2000 hp.
Follow this up with the following:
Extended Potent Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 3: 10 x 5 x 2 x 3 = 300 hp
Extended Potent Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 2: 10 x 5 x 2 x 2 = 200 hp
Extended Potent Word of Nurturing: 10 x 5 x 2 = 100 hp
2 Potent Words of Nurturing: 10 x 5 x 2: 100 hp

Extended Moderate Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 4 (Base DC 60): 5 x 5 x 2 x 4 = 200 hp per use. We can reliably get 10 uses, so 2000 hp. We can squeeze another 5 out of it, so another 1000 hp.
Follow this up with the following:
Extended Moderate Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 3: 5 x 5 x 2 x 3 = 150 hp
Extended Moderate Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 2: 5 x 5 x 2 x 2 = 100 hp
Extended Moderate Word of Nurturing: 5 x 5 x 2 = 50 hp
2 Moderate Words of Nurturing: 5 x 5 x 2: 50 hp

Extended Lesser Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 4 (Base DC 60): 3 x 5 x 2 x 4 = 120 hp per use. We can reliably get 10 uses, so 1200 hp. We can squeeze another 5 out of it, so 600 hp.
Follow this up with the following:
Extended Lesser Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 3: 3 x 5 x 2 x 3 = 90 hp
Extended Lesser Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 2: 3 x 5 x 2 x 2 = 60 hp
Extended Potent Word of Nurturing: 3 x 5 x 2 = 30 hp
2 Lesser Words of Nurturing: 3 x 5 x 2: 30 hp

Extended Minor Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 4 (Base DC 60): 1 x 5 x 2 x 4 = 40 hp per use. We can reliably get 10 uses, so 400 hp. We can squeeze another 5 out of it, so 200 hp.
Follow this up with the following:
Extended Minor Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 3: 1 x 5 x 2 x 3 = 30 hp
Extended Minor Word of Nurturing with SUTM targeting 2: 1 x 5 x 2 x 2 = 20 hp
Extended Minor Word of Nurturing: 1 x 5 x 2 = 10 hp
2 Minor Words of Nurturing: 1 x 5 x 2: 10 hp


Grand Totals:
Reliable: 15,980 hp
Maximum: 22,780

If you join the Paragnostic Assembly, the "Reliable" numbers become the same as the "Maximum" numbers and the Maximum goes up by another 6,800 hit points. I'm sure a CharOp expert could squeeze a bit more out too by rearranging whether or not to apply SUTM and Extend to a particular roll.

My only nitpick there is that the SUTM still means that the mass healing doesn't come online until 17th level... but honestly, that is pretty impressive. Even if it's just 1 person at a time until then, that's not as bad as one might think, I suppose... Just gotta keep that item familiar safe, and the class suddenly becomes not-suck. Tier 2-4?


You have my sympathy.

I think that's part of why I missed the Amulet and Universal Aptitude: The class made me so salty, and learning that Item Familiars aren't a waste of a feat slot (quite the opposite, I just had a jerk dm), that I think I can feel my ice-cream taste buds dying right now...


Eh, par for the course.

If you are playing a ToM Truenamer, you're jumping through hoops already.

True.


Here's the updated table for the truenamer (and my version):
{table=head]Class | BFC | Buff | Curiosity | Debuff | Dominate | Game C. | Heal | Meat S. | Melee | Mobility | Party Face | Ranged | Sage | Scout | Thief | Summon | Trapfind | Total

Truenamer | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 60
Kyeudo's Truenamer| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 46

[/table]

Advertising your own homebrew seems slightly untasteful, on the other hand. One could homebrew any class to fix all the flaws of it and add more and be monumental at anything, but that doesn't prove much....

...holy cow I am -so- salty about that Item Familiar thing! I really don't mean to seem all pissed off; I'm just that mad about it!

[Talya]

I don't think it would be accurate to consign Wizards and sorcerers to 4. On the one hand, Polymorph and similar spells are a staple of pure caster repertoires and they can make mages very powerful combatants. On the other had, they have summoning and planar binding type effects, meaning they can get all sorts of bruisers (including a few Elder Evils) in to do melee combat for them. While I don't think they necessarily deserve a 1, I do think they're well above a 4.


We're assuming that 1 is the best class at melee, and 4 is the worst.

Even with Polymorph, a wizard or sorcerer isn't as good as any 3/4 BAB class at hitting stuff, except maybe monk (which I'd also put at 4 in melee.) Even assuming you can put on a better chassis for meleeing than another class, you are still stuck with 1/2 BAB and absolutely no combat feats or proficiencies whatsoever because they're using those feats for things that are actually valuable to them. (I'm ignoring the fact that it's suicide for them to get into melee range of targets -- they're already rated low as meat-shields.) Now, this is not a slight against a sorcerer or a wizard -- if they're meleeing they've got to be bored. As someone else has stated, not all functions are equally valuable, and melee combat is definitely lower on the list of value than any of the other ways wizards or sorcerers can ruin your day in combat. However, they are about the worst classes in core at melee fighting, even with polymorph far behind every other class except for monks.

Summons/Binding also factor into a different category. yes, they can summon something to melee for them, but that doesn't count for their melee, it counts toward summoning.

[Snowbluff]

And DMM Persist is considered one of the most broken things in 3.5. Other than that trick, their best is a bunch of prepared Heal spells, burning slots for Cure spells, or wands/staves the rogue could use. Heal gives Clerics the best in-combat healing, but out of combat, bursts don't matter much. 2 things.

1) DMM Persist is not broken. DMM heighten is broken.

2) Level 9 spells allows more metamagic. Occular Persistent Lesser Vigor, with no reduction. It'd be a waste, but it's possible without doing anything more extreme than Item Familiar.



Grand Totals:
Reliable: 15,980 hp
Maximum: 22,780


Sounds good. Anything more optimized would ask similiar of the cleric, who is quite capable of an infinite number of spells per day.

[zlefin]

I would assert that for trapfinding, the druid and possibly wiz/sorc should get a 3 instead of a 4.
While they're not notably good at it; throwing summons in to test for traps is a time honored and moderately effective method, especially at higher levels when you can more easily afford the spell slots.
This can burn out 1 use traps and at least give good info on multiuse traps.

There are also spells which can be of some reasonable use for bypassing or destroying traps.

[Scow2]

I'd expect a monk to be at least a 2 in Mobility, given its speed, tumble, jump, climb, balance, Slow Fall, and Dimension Door at higher levels. Please don't take the only thing it has going for it away. (However, in the grand scheme of things, mobility doesn't matter as much as actually important things). There's no reason for it to be considered worse at mobility than the strictly inferior Rogues and Rangers.

A monk's Slow Fall is terrible if it's used as a "Save Me!" like Feather Fall is. It gets a lot more mileage if it's invoked regularly and deliberately to move around.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Divination spells probably obliterate the advantage that being int based gives to sage checks and, I'd imagine, any primary caster is going to have a few divination spells.Divination spells do wonderful things in certain games, but...

(1) Knowledge checks don't take spell slots, they don't slow the game down, and they're less likely to get twisted by mechanics or DM in my experience.
(2) Wizards still have better day-to-day divination access, just like every other niche in which they're tied...

[Kyeudo]

My only nitpick there is that the SUTM still means that the mass healing doesn't come online until 17th level... but honestly, that is pretty impressive. Even if it's just 1 person at a time until then, that's not as bad as one might think, I suppose... Just gotta keep that item familiar safe, and the class suddenly becomes not-suck. Tier 2-4?


Honestly? Tier 4ish with the Item Familiar. You can use your stupid high Truespeak check to throw around Quickened Utterances for doubled action economy, but you still have the Law of Sequence keeping that to just one instance of each Utterance and your bag of tricks is kinda limited. Healing is kinda the one place they can shine.



I think that's part of why I missed the Amulet and Universal Aptitude: The class made me so salty, and learning that Item Familiars aren't a waste of a feat slot (quite the opposite, I just had a jerk dm), that I think I can feel my ice-cream taste buds dying right now...


Item Familiars are broken good. Tons of benefits as long as you don't ever lose the Item Familiar. Lose it and half your character sheet is gone.



Advertising your own homebrew seems slightly untasteful, on the other hand. One could homebrew any class to fix all the flaws of it and add more and be monumental at anything, but that doesn't prove much....


Yeah, it is kinda bad taste, but I felt like sharing today. Maybe someone who loves the fluff and hates the Truenamer crunch will have a better time in their next game.


2 things.
1) DMM Persist is not broken. DMM heighten is broken.


Everyone draws the line in different places I guess. Anything that allows a Cleric to fight as well as a Warblade and still cast 9th level spells crosses the line in my book.

DMM Heighten is more broken though.



Sounds good. Anything more optimized would ask similiar of the cleric, who is quite capable of an infinite number of spells per day.

Yeah, Clerics have stupid levels of options.

[Person_Man]

Added Totemist, Incarnate, Swordsage, Warblade, and Crusader.

I'm going to have to go and actually read the Truenamer handbooks before adding it. Kyeudo provides some extremely useful references. But successfully making the Truespeech checks seems highly dependent upon a couple of fairly obscure bonuses, and in all honesty, if you posted "I want to make the best possible combat healer and status condition remover" to this forum, I'm guessing the top choices would be Cleric, Favored Soul, and Spirit Shaman, not Truenamer.

Druid Ranged upgraded to 2. eggynack provided concrete examples of effective blasty Druid spells. Druid melee upgraded to 1. 2 was a typo. Wildshape + buffs can be pretty insane at Melee Damage.

Monk grudgingly upgraded to 2 in Mobility. Scow2 makes good points about their Skills, Speed bonus, and eventual DDoor.

Will continue to add more and rebalanced as the comments come in. Thanks again.

[eggynack]

Very fancy. Soon, my ultimate goal of the advancement of druid love shall be complete. The next step probably involves figuring out the spell selection on a dedicated face druid. I mean, the chassis is mostly there already, with diplomacy as a class skill, wild empathy/voice of the city and a thousand faces giving incentives to pump it, charisma as a decent tertiary stat, and sense motive from skilled city-dweller granting a synergy bonus and another face like class skill. I don't think the edge is there without a good spell list as support though, especially with the lack of bluff and intimidate cutting down on the face skill options. It also doesn't help that you're often running around as a bear/bat, which would make diplomacy difficult, even if you can talk in that form. There's definitely something there though, I think.

Edit: Half-orc substitution levels get you intimidate as a class skill, so that's a step in the right direction. Also pumps wild empathy some, which is also neat. Not a spell thing though.

[WinWin]

I am not sure that 'damage' is a meaningful metric in and of itself.

The point of damage is to kill opponents. Damage that fails to kill opponents, makes killing the opponent (with more damage) easier in subsequent actions, but there are ways to remove opponents from play, that have nothing to do with damage.

eg. An archer with a composite bow and high strength may be able to kill a kobold with 1 shot, but might need to roll an 11 or higher on their attack roll to do so.

Compare to a wizard that can cast sleep spell and remove that kobold from play, if the kobold fails to roll 11 or higher on a saving throw.

Both characters have a 50% chance to remove an enemy from play at range, so what is the difference between them, in a pure guage of ranged power?

[Squirrel_Dude]

So applying some basic math to what's been done so far. So basically we have a range of possible scores from 17 to 68, which are further broken down into 4 ranges of 12 points (or 13, depending on how you look at it). 17 to 29. 30 to 42. 43 to 55. 56 to 68.

So here are the classes who's total scores fall into which ranges. Classes that are bolded are results i found surprising when looking at it like this. Each class' total score is in parenthesis.
17 to 29: Classes you'd expect to be tier 1 or 2?
Cleric (27), Sorcerer (28), Wizard (29)

30 to 42: Classes you'd expect to be in tier 2 or 3?
Bard (38), Druid (33)

43 to 55: Classes you'd expect to be in tier 3 or 4?
Crusader (55), Incarnate(43), Paladin(52), Ranger(51), Rogue(44), Swordsage(54), Totemist(52)

56 to 68: Classes you'd expect to be in tier 4 or 5?
Barbarian (61), Fighter(59), Monk(56), Warblade (56)

Obviously each class' average is going to be relative to their total score, so instead it will be better to look at standard deviation from the mean to determine consistency of scores, low or high.

The classes with the 3 lowest Standard Deviation, scores in parenthesis
Incarnate (.624), Monk (.588), Paladin (.556)

The classes with the 3 highest Standard Deviation, scores in parenthesis.
Rogue (1.121), Swordsage(.951), Warblade (.920), Wizard (.920)

Take these numbers how you will. Obviously, some of the numbers are quite interesting or surprising. This was something I was probably going to do anyway, and I figured I would share what I did with the playground.

[Epsilon Rose]

Very fancy. Soon, my ultimate goal of the advancement of druid love shall be complete. The next step probably involves figuring out the spell selection on a dedicated face druid. I mean, the chassis is mostly there already, with diplomacy as a class skill, wild empathy/voice of the city and a thousand faces giving incentives to pump it, charisma as a decent tertiary stat, and sense motive from skilled city-dweller granting a synergy bonus and another face like class skill. I don't think the edge is there without a good spell list as support though, especially with the lack of bluff and intimidate cutting down on the face skill options. It also doesn't help that you're often running around as a bear/bat, which would make diplomacy difficult, even if you can talk in that form. There's definitely something there though, I think.

Edit: Half-orc substitution levels get you intimidate as a class skill, so that's a step in the right direction. Also pumps wild empathy some, which is also neat. Not a spell thing though.

That's all well and good, but what you should really be doing is trying to figure out how to turn a druid into a competent necromance. No one will see it coming.


We're assuming that 1 is the best class at melee, and 4 is the worst.

Even with Polymorph, a wizard or sorcerer isn't as good as any 3/4 BAB class at hitting stuff, except maybe monk (which I'd also put at 4 in melee.) Even assuming you can put on a better chassis for meleeing than another class, you are still stuck with 1/2 BAB and absolutely no combat feats or proficiencies whatsoever because they're using those feats for things that are actually valuable to them. (I'm ignoring the fact that it's suicide for them to get into melee range of targets -- they're already rated low as meat-shields.) Now, this is not a slight against a sorcerer or a wizard -- if they're meleeing they've got to be bored. As someone else has stated, not all functions are equally valuable, and melee combat is definitely lower on the list of value than any of the other ways wizards or sorcerers can ruin your day in combat. However, they are about the worst classes in core at melee fighting, even with polymorph far behind every other class except for monks.

Summons/Binding also factor into a different category. yes, they can summon something to melee for them, but that doesn't count for their melee, it counts toward summoning.

While I certainly agree that a wizard/sorc has better things to be doing and I'm a bit iffy on the summons, I'd disagree with their melee while polymorphed being the worst.

For starters, while polymorphed, they'll be using natural attacks, which means they'll be getting multiple attacks at their highest BAB. So, while their BAB might be lower than other characters, they'll be getting more attacks at it, possibly more than all of a fighters iterative's combined. They also get other fun bonuses from polymorph, like pounce or better grappling. There are also spells, like transformation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transformation.htm), that drastically buff their melee potential.


Again, are they probably better off doing something else? Almost assuredly. Will they still smash your face in better then an equivalent rogue without SA? Almost assuredly.

[eggynack]

That's all well and good, but what you should really be doing is trying to figure out how to turn a druid into a competent necromance. No one will see it coming.

Damn. It's as if you know my true heart. The first step is probably turning yourself into a ghost for long periods of time by combining aspect of the wolf (SpC, 16), and ghost companion (Ghost, 53). Undead based minionmancy is probably nigh on impossible without really pushing things beyond the normal spell list, but you could probably emulate the debuff thing decently. There's a good amount of sickening type spells, which could help. Moonbolt (SpC, 143) is notable for being a pretty nifty single (one or two, actually) target debuff that has a different effect on undead. Still, it's just not the same, I think. A druid can capture a lot of the flavor, if they push it, and wizard style necromancy is never that far off, but if the goal is a legion of the undead, I'm sadly somewhat doubtful.

[JeminiZero]

Speaking of Legion of the Dead, would access to Animate Dead, Desecrate, and Rebuke to control Undead put an Evil Cleric on par with Druid with respect to Summoning?

Yes, having an animal companion and being able to spontaneously convert spells to summon is great.

But so is having 4x CL HD worth of skellies/zombies (with +2 HP/HD bonus). Admittedly, this is somewhat circumstantial on being able to find good strong corpses (e.g. Dragons) to transform into powerful undead. They can also get Shadows/Wights that can spawn even more Shadows/Wights under the original's control. (Again, circumstantial on there being an abundant supply of low level commoners to use Create Spawn on, although this is fairly common in most settings.)

What do you guys think?

[The Random NPC]

The numbers don't seem to be adding up right, at the time of my posting they should be:
Barbarian: 61
Bard: 38
Cleric: 27
Crusader: 55
Druid: 33
Fighter: 59
Incarnate: 43
Monk: 56
Paladin: 52
Ranger: 51
Rogue: 44
Sorcerer: 28
Swordsage:54
Totemist: 52
Warblade: 56
Wizard: 29

[LordConcrete]

I'm (relatively) inexperienced, but can't barbarians trapkiller?

[Epsilon Rose]

Damn. It's as if you know my true heart. The first step is probably turning yourself into a ghost for long periods of time by combining aspect of the wolf (SpC, 16), and ghost companion (Ghost, 53). Undead based minionmancy is probably nigh on impossible without really pushing things beyond the normal spell list, but you could probably emulate the debuff thing decently. There's a good amount of sickening type spells, which could help. Moonbolt (SpC, 143) is notable for being a pretty nifty single (one or two, actually) target debuff that has a different effect on undead. Still, it's just not the same, I think. A druid can capture a lot of the flavor, if they push it, and wizard style necromancy is never that far off, but if the goal is a legion of the undead, I'm sadly somewhat doubtful.

Darn it. When will people realize that hoards of undead are actually the ethical way to handle farming. They have less of an impact on the environment than human farmhands and since they never get tired you don't need as many chemicals that are harmful to the environment or large fences to make up for a human's lack of vigilance.


Speaking of Legion of the Dead, would access to Animate Dead, Desecrate, and Rebuke to control Undead put an Evil Cleric on par with Druid with respect to Summoning?

Yes, having an animal companion and being able to spontaneously convert spells to summon is great.

But so is having 4x CL HD worth of skellies/zombies (with +2 HP/HD bonus). Admittedly, this is somewhat circumstantial on being able to find good strong corpses (e.g. Dragons) to transform into powerful undead. They can also get Shadows/Wights that can spawn even more Shadows/Wights under the original's control. (Again, circumstantial on there being an abundant supply of low level commoners to use Create Spawn on, although this is fairly common in most settings.)

What do you guys think?

You can use shape stone + stone to flesh to bypass the need for natural corpses and wizards and sorcerers have access to animate and control undead as well, so they're also fairly good in that regard.

That said, hoards of undead kind break horribly shatter the summoning scale. Perhaps minion-mancy should be it's own thing, with summons being on demand minions?

[eggynack]

Darn it. When will people realize that hoards of undead are actually the ethical way to handle farming. They have less of an impact on the environment than human farmhands and since they never get tired you don't need as many chemicals that are harmful to the environment or large fences to make up for a human's lack of vigilance.

It is truly a tragedy. If druids have one big flaw, and they don't, cause they're amazing, it's the general dearth of long term minionmancy options. They have to rely on dumb stuff like awaken (and its variants), or sanctified spells that are available to everyone like cry of ysgard or valiant steed. They can always go moonspeaker, and pick up a couple of those types of spell at really high levels, but it's just not the same as it being a native druid thing, and it's similarly not the same as having an army of nature friendly zombies.

Edit: Actually, wait a second here. Nature friendly zombies. Y'know what totally does nature friendly zombies? Yellow musk creepers from the fiend folio page 190. This feels something like a plan. A vaguely necromantic druid might work after all.

[Firechanter]

The idea of a niche ranking system is a good one, but the current implementation is flawed. You know something is wrong when a Druid appears weaker than a Sorcerer and a Warblade doesn't score substantially better than a Fighter.

Right now, all the results just fall in one of two categories: "Caster" and "Not a Caster". We knew that much before, this doesn't warrant a new ranking system.

[JeminiZero]

wizards and sorcerers have access to animate and control undead as well, so they're also fairly good in that regard.

Control Undead lasts min/level. Controlling via Rebuke lasts until control is relinquished. Also, no Desecrate (~30% more HP), *some* problems healing the horde between fights. They can animate dead as well, but they are not nearly as good at it out of the box.

[AMFV]

Wizards get both summoning spells and detect traps as a spell, they should be able to at least partially fill the trapfinder role if only through brute forcing it.

Edit: Whoops, they don't get that out of the box, I'm mistaken here, however they could still use summons to brute force that aspect, I think that'd be around a 3 rather than a 4 by your scale, although it could potentially be debatable but that would kind of push us out of unambiguous territory.

2nd Edit: Additionally I know that some are arguing that this should go into the summoners category, but since we are comparing classes that can't summon with those that can it's important to note that summoners should get a 3 in several additional categories because they can use their summons to fill roles.

[Sith_Happens]

I'm not sure I like the idea of "using summons to fill other niches" only impacting the Summoning score rather than, you know, the scores in the niches being filled by the summons.

Now, I'm definitely for not letting Summoning spill over into Meat Shield, Melee, or Ranged, because having a minion attack and get attacked for you is qualitatively different than doing it yourself. But for the rest of them, well... What's really the difference between finding and disabling a trap with skills vs. with the Summon Elemental feat?

Speaking of which, even disregarding the above, Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard should all be 3's in Trapfinding. Most the traps you care about are magical, and Detect + Dispel Magic work at least as well for those as Search + Disable Device.

[nedz]

The idea of a niche ranking system is a good one, but the current implementation is flawed. You know something is wrong when a Druid appears weaker than a Sorcerer and a Warblade doesn't score substantially better than a Fighter.

Right now, all the results just fall in one of two categories: "Caster" and "Not a Caster". We knew that much before, this doesn't warrant a new ranking system.

Yes, what this ranking system doesn't model is flexibility: How easily can the class switch between roles ?

It doesn't cover multi-threat combinations either: How easy can the class support multiple roles at the same time ?

These two aspects have some overlap: If I can support multiple roles concurrently then I don't need to be able to switch roles quite so much. I suspect though that casters characters who are good at one are also good at the other.

Another aspect of classes which is important is: How easy are they to optimise ? This is basically about Feat and PrC availability.

A final aspect is how well they multi-class. E.g. Knight is fairly poor at multi-classing, whereas Fighter is very good for it.

[danzibr]

Yes, what this ranking system doesn't model is flexibility: How easily can the class switch between roles ?

It doesn't cover multi-threat combinations either: How easy can the class support multiple roles at the same time ?

These two aspects have some overlap: If I can support multiple roles concurrently then I don't need to be able to switch roles quite so much. I suspect though that casters characters who are good at one are also good at the other.

Another aspect of classes which is important is: How easy are they to optimise ? This is basically about Feat and PrC availability.

A final aspect is how well they multi-class. E.g. Knight is fairly poor at multi-classing, whereas Fighter is very good for it.
Yes, I was thinking that when I wrote up the Totemist rating. Totemists can usually do one thing quite well, but only one at a time. They need 8 hours to rest before switching roles. Hmm, how to quantify this?

[Sith_Happens]

Yes, I was thinking that when I wrote up the Totemist rating. Totemists can usually do one thing quite well, but only one at a time. They need 8 hours to rest before switching roles. Hmm, how to quantify this?

Just add a "Multitask" rating, that describes how quickly or easily a class can switch from filling one niche to filling another.

[NichG]

To those complaining about weird rankings of Warblade, Sorceror, etc, consider:

The point of a detailed ranking system like this is to uncover things you didn't previously know or think were true, by forcing yourself to go through a systematic process in order to rank each class independent of some overall feeling.

So basically the problem is, if you do the experiment and decide you don't like the results, you're removing the value of the exercise by going back and fiddling with it until it does what you want. At this point its kind of dangerous to fiddle with the values, because we can already look at how each classes' score is generated and basically tune the categories to favor whatever class we want, so its much easier for personal bias to creep in and hide interesting conclusions. (Personally I think actually ranking things was jumping the gun, because there was still a lot of disagreement on the niches, but there's no helping that now - we have to go with the results we have).

So the question shouldn't be 'how do we change the experiment to give Warblade its rightful tier and make Wizards better than Sorcerors again', it should be 'what does the actual current ranking of everything say about those things and about the Tier system'.

If you hold the Tier system to still be accurate after this detailed survey, then the conclusion I would draw from the data is that there is a minimum competency at a niche in order to be useful, and that at low tiers when you don't have many of those, being very competent in one niche is more valuable than being kinda okay at 6. Then at high tiers, when you have more people who are 'very competent' in multiple niches, it becomes more important to ask how many niches you can simultaneously fill.

That said, I think its interesting to ask if e.g. maybe the Sorceror shouldn't be Tier 2 in light of this survey, or maybe the Warblade shouldn't be Tier 3. Without at least considering those possibilities suggested by the survey, what's the point of this exercise?

[Scow2]

Why is Sorcerer a #1 "Sage"? It has to keep INT rather low, lacks knowledge skills, and has extremely limited access to divinations. It should be at best a 2. Also, the Sorcerer's numbers are misleading because while any given sorcerer can fill any role to a 1, if it does so all other roles are forced to be a 3 or 4.

And warblade and monk Mobility... again, how are they anything less than 2? The warblade has all mobility-based skills except Ride, and, while proficient in Medium Armor, never wears it once it can use a chain shirt, in addition to a number of mobility-enhancing stances and maneuvers (Though Swordsage rightfully beats it out).

[Person_Man]

Added Beguiler, Knight, and Dragon Shaman. Will add more later today.

Sorcerer downgraded to 2 in Sage.

Monk is 2 in Mobility.

Warblade is currently 3 in Mobility because it lacks a Special Mount, dimensional travel, flight, or movement bonuses. I'll go back and read through his maneuvers though, to see if I'm missing some obvious things that allows it to easily fill this niche.

Thanks for all the comments. I am reading through them, and will do my best to address anything that helps build the rating or make it more useful.

[thethird]

Really cool idea, I like it

I would argue that the druid can be a good party face for the following reasons:
A druid has diplomacy as a class skill with skill rank investment he can change the opinion of other intelligent creatures
A druid has wild empathy as a class feature with no investment (specially considering that for a focused druid there are really few things that are better than more levels in druid) it can change the opinion of animals and magical beasts.
Charisma is unlikely to take a hit on a druid beyond level 6, since it is most likely to be in the wildshape form of choice.

[Amphetryon]

Binder is a really tough case for this system, it seems to me, because which niche it fills is going to depend so much on which Vestiges it binds. I can easily see the case for a Binder getting a ranking of 2 in every category, though.

Similarly, Shugenja is hard to codify within this system, because the different Elemental foci of Shugenja will per force cause them to be good at some niches and poor at others; a Fire Shugenja makes a fine Ranged Damage candidate, but is a relatively poor Buffer or Healer, whereas a Water Shugenja is almost the polar opposite.

Thoughts?

[AMFV]

To those complaining about weird rankings of Warblade, Sorceror, etc, consider:

The point of a detailed ranking system like this is to uncover things you didn't previously know or think were true, by forcing yourself to go through a systematic process in order to rank each class independent of some overall feeling.

So basically the problem is, if you do the experiment and decide you don't like the results, you're removing the value of the exercise by going back and fiddling with it until it does what you want. At this point its kind of dangerous to fiddle with the values, because we can already look at how each classes' score is generated and basically tune the categories to favor whatever class we want, so its much easier for personal bias to creep in and hide interesting conclusions. (Personally I think actually ranking things was jumping the gun, because there was still a lot of disagreement on the niches, but there's no helping that now - we have to go with the results we have).

So the question shouldn't be 'how do we change the experiment to give Warblade its rightful tier and make Wizards better than Sorcerors again', it should be 'what does the actual current ranking of everything say about those things and about the Tier system'.

If you hold the Tier system to still be accurate after this detailed survey, then the conclusion I would draw from the data is that there is a minimum competency at a niche in order to be useful, and that at low tiers when you don't have many of those, being very competent in one niche is more valuable than being kinda okay at 6. Then at high tiers, when you have more people who are 'very competent' in multiple niches, it becomes more important to ask how many niches you can simultaneously fill.

That said, I think its interesting to ask if e.g. maybe the Sorceror shouldn't be Tier 2 in light of this survey, or maybe the Warblade shouldn't be Tier 3. Without at least considering those possibilities suggested by the survey, what's the point of this exercise?

The main problem with using this system to judge the tier system is that we're looking at different things. The tier system is done assuming an equal level of optimization. This niche rating thing is done in a vacuum of optimization, meaning that all characters are assumed to be able to fill potentially any niche that they could, for example the sorcerer as a party face, or the Barbarian as a trapfinder. This isn't an experiment so much as a categorization exercise.

I'm actually starting to doubt it's effectiveness for that very reason. Because the tier system starts by making assumptions about generic optimization. Whereas this does not, for example any minionmancer can easily do trapfinding. Most summoners can do that as well, probably also healing and battlefield control. We have many "niches" here that can be easily filled by other niches. A battlefield control wizard makes healing irrelevant under most cases, or at least not particularly necessary. We can easily optimize to allow any of the higher tier classes to fill a particular role.

In order for this to be useful beyond any kind of generic level of common sense we need to look at the starting assumptions and maybe reevaluate some of the niches. I'm personally for removing summoning and then just upgrading the characters to higher levels in other categories to make up for it. Additionally we do need to discuss optimization levels for this, because I could optimize a wizard in such a way that they could be a healer or a trapfinder or a frontline fighter, without really losing much else, that's the fundamental problem, we don't look at ability to switch or effectiveness under circumstantial levels, it makes it difficult to rate the classes in any effective way.

Basically my point is that I don't think at this time without more concrete assumptions about starting optimization we're going to come to any point that would not be matched up and easily explained by the tier system.

[eggynack]

To those complaining about weird rankings of Warblade, Sorceror, etc, consider:

The point of a detailed ranking system like this is to uncover things you didn't previously know or think were true, by forcing yourself to go through a systematic process in order to rank each class independent of some overall feeling.

So basically the problem is, if you do the experiment and decide you don't like the results, you're removing the value of the exercise by going back and fiddling with it until it does what you want. At this point its kind of dangerous to fiddle with the values, because we can already look at how each classes' score is generated and basically tune the categories to favor whatever class we want, so its much easier for personal bias to creep in and hide interesting conclusions. (Personally I think actually ranking things was jumping the gun, because there was still a lot of disagreement on the niches, but there's no helping that now - we have to go with the results we have).

So the question shouldn't be 'how do we change the experiment to give Warblade its rightful tier and make Wizards better than Sorcerors again', it should be 'what does the actual current ranking of everything say about those things and about the Tier system'.

If you hold the Tier system to still be accurate after this detailed survey, then the conclusion I would draw from the data is that there is a minimum competency at a niche in order to be useful, and that at low tiers when you don't have many of those, being very competent in one niche is more valuable than being kinda okay at 6. Then at high tiers, when you have more people who are 'very competent' in multiple niches, it becomes more important to ask how many niches you can simultaneously fill.

That said, I think its interesting to ask if e.g. maybe the Sorceror shouldn't be Tier 2 in light of this survey, or maybe the Warblade shouldn't be Tier 3. Without at least considering those possibilities suggested by the survey, what's the point of this exercise?
The problem is, the fact that sorcerers are rated equal or greater than wizards actually does reveal a central issue with this system. Let's imagine that you have two classes, A and B. Each class has the capacity to gain some quantity of abilities out of a set of 17, each of which corresponds perfectly to one of the 17 niches. However, class A has access to all 17 abilities at once, while class B can only pick one for its entire career. Which class will have a better niche ranking? The answer is that the two scores will end up being identical, because both classes can fill every niche, even though class A can fill all of them with one build, and B can only get one.

It's a real problem. The fact is, sorcerers deserve a slightly lower score in every single thing they do, because any decision they make about a niche they want to fill is coming at some cost to another niche. If they want to be more ranged, it means being a little less everything else, and it is this opportunity cost that places the sorcerer in tier two in the first place. There are two real options here. The first is lowering the sorcerer's score by a significant amount. I rather dislike this option, because the sorcerer actually can fill all of these roles if they like, which is a thing that people should learn from this system. The second is removing the total score entirely, or otherwise directly stating that it's unimportant. The actual information that we're deriving from this system, whether a class can fill any given niche, has nothing to do with some sort of overarching cumulative score. I don't need to know that barbarians have a score of 59, as long as I can determine that they have good melee abilities, and bad face abilities. Actually, should barbarian facing be better, because they have intimidate as a class skill, and access to the incentives required to pump it? They might deserve a three.

[AMFV]

The problem is, the fact that sorcerers are rated equal or greater than wizards actually does reveal a central issue with this system. Let's imagine that you have two classes, A and B. Each class has the capacity to gain some quantity of abilities out of a set of 17, each of which corresponds perfectly to one of the 17 niches. However, class A has access to all 17 abilities at once, while class B can only pick one for its entire career. Which class will have a better niche ranking? The answer is that the two scores will end up being identical, because both classes can fill every niche, even though class A can fill all of them with one build, and B can only get one.

It's a real problem. The fact is, sorcerers deserve a slightly lower score in every single thing they do, because any decision they make about a niche they want to fill is coming at some cost to another niche. If they want to be more ranged, it means being a little less everything else, and it is this opportunity cost that places the sorcerer in tier two in the first place. There are two real options here. The first is lowering the sorcerer's score by a significant amount. I rather dislike this option, because the sorcerer actually can fill all of these roles if they like, which is a thing that people should learn from this system. The second is removing the total score entirely, or otherwise directly stating that it's unimportant. The actual information that we're deriving from this system, whether a class can fill any given niche, has nothing to do with some sort of overarching cumulative score. I don't need to know that barbarians have a score of 59, as long as I can determine that they have good melee abilities, and bad face abilities. Actually, should barbarian facing be better, because they have intimidate as a class skill, and access to the incentives required to pump it? They might deserve a three.

This is actually a really good point, I think that the composite score is a problem, since people are likely to focus on that and it will be difficult to quantify mathematically the ability of anybody to make the same choices in versatility. It would make this a direct competitor to the tier system and without the same fundamental assumptions a less useful one, whereas the niches themselves are much more useful.

I still vote that summoning be removed and the other niches it replicates be bumped instead, since basically all that summoning does is replicate other niches, unless we're talking about minionmancy.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Opinion on summoning being removed: Summoning is very much valuable in regards to trap finding, healing, and solving other problems. However being able to dominate other characters, creating followers/minionmancy (undead or animal) is also helpful in these regards.

Instead of removing summoning, or these other niches, I would instead suggest that we simply give their scoring a greater range (e.g 1 to 8 instead of 1 to 4), to represent the impact they have on other areas. Ultimately, although summoning can be used to solve these problems, it isn't always as efficient or effective as having the latent ability to solve those problems. It's also a tool that I think is strong/important enough to be considered a seperate niche.

Opinion on the Wizard/Sorcerer thing: The only way I can think to maybe solve this (and the Warblade/Fighter thing) is to add a metric that would rate daily flexibility. However, that isn't a niche, and so it doesn't fall in the purview of this chart, which is fine with me.

[thethird]

If that is important apply a "multitask correction factor"

[Urpriest]

Warblade is currently 3 in Mobility because it lacks a Special Mount, dimensional travel, flight, or movement bonuses. I'll go back and read through his maneuvers though, to see if I'm missing some obvious things that allows it to easily fill this niche.


Can't it get Balance on the Sky? Or is that Setting Sun?

[Squirrel_Dude]

Can't it get Balance on the Sky? Or is that Setting Sun?I thought it was shadow hand, but either way it is a swordsage maneuver.

Edit: Yeah, shadow hand. 3 maneuver prereq.

[Karnith]

Can't it get Balance on the Sky? Or is that Setting Sun?
Shadow Hand, actually, and it requires three other Shadow Hand maneuvers, so it's pretty hard for a single-classed Warblade to get access to it.

[eggynack]

I still vote that summoning be removed and the other niches it replicates be bumped instead, since basically all that summoning does is replicate other niches, unless we're talking about minionmancy.
Yeah, I was mentioning that before. It's really tricky though, because while summoning has some real crossover with other things, I think that it might also be its own thing. As has been noted, beat sticking with a summoned creature is substantially different from beat sticking on your own, and a big factor in that is that summoning a creature is going to have an impact on the action economy. This is especially true if you're getting a creature with an SLA. Sure, the SLA is probably niche friendly too, but there's some substantial difference here. It's a really hard difference to quantify though. I guess the question is, what is that difference, and how do we measure its utility as applies to certain classes? Maybe there won't ultimately be anything like that, but it feels like there is one. I mean, long term minionmancy is basically just applying that action economy factor without an initial action and spell cost. Tricky.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Looking at the added classes under the previous math that I did. Again, Just looking at the four scoring ranges an the standard deviations. I added the scores by putting them in a spreadsheet and letting it do that math. For some reason, mine are different then the ones on the main table. I've checked the math a couple times, and I keep coming up with the same results.

Four Scoring Ranges Each class has score in parenthesis.
17 to 29 (~1 to 1.75)
Cleric (27), Sorcerer (28), Wizard (29)

30 to 42 (~1.75 to 2.5)
Bard (38), Beguiler (41), Druid (33), Incarante (43)

43 to 55 (~2.5 to 3.25)
Crusader (55), Paladin (52), Ranger (51), Rogue (44), Swordsage (54), Totemist (52)

56 to 68 (~3.25 to 4)
Barbarian (61), Dragon Shaman (56), Fighter (59), Knight (57), Monk (56), Warblade (56)


No one has their grouping. I'm just adding the new ones it to try and show what general (arbitrarily created) group everything sits in now.

Class | Total |Mean Score | StDev
Barbarian | 61 | 3.59 | .712
Bard | 38 | 2.24| .831
Beguiler | 41| 2.41 | .870
Cleric | 27 | 1.59 | .712
Crusader| 55 | 3.24 | .903
Dragon Shaman | 56 | 3.29 | .588
Druid | 33 | 1.94 | .827
Fighter | 59 | 3.47 | .874
Incarnate | 43 | 2.53 | .624
Knight | 57 | 3.35 |.786
Monk | 56 | 3.29 | .588
Paladin | 52 | 3.06 | .556
Ranger | 51 | 3.00 | .707
Rogue | 44 | 2.59 | 1.121
Sorcerer | 28 | 1.65 | .862
Swordsage | 54 | 3.18| .951
Totemist | 52 | 3.06 | .899
Warblade | 56 | 3.29 | .920
Wizard | 29 | 1.71 | .920

Mean Scores
These will obviously correlate with how each class performs in the aggregate. However, it should be noted that although a Druid scores a 33, and is in the 2nd group, it still has an average score of under 2 points in each niche.

Standard DeviationI don't know if I said it previously, but the goal of these numbers is to try and show the consistency of a classes rating. For the maybe 2 of you that are unaware, a higher deviation means that the scores are more varied for the class, while a lower means that the class' scores are more consistently good or bad.

So something that might be gleamed from this is that because the Warblade has the same high (and therefore bad) aggregate score than that monk and his deviation is much higher, the monk is poor in almost all areas, while the Warblade has some areas of speciality.

The highest StDev I could generate (alternate 1s and 4s) was 1.543, and the lowest (all 1s/2s/3s/4s) was 0. The average deviation was .803.

[NichG]

It'd be a very involved exercise, but the way I'd probably go from here is try to basically do a blind survey, rather than try to debate the numbers. Basically, put up a webpage that asks the following questions for each class/category:

- Could you make a character based on this base class who is good enough at this task to not require a second character in the party to fill it?
- Would you expect the average character based on this base class to be good enough at this task to not require a second character in the party to fill it?
- Is this class among the top three that you might use to build a character specialized for this task?

Then just try to get a couple hundred responses and figure out what the overall results are. I also agree with those posts above that suggest that the aggregate score is misleading, so I'd probably try to avoid something that 'aggregates' the performance of the class into a single number.

Instead, it might be more interesting to ask which classes show up as the best for each niche.

[Epsilon Rose]

I'd like to suggest some changes, that I've mostly already suggested, to make the aggregate score more meaningful.

Apply weighting to the niches when calculating the final scores. Trap finding and healing probably shouldn't be as valuable to overall power as BFC or Minionmancy; especially because minions can fill in for trap finding or healing.
To go along with the weighting, reverse the scoring system so 1 is bad and 4 is good.
Add a new category for flexibility, but use it as a multiplier. Also, consider capping wizards at 3. So it would look like this:


Must be purpose built for one role.
Must be purpose built, but can cover multiple rolls.
Can cover multiple rolls, but only a limited number per day. (e. g. A wizard can know any spell, but must prepare them in advance for the day.)
Can fill multiple roles equally well at any given moment.


Interestingly, there might be a few classes that score higher in flexibility than wizards, despite being able too fill fewer rolls.

[Lans]

Here's the updated table for the truenamer (and my version):
{table=head]Class | BFC | Buff | Curiosity | Debuff | Dominate | Game C. | Heal | Meat S. | Melee | Mobility | Party Face | Ranged | Sage | Scout | Thief | Summon | Trapfind | Total

Truenamer | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 60
Kyeudo's Truenamer| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 46

[/table]

Wouldn't the Truenamer be a 2 at debuffing, buffing, battlefield control and a 3 at melee, meat shield and melee?

[Epsilon Rose]

Wouldn't the Truenamer be a 2 at debuffing, buffing, battlefield control and a 3 at melee, meat shield and melee?

What can it do that pushes it up to 3 in melee and meat shield?

[Lans]

What can it do that pushes it up to 3 in melee and meat shield?

I figure 1/3 level to natural armor would do it for meat shield compared to rogue or monk, and a quickened knights puisance or temporal twist would be comparable to the monk or dragon shaman

[malonkey1]

Alright, for the two Invoking classes (Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts), I've got the following (and why they have them).

{table=head]Class | BFC | Buff | Curiosity | Debuff | Dominate | Game C. | Heal | Meat S. | Melee | Mobility | Party Face | Ranged | Sage | Scout | Thief | Summon | Trapfind | Total
Warlock | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2.5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2.5 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 46
Dragonfire Adept | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | 2.5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2.5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 45.5
Beguiler | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 42
Dread Necro | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3.5 | 4 | 3/2 | 2 | 4 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 52 (51 post-lichdom)
Warmage | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 62
[/table]

Warlock:

Battlefield Control: Has quite a few handy Control invocations (chilling tentacles, et. al.), but can't lock things down perfectly.
Buffer: A few invocations that buff allies, but not really their focus.
Curiosity: They have a few unique abilities (Deceive Item, for example), but nothing amazing.
Debuffer: This is a pretty major part of the class, but some of the status effects they use are too weak and/or short lived to make them truly stellar at it.
Dominator: They have pretty slim abilities in this department, barely surpassing charm person.
Game Changer: Neeeeeewp. Maybe if you abused Deceive Item, but meh.
Healer: Again, only if you were to abuse Deceive Item. They receive exactly zero healing abilities aside from their (personal) fast healing.
Meat Shield: Surprisingly survivable compared to other casters, but still a bit on the fragile side.
Melee Damage: With Eldritch Glaive and/or Eldritch Claw, they can easily meet and surpass many melee classes for damage, unexpectedly enough.
Mobility: With Leaps and Bounds, Fell Flight, and others, they have multiple options for movement.
Party Face: Beguiling Influence, plus Bluff as a class skill, plus being (at least nominally) based on Charisma, makes for a decent face.
Ranged Damage: Not capable of blasting like a Wizard or Warmage, but certainly no schlub, especially with the Hellfire Warlock PrC, and/or good selection of invocations.
Sage: Meh. They have a couple of Knowledge skills, but they aren't really decked-out for knowledge-seeking.
Scout: Their decent supernatural stealth capabilities, coupled with a few useful perception invocations very barely makes up for a class skill list not suited to the role. I was so on the fence about the number, I added a .5.
Thief: They have a few useful tricks for it, but should leave it for more dedicated classes unless pressed or specially built.
Summoner: They have a decent Zombification Invocation (The Dead Walk), which is powerful enough (at-will Animate Dead. Cheesy Petes.) to push them high up. If undead doesn't count for this, then only a 3.9 (Summon Swarm is not very powerful past early levels).
Trapfinder: Their magical abilities hardly make them any better.

Dragonfire Adept

Battlefield Control: They have quite a bit of this with their breath effects.
Buffer: Roundabout squat diddly.
Curiosity: Well, they have their more exotic breaths, but a lot of the effects can be replicated pretty easily.
Debuffer: Quite good, much like Warlocks, due to their signature ability of the breath weapons. Slow Breath and Weakening Breath are two good early ones.
Dominator: They wouldn't be 1, if not for at-will Geas as a STANDARD ACTION. The invoking classes look weak at first, but they have some real gems if you know where to dig. Their Geas ability looks powerful at first, but really isn't. They still have some decent charming abilities and Diplomacy.
Game Changer: Geas at will bumps this up a whole number on its own, but other than that, meh.
Healer: Nyehehehehehehope. Or, in short, nope.
Meat Shield: a d8 hit die and no armor proficiencies would normally leave this 4, 3 at best, but the natural armor bonuses and the implicit requirement for high Con brings this up to 2.5 for me.
Melee Damage: Not so good. These guys may be more survivable than the average caster, but they're not swordsmen.
Mobility: Swimming, flight, perfect flight, they can get some darn good movement.
Party Face: They actually have a few good social skills, but the lack of skill points means that you have to specialize in one or all of them to really get a bang for your buck.
Ranged Damage: This is definitely something they can do. They breathe fire. And lightning. And lazors (Breath of Bahamut). Booyeah.
Sage: They have a lot of Knowledge skills, and while they may not have a big Int score, Draconic Knowledge can more than make up for it (the same bonus as a +12 increase to Intelligence!)
Scout: Locates enemies, threats, and other useful things while remaining hidden.
Thief: They have very little as far as useful thief abilities.
Summoner: Their summoning ability is a non-entity
Trapfinder: Their trapfinding abilities are not anything to be laughed at. Their lack of Trapfinding (the class feature) is probably the main reason that they aren't a 1.


They have roughly the same level of adaptibility, but while a lot of people (at least that I've talked to) say the'yre basically the same class, there are some pretty key differences. You could say that a Warlock sits closer to a Wizard in its style (magic magic magic magic magic!!), whereas a DFA falls more on the side of a Bardy-Warmage (Magic! And support! And Blasting! Oh, oh, and control, and a puppy, and a firetruck...). Both are solid classes, and I love them for different reasons.

Beguiler
Battlefield Control: Pretty well-built for it. Their limited spell list diminishes it a bit, but have a spell list specifically built for it helps.
Buffer: They have a minimal buffing capacity, seeing as most of their spells are control or debuff.
Curiosity: They can get access to a couple new spells (including some of the nifty little shadow spells) with their Advanced Learning ability, plus their Cloaked Casting ability (Sneak attack for spells! Sort of...)
Debuffer: This is one of the places where they shine. Plenty of offensive illusions and enchantments gives them some decent debuff power.
Dominator: Uh, yeah. Charm Monster, Dominate person, Mass Suggestion, and so on. Lots of domination potential.
Game Changer: Shadow Evocation could be arguably considered this, being available (albeit not part of the base list, it is core, so could be considered within easy reach), sort of a "poor man's Limited Wish".
Healer: Newp. No sir. This is not a healer.
Meat Shield: Hahahah. Good one. They barely even have any AC buffs.
Melee Damage: Not gonna be your main thing with this class.
Mobility: They have a few handy movement spells, and access to more.
Party Face: Oh, yes. Most of the social skills, plus access to Glibness? Yes please.
Ranged Damage: I'm sorry, I think I had something crazy stuck in my ear. This class has next to no straight ranged damage.
Sage: Nuh-uh. There are much better classes for this.
Scout: Their invisibility, plus their movement spells, makes them pretty good scouts.
Thief: They have all of the Rogue's thievery skills, plus a bunch of nifty spellcasting that directly contributes to it. Wow-ee.
Summoner: Summoning is one thing thing at which they are not good.
Trapfinder: Again, kind of Stepping on the Rogue's toes, big-time.


Dread Necromancer
Battlefield Control: Passable, but very limited.
Buffer: Pretty poor, unless your party is mostly undead, in which case you're pretty awesome.
Curiosity: A melee fear aura is an odd feature for a base class, as is a built-in Lich transformation.
Debuffer: A big part of the class, but beware negative energy-immune creatures.
Dominator: Unless you're dealing with Undead, this is gonna be pretty slim pickin's
Game Changer: Meh. Not really, unless you wanna count the Lich change.
Healer: Only if you are surrounded by undead teammates.
Meat Shield: Early on, not so great. Post-Lich change, they're actually pretty frickin' durable.
Melee Damage: Not top-tier, but they have a pretty good selection of touch-range damage spells, and their DR and later Lichiness allow them to survive long enough to use them.
Mobility: Not much.
Party Face: Well, they have enough to get by. They'd probably not be so great on their own.
Ranged Damage: They have some area attacks, but not a lot.
Sage: Poor. Very little Knowledge, coupled with not being Int-based.
Scout:Not very good, except in outright toxic conditions, and only after Lichdom.
Thief: Not much good for it.
Summoner: Oh, so very much. They are about 50% this, being among the best zombie folks around.
Trapfinder: Unless you count send zombies through the hall ahead of you, nope.


Warmage
Only good for blasting. And not that great at it compared to Wizards and Sorcerers.

[Fishies]

I feel like Paladins should be higher ranked in the "Party Face" niche -- Paladins tend to have at least decent Charisma for Divine Grace, Smite Evil, and Lay on Hands and they also have Diplomacy as a class skill, as well as two of Diplomacy's synergy bonus skills: Sense Motive and Knowledge (nobility and royalty). Furthermore Paladins also have access to Zone of Truth and Discern Lies.

[killem2]

I don't think summoning needs to be removed.

[eggynack]

I don't think summoning needs to be removed.
Do ya have any kinda reasoning behind that opinion? I mean, the action economy argument was a decent one, but it feels a bit iffy. What does summoning, by which I mean summoning over a short enough duration that you're tossing it out in combat, bring to the table that doesn't fall into another niche? The same goes for curiosity, which is a niche I still don't understand. I'm also not entirely sure what the druid did to get tossed to two in that area. I could probably give a decent list of quirky things they can do, although I don't know what qualifies as quirky, so it's tricky to figure out where to start on such a list. Where does long range communication fall in this thing? I've been pretty impressed by whispering sand (Sand, 128) as some kind of weird mass telecommunications system.

[killem2]

Do ya have any kinda reasoning behind that opinion? I mean, the action economy argument was a decent one, but it feels a bit iffy. What does summoning, by which I mean summoning over a short enough duration that you're tossing it out in combat, bring to the table that doesn't fall into another niche? The same goes for curiosity, which is a niche I still don't understand. I'm also not entirely sure what the druid did to get tossed to two in that area. I could probably give a decent list of quirky things they can do, although I don't know what qualifies as quirky, so it's tricky to figure out where to start on such a list. Where does long range communication fall in this thing? I've been pretty impressed by whispering sand (Sand, 128) as some kind of weird mass telecommunications system.

Sure.

It's a chart to give people an idea where to start. If you are able to on the fly, debunk why summoning doesn't need to be on this chart, then this chart isn't for you.

There are still new players coming to 3.5 all the time, and I find this chart to be much more useful than the tier system break down for helping them. As a DM if I have a player who is new or newish, and wants to play I can direct them to this chart, asking them, look at this chart, tell me what appeals to you, and I can get you the information about the classes listed.



It's really as simple as that. I don't want this crossing over into x optimization or tiers discussion because I like Personman's table and charts. They give quick reference and easy understanding.

I do think that classes that CANNOT do something on the list should be a -- or N/A rather than a number 4.

[Snowbluff]

Contesting DFI rating. IT should be lower than Warlock, considering that Geas does 3d6 damage and sickens. This makes for a lousy spell in combat. Out of combat, your singular servant is slowly weakened, and the spell simply terminates itself eventually, after which the target will be ambulatory and otherwise fine in 24 hours. If I was hit by a Baleful Geas, I would just take a week off of work.

[eggynack]

Sure.

It's a chart to give people an idea where to start. If you are able to on the fly, debunk why summoning doesn't need to be on this chart, then this chart isn't for you.

There are still new players coming to 3.5 all the time, and I find this chart to be much more useful than the tier system break down for helping them. As a DM if I have a player who is new or newish, and wants to play I can direct them to this chart, asking them, look at this chart, tell me what appeals to you, and I can get you the information about the classes listed.



It's really as simple as that. I don't want this crossing over into x optimization or tiers discussion because I like Personman's table and charts. They give quick reference and easy understanding.

I do think that classes that CANNOT do something on the list should be a -- or N/A rather than a number 4.
But what I'm saying is that summoning is effectively just a means or method to fulfill other niches. In other words, having summoning on the list would be like keeping ranged around as a category, but also having niches devoted to archery and blasting. If everything that summoning does is already covered elsewhere, then it doesn't need a category. If it isn't all covered elsewhere, then what I'm looking for is what the unique effect is.

[Stux]

A possible twist to put in would be to rate how readily each class can fulfil each niche, not just whether they can potentially fulfil that niche.

For example

1 - Can fulfil the niche without having to make any but the most minor build choices with none or very minor decrease in effectiveness in other niches, and can use the relevant abilities completely on the fly without significant preparation.

2 - They may require a small amount of building to fulfil the niche effectively and possibly need to prep the abilities to a minor exclusion of other niches while those abilities are prepared.

3 - A fair bit of the build needs to support effectiveness in the niche, such as some feat or class feature choices, or the character can only fulfil the niche through specific preparation for that day or encounter that precludes them from fulfilling that niche for that day or encounter.

4 - Can only fulfil this niche by making very specific build choices that preclude it from being effective in other niches. Choosing to be effective in this niche makes it nigh impossible to be effective in other niches.

These definitions could perhaps be tweaked further.

Then for each class we calculate their total versatility and effectiveness by multiplying the current niche scores by this new number and totalling them all.

[malonkey1]

Contesting DFI rating. IT should be lower than Warlock, considering that Geas does 3d6 damage and sickens. This makes for a lousy spell in combat. Out of combat, your singular servant is slowly weakened, and the spell simply terminates itself eventually, after which the target will be ambulatory and otherwise fine in 24 hours. If I was hit by a Baleful Geas, I would just take a week off of work.

Alright, you have a good point there. I'll drop my rating for that by a bit (but not completely... They still have Charm and Enthralling Voice).

[Lans]

I think 0-3 would be better than 1-4.

[Snowbluff]

Alright, you have a good point there. I'll drop my rating for that by a bit (but not completely... They still have Charm and Enthralling Voice).

Enthralling Voice is really only marginally better than Charm. Kind of like an AoE charm... ish. :smalltongue:

Since Warlock has Devil's Whispers, I'd rate the two classes the same in that department.

[Talya]

I'm still seeing bard listed with the worst melee damage rank on the chart, when in fact they're one of the absolute best melee damage classes in the game, behind only the optimized ubercharger.

[malonkey1]

Enthralling Voice is really only marginally better than Charm. Kind of like an AoE charm... ish. :smalltongue:

Since Warlock has Devil's Whispers, I'd rate the two classes the same in that department.

Right, right, forgot about Devil's Whispers.

[Morph Bark]

Hmmm, I've got most of these as tags for the Homebrew Tier Compendium already, but I lack some. In the past I've thought of adding Battlefield Control, Infiltration and Minionmancy to it, but haven't yet as it would be quite a task and I'd best do it in one sitting. Perhaps I should, though.

[Draz74]

Before I quibble about any specific numbers, I think the niche categories need to be right.

I would nominate "Tank (the ability to encourage foes to attack oneself rather than one's allies)" as a separate niche, even though only a couple classes are at all effective at it. It's one that people want to have a lot of the time.

I question "Domination" having its own category, although offhand I'm not sure what it should be folded into. It just doesn't come up all that often in my experience, especially as an end unto itself (rather than as a means to achieve e.g. action denial plus melee damage).

I would like to see niches for "day-to-day flexibility" and for "spur-of-the-moment flexibility." For example, day-to-day flexibility would be a great score for Binders and prepared casters, especially casters who know all of their spell list (Cleric/Druid). Spur-of-the-moment flexibility would favor spontaneous casters, especially Beguilers, and would also be the place where abilities like Psychic Reformation could be reflected.

With these Flexibility niches in place, the "Game Changer" category could be broken into two more categories: the "Setting Change" category that Urpriest suggested, and a "Common Problem Bypass" category that includes things like Contact Other Plane and long-distance teleportation. Things that let you just ignore whole families of in-game challenges (like wilderness travel), because you have an ability that solves all of them at once.

I also like the idea of 1-6 scores instead of 1-4, in order to increase granularity and draw a closer parallel with the Tiers system.

[danzibr]

I agree with the spontaneous and day to day flexibility, but 1-6 seems too much. 0-3 seems good, if only for numbers slightly easier to understand.

[INoKnowNames]

Warblade is currently 3 in Mobility because it lacks a Special Mount, dimensional travel, flight, or movement bonuses. I'll go back and read through his maneuvers though, to see if I'm missing some obvious things that allows it to easily fill this niche.

Off of the top of my head, Sudden Leap and Quicksilver Motion maneuvers (refreshable every other round, so still darn near persistent), and Absolute Steel and Leaping Dragon Stance for... stances. Possibly Pouncing Charge and other Charge Based Maneuvers, plus having enough powerful strike maneuvers to not require needing a Full Attack might be a point for an argument for in combat mobility. They seem to have more options than a Fighter, at least.

[Kyeudo]

Off of the top of my head, Sudden Leap and Quicksilver Motion maneuvers (refreshable every other round, so still darn near persistent), and Absolute Steel and Leaping Dragon Stance for... stances. Possibly Pouncing Charge and other Charge Based Maneuvers, plus having enough powerful strike maneuvers to not require needing a Full Attack might be a point for an argument for in combat mobility. They seem to have more options than a Fighter, at least.

Which Desert Wind stance lets you fly and light things on fire again?

All ToB classes are more mobile than the fighter by a lot.

[INoKnowNames]

Which Desert Wind stance lets you fly and light things on fire again?

All ToB classes are more mobile than the fighter by a lot.

It's the Rising Phoenix Stance, but it's also an 8th level stance.

I'm actually not sure that the Crusader is more mobile than the fighter (unless we're counting in battle mobility), but he's also better at healing, meat-shielding, battlefield control, and probably a few other areas, too.

[Draz74]

I'm actually not sure that the Crusader is more mobile than the fighter (unless we're counting in battle mobility), but he's also better at healing, meat-shielding, battlefield control, and probably a few other areas, too.

Does letting your allies move around count as mobility? :smallsmile:

[INoKnowNames]

Does letting your allies move around count as mobility? :smallsmile:

I dunno, I'd consider that Positive Battlefield Control, or Buffing. It could be ruled as Mobility, but I feel it would fit the other two more.

Then again, Then again, as I swore I mentioned before, I feel like Curiosity shouldn't be a niche (since it's a rather vague category, Forgery would be under Thieving or Party Face, Tongues under Party Face, and Slowfall under Mobility. What all else falls under Curiosity that wouldn't be able to fit into one of the other niches?), Dominator probably shouldn't be one (That's a Debuff straight up), Game Changer seems a bit... odd, at least by example, and any class that uses Summons should not get automatic high scores in everything just because they have Summons who can do so. Same with Transformations (which actually could probably stand to be a category on it's own). For example, why is a Wizard a better Meat Shield than a Monk, not counting Summoning or Transforming into something that can? At least the Monk has more hit points...

.... while I'm looking at the numbers, why is a Crusader considered a worse Healer than a Knight? Crusaders and their healing strikes are specifically called out as one of the few good ways to heal in combat since you're doing both at the same time. Heck, how is it on par in healing with the Monk? Shouldn't it -and- the Paladin be better healers than a Monk?

So yeah, my thoughts can be taken with a grain of salt.

Edit: I also think a baseline could be set using DMC NPCs. For example (baring the chicken shenanigans), a commoner should be something that has a 4 in every category, right? Maybe a 3 in scouting since it at least -has- spot and listen as class skills, which is more than the Fighter has....

[Person_Man]

Added Dragonfire Adept, Dread Necromancer, Warmage, Warlock,
Psychic Warrior, Psychic Rogue, Psion, and Wilder. I used malonkey1 posting as a starting point. But for the sake of simplicity, I'm not doing decimals, so I made some judgement calls. I also downgraded Warlock Melee Damage from 1 down to 2. Glaivelock is awesome, but Melee Damage it is not the undeniable default niche for the class, and even with optimization the Warlock can't really touch the Totemist, Druid, Warblade, or Psychic Warrior in terms of raw melee damage output. I welcome specific feedback on those ratings.

Warblade only has native access to Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Stone Dragon (which more or less prevents you from being mobile when you use it), Tiger Claw, and White Raven. (NOT Desert Wind, Shadow Hand, etc). Tiger Claw gives you Sudden Leap, Pounce, and Wolf Pack tactics, which when combined with his Tumble Skill is enough to bring the Warblade up from level 4 to 3 in Mobility. But he honestly doesn't play as a mobile class compared to someone who has a Special Mount, teleportation, flight, movement bonuses, Hustle, Travel Devotion, etc. And in many cases, the Warblade will be wearing Medium armor (or heavy armor made into mediuym armor). So while the Warblade is more mobile then many other tank-y classes, it's not really a class that really fills that niche as efficiently and effectively as many other classes.

Bard upgraded to 2 in melee damage. I was reluctant to put it above 3, since it's 3/4 BAB and lacks the range of buff spells available to most other classes. But at this point Dragonfire Inspiration and Inspire Courage optimization is fairly very well known and accepted, plus they get Snowflake Wardance, Crystal Echoblades, etc. Even if you're just using core, they still get Alter Self, Good Hope, Inspire Courage, etc.

Once I'm done rating every 3.5 class, I'll head into Pathfinder. When I'm done with that, I'll start considering alternate weights for scores, ratios, etc. I'll still be reading every comment and taking everything into consideration. But I'd really like to get a good base line first, then compare classes to things in each category to make sure that the 1's are really worthy of being 1's and so on, and then we'll worry about higher level meta-analysis.

[Amphetryon]

Minor quibble on Dread Necromancer: Any DN can heal herself, provided she took Tomb-Tainted Soul, and most of the DNs (and handbooks for them) I've seen or built take that as a Feat Tax at 1st level. I've been in, and run, campaigns where everyone took TTS explicitly to allow the DN's built-in ability to provide Charnel Touch-based healing to function for the entire group.

It's niche, but it rises above the "unambiguously cannot fill that niche effectively and efficiently" verbiage the 4 ranking would designate, I think.

[Alabenson]

I somewhat disagree with the Wizard, and to a lesser extent the Druid's rankings on trapfinding: Summoned/charmed/dominated monsters can easily be used to disarm traps, granted in the same sense as using a stick to disarm a bear trap but still.

Admittedly, this is neither an effective nor efficient use of their resources, but that would put them at rank 3, not rank 4.

[Person_Man]

Minor quibble on Dread Necromancer: Any DN can heal herself, provided she took Tomb-Tainted Soul, and most of the DNs (and handbooks for them) I've seen or built take that as a Feat Tax at 1st level. I've been in, and run, campaigns where everyone took TTS explicitly to allow the DN's built-in ability to provide Charnel Touch-based healing to function for the entire group.

It's niche, but it rises above the "unambiguously cannot fill that niche effectively and efficiently" verbiage the 4 ranking would designate, I think.

You make a very good point, and I'll think about it.

But it feels like a stretch. By the same logic, everyone could take Tomb Tainted Soul and buy a magic item to grant Cold Resistance, and a Warmage could take Lord of the Uttercold to become fill the "Healer" niche. Should I rate everyone who is capable of dealing Negative Energy as a 3 or better because of the existance of Tomb Tainted Soul?

I'm legitimately torn on the issue. On one hand, Dread Necromancer really wasn't designed to heal anything except for it's own undead minions, and it can't remove any negative status effects from allies in combat. On the other hand, it is a fairly common and well known trick for the class.

I have similar feelings about upgrading anyone who can Summon in the Traps or other niches. Though I'm leaning heavily towards making such classes 3 in this section, since there's really nothing else to fill that space. Either you have Search + Trapfinding (1), you can get them inefficiently with spells/abilities (2), or not (4). I guess Summon->splat->hey look a trap! would make sense for 3 in this Niche.

Let me mull some more on the subject, and I'll make another round of updates tomorrow.

[eggynack]

I somewhat disagree with the Wizard, and to a lesser extent the Druid's rankings on trapfinding: Summoned/charmed/dominated monsters can easily be used to disarm traps, granted in the same sense as using a stick to disarm a bear trap but still.

Admittedly, this is neither an effective nor efficient use of their resources, but that would put them at rank 3, not rank 4.
Also the animal companion. It's not ultra-disposable, but it's more disposable than even the party fighter, so it makes a good volunteer for standing at the front of the party and eating traps. Also, the summon elemental reserve feat, which is cool beans. I'm also still not entirely sure what game changer means, or why druids get a 2 in it. I mean, they don't get all of the big killer spells, but shapechange does pretty much everything, and dire tortoise form pulls some of the action economy shenanigans that you'd expect out of a caster.

[Alabenson]

You make a very good point, and I'll think about it.

But it feels like a stretch. By the same logic, everyone could take Tomb Tainted Soul and buy a magic item to grant Cold Resistance, and a Warmage could take Lord of the Uttercold to become fill the "Healer" niche. Should I rate everyone who is capable of dealing Negative Energy as a 3 or better because of the existance of Tomb Tainted Soul?

I'm legitimately torn on the issue. On one hand, Dread Necromancer really wasn't designed to heal anything except for it's own undead minions, and it can't remove any negative status effects from allies in combat. On the other hand, it is a fairly common and well known trick for the class.

I have similar feelings about upgrading anyone who can Summon in the Traps or other niches.

Let me mull some more on the subject.

I don't think it's really as much of stretch as you make it out to be, given that it's an almost entirely build-neutral trick (a wizard would have to ban both Conjuration and Enchantment to be completely unable to attempt it), whereas having the DN act as a healer for the group is dependent on members of the group wishing to be healed taking a specific feat, which depending on their build could hamper them more than help them.

Using summons as trapspringers may not be the most efficient use of resources, but it certainly is a valid use for them and this should be recognized.

[eggynack]

I don't think it's really as much of stretch as you make it out to be, given that it's an almost entirely build-neutral trick (a wizard would have to ban both Conjuration and Enchantment to be completely unable to attempt it), whereas having the DN act as a healer for the group is dependent on members of the group wishing to be healed taking a specific feat, which depending on their build could hamper them more than help them.

Using summons as trapspringers may not be the most efficient use of resources, but it certainly is a valid use for them and this should be recognized.
Don't forget necromancy. Friendly zombies can make decent trap-killers. It's a bit expensive, and they're not ultra-durable, but it's a plan of some kind. There's some other decent trap-killing stuff you can do with casting classes. I know I saw some druidish stuff related to that somewhere. Wood wose (SpC, 242) is a decent one. It won't even die against all traps.

[Talya]

Edit: at some point Person Man moved bard to 2 in melee, which is close enough. I still want to break it down:

Without sacrificing any other functionality, a level 20 single classed bard should be attacking at about:

+48/+48/+48/+43/+43/+38/+38 ... (and only really optimizing their casting ability score to feed it).

Damage is going to be along the lines of 1d8+15 physical +15d6 fire +weapon elemental damage +10 sonic per hit, assuming they don't use power attack.

This is with reasonable inspire courage optimization and lingering song so you can easily stack it with DFI.

I listed level 20 damage, but it jumps up quite high early on and scales fairly evenly as they level from there.

Yes some (but not all of that) is going to be on the bard's party members too. But don't tell me they're not among the best melee damage dealers in the game.

[Squirrel_Dude]

The Pathfinder rankings should be very interesting and/or difficult with all the archetypes and favored class bonuses/racial bonuses to casting stats. A human sorcerer is much more different from elf sorcerer in Pathfinder than in 3.5.

Also, I keep checking those total scores on the main table, and some of them seem to be off. I've thrown the scores into a spreadsheet, and I'm getting different numbers. I've checked the numbers I'm inputting multiple times, and I'm still getting different results. Person Man, how are you adding up your total scores?


Anyway, as this seems to be the thing I do. Table with classes, their total score, average score, and Standard deviation.

{table]Class | Total Score | Average | Sdev
Barbarian | 61 | 3.59 | 0.712
Bard | 36 | 2.18 | 0.809
Beguiler | 41 | 2.41 | 0.870
Cleric | 27 | 1.59 | 0.712
Crusader | 55 | 3.24 | 0.903
Dragon Shaman | 56 | 3.29 | 0.588
Dragonfire Adept | 47 | 2.76 | 0.752
Dread Necromancer | 52 |3.06 | 0.827
Druid | 33 | 1.94 | 0.827
Fighter| 59 | 3.47 | 0.874
Incarnate| 43 | 2.53 | 0.624
Knight| 57 | 3.35 | 0.786
Monk| 56 | 3.29 | 0.588
Paladin| 52 | 3.06 | 0.556
Psion| 39 | 2.29 | 0.849
Psychic Rogue | 39 | 2.29 | 0.772
Psychic Warrior | 46 | 2.71| 0.849
Ranger | 51 | 3.00 | 0.707
Rogue | 44 |2.59 | 1.121
Sorcerer | 28 | 1.65 | 0.862
Swordsage | 54 | 3.18 | 0.951
Totemist | 52 | 3.06 | 0.899
Warblade | 56 |3.29 | 0.920
Warlock | 47 | 2.76| 0.752
Warmage | 63 |3.71 | 0.588
Wilder| 45 |2.65 | 0.606
Wizard| 29 | 1.71 | 0.920[/table]

Using a new scoring system now. Setting things within the more familiar 6 levels, with 8.5 intervals. Upon creating this new set, I didn't expect anything to be in the highest tier. Level 6 is purposefully smaller than the other tiers. Sorted by Score

Level 1 ( 17 to 25 )
N/A

Level 2 ( 26 to 34 )
Cleric (27), Sorcerer (28), Wizard (29), Druid (33)

Level 3 ( 35 to 43 )
Bard (36), Psion (39), Psychic Rogue (39), Beguiler (41), Incarnate (43),

Level 4 ( 44 to 52 )
Rogue (44), Wilder (45), Psychic Warrior (46), Dragonfire Adept (47), Warlock (47), Ranger (51), Dread Necromancer (52), Paladin (52), Totemist (52)

Level 5 ( 53 to 61 )
Swordsage (54), Crusader (55), Dragon Shaman (56), Monk (56), Warblade (56), Knight (57), Fighter (59), Barbarian (61)

LLevel 6 ( 62 to 68 )
Warmage (63)


I should say that I don't expect for these to line up with the more well known tiers. These aren't measuring the potential of a class to handle a certain number of these niches, or the respective value of each niche (E.G. BFC vs Healing, Summoning vs Dominate) just their proficiency in each individual niche.

[Talya]

What's going into Mobility? I see a bard is at 3 points there.

A bard can:
Fly & Swim (Alter Self).
Move very fast. (Haste, expeditious retreat).
Teleport (Dimension Door)
Be immune to battlefield control (Freedom of movement)

[Person_Man]

Also, I keep checking those total scores on the main table, and some of them seem to be off.

Apparently a formula error crept into my Excel chart when I was jiggering with changing the rankings from Y/Q/N to 1/2/3/4. The totals should hopefully be correct now. Thanks for catching it. I'll double check again by hand tomorrow.



What's going into Mobility? I see a bard is at 3 points there.

A bard can:
Fly & Swim (Alter Self).
Move very fast. (Haste, expeditious retreat).
Teleport (Dimension Door)
Be immune to battlefield control (Freedom of movement)

Agreed. I had forgotten about all those Mobility options (and Core, no less). Bards promoted to 2 in Mobility.

Interestingly enough, it seems like Bards are actually among the top rankings. Which is apt, since they're purposefully designed to be a "Jack of All Trades" class. But it's a bit humorous, because early in the life of 3.0/3.5, Bards were generally thought of to be in the same ballpark as Monks. But with just a few additions from supplements, they really are one of the most versatile classes. Whereas Monks have almost nothing to really "save" them outside of homebrew.

[Draz74]

Quibbles:

Barbarian: I might have rated them one step higher in 'Melee' and 'Party Face.' But if splatbook material is being considered, then the Trapkiller ACF from Dungeonscape definitely brings them up to a 2 in the 'Trapfind' role.
Bard: I'd consider boosting 'Buff' and especially 'Game Changer' by one point. I'd consider demoting 'BFC' and 'Summon' by one point.
Beguiler: I'm glad you fixed their 'Party Face' rating; that was a pretty obvious error. 'BFC' should definitely go up to a 2. Otherwise looks good.
Cleric: Might drop 'BFC' and 'Meat Shield' by a point. Not sure what spells are getting it such high ratings in 'Mobility' and 'Thief'. :smallconfused:
Crusader: Consider boosting 'Heal' by one point.
Dragon Shaman: Consider boosting 'Heal' and 'Meat Shield' by one point.
Dragonfire Adept: Consider boosting 'Buff', 'Meat Shield', 'Dominate', and especially 'Debuff' by one point. I'm surprised by the 'Mobility' rating - do they really have anything for this role besides easy flight? Is that enough to warrant a 2 alone? Is their 3 in 'Summon' just because of that one crappy metabreath feat that turns your breath into an elemental, or am I forgetting something? Why on earth do they have a 2 in Trapfinding? Just having Search as a class skill? That's not even enough to earn a 3 IMO.
Dread Necro: OK, do its summoning abilities factor into niches besides 'Summon'? If not, I can't understand why it's a 2 in 'Meat Shield' or 'Melee'. As discussed below, I'm in favor of boosting the 'Heal' rating by one point. Also, minionmancy is what it's most famous for, so maybe boost 'Summon' to a rating of 1.
Druid: Might drop 'Debuff', 'Meat Shield', 'Mobility', and 'Thief' by one point each. On second thought, probably not Debuff (I just remembered Kelpstrand, and there are probably other good debuff spells I'm forgetting).
Fighter: Like Barbarian, I'd boost 'Party Face' to 3 because of strong Intimidate combos. Maybe boost 'Mobility' by one point due to mounted combat potential. Otherwise looks accurate.
Incarnate: Why does it get a 1 in 'Meat Shield' when the Dragonfire Adept gets a 3? They seem quite similar to me in this category. Make them both 2's or both 1's, IMO. I've heard good things about Incarnates' melee potential that might earn a 2 in 'Melee', but I don't have much experience with that myself. Maybe keep this at 3, but drop classes with even less Melee ability (like Beguiler and DFA) to a 4?
Knight: Nope, this one is spot-on.
Monk: Boost 'Curiosity' to 2; they have a lot of rarely-used features. Boost 'Party Face' to 3; they have Diplomacy, Sense Motive (+WIS synergy), and Tongue of the Sun and Moon, and a decent amount of skill points if they don't care about their mobility or combat potential. Possibly boost 'Scout' to 2.
Paladin: Looks pretty good. Possibly boost 'Heal' one point (taking Caduceus Bracers and the Healing Spirit ACF into account)? Possibly drop 'Scout' one point.
Psion: Possibly boost 'Heal' one point (taking True Healer ACF into account). Maybe boost 'Sage' by one. Not sure why 'Thief' has a good rating. 'Scout' should be dropped one unless scrying counts, which would make sense. Astral Constructs are quite a bit better than the Summon Monster line, and are almost a whole build alone on a Shaper with the Personal Construct ACF, so this should probably be a 1 like the Druid.
Psychic Rogue: Eh, looks pretty good considering I'm not super familiar with the class.
Psychic Warrior: Why does it have 'Party Face' potential at all? :smallconfused: Just because of Expanded Knowledge (Attraction) or similar? Also might drop 'Debuff' to a 3.
Ranger: I don't suppose just making friends with animals counts as 'Party Face'? :smallwink: (If so, Totemist too.) Demote 'Mobility' to a 3. Possibly boost 'Scout' to a 1 -- is Ranger really any worse than Psychic Rogue at this role? Definitely boost 'Trapfind' to a 2 if ACF's are allowed.
Rogue: It's about the worst class I can think of for 'BFC', unless UMD of BFC spells counts, in which case UMD should also count for e.g. 'Buff' and 'Heal'. Probably drop 'Mobility' by one point; not much there other than Tumble as a class skill. Probably drop 'Sage' by one point. Maybe drop 'Ranged' by one point due to the hassles involved in getting ranged sneak attacks.
Sorcerer: I have a hard time seeing a pureclass Sorcerer achieving a 2 in 'Meat Shield' or especially 'Melee'. Otherwise I can't argue with these high marks, although your rating system is very generous to Sorcerers since a single Sorcerer build will struggle to be good at all of these niches at once.
Swordsage: Might drop 'BFC' one point; Desert Wind sucks, so I'm not sure a Swordsage is any better at this than e.g. a Paladin. Might boost 'Party Face' one point due to Intimidate, Sense Motive, and actual reasons to put max ranks in Sense Motive (plus WIS synergy). Boost 'Scout' one point thanks to easy access to nigh-infinite teleports.
Totemist: Consider boosting 'Curiosity' and even 'Game Changer' by one; there are a lot of wacky soulmeld effects out there. I'm not sure how far behind Incarnate it really is in the 'Meat Shield' niche; if Incarnate stays a 1, Totemist might deserve the same. Possibly boost 'Scout' by one due to Shedu Crown/Mindsight? One of my favorite Totemist tricks. 'Ranged' is weird, since Totemists are very strong at low levels but it doesn't scale well. I guess leaving it as a 2 is ok.
Warblade: Why better than Crusader or Swordsage at 'Game Changer'? (They all have Mountain Hammer, if that falls into this niche.) I kinda want to demand a boost in 'Meat Shield', but I can't say they measure up to Crusader in that category. I'm really still not happy with 'Mobility' 3. There are a lot of mobility tricks in Tiger Claw, Diamond Mind, and sort of even White Raven. Warblade is definitely a lot better in 'Mobility' than e.g. Rogue.
Warlock: I approve of dropping 'Melee' to 2. They can do a lot of damage, but so can Fighters, Crusaders, Swordsages, etc. 'Mobility' should be boosted, especially if DFA retains a score of 2; Warlocks can fly just as well as DFAs, and have better access to teleportation stuff.
Warmage: 'Ranged' is, like, all they do, and I'm not sure they're any worse at it than e.g. a Sorcerer. So I'd probably boost it to a score of 1.
Wilder: In a lot of categories, e.g. 'Debuff' and 'Ranged', you gave them a worse score than Psions, even though they can do pretty much the same things -- it just takes a much greater fraction of their resources. This is kinda inconsistent with the way you graded Sorcerers, which were mostly graded as how good they could become if they really focused on a given niche. This cuts both ways; I'm not sure the Wilder should get a higher grade than Psion in 'Mobility', just because of acrobatic class skills, when both have access to basically the same Psychoportive tricks.
Wizard: Oi, I mostly can't argue, at least in theory. I might drop 'Melee' to a 3 if we're talking pureclass; melee self-buffs are powerful, but still come out a little disappointing if there was no melee ability to start with.




You make a very good point, and I'll think about it.

But it feels like a stretch. By the same logic, everyone could take Tomb Tainted Soul and buy a magic item to grant Cold Resistance, and a Warmage could take Lord of the Uttercold to become fill the "Healer" niche. Should I rate everyone who is capable of dealing Negative Energy as a 3 or better because of the existance of Tomb Tainted Soul?

I'm legitimately torn on the issue. On one hand, Dread Necromancer really wasn't designed to heal anything except for it's own undead minions, and it can't remove any negative status effects from allies in combat. On the other hand, it is a fairly common and well known trick for the class.

Sounds like it would be a good candidate for a rare '3' rating in the Healer category, then. (Most classes should be either 1-2 or 4 in Healer abilities.)

[eggynack]

Druid: Might drop 'Debuff', 'Meat Shield', 'Mobility', and 'Thief' by one point each. On second thought, probably not Debuff (I just remembered Kelpstrand, and there are probably other good debuff spells I'm forgetting).
Well, the high meat shield rating is primarily because of the fact that the animal companion can stand in front of things with a high degree of effectiveness, and is nigh-on completely disposable. Summons can also help. Mobility seems like an obvious 1 to me. They can travel across just about any terrain with wild shape and spells, and with a high degree of success at that. Moreover, while druidic teleportation might not be as good as that held by wizards, it's still in existence. The two most notable being stormwalk (Storm, 122), and master earth (SpC, 139), with transport via plants coming in at a decent third. Also, phantom stag (SpC, 157) has some decent transportation options, particularly as applied to a party member.

As for debuff, that's a bit more involved, because you ideally want a few at most levels. Obviously, most BFC's are also kinda debuffs, but that doesn't feel like the way to go about things. Anyways, time for a quick list of stuff that might qualify, as well as some stuff that definitely qualifies. At first, you get wall of smoke (SpC, 235), and the other first level BFC's can carry some weight as debuffs as well (entangle, impeding stones (City, 66), and spore field (CS, 104)). Second level is great, with kelpstrand (SpC, 128) and blinding spittle (SpC, 232) acting as fantastic options. There's also some more offbeat stuff, like blood snow (Frost, 89), and summon swarm (pick up a murder of crows if you want some blindness on top of the other stuff).

Third level is the level of a million (three) fogs, with sleet storm, arctic haze (Frost, 88), and haboob (Sand, 117). You also get spiritjaws (SpC, 202), hypothermia (SpC, 118), cone of euphoria (DoF, 114), and maybe poison. Fourth level gets you moonbolt (SpC, 143), murderous mist (SpC, 145), passage of the shifting sands (DrM, 70), and poison vines (SpC, 160).

Things slow down (or maybe speed up) a lot at fifth level. By that point, your spells start being less inconveniencing, and more deadly. Less single target, and more control winds. If you're using a single target save or something, it's likely going to be something along the lines of baleful polymorph, and the enemy will be as good as dead. I mean, I can come up with more stuff that's good by that level and beyond, if that's not sufficient for a 2 ranking, but I suspect that it is. As for thievery, I'm not really sure what thievery is, so I don't know if I disagree. I mean, druids can be plenty sneaky, and infiltrate heavily blocked up locations, but I'm not sure if that's what's being talked about.

[Alabenson]

Sounds like it would be a good candidate for a rare '3' rating in the Healer category, then. (Most classes should be either 1-2 or 4 in Healer abilities.)

The problem I have with Dread Necromancer's healing is that it's too dependent on things that are outside of the control of the Dread Necromancer player's control.
The existence of Tomb Tainted Soul shouldn't be factored into a class's ability to heal because it isn't an element that the class's player has any influence on; if the other players don't want to take Tomb Tainted Soul or play undead, than the Dread Necromancer can't heal them, nor can he really do anything to change this.

[Draz74]

Well, the high meat shield rating is primarily because of the fact that the animal companion can stand in front of things with a high degree of effectiveness, and is nigh-on completely disposable. Summons can also help.
True, but I guess it still doesn't make sense to me for that to count as Meat Shield when there's a separate Summoner niche.


Mobility seems like an obvious 1 to me. They can travel across just about any terrain with wild shape and spells, and with a high degree of success at that. Moreover, while druidic teleportation might not be as good as that held by wizards, it's still in existence. The two most notable being stormwalk (Storm, 122), and master earth (SpC, 139), with transport via plants coming in at a decent third. Also, phantom stag (SpC, 157) has some decent transportation options, particularly as applied to a party member.
Hmmm, I guess it depends largely whether Mobility refers to tactical mobility (which I was assuming) or long-distance mobility. Wild shape really isn't impressive on a tactical mobility scale, at least compared to teleportive effects.

I was forgetting about Phantom Stag/Bottle of Smoke, though. Hmmm. Maybe a 1 after all.


As for thievery, I'm not really sure what thievery is, so I don't know if I disagree. I mean, druids can be plenty sneaky, and infiltrate heavily blocked up locations, but I'm not sure if that's what's being talked about.

"Can take things from enemies and enemy locations without being discovered."

Admittedly that's a bit vague ("things"?) and I'm not sure it's worth a whole niche. Eh.

[RFLS]

It seems that the objections to the trap-finding capabilities of those with access to summons have been overlooked. Reposting the petition that Wizard/Sorc/Cleric/Druid/etc. be bumped to a 3 in the Trapfinding category, as they can do it, but it's not the best use of resources.

EDIT: I'd also recommend that Grappling be considered in the debuff category if it's not really being considered elsewhere. It's not exactly BFC, but it does shut an enemy down.

[INoKnowNames]

The problem I have with Dread Necromancer's healing is that it's too dependent on things that are outside of the control of the Dread Necromancer player's control.
The existence of Tomb Tainted Soul shouldn't be factored into a class's ability to heal because it isn't an element that the class's player has any influence on; if the other players don't want to take Tomb Tainted Soul or play undead, than the Dread Necromancer can't heal them, nor can he really do anything to change this.

So, it's essentially an incredibly limited ability, but is still sighted enough to be a viable strategy... that -does- sound like a 3...

I still don't see it particularly fair that Summoners will automatically rank high in most categories when it should just be their summon score that gets that high, since their own class features aren't actually doing anything, they're just getting someone else to do it for them... it's like receiving double credit.

[eggynack]

True, but I guess it still doesn't make sense to me for that to count as Meat Shield when there's a separate Summoner niche.
It's mainly the animal companion thing, which is... distinct from summoning, I guess? It feels that way to me, anyway, and it acts as a party fighter in a lot of ways. Also, the druid is no defensive slouch himself, if he wants to be one.


Hmmm, I guess it depends largely whether Mobility refers to tactical mobility (which I was assuming) or long-distance mobility. Wild shape really isn't impressive on a tactical mobility scale, at least compared to teleportive effects.

I was forgetting about Phantom Stag/Bottle of Smoke, though. Hmmm. Maybe a 1 after all.
Well, you can get some pretty decent speeds out of wild shape, if you want. Desmodu hunting bats get 60 foot (good) right out of the gate, and you can pump that to 70 with heart of air. You can also get a good normal, swim, and even burrow speed, if you want. It's not dimension door, sure, but it's not that far off, and the druid can keep his mobility options for pretty great durations. Better than overland flight, and that spell is of a higher level, and gives a worse air speed. It's neat.



"Can take things from enemies and enemy locations without being discovered."

Admittedly that's a bit vague ("things"?) and I'm not sure it's worth a whole niche. Eh.
It's pretty workable, I think. The druid can apply a pretty decent brute force approach to stealth, with stuff like stone shape and burrow speeds (or even summoned burrow speeds, with summons like the thoqqua. Druids can also pull off decent hide checks with smaller forms, and some animals are pretty inconspicuous. It feels a bit like a plain old stealth category, which might be easier to understand. I might have to do some thinking on how to pull that kinda thing off best to pull that off. Maybe keep my eye out for spells of that type, like I'm doing for face stuff.



I still don't see it particularly fair that Summoners will automatically rank high in most categories when it should just be their summon score that gets that high, since their own class features aren't actually doing anything, they're just getting someone else to do it for them... it's like receiving double credit.
Maybe that's actually how it should be. Summoning is ridiculously versatile sometimes. Making it a niche comes across a lot like making spellcasting itself a niche. That's not too far off the mark either, with all the SLA's summons can get.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Shouldn't classes like wizards, with easy access to divination magic, be considered as good of scouts as any class that uses spot or other skill checks in place of spells? Certainly there is something to be said about skills working in anti-magic fields and not using a character /day powers, However, spells like arcane eye and clairaudience/clairvoyance also don't put the user at personal risk like sneaking around the bad guys can.

2 just seems a bit low is all.

[Draz74]

It's mainly the animal companion thing, which is... distinct from summoning, I guess?
If it is distinct, it shouldn't be. (And if it is distinct, why does the Paladin have a 3 rather than a 4 in Summoning?)

Animal Companion is basically a permanent-duration summon with a 24-hour casting time and a limit of "one at a time."


Also, the druid is no defensive slouch himself, if he wants to be one.
True. That's why he should still be rated a 2 in this category, on par with tough classes like the Knight, Warblade, and Paladin.


It feels a bit like a plain old stealth category, which might be easier to understand.
Except that's already the 'Scout' niche. I agree with the Druid having a 2 in that niche (even though Initiate of Milil, which makes him a really good scout, is a pretty obscure and costly feat).

[Shining Wrath]

This is good.

May I suggest a modification to the table? Group in-combat ratings together, not-in-combat ratings together.

It would make clear that, e.g., a Warblade is more useful in combat than out, while a Bard is pretty utile across the board.

[INoKnowNames]

Maybe that's actually how it should be. Summoning is ridiculously versatile sometimes. Making it a niche comes across a lot like making spellcasting itself a niche. That's not too far off the mark either, with all the SLA's summons can get.

There are really only two options here:

1) Like with Transformations, remove Summoning as a Niche, and then account for the ability to summon something to do what job you need when looking through the rest of the niches a character fan fill.

2) Keep Summoning in it's own Niche, and account for the rest of the character's abilities as is, while giving them a high summon score. If this was done, I'd probably due the same to Transformations: How much of a character's ability to cover a niche comes from their own abilities, or abilities they've stolen from / hired someone else to take care of?

[Amphetryon]

There are really only two options here:

1) Like with Transformations, remove Summoning as a Niche, and then account for the ability to summon something to do what job you need when looking through the rest of the niches a character fan fill.

2) Keep Summoning in it's own Niche, and account for the rest of the character's abilities as is, while giving them a high summon score. If this was done, I'd probably due the same to Transformations: How much of a character's ability to cover a niche comes from their own abilities, or abilities they've stolen from / hired someone else to take care of?

If Option 2 is selected, it seems to me that we'd need to weight Transformations and Summoning more heavily, to account for their ability to fulfill other functions to a larger degree than the other Niches.

[eggynack]

If it is distinct, it shouldn't be. (And if it is distinct, why does the Paladin have a 3 rather than a 4 in Summoning?)

Animal Companion is basically a permanent-duration summon with a 24-hour casting time and a limit of "one at a time."
I think the real problem here is still the existence of summoning as a category. Druids make good meat shields, because they have an animal companion and summons. I don't know if it matters how they get to that point.


Except that's already the 'Scout' niche. I agree with the Druid having a 2 in that niche (even though Initiate of Milil, which makes him a really good scout, is a pretty obscure and costly feat).
I thought scout was more spot/listen, while thief was more hide/move silently, and there's some crossover between the two. Druids can get some pretty sky high spot/listen, by the way. Also, blindsight. Might be worth a boost of some kind.

[Talya]

It seems that the objections to the trap-finding capabilities of those with access to summons have been overlooked. Reposting the petition that Wizard/Sorc/Cleric/Druid/etc. be bumped to a 3 in the Trapfinding category, as they can do it, but it's not the best use of resources.

EDIT: I'd also recommend that Grappling be considered in the debuff category if it's not really being considered elsewhere. It's not exactly BFC, but it does shut an enemy down.

If you use summons for trapfinding, you can bump bard up to 3 there, too.

[Kennisiou]

Wizard and Sorc are at least a 3 on trapfind. They have access to the summon spells, which when combined with summoning something capable of speaking/understanding orders can be used to run ahead and trigger traps. They're not great at it, but they can summon things that work at it and are at least better at it than fighter.

[Shining Wrath]

There may also be a column / category for just plain breaking stuff. Doors, walls, artifacts that the BBEG intends to use to achieve world domination, et cetera.

Another might be capturing / subduing people. Sometimes you have to take someone alive, or remove them from combat for a while, in non-lethal ways. Classic example is the Fighter who failed his Will save and is now dominated or confused. You don't want to kill your own Fighter, but you do want to keep him from killing you.

[Shining Wrath]

I'm curious why no class gets a '4' in "Meat Shield". Isn't there any class that's bad at this?

Also, a wizard being a '2' at meat shield must mean that they are summoning something. Maybe the chart needs to use a different color or font or something to indicate "No, the wizard doesn't meat shield, his summoned critter does".

Otherwise, it's pretty ridiculous for a D4 HD wizard to soak up damage as well as a D12 HD Warblade.

[Draz74]

I think the real problem here is still the existence of summoning as a category. Druids make good meat shields, because they have an animal companion and summons. I don't know if it matters how they get to that point.
That would be fair, sure. I'm ok with either method as long as it doesn't end up as a double standard.


I thought scout was more spot/listen, while thief was more hide/move silently, and there's some crossover between the two. Druids can get some pretty sky high spot/listen, by the way. Also, blindsight. Might be worth a boost of some kind.
Person_Man's description of the 'Scout' niche says:

Locates enemies, threats, and other useful things while remaining hidden.
As I understand it, 'Thief' is more stuff like Sleight of Hand (picking pockets), Open Lock, and so forth. Not Hide/Move Silently, which are more relevant to 'Scout'.


I'm curious why no class gets a '4' in "Meat Shield". Isn't there any class that's bad at this?
Hmmm, that's actually another category where I could argue that Rogue is worse than almost any other class.


Also, a wizard being a '2' at meat shield must mean that they are summoning something. Maybe the chart needs to use a different color or font or something to indicate "No, the wizard doesn't meat shield, his summoned critter does".

Otherwise, it's pretty ridiculous for a D4 HD wizard to soak up damage as well as a D12 HD Warblade.
The description of the 'Meat Shield' niche says:

Can stand in the front line of combat with a reasonable chance of not getting killed.

The Wizard can meet that description without summons. Invisibility, Stoneskin, Mirror Image, Blur, those types of things.

[eggynack]

Person_Man's description of the 'Scout' niche says:

As I understand it, 'Thief' is more stuff like Sleight of Hand (picking pockets), Open Lock, and so forth. Not Hide/Move Silently, which are more relevant to 'Scout'.
Yeah, I guess that makes some sense. Still, if you're stealing from a place, rather than directly from a person, then it's going to end up looking a lot like scouting. There's a ton of crossover there. The burrowing and stoneshape stuff seems like it falls only on the thief side of things, rather than the scout side of things. It's like, scouting tells you what's going on in a place you're going to be, while thievery is often about getting places where you're usually not going to be otherwise. There's some crossover with mobility too, I think. Dimension door seems like it'd help with thievery.

[Epsilon Rose]

There are really only two options here:

1) Like with Transformations, remove Summoning as a Niche, and then account for the ability to summon something to do what job you need when looking through the rest of the niches a character fan fill.

2) Keep Summoning in it's own Niche, and account for the rest of the character's abilities as is, while giving them a high summon score. If this was done, I'd probably due the same to Transformations: How much of a character's ability to cover a niche comes from their own abilities, or abilities they've stolen from / hired someone else to take care of?
Given their nature, I'm inclined to agree with your second solution: Summoning and Transformation should be standalone niches and their contributions should not be factored into other niches. I think this is the most elegant solution, because factoring summoning and Transformation tells you more about summoning than the rest of the classes abilities. On one hand, I'd wager a commoner modified to have polymorph as a class feature would outscore a fighter. On the other, any class with rank 1 summoning/transformation is going to get the same additions as any other class with the same ratings; this probably also holds true for rank 2, though I'm less sure about rank 3.


If Option 2 is selected, it seems to me that we'd need to weight Transformations and Summoning more heavily, to account for their ability to fulfill other functions to a larger degree than the other Niches.
That seems like the most sensical thing. They're both incredibly powerful and versatile abilities, so it makes sense that they recieve a higher weight, but it doesn't make sense to multi-count them.

[Alabenson]

So, it's essentially an incredibly limited ability, but is still sighted enough to be a viable strategy... that -does- sound like a 3...

I still don't see it particularly fair that Summoners will automatically rank high in most categories when it should just be their summon score that gets that high, since their own class features aren't actually doing anything, they're just getting someone else to do it for them... it's like receiving double credit.

It's a viable strategy, but is also wholly dependent on other party members allocating resources in order to make it work. Saying that Dread Necromancers can heal because other party members can take Tomb Tainted Soul makes almost as much sense to me as saying that Monks are perfectly mobile because the party casters can cast mobility enhancing spells on them.
If a class can only fill a niche when other party members allocate their own resources to enable it, than that class should not be considered capable of filling that niche for the purposes of this exercise.

Summons, on the other hand, are a legitimate part of many classes abilities, and their utility inside and outside of combat should not be marginalized.

[malonkey1]

Saying that Dread Necromancers can heal because other party members can take Tomb Tainted Soul makes almost as much sense to me as saying that Monks are perfectly mobile because the party casters can cast mobility enhancing spells on them.
If a class can only fill a niche when other party members allocate their own resources to enable it, than that class should not be considered capable of filling that niche for the purposes of this exercise.

This was exactly my reasoning for setting it to 4. Perhaps in Ghostwalk, or another setting where undead PCs are common, it might be as much as 2 or even 1. But in most circumstances, based only on the class's own resources, the Dread Necro has squat in the healing department.

[Komatik]

It is truly a tragedy. If druids have one big flaw, and they don't, cause they're amazing, it's the general dearth of long term minionmancy options. They have to rely on dumb stuff like awaken (and its variants), or sanctified spells that are available to everyone like cry of ysgard or valiant steed. They can always go moonspeaker, and pick up a couple of those types of spell at really high levels, but it's just not the same as it being a native druid thing, and it's similarly not the same as having an army of nature friendly zombies.

Edit: Actually, wait a second here. Nature friendly zombies. Y'know what totally does nature friendly zombies? Yellow musk creepers from the fiend folio page 190. This feels something like a plant. A vaguely necromantic druid might work after all.

Was wrong, fixed now. Some issues with the plan: Victim must succeed on a DC18 Fort save to become a zombie, zombies live only a couple of days as free-ranging entities.

[eggynack]

Was wrong, fixed now. Some issues with the plan: Victim must succeed on a DC18 Fort save to become a zombie, zombies live only a couple of days as free-ranging entities.
It's certainly somewhat imperfect, but I think that any druid necromancy plan is going to be at least a little imperfect, and that the real goal is to hit the archetype in broad thematic strokes. However, it's notable that the zombies can last for months if the yellow musk creeper sticks around, and that a high level druid is capable of becoming one. Getting shambly plant zombies for a couple of days from summoned creepers is good too, however. As another idea, blackwater tentacle (Storm, 114) deals negative levels that last for the duration of the spell, so killing enemies in that fashion could lead to some fun times.

[Komatik]

Also, I support the addition of a Flexibility indicator or two. I'd say the type and degree of flexibility is as important as what a character can do well to the feel of playing it. Are you encouraged to whip stuff up on the fly, or prepare meticulously, and so on? Sounds more important to note than "Curiosity" at any rate.

[malonkey1]

Also, I support the addition of a Flexibility indicator or two. I'd say the type and degree of flexibility is as important as what a character can do well to the feel of playing it. Are you encouraged to whip stuff up on the fly, or prepare meticulously, and so on? Sounds more important to note than "Curiosity" at any rate.

Curiosity, to me, always should have been called "general utility", as the abilities it mentions in the description are more utilitarian than curious.

[Deaxsa]

out of curiosity, what about "Tank" or "threatener".. someone who can stop allies from being attacked.. mechanically, not just by having the biggest numbers and being the most urgent problem for the PCs. or would that be a combination of BC and Meatshield? has this already been adressed? is this TOO niche, in that only a few classes have the abilities to try this?

[Ilorin Lorati]

Personally, I'd say that the typical definition of a tank role would be one of Battlefield control, yes.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Question: If we're going to have a melee and ranged combat niches, should there be a mounted combat niche, too?

[Lans]

Quibbles:

Incarnate: Why does it get a 1 in 'Meat Shield' when the Dragonfire Adept gets a 3? They seem quite similar to me in this category. Make them both 2's or both 1's, IMO. I've heard good things about Incarnates' melee potential that might earn a 2 in 'Melee', but I don't have much experience with that myself. Maybe keep this at 3, but drop classes with even less Melee ability (like Beguiler and DFA) to a 4?
Incarnates are one of the tankiest classes in the game, capable of getting DR 6/magic and a fire shield for 3d6 damage. Later getting 1-7 * level hp, and a bunch of defense boosts.


Sorcerer: I have a hard time seeing a pureclass Sorcerer achieving a 2 in 'Meat Shield' or especially 'Melee'. Otherwise I can't argue with these high marks, although your rating system is very generous to Sorcerers since a single Sorcerer build will struggle to be good at all of these niches at once.

My guess polymorph+wraithstrike+arcane strike+other buffs+PA

[malonkey1]

Question: If we're going to have a melee and ranged combat niches, should there be a mounted combat niche, too?

Well, "Mounted Combat" is only as deserving of a category as "Underwater Combat" or "Combat with Clown Shoes." It's not really mutually exclusive with any other type. You can fight in melee while mounted, or ranged while mounted. You can not, however fight in melee and ranged at the same time (you can alternate, but not do both).

[Joe the Rat]

Question: If we're going to have a melee and ranged combat niches, should there be a mounted combat niche, too?

Mounted Combat: Melee + Mobility. On a Horse.

[Optimator]

Ranks look good to me.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Well, "Mounted Combat" is only as deserving of a category as "Underwater Combat" or "Combat with Clown Shoes." It's not really mutually exclusive with any other type. You can fight in melee while mounted, or ranged while mounted. You can not, however fight in melee and ranged at the same time (you can alternate, but not do both).Except that mounter combat has an entire line of feats associated with making it better, and can require multiple skills to take advantage of.

So it might be worse, all in all, but it's still a distinct style.

[eggynack]

Except that mounter combat has an entire line of feats associated with making it better, and can require multiple skills to take advantage of.

So it might be worse, all in all, but it's still a distinct style.
But as long as you're doing damage that's melee, the end result is pretty similar. If you're using archery, then the end result is pretty similar to non-mounted archery. In the same fashion, there's no separate niche for two weapon fighting, or for precision damage, or even for blasting spells versus using a bow. There's a good amount of niche subdividing I'd do before I would touch mounted combat.

[Squirrel_Dude]

But as long as you're doing damage that's melee, the end result is pretty similar. If you're using archery, then the end result is pretty similar to non-mounted archery. In the same fashion, there's no separate niche for two weapon fighting, or for precision damage, or even for blasting spells versus using a bow. There's a good amount of niche subdividing I'd do before I would touch mounted combat.Fair enough.

Welp, now that we've touched on why mounted combat isn't a separate niche, there shouldn't be another pointless argument that will go nowhere between the same people about the same classes.

[malonkey1]

Fair enough.

Welp, now that we've touched on why mounted combat isn't a separate niche, there shouldn't be another pointless argument that will go nowhere between the same people about the same classes.

...Not sure if serious or sarcastic.

[Draz74]

out of curiosity, what about "Tank" or "threatener".. someone who can stop allies from being attacked.. mechanically, not just by having the biggest numbers and being the most urgent problem for the PCs. or would that be a combination of BC and Meatshield? has this already been adressed? is this TOO niche, in that only a few classes have the abilities to try this?
I proposed the same thing earlier, but yeah, it might be TOO niche.


Incarnates are one of the tankiest classes in the game, capable of getting DR 6/magic and a fire shield for 3d6 damage. Later getting 1-7 * level hp, and a bunch of defense boosts.

DR 6/magic ... yeah, that and a silver piece will get you a hunk of cheese (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html).

And DFAs have some pretty cool defensive abilities of their own. Not many, but some.


My guess polymorph+wraithstrike+arcane strike+other buffs+PA

Maybe. Wraithstrike only lasts a round without cheese, though.

[Silva Stormrage]

I disagree with several points on DN. Healing should be at least a three, because even if they can't heal allies due to them not taking tomb tainted they can heal themselves which saves party resources. Its an easy at will heal that should at least put them above fighters and barbarians for healing. And if the party takes tomb tainted soul than the DN can heal everyone to full out of combat, better than many characters.

For meat shields/summoner (Not sure which one is have minions take the hits) DN's have to be 1. They are the #1 undead creation class, they can have their own personal army following them around and there are numerous ways to get animate dead free as well. Plus as above they can heal them at will out of combat. Druid's summoning is good, but its not as good as DN's army

For sage shouldn't DN's be at least at a 3 since they get knowledge religion and arcane? I don't see why they are on the same rank as barbarians for knowledge and sage like skills

For scout they also have their incorporeal familiar the ghostly vestige. That alone should be enough for a 3 as its a linked creature that can pass through walls. That combined with awakened zombies with burrow or earth glide and you can get minions that are pretty good at scouting

For trap finding does sending minions forward and triggering traps and then healing the minions of all damage count? Because personally I think it does but I wouldn't argue that one if you disagree.

[Lans]

DR 6/magic ... yeah, that and a silver piece will get you a hunk of cheese (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html).

And DFAs have some pretty cool defensive abilities of their own. Not many, but some.
Does it have anything comparable to what I mentioned?




Maybe. Wraithstrike only lasts a round without cheese, though.
It can cast it easily enough times, + other buffs

[Gwendol]

{table=head]Class | BFC | Buff | Curiosity | Debuff | Dominate | Game C. | Heal | Meat S. | Melee | Mobility | Party Face | Ranged | Sage | Scout | Thief | Summon | Trapfind | Total

Warmage | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3? | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | Total
[/table]



The warmage looks wrong, and I suggest the changes detailed above. Because of Warmage casting spells spontaneously and getting a lot of them to cast, they can be relied on to deliver quite consistently and with lots of versatility. They are decent controllers what with fog spells and black tentacles. They can buff at least themselves, and they can debuff quite reliably through the use of Orb spells. Thanks to advanced/eclectic learning they can pick up some other spells too, which may lead to gamechanging combo's, but I don't list that as high. It's there, but will require some effort. They are mediocre melee combatants, even though they can in principle buff to be passable it's not recommended. Mobility is ranked low, although a spell learned could change that for a specific build. They can be a passable face, much like the sorcerer. They should be ranked among the highest in ranged combat: here is where they shine. I'd argue there is no other class with this kind of versatility, at any given moment, in dealing HP damage at range.
They get some knowledge skills, and are likely to have some points in intelligence, so backup Sage. They get at least one summoning spell at the end, hence a 3.

[Pickford]

Person_Man: I like this, but some quibbles:

Intimidate is a face-skill is it not? I'd say having access to that puts a class at, at least, a 3, since they can, at a minimum, apply a face-skill towards the role of party face. (i.e. Barbarian, Fighter, Warblade, etc...)

How do you account for a non-full BAB class being higher on Melee than the full BAB classes? It hits 25% less often. (Specifically the Druid and Psychic Warrior)
I know most on these boards dislike the weapon focus line, however a Fighter with it is 65% (+25% from BAB difference, +40% from weap foc/Gr. Weap foc/Melee Wep Ma/and has another 25% (90% more likely to hit!) to hit on one attack from Wep Supr) more likely to hit their targets on each attack and has at least 4 attacks, instead of 3.

Why is the Wizard, a class without any party face features, a 3 for party face, while the Warmage, a class that necessarily has a high Cha in order to cast spells is a 4? That just doesn't make sense. The Warmage also gets face-skill from Intimidate. By my mark that makes a Warmage at least a 2 and the Wizard a 4 (remember, effectively and efficiently).

I'd also knock the Wizard to a 4 for healing. (It may be possible for the Wizard to heal others, but there's no way it's efficient.)

Psion should be bumped to a 2 for healing (They do have an entire line dedicated to it after all).

How is the Psion not a 1 for mobility? (They get teleportation effects, if the Wizard is 1, the Psion should be 1)

Warblade should be a 4 for ranged, they can't even use ranged weapons without sacrificing a feat slot (The Barbarian is definitely qualitatively better, for example).

Also, Warmage should be a 1 for ranged if the Sorceror/Wizard are.

Bard should be higher up in the Sage category than a Cleric (i.e. Bard 1, Cleric 2). By that same token, Monk should be a 2 (religion 'and' arcana gives probably the two most common checks)

I second BornValyrian that the Truenamer is going to be a 1 in Sage.

Epsilon_Rose:

So, if we applied that to battle field control, you might have:
•0- Vanilla fighter. Cannot natively influence the battlefield.

What about feats that allow this (which the Fighter can get)?

i.e. They can bullrush people off the field (that's controlling enemy location) is it not?

Slippery_Chicken: I think the problem with subdividing into too many layers is you reach the point of saying: 'Is it really 85? I think it's more of an 84', where the criteria are no longer capable of giving an accurate read.

Also this:

10- Performs this niche perfectly, and will do so many times per day and without preparation or assistance. Always succeeds with flying colors, no matter what. Short of DM fiat or modifications to the game rules, there is no possible way to make this character fail at his job.

Would tend to place Wizards at 8 as they cannot do it 'many times per day without preparation or assistance'.

Kyeudo:

For the regular truenamer, this does assume that they have devoted the required amount of WBL into improving their Truenaming modifier or joined the Paragnostic Assembly for the +10 bonus. If they haven't, they are a No in everything but "Sage".

Even if they didn't keep up (i.e. with paragnostic assembly), they'd be able to affect items/locations quite well so BFC would remain a Y or Q, Debuff a Q (from items), and having a good BAB they'd, at worst, be able to do something in Melee/Ranged (so Q or Y).

INoKnowNames: I'd go further and just roll Dominating into Debuffing. If you can Dominate, you can Debuff.

Appello veritas paean maiestas. How'd I do?

Zlefin: Wizards could dismantle those that have been found (but that's not trapfinding).

All the above leads to another question: Which are we weighting as better? The ability to do something occasionally (i.e. Via spells) or the ability to always do something (i.e. special ability with no limits). I'd be inclined to say that should present a visible demarcation. If a class can only do a thing a few times a day, they should never be considered a 1 in that topic.

Eggynack: I would tend to agree with you...the categories should be scaled back down to a select few and then expanded to define other, limited roles that are not encompassed by the starting set. (In this way we could come to a group consensus on 'some' things.

i.e. Start with: Ability to deal Melee Damage.
This should be fairly easy to work out (all the Good BAB classes are 1s, the average's are 2 and the bad BAB are 3s. This category is slightly problematic in that literally anyone 'can' deal melee damage, it's just a measurement of who is doing it more efficiently) and so on.

This does bring up the question: Are all ranged attacks created equal? (i.e. Is the Warlock's Eldritch Blast, which typically has a range of only 60' but can be used unlimited times per day, co-equal to a Warmage's ranged touch attack spells, which may go further but are only usable a finite number of times per day? And then compare these to an Archer who may fire several ranged attacks in a round, where the Warmage/Warlock are likely only able to do one per round.)

I'd say it's a very difficult question as to which is 'absolutely' best. Do you value maximum damage? maximum uses? max chance of success? SR and Saves vs DR vs Resistance/Immunities?

Talya:

I'm still seeing bard listed with the worst melee damage rank on the chart, when in fact they're one of the absolute best melee damage classes in the game, behind only the optimized ubercharger.

How do you figure? (Inspire Heroics + Inspire Courage?...that combination only works, on the Bard hisself, for 4 rounds)

Kyeudo:

All ToB classes are more mobile than the fighter by a lot.

This is in dispute, a Fighter can ride a flying mount and fight on it. If having a mount and/or flying gets you into higher brackets of mobility, the Fighter, by virtue of being able to ride/train flying mounts (and other types of mounts) should be right up there for mobility.

I think the Gamechanger should just be eliminated, otherwise what're we looking at, a free bump to anyone who has access to Wish or Miracle?

[Talya]

How do you figure? (Inspire Heroics + Inspire Courage?...that combination only works, on the Bard hisself, for 4 rounds)


I generally don't factor in inspire heroics, though it's certainly an option.

(1) Inspire courage is easily optimized up to +8 points, and +15 isn't that hard if you're willing to be exalted good. That's without cheese or an inordinate resource expenditure, not even requiring a single additional feat spent if you trade a song for Song of the heart instead of a feat. (Add a feat spent if you take words of creation).
(2) Dragonfire Inspiration turns that into a fistfull of D6s.
(3) Lingering Song lets you use both together for way longer than the duration of a single fight. If you grab a couple levels of Seeker of the Song (I don't like it), this is irrelevant as you can use two songs at once.
(4) Using Crystal Echoblade(s) adds additional sonic damage, and they only add 2000gp to the cost of a standard magic weapon (they are a flat cost).
(5) Two weapon Fighting is your friend, but it's also the biggest resource usage for a melee bard, who's a bit feat starved, but you won't get a bigger source of bonus damage.
(6) Snowflake Wardance adds your charisma to hit (even if TWF). If you happen to be missing one of the options above, you can grab power attack and power attack for everything, since you're hitting with all attacks anyway.


Note that if you multiclass (Bardadin, Bardsader or Bardblade) you suddenly get a bunch more options - charisma to damage, charisma to hit and damage a second time, activating bardsong as a swift action, etc. I don't factor that into bard versatility, though, it's just a side point.

I broke down the damage totals in a spoiler in another post above.

[Kyeudo]

This is in dispute, a Fighter can ride a flying mount and fight on it. If having a mount and/or flying gets you into higher brackets of mobility, the Fighter, by virtue of being able to ride/train flying mounts (and other types of mounts) should be right up there for mobility.

I think the Gamechanger should just be eliminated, otherwise what're we looking at, a free bump to anyone who has access to Wish or Miracle?

The flying mount is not a class feature for the Fighter. It is an option equally accessible to anyone with a few ranks in Ride. They don't even need Ride as a class skill.

[Pickford]

I generally don't factor in inspire heroics, though it's certainly an option.

(1) Inspire courage is easily optimized up to +8 points, and +15 isn't that hard if you're willing to be exalted good. That's without cheese or an inordinate resource expenditure, not even requiring a single additional feat spent if you trade a song for Song of the heart instead of a feat. (Add a feat spent if you take words of creation).
(2) Dragonfire Inspiration turns that into a fistfull of D6s.
(3) Lingering Song lets you use both together for way longer than the duration of a single fight. If you grab a couple levels of Seeker of the Song (I don't like it), this is irrelevant as you can use two songs at once.
(4) Using Crystal Echoblade(s) adds additional sonic damage, and they only add 2000gp to the cost of a standard magic weapon (they are a flat cost).
(5) Two weapon Fighting is your friend, but it's also the biggest resource usage for a melee bard, who's a bit feat starved, but you won't get a bigger source of bonus damage.
(6) Snowflake Wardance adds your charisma to hit (even if TWF). If you happen to be missing one of the options above, you can grab power attack and power attack for everything, since you're hitting with all attacks anyway.


Note that if you multiclass (Bardadin, Bardsader or Bardblade) you suddenly get a bunch more options - charisma to damage, charisma to hit and damage a second time, activating bardsong as a swift action, etc. I don't factor that into bard versatility, though, it's just a side point.

I broke down the damage totals in a spoiler in another post above.

Ah, the snowflake wardance is what I was looking for.

Kyeudo: Handle Animal as a class feature means the Fighter can train their mounts for combat (and get them to attack things), being able to pass ride checks make a character 'good' at mounted combat (for example, a DC 15 ride check is required to use your mount as cover, which will effectively negate any ranged attack on the character), for those mounts not trained in battle a DC 20 check is required to operate. Players who aren't dedicated to mounted combat are highly unlikely to have invested in a war trained mount which makes it even harder to engage in mounted combat.

These two class skills in conjunction will provide the Fighter with greater mobility than a class where the skills are absent.

[Kyeudo]

Kyeudo: Handle Animal as a class feature means the Fighter can train their mounts for combat (and get them to attack things), being able to pass ride checks make a character 'good' at mounted combat (for example, a DC 15 ride check is required to use your mount as cover, which will effectively negate any ranged attack on the character), for those mounts not trained in battle a DC 20 check is required to operate. Players who aren't dedicated to mounted combat are highly unlikely to have invested in a war trained mount which makes it even harder to engage in mounted combat.

These two class skills in conjunction will provide the Fighter with greater mobility than a class where the skills are absent.

First, the check DCs are not high, meaning anyone who really wants to can cross-class into both Handle Animal and Ride. I've had a Totemist get by with just the Riding Gloves soulmeld and his Cha bonus.

Second, a mount not granted by a class feature is either going to be squishy and die to the first fireball slung around or is going to be extremely expensive. It's either worthless or the equivalent of a magic item.

[Shining Wrath]

I have a general complaint. And if you choose to address it, it will make you do more work, so I'll understand if you don't. But ...

I notice that Sorcerers get the same ranking as Wizards, despite the generally acknowledged fact that they are less flexible. Because the way you are doing this ranking, you are evaluating Sorcerers for the spells they MIGHT have, even though no Sorcerer is going to have all the spells needed for every category.

Furthermore, no Wizard can prepare enough spells on any day to do all the things necessary to be a 1 or a 2 in all those categories that Wizards get a 1 or a 2 in.

So ...

What you need are standard builds for spell casters - all the Tier 1 & 2 folks. Builds with reasonable optimization for a particular purpose at a particular level (say levels 5, 10, & 15). So maybe 5 different standard builds, for 3 different levels, for 8 different classes ... like I said, work. But we can help you.

A level 5 wizard who is prepared to be the Meat Shield is not going to be prepared to be the Mobility expert. A mailman Sorcerer is not prepared to find traps. A buffer cleric may not be the melee fighter. Et cetera.

[eggynack]

How do you account for a non-full BAB class being higher on Melee than the full BAB classes? It hits 25% less often. (Specifically the Druid and Psychic Warrior)
Well, at least partially because they don't necessarily hit 25% less often. Just as an arbitrary example, let's look at level six. The fighter is getting two attacks, at, say, +11/+6. Now, it's not my preferred plan, but let's assume that the druid seeks to melee out, for that is the plan in dispute, so he has taken the form of a black bear. The black bear's attack routine on just about any unbuffed druid in existence is going to be +8/+3/+3. Offhand, that likely looks advantageous to the fighter, especially considering the fact that his attacks are likely dealing more damage, and the fact that his feats and other resources are likely melee focused.

However, then you take into account the druid's fleshraker animal companion, and things change a lot. I'm going to act under the assumption that the druid took natural bond at third, even though it wouldn't be immediately useful, just because it'd be so powerful within a level. I'm also going to toss the AC multiattack, under the second assumption that the dinosaur will be either replaced or advanced by the time that becomes inconvenient. Anyway, what we're left with is a fleshraker at the third tier of advancement. The fleshraker's iteratives at that level are going to be +10/+10/+8.

So, y'know, generally somewhat better, especially when you add that on to the druid's iteratives and take the fleshraker's abilities into account. It's also not taking spells into account at any point, and that stuff can get downright unfair. I mean, maybe I have the druid cast venomfire at any point, and the damage comparison becomes crazy, especially if I make the druid a fleshraker too. It's somewhat cheesy, but it's meaningful that the druid has access to this kind of cheese, while the fighter is forced to play fair. I also haven't talked about summoning, which can easily increase the druid's fighting potential, just by tossing out burly dudes. You can add one or two hits to the druid's iteratives in that manner. In these many fashions, the druid makes for an amazing melee combatant. As a side note, to preempt comments about the druid's low AC, I've yet to talk about second level slots, so let's make one of them luminous armor. That gets the druid up to a reasonable level of defense, especially if I change the druid's base creature to fleshraker. Probably should have done that to start with.

[Shining Wrath]

Person_Man: I like this, but some quibbles:

Intimidate is a face-skill is it not? I'd say having access to that puts a class at, at least, a 3, since they can, at a minimum, apply a face-skill towards the role of party face. (i.e. Barbarian, Fighter, Warblade, etc...)

Why is the Wizard, a class without any party face features, a 3 for party face, while the Warmage, a class that necessarily has a high Cha in order to cast spells is a 4? That just doesn't make sense. The Warmage also gets face-skill from Intimidate. By my mark that makes a Warmage at least a 2 and the Wizard a 4 (remember, effectively and efficiently).

I'd also knock the Wizard to a 4 for healing. (It may be possible for the Wizard to heal others, but there's no way it's efficient.)

I think the Gamechanger should just be eliminated, otherwise what're we looking at, a free bump to anyone who has access to Wish or Miracle?

Warblades do get access to crossbows (all simple weapons), and there are maneuvers designed to let them throw things. Not to mention the Bloodstorm Blade PrC.

I agree about Gamechanger; it's just another way of saying "Do you have Level 9 magic? Good! Aren't you extra-special!".

I think the Wizard is getting a pass on a lot of things because "Well, there's a spell for that, if you take these 6 feats, this PrC, and polymorph yourself into a unicorn". The Wizard has a path to everything, but not every Wizard can follow every path every day.

[eggynack]

I think the Wizard is getting a pass on a lot of things because "Well, there's a spell for that, if you take these 6 feats, this PrC, and polymorph yourself into a unicorn". The Wizard has a path to everything, but not every Wizard can follow every path every day.
I think that's the goal. The point here isn't what these classes can always do at all moments, but what roles they can fill if they're so inclined. Thus, while many wizards are going to be completely uninterested in thievery, if the need presents itself, and if the party is missing such a character, then the wizard can approximate that role. I mean, if you want to talk about classes getting a pass on things, talk about the sorcerer. There's no way a given sorcerer is going to get all those high ratings at once.

[Kyeudo]

Perhaps we should add a category for Endurance. Like, how long can they keep doing their best tricks? Wizards would lose to Sorcerers who would lose to a Crusader.

[Talya]

This list is not taking into account how easily one can perform multiple roles from the chart at the same time. Each role is rated individually -- "Can this class be built to perform this role, and how well?"

I have issues with the aggregate total for this reason. I think there needs to be some indicator of how well it can perform different roles (1) with a moment's notice? (2) With a few minutes/hours preparation time? (3) With a day to memorize new spells?

As an example, as much as I love sorcerers, you'd think from this chart that they are as versatile as wizards and perhaps MORE versatile than clerics and druids. The problem is, the sorcerer cannot be specced to do more than a half of the roles they are effective at, and then they can't change this, ever. Conversely, any given bard can be built to perform ALL the roles they have listed at the listed effectiveness, without any preparation at all.

[Shining Wrath]

The description of the 'Meat Shield' niche says:


The Wizard can meet that description without summons. Invisibility, Stoneskin, Mirror Image, Blur, those types of things.

And the other side may know Dispel Magic. Or the Wizard may not have prepared all those spells.

As I've commented elsewhere, for any Tier 1 or Tier 2 class, you have to consider what spells they have access to TODAY. No fair saying they are always perfectly prepared for the challenge. There's also the old saying about high tier classes scaling quadratically. What level is this?

Suppose the party is level 3. Is the Wizard ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Fighter as a meat shield? Mirror Image will keep him alive for a couple of rounds, perhaps, but one solid hit and he may be bleeding out on the floor.

At higher levels, a Wizard's standard build is so large that he can fill more and more roles using a normal day's preparation. I still think, though, that a Wizard not prepared to be a melee fighter today is unlikely to be able to step in and fill those roles as well as a class dedicated to them, even at high levels.

[Talya]

And the other side may know Dispel Magic. Or the Wizard may not have prepared all those spells.

As I've commented elsewhere, for any Tier 1 or Tier 2 class, you have to consider what spells they have access to TODAY. No fair saying they are always perfectly prepared for the challenge. There's also the old saying about high tier classes scaling quadratically. What level is this?

Suppose the party is level 3. Is the Wizard ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Fighter as a meat shield? Mirror Image will keep him alive for a couple of rounds, perhaps, but one solid hit and he may be bleeding out on the floor.

At higher levels, a Wizard's standard build is so large that he can fill more and more roles using a normal day's preparation. I still think, though, that a Wizard not prepared to be a melee fighter today is unlikely to be able to step in and fill those roles as well as a class dedicated to them, even at high levels.

That's kind of in line with what I was saying above. The sorcerer is even worse off -- if they are specced to fill the role of "meat shield," then they can do it. If they have not selected appropriate spells for the role, they cannot - EVER.

But again, as I said above, this list is not taking that into account.

[Shining Wrath]

This list is not taking into account how easily one can perform multiple roles from the chart at the same time. Each role is rated individually -- "Can this class be built to perform this role, and how well?"

I have issues with the aggregate total for this reason. I think there needs to be some indicator of how well it can perform different roles (1) with a moment's notice? (2) With a few minutes/hours preparation time? (3) With a day to memorize new spells?

As an example, as much as I love sorcerers, you'd think from this chart that they are as versatile as wizards and perhaps MORE versatile than clerics and druids. The problem is, the sorcerer cannot be specced to do more than a half of the roles they are effective at, and then they can't change this, ever. Conversely, any given bard can be built to perform ALL the roles they have listed at the listed effectiveness, without any preparation at all.

I believe we are on the same page (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16454831&postcount=218).

[eggynack]

Except the wizard is perfectly prepared for being a meat shield today, and he did prepare all the right spells for it. This is because the wizard decided that he wants to fill the niche of meat shield. It's really as simple as that. Perhaps it is not every wizard that would task himself with standing in front of the party and taking blows, but this is one that does, and the question is how successful he would be in this role. Probably about a 2, especially if we are considering summons, because not doing so feels vaguely ridiculous.

[Shining Wrath]

I think that's the goal. The point here isn't what these classes can always do at all moments, but what roles they can fill if they're so inclined. Thus, while many wizards are going to be completely uninterested in thievery, if the need presents itself, and if the party is missing such a character, then the wizard can approximate that role. I mean, if you want to talk about classes getting a pass on things, talk about the sorcerer. There's no way a given sorcerer is going to get all those high ratings at once.

Then really Person Man (and I like PM's stuff hereabout, and I like this idea) has just found a complicated way of saying "Magic can do anything in 3.5". To do this right, we need to have a system that rewards the Wizard over the Sorcerer, and also one that takes into account the possibility that the BBEG knows what a caster can do.

For example, I keep seeing the idea of "Use summoned creatures to trigger traps!". OK, so I'm the BBEG designing my lair. Welcome to my "150 foot long hallway with a DC 21 to detect trap every 5 feet" part of the dungeon. Go ahead, burn 30 summon spells to avoid having a rogue in the party.

In other words, the ability to do something without recourse to magic needs to be rewarded, because AMF is a thing, and because spells are a finite resource which a clever foe can drain.

Again, I think this idea has great merit, but I do have ideas for improvement.


Except the wizard is perfectly prepared for being a meat shield today, and he did prepare all the right spells for it. This is because the wizard decided that he wants to fill the niche of meat shield. It's really as simple as that. Perhaps it is not every wizard that would task himself with standing in front of the party and taking blows, but this is one that does, and the question is how successful he would be in this role. Probably about a 2, especially if we are considering summons, because not doing so feels vaguely ridiculous.

Except he had no idea that the Fighter was going to be hit with a baleful polymorph with too high of a DC to dispel, and that's why he is suddenly forced into that role. Party left home and entered the dungeon with him prepared to be the Battlefield Controller / Buffer, and he did not know until 1 round ago that he would have to be the meat shield at all.

Oh, and the schedule is too tight for the party to wait while he re-prepares, for the BBEG is summoning an undead Tarrasque with the half-dragon (flying!) template and the party has to arrive in time to disrupt the ritual!

Again, note that at present Sorcerers and Wizards get the same ranking. That's because the rankings are what you can do with perfect preparation; it's just another way of saying "In 3.5, magic can do everything". We knew that.

[Talya]

For example, I keep seeing the idea of "Use summoned creatures to trigger traps!". OK, so I'm the BBEG designing my lair. Welcome to my "150 foot long hallway with a DC 21 to detect trap every 5 feet" part of the dungeon. Go ahead, burn 30 summon spells to avoid having a rogue in the party.


Not that I disagree with your overall point, but isn't there a reserve feat that allows you to summon a small elemental at will?

[Pickford]

First, the check DCs are not high, meaning anyone who really wants to can cross-class into both Handle Animal and Ride. I've had a Totemist get by with just the Riding Gloves soulmeld and his Cha bonus.

Second, a mount not granted by a class feature is either going to be squishy and die to the first fireball slung around or is going to be extremely expensive. It's either worthless or the equivalent of a magic item.

First Cross-classing nets you, at best, 11 ranks, that's just enough to succeed about 1/2 the time, which is simply not enough, there's a substantial difference between the effectiveness of a class skill and a cross class skill.

Second, mounts can have armor, which can be enchanted, which means a Mount can have enough resistance to fire that a Fireball won't even damage them. Cost is simply a non-factor, we're talking about possible utility here not efficacy.

Eggynack: Well, for one thing I'd say you're lowballing the average Fighter the average Fighter would have a +13/+8 to hit (+6 BAB, +1 MW weapon, at least, +4 str or dex mod, at least) if they're spec'd for TWF that's 4 attacks at +11/+6/+11/+6 and if they are spec'd for archery that's 3 attacks at +11/+11/+6 or manyshot 3 arrows at +7. That's low though, assuming they really spec'd themselves out and picked up weapon focus and acquired a minor +2 enhancement bonus they'd be looking at +15/+10; 4 attacks at +13/+8/+13/+8; or 3 ranged at +13/+13/+6 or manyshot at +9.

The Druid isn't as good as the Fighter at melee combat, you're cherry-picking a single possible animal companion and extrapolating that as if all animal companions were of equal utility or themselves the Druid, which just isn't so.

Shining_Wrath: The Warblade gets all simple and martial melee weapons, not all simple weapons and martial melee weapons.

If it were written the second way, you would be correct, but it isn't, and so therefore you are not.

I agree they can throw things, but I am arguing thrown weapons aren't qualitatively as useful as ranged weapons.

Eggynack:

I think that's the goal. The point here isn't what these classes can always do at all moments, but what roles they can fill if they're so inclined.

Isn't the 1 rank, in this case, being able to do something all the time, whereas the 3 rank is being able to do something, but not all the time? If that's correct, the Wizard should be 3 at everything. (Because they have limited castings per day)

[Shining Wrath]

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but isn't there a reserve feat that allows you to summon a small elemental at will?

There's certainly a ToB maneuver to do so ... "Distracting Ember". But not all traps are triggered by elementals. You can easily specify a magic trap to trigger on "spell caster" or some such.

[Shining Wrath]

Shining_Wrath: The Warblade gets all simple and martial melee weapons, not all simple weapons and martial melee weapons.

If it were written the second way, you would be correct, but it isn't, and so therefore you are not.

I agree they can throw things, but I am arguing thrown weapons aren't qualitatively as useful as ranged weapons.


You're right, I was remembering Swordsage.

Ironically, a Warblade can throw a spear (because it's a martial melee weapon) but not a javelin (which is only ranged). And Warblades are supposed to be the smart ToB base class :smallcool: I can imagine a Swordsage patiently explaining to his Warblade friend that it's not really different, you still want the pointy end to go first, and the Warblade just not getting it.

[Talya]

The Druid isn't as good as the Fighter at melee combat, you're cherry-picking a single possible animal companion and extrapolating that as if all animal companions were of equal utility or themselves the Druid, which just isn't so.

The Animal Companion is part of the druid class. Its melee capability is (and rightly should be) included with the druid's.

However, once you get large animal forms at level 8, the animal companion is no longer relevant. With self-buffs that will always be up, the druid will leave the fighter in the dust... the druid themselves are supeior to the fighter at melee combat damage.

The barbarian actually has a real shot at competing with the druid in melee combat, but ultimately, without the regular ability to move and full-attack in the same round, you can't reach top tier melee. It's what keeps the bard behind the barbarian & druid.


You're right, I was remembering Swordsage.


With english grammar rules, both the swordsage and the warblade's wording there mean the same thing. I believe that both RAW and RAI, the warblade has access to simple ranged weapons.

Even if you don't accept this, every single warblade always takes Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Everything). Consider it a feat tax, because being able to pick up and use any exotic weapon in the game with 1 day's notice is really that good. Composite Greatbow > Crossbow.

[geekintheground]

Eggynack: Well, for one thing I'd say you're lowballing the average Fighter the average Fighter would have a +13/+8 to hit (+6 BAB, +1 MW weapon, at least, +4 str or dex mod, at least) if they're spec'd for TWF that's 4 attacks at +11/+6/+11/+6 and if they are spec'd for archery that's 3 attacks at +11/+11/+6 or manyshot 3 arrows at +7. That's low though, assuming they really spec'd themselves out and picked up weapon focus and acquired a minor +2 enhancement bonus they'd be looking at +15/+10; 4 attacks at +13/+8/+13/+8; or 3 ranged at +13/+13/+6 or manyshot at +9.

The Druid isn't as good as the Fighter at melee combat, you're cherry-picking a single possible animal companion and extrapolating that as if all animal companions were of equal utility or themselves the Druid, which just isn't so.


isnt it widely accepted that most AC's are better? not all obviously, but most.

[Kyeudo]

First Cross-classing nets you, at best, 11 ranks, that's just enough to succeed about 1/2 the time, which is simply not enough, there's a substantial difference between the effectiveness of a class skill and a cross class skill.


The "Control Mount in Battle" is only important if you are riding a mount that is not combat trained. It is not normally a problem as you can buy war-trained mounts. The Ride checks that are actually important are these:

Guide With Knees (DC 5)
Stay In Saddle (DC 5)
Fight With Warhorse (DC 10)

Everything else is a convienience or a nice bonus you can do without. Adding in that everyone with a brain has a Dex of at least 10 and probably more, five ranks in Ride are usually more than enough for anyone's needs. This is available by lvl 7. Which brings me to my second point.



Second, mounts can have armor, which can be enchanted, which means a Mount can have enough resistance to fire that a Fireball won't even damage them. Cost is simply a non-factor, we're talking about possible utility here not efficacy.


You have a finite pool of resources from which to pull. If you are spending twice what other characters are spending on armor, you are behind in other areas, areas linked to the few things you do well (hit things with pointy metal sticks). Further, a mount's armor class is unlikely to get high enough without severe monetary investment to be able to survive even one full attack from a dragon or other high CR opponent. Unless it can take a hit, it is worthless in combat.



Isn't the 1 rank, in this case, being able to do something all the time, whereas the 3 rank is being able to do something, but not all the time? If that's correct, the Wizard should be 3 at everything. (Because they have limited castings per day)

They have the power to define how long their days are ie. the 15 minute adventuring day.

[Thrawn183]

My favorite class got the most points! I always knew it was the best...

[Talya]

My favorite class got the most points! I always knew it was the best...

You're supposed to color that blue when being sarcastic. (The aggregate is a golf-score...lower is better!)

[Pickford]

You're right, I was remembering Swordsage.

Ironically, a Warblade can throw a spear (because it's a martial melee weapon) but not a javelin (which is only ranged). And Warblades are supposed to be the smart ToB base class :smallcool: I can imagine a Swordsage patiently explaining to his Warblade friend that it's not really different, you still want the pointy end to go first, and the Warblade just not getting it.

I had forgotten the javelin and looking it up made me do a double take when I noticed the club of all things has a range increment! If the club, why not the light mace too?

Talya:

With self-buffs that will always be up, the druid will leave the fighter in the dust...

What buffs are you referring to here? (I see nothing in the PHB so I thought I'd just ask rather than hunting through every book).

You are incorrect however about this:

With english grammar rules, both the swordsage and the warblade's wording there mean the same thing.

Here is the Swordsage's proficiency text:

you are proficient with simple weapons, martial melee weapons (including those that can be used as thrown weapons), and light armor, but not with shields.

Note the use of commas. By using commas in this way, the first instance of weapons is modified solely by the word simple, which is inclusive of all subtypes. The second instance of weapons is modified by martial 'and' melee, which is exclusive of martial ranged weapons and thrown weapons. However, this exclusivity is clearly modified in the parenthetical. There is no ambiguity as written.

Now, here is the Warblade text:

You are proficient with simple and martial melee weapons (including those that can be used as thrown weapons, light and medium armor, and all shields except tower shields.

Now, courtesy of our friend the oxford comma, we know this is a list comprised of three terms, the first of which is "simple and martial melee weapons". In this case both simple and martial modify 'melee weapons'. As in the Swordsage example, there is a parenthetical to clearly indicate that thrown weapons are exempt from this limitation.

edit:
Kyuedo:

You have a finite pool of resources from which to pull. If you are spending twice what other characters are spending on armor, you are behind in other areas, areas linked to the few things you do well (hit things with pointy metal sticks). Further, a mount's armor class is unlikely to get high enough without severe monetary investment to be able to survive even one full attack from a dragon or other high CR opponent. Unless it can take a hit, it is worthless in combat.

Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, and Crusaders each get 150 average, that's the highest of any base class no? More over, Exotic weapons (which were being compared), especially ranged weapons, cost more. Substantially more actually...in some cases the cost is comparable, or higher than a masterwork version of a 'regular' comparable item.

If it helps however, armor is relatively cheap insofar as magic items go, and barding is only x4 of the base cost for a large creature. This is easily absorbed at higher levels of wealth. (For example, scale mail for a horse is only 200gp, this doesn't even take into account that mounted combat allows the rider to negate hits to the mount, or that the armor can be layered with minor protections, agility for example, at relatively little cost).

[Talya]

Now, courtesy of our friend the oxford comma, we know this is a list comprised of three terms, the first of which is "simple and martial melee weapons". In this case both simple and martial modify 'melee weapons'. As in the Swordsage example, there is a parenthetical to clearly indicate that thrown weapons are exempt from this limitation.

The "and" makes the comma unnecessary. In this sentence, there are three adjectives: Simple, Martial, and Melee. With the word "and" separating simple and martial, melee only conjoins with the word martial. The parentheticals would be "(simple) and (martial melee) weapons." If you wanted to word this to exclude simple ranged weapons, you'd need to word it "melee weapons, both simple and martial."


What buffs are you referring to here? (I see nothing in the PHB so I thought I'd just ask rather than hunting through every book).

Druid melee damage buffs (both long duration and short): Greater Magic Fang, Venomfire, Bite of the Were{thing}, without going past level 3 spells. There are certainly more...

[Lans]

Suppose the party is level 3. Is the Wizard ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Fighter as a meat shield? Mirror Image will keep him alive for a couple of rounds, perhaps, but one solid hit and he may be bleeding out on the floor.
.

Abrut jaunt is probably enough to be on par with the fighter.


isnt it widely accepted that most AC's are better? not all obviously, but most.

I think its been confirmed that the are a little bit worse than the fighter, but come with a druid who can buff them


Well, at least partially because they don't necessarily hit 25% less often. Just as an arbitrary example, let's look at level six. The fighter is getting two attacks, at, say, +11/+6. Now, it's not my preferred plan, but let's assume that the druid seeks to melee out, for that is the plan in dispute, so he has taken the form of a black bear. The black bear's attack routine on just about any unbuffed druid in existence is going to be +8/+3/+3. Offhand, that likely looks advantageous to the fighter, especially considering the fact that his attacks are likely dealing more damage, and the fact that his feats and other resources are likely melee focused.

However, then you take into account the druid's fleshraker animal companion, and things change a lot. I'm going to act under the assumption that the druid took natural bond at third, even though it wouldn't be immediately useful, just because it'd be so powerful within a level. I'm also going to toss the AC multiattack, under the second assumption that the dinosaur will be either replaced or advanced by the time that becomes inconvenient. Anyway, what we're left with is a fleshraker at the third tier of advancement. The fleshraker's iteratives at that level are going to be +10/+10/+8.

So, y'know, generally somewhat better, especially when you add that on to the druid's iteratives and take the fleshraker's abilities into account. It's also not taking spells into account at any point, and that stuff can get downright unfair. I mean, maybe I have the druid cast venomfire at any point, and the damage comparison becomes crazy

You might want to provide damage

[Kyeudo]

What buffs are you referring to here? (I see nothing in the PHB so I thought I'd just ask rather than hunting through every book).


Other than Wild Shaping into a tiger? There's stoneskin, animal growth, protection from energy, greater magic fang, air walk, bull's strength et all, barkskin, spider climb, and anything a summoned creature can cast for you.

[Talya]

I think its been confirmed that the are a little bit worse than the fighter, but come with a druid who can buff them



At higher levels, that's true. I don't think it's true early on, at least not until the fighter ends up with more hit dice than the AC. (Which, with natural bond and some improved companions, the fighter and druid AC will probably play leapfrog every 3 levels for quite a while. A Dire Tiger at level 16 has 18HD.)

[Pickford]

The "and" makes the comma unnecessary. In this sentence, there are three adjectives: Simple, Martial, and Melee. With the word "and" separating simple and martial, melee only conjoins with the word martial. The parentheticals would be "(simple) and (martial melee) weapons." If you wanted to word this to exclude simple ranged weapons, you'd need to word it "melee weapons, both simple and martial."

Clearly not. If your position was correct, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. The comma is absolutely necessary in that it dispels any ambiguity.

If you wanted it to be what you're thinking it would need to read simple weapons and martial melee weapons, just as the Swordsage's entry does.

Lans: Abrupt Jaunt works on one attack by one enemy. Two attacks is two too many.

Kyeudo: Stoneskin doesn't improve damage and the others were already available but do nothing more than mimic weapon upgrades or enhancements that will be widely available by that level.

What summon nature's ally spell lasts all day and improves combat? Remember, this is only up through SNA IV.

[Talya]

Clearly not. If your position was correct, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. The comma is absolutely necessary in that it dispels any ambiguity.

It would dispell ambiguity, yes. However, with a strict reading of English grammar, I am right. You may be right with regard to RAI (I think that RAI, they meant what they said, and therefore the warblade can use crossbows without penalty out of the box), however, that is not what was said.

[Shining Wrath]

The "and" makes the comma unnecessary. In this sentence, there are three adjectives: Simple, Martial, and Melee. With the word "and" separating simple and martial, melee only conjoins with the word martial. The parentheticals would be "(simple) and (martial melee) weapons." If you wanted to word this to exclude simple ranged weapons, you'd need to word it "melee weapons, both simple and martial."



Druid melee damage buffs (both long duration and short): Greater Magic Fang, Venomfire, Bite of the Were{thing}, without going past level 3 spells. There are certainly more...

I agree with Pickford on this one; I'm currently playing a Warblade, and after looking at the rule my table concluded that no, Warblades didn't get the simple ranged weapons.

[Talya]

I agree with Pickford on this one; I'm currently playing a Warblade, and after looking at the rule my table concluded that no, Warblades didn't get the simple ranged weapons.

You can agree all you want. (You wouldn't be the first one on this point.) It doesn't change the way the English language works. If the way you are ruling is what was intended, they worded it incorrectly, because it's not what they said.

None of that has addressed the main point after it, though, that since all Warblades take the feat tax "Exotic Weapon Proficiency" (which is incredible with Weapon Aptitude), it doesn't matter. They all have better ranged weapons than crossbows available.

[Shining Wrath]

You can agree all you want. (You wouldn't be the first one on this point.) It doesn't change the way the English language works. If the way you are ruling is what was intended, they worded it incorrectly, because it's not what they said.

None of that has addressed the main point after it, though, that since all Warblades take the feat tax "Exotic Weapon Proficiency" (which is incredible with Weapon Aptitude), it doesn't matter. They all have better ranged weapons than crossbows available.

Don't patronize my English skills, Tayla. I dare say they are equal to yours.

[eggynack]

Eggynack: Well, for one thing I'd say you're lowballing the average Fighter [spoiler]the average Fighter would have a +13/+8 to hit (+6 BAB, +1 MW weapon, at least, +4 str or dex mod, at least) if they're spec'd for TWF that's 4 attacks at +11/+6/+11/+6 and if they are spec'd for archery that's 3 attacks at +11/+11/+6 or manyshot 3 arrows at +7. That's low though, assuming they really spec'd themselves out and picked up weapon focus and acquired a minor +2 enhancement bonus they'd be looking at +15/+10; 4 attacks at +13/+8/+13/+8; or 3 ranged at +13/+13/+6 or manyshot at +9.
I'm low balling both by a little bit, because I'm not really considering spell boosts, like greater magic fang, or items that the druid could use. Even in your best case scenarios, you're still just about equaling druidic output, and that's if you're focusing on low power styles. Also, the fleshraker gets pounce, so that's even more attacks. Also also, I actually lowballed the druid. The black bear will get two hits at the higher BAB, and one at the lower one.


The Druid isn't as good as the Fighter at melee combat, you're cherry-picking a single possible animal companion and extrapolating that as if all animal companions were of equal utility or themselves the Druid, which just isn't so.
The fleshraker is the druid, and the summons are the druid, and the spells are the druid. It's all just class features. I'm designing a druid specced for melee combat, because that's what this is. You can build your fighter as melee-ish as you want, because that's your prerogative, and I'm doing the same for the druid. I can cherry-pick all I want, because no one cares about the second best option.



You might want to provide damage
Maybe. It's a bit tricky though. It's also notable that I was specifically refuting the claim of the number of attacks that hit. Anyway, I'll give it a shot. The fighter would be hitting twice for about 2d6+8 damage or so each. That can be pumped to a max of about 2d6+20 with power attack. The druid's two claw hits are for 1d4+4, and the bite is 1d6+2. The fleshraker is somewhat more complicated. Their two claw attacks deal 1d6+4 each, and their tail deals 1d6+2. However, they also have their crazy leaping pounce thing, which has the potential for rake damage, as well as dexterity poison, which makes things generally better. Also, they might get a 1d6+2 bite attack if there's a second enemy in range.

I think that the damage comparison goes to the fighter by a bit, but that the druid's ability to do other things while doing the melee thing, as well as the ability to do two separate melee things at once gives them an edge. This is also before adding venomfire, which I think just catapults the druid forward by a lot. I mean, that makes the fleshraker's damage look like 7d6+4/7d6+4/7d6+2, which is a lot, and you can do the same on the druid if you want.

Edit: Ooh, are we listing combat buffs now? Lessee. Instant of power (FoW, 114), luminous armor (BoED, 102), mass snake's swiftness (SpC, 193), and scales of the sealord (Storm, 121), heart of water (CM, 107), and primal instinct (DrM, 72) makes for a good list of stuff that appears to not be on the list thus far. The list obviously grows longer the more I relax the definition of combat buff.

[Talya]

Don't patronize my English skills, Tayla. I dare say they are equal to yours.

They may be better than mine. I'm not debating who has better English skills, because that still doesn't change what is said in the Tome of Battle, where a correct grammatical reading of the phrase is "[simple] and [martial melee] weapons," not "[simple and martial] [melee weapons]."

Note that even if it is ambiguous and can be read either way, that still puts the advantage to the warblade player, who gets to read it in the most beneficial way that is valid. Anything else becomes a house rule.

[Kyeudo]

Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, and Crusaders each get 150 average, that's the highest of any base class no?


Since when has this discussion been about lvl 1? By the time you are lvl 2, your wealth by level has drowned your starting gold into irrelevance.



If it helps however, armor is relatively cheap insofar as magic items go, and barding is only x4 of the base cost for a large creature. This is easily absorbed at higher levels of wealth. (For example, scale mail for a horse is only 200gp, this doesn't even take into account that mounted combat allows the rider to negate hits to the mount, or that the armor can be layered with minor protections, agility for example, at relatively little cost).

Mundane protections will not cut it for a horse with 4 hit dice, not at 8th level or higher. Even small amounts of magical armor won't help. Unless your mount is better armored than you are, you might as well be walking for how long the mount is going to last in combat.

If your mount has more hp, he's either from a class feature, from a feat (Wild Cohort), or he's expensive, meaning he's cutting into your magic item budget. Fighters are one of the most item dependant classes in the game, so anything hurting their pocket book hurts their effectiveness in combat, the one thing they can do.

Again, though, this is not something unique to a fighter. I have established that anything your Fighter can do with a mount, a wizard can also do. Heck, the Wizard can probably afford to do it better.