Sorting classes into tiers

[gooddragon1]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/class

There are 175 results in that list of base classes. Some are duplicates so it's possible there are fewer and also the tier system of classes by JaronK (http://www.brilliantgameologists.com/boards/?topic=1002.0) already covers several under the examples. I'd like to sort them 1 by 1 into tiers so other people don't have to if they don't want to. I'm a lazy guy and thought... why not just wait. However, I've got to get off my bum if I want to get something done (words that may be my undoing).

How to go about this? Well, I think going 1 by 1 on the non-covered by JaronK classes and having a discussion over the course of say a week or maybe a couple days and then tallying votes on tier could be sort of a wikipedia-ish thing. I have a caveat (may be using the word wrong) though... I'll only accept votes from people who link me a homebrew they made that was at least decently received* on this forum (though I know some people like tippy wouldn't need it) so that I know they know the mechanics at least decently and a thing or two about balancing (for the purpose of being impartial I won't be voting). I'll have to get this set up and I'll be so sad to do hard and diligent work but I've just always hated having to eyeball the classes. And it's not even like they're making new ones for 3.5 these days anyway. This way, when someone says... "I want a tier 4 game" you can pull up the list and say... "these classes were 'peer reviewed' to be of tier 4".

NOTE: Here's what the process looks like so far...


New thread periodically to tier a class. Everyone can participate. Post your tier interpretation for the class at the top of your post. If a consensus is reached I'll go with that. If it's a general pattern with a few outliers I'll go with that. If there's no consensus by the time limit I'm going with an average but I'll take whatever patterns and convincing arguments I can into consideration.


Am I just completely insane to want to do this? Is it even possible? What new madness will be unleashed?

So there's the idea.

*Please don't sockpuppet review your own homebrew just to vote...

[Telonius]

All of the Racial Substitution levels can probably be taken out of the list of things you need to worry about. I don't think there's a single one that's powerful enough to bump a class up or down by a whole tier. Goliath Barbarian might be a possible exception; but still, probably not. Otherwise they're all going to be the same as what JaronK has for the base classes.

[gooddragon1]

This is the list of non-duplicate classes in alphabetical order (also took out the racial substitution classes). There are 88 of them.

adept
archivist
ardent
aristocrat
artificer
barbarian
bard
bardic sage
battle sorcerer
beguiler
binder
cleric
cloistered cleric
commoner
crusader
divine bard
divine mind
domain wizard
dragon shaman
dragonfire adept
dread necromancer
druid
druidic avenger
duergar racial class
duskblade
eidolon
eidoloncer
erudite (variant psion)
expert
factotum
favored soul
fighter
githyanki racial class
githzerai racial class
half-giant racial class
healer
hexblade
incarnate
knight
lurk
marshal
monk
mystic
ninja
noble
paladin
paladin of freedom
paladin of slaughter
paladin of tyranny
paladin variant
planar ranger
psion
psionic artificer
psychic warrior
ranger
ranger variant
rogue
samurai
savage bard
scout
shadowcaster
shaman
shugenja
sohei
sorcerer
soulborn
soulknife
specialized wizard variants
spellcaster
spellthief
spirit shaman
swashbuckler
swordsage
thri-kreen racial class
thug
totem barbarian
totemist
truenamer
urban adept
urban ranger
warblade
warlock
warmage
warrior
wilder
wilderness rogue
wizard
wu jen

More importantly, this is the list sans the ones mentioned by JaronK and the racial substitution classes (however I have kept the variants included)...

ardent
bardic sage
battle sorcerer
cloistered cleric
divine bard
divine mind
domain wizard
dragon shaman
dragonfire adept
druidic avenger
duergar racial class
eidolon
eidoloncer
githyanki racial class
githzerai racial class
half-giant racial class
incarnate
lurk
mystic
noble
paladin of freedom
paladin of slaughter
paladin of tyranny
paladin variant (from Complete Warrior)
planar ranger
psionic artificer
ranger variant (from Complete Warrior)
savage bard
shadowcaster
shaman
shugenja
sohei
soulborn
specialized wizard variants (from Unearthed Arcana)
spellcaster
spirit shaman
thri-kreen racial class
thug
totem barbarian
totemist
urban adept
urban ranger
warmage
wilder
wilderness rogue
wu jen

There's only 46 entries on this list. The questions I have now are: should I eliminated any off this list outright (such as racial classes and the paladin variants/other variants?) or should that be the list of things to evaluate? Are there any base classes missing from this list that weren't already evaluated by JaronK? Are any of the duplicates so significantly different (and not mentioned by JaronK) that they need to be evaluated?

[weckar]

Out of curiosity, why do you only take votes from homebrewers? Some people (myself included) simply don't LIKE homebrew elements to their games, and are actually the people most likely to be running these classes.

[gooddragon1]

Out of curiosity, why do you only take votes from homebrewers? Some people (myself included) simply don't LIKE homebrew elements to their games, and are actually the people most likely to be running these classes.

I want to know that you know what you're doing mechanically. I also want to limit the number of votes I have to count.

Though you do raise a point. I think I'll amend the initial post if you can link something that proves you have a good amount of DMing experience (though homebrew will always have a special place in my heart... /wallurgist.)

[weckar]

Maybe also get some expert character builders in, then. Just to balance the pack, so to speak. Not claiming to be, or ever be one. Just want this project to be the best it can be. There are plenty of character building challenges around for you to have your pick.

[gooddragon1]

Maybe also get some expert character builders in, then. Just to balance the pack, so to speak. Not claiming to be, or ever be one. Just want this project to be the best it can be. There are plenty of character building challenges around for you to have your pick.

That sounds reasonable.

[chaos_redefined]

The variants of other classes don't change the tier from the base class.

The racial classes aren't long enough to tier. (Tiers only really apply to classes that go from 1 - 20, if my understanding is correct.) If you only want to look at it for those few levels, then they are usually low tier for not having any gamechangers or versatility. Tier 4 sounds right, they are essentially fighters.

JaronK tiered the warmage as tier 4.

Of the others, I don't have any homebrew to my name, so apparently my opinion is worthless :(.

Unless this counts as proof of my skill: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11186.20 .

[Vanitas]

I don't think this is going to work.
Then again, I'm not Tippy and I have no homebrew, so obviously my opinion is worthless.

[Grek]

I disagree with the methodology presented: It provides no objective definition for what constitutes a tier, treats popular designs as the same as balanced designs and treats experience in rules adjudication (being a DM) and rules exploitation (CharOp challenge winners) as substitutes for rule design experience. No requirements for evidence or rigor are in place, nor are any restrictions against voting on classes which the poster is not an expert on.

I further disagree with the concepts of tiers in general: Due to the fact that one build for a class can easily be much more powerful than a different build for the same class, you would be much better served creating a rigorous, objective metric by which to judge individual character/build performance, then running a selection of characters through the metric in order to create an objective view of the abilities of a given class. Subcategories should be had for characters designed by optimizers (for an idea of the maximum power available to a class), characters drawn from actual rules games on the forum (for an idea of the average performance of a class) and characters generated by selecting feats, spells, race, etc at random (for an idea of the maximum entropy/"in the hands of an inexperienced player" balance of a class). You would, of course, have the person running the trials be isolated from the people generating the characters and from the people designing the test.

[Vanitas]

I disagree with the methodology presented: It provides no objective definition for what constitutes a tier, treats popular designs as the same as balanced designs and treats experience in rules adjudication (being a DM) and rules exploitation (CharOp challenge winners) as substitutes for rule design experience. No requirements for evidence or rigor are in place, nor are any restrictions against voting on classes which the poster is not an expert on.
Agreed.


I further disagree with the concepts of tiers in general: Due to the fact that one build for a class can easily be much more powerful than a different build for the same class, you would be much better served creating a rigorous, objective metric by which to judge individual character/build performance, then running a selection of characters through the metric in order to create an objective view of the abilities of a given class. Subcategories should be had for characters designed by optimizers (for an idea of the maximum power available to a class), characters drawn from actual rules games on the forum (for an idea of the average performance of a class) and characters generated by selecting feats, spells, race, etc at random (for an idea of the maximum entropy/"in the hands of an inexperienced player" balance of a class). You would, of course, have the person running the trials be isolated from the people generating the characters and from the people designing the test.
But this is not disagreeing with the concept. You are providing a better alternative. Everyone knows this would be better, I believe - it's just that it is impossible to do it.

[gooddragon1]

The variants of other classes don't change the tier from the base class.

The racial classes aren't long enough to tier. (Tiers only really apply to classes that go from 1 - 20, if my understanding is correct.) If you only want to look at it for those few levels, then they are usually low tier for not having any gamechangers or versatility. Tier 4 sounds right, they are essentially fighters.

JaronK tiered the warmage as tier 4.

Of the others, I don't have any homebrew to my name, so apparently my opinion is worthless :(.

Unless this counts as proof of my skill: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11186.20 .

All ideas look solid. Also, I'll amend the thingy to include guides as that shows knowledge of mechanics.


I disagree with the methodology presented: It provides no objective definition for what constitutes a tier, treats popular designs as the same as balanced designs and treats experience in rules adjudication (being a DM) and rules exploitation (CharOp challenge winners) as substitutes for rule design experience. No requirements for evidence or rigor are in place, nor are any restrictions against voting on classes which the poster is not an expert on.

I further disagree with the concepts of tiers in general: Due to the fact that one build for a class can easily be much more powerful than a different build for the same class, you would be much better served creating a rigorous, objective metric by which to judge individual character/build performance, then running a selection of characters through the metric in order to create an objective view of the abilities of a given class. Subcategories should be had for characters designed by optimizers (for an idea of the maximum power available to a class), characters drawn from actual rules games on the forum (for an idea of the average performance of a class) and characters generated by selecting feats, spells, race, etc at random (for an idea of the maximum entropy/"in the hands of an inexperienced player" balance of a class). You would, of course, have the person running the trials be isolated from the people generating the characters and from the people designing the test.

The people who do that stuff are building against tiers and generally have read the thread by JaronK on tiers.

I'd love to do something so complicated if only I weren't so haphazardly lazy. I want something here and now that's a rough indicator. Will it be perfect? Hell no. But at least it's something and it's reviewed by people who know what they're doing. Revised list coming shortly (maybe).

ardent
bardic sage
battle sorcerer
cloistered cleric
divine bard
divine mind
dragon shaman
dragonfire adept
druidic avenger
eidolon
eidoloncer
incarnate
lurk
mystic
noble
planar ranger
psionic artificer
savage bard
shadowcaster
shaman
shugenja
sohei
soulborn
spellcaster
spirit shaman
thug
totemist
urban adept
warmage
wilder
wu jen

New list with 31 items. I'm still not sure on stuff like bardic sage and druidic avenger.

[HaikenEdge]

I feel that having the tiers being voted on, instead of discussed, would be detrimental to the list and how robust it could be.

What should be done is to have a new thread discussing a separate class started up on an interval, where discussions regarding that class' tier is then discussed civilly and intelligently, with evidence used to back individual arguments. At the end of the interval, a general consensus is found and the class is put into its tier.

The idea that only handbook writers, optimization contest winners, DMs and such should have their beliefs noted just feels elitist and counterproductive, because the discussion should be inclusive, rather than exclusive.

The fact you want something quick-and-dirty, here and now, as opposed to something well thought out, discussed and painstakingly analyzed, seems counter to why a tier system was formed in the first place, to help people better understand how classes stand on their own and interact within the game's power structure. What this ought to be is a conversation within the community, and not just a ballot-box-stuffing.

[gooddragon1]

I feel that having the tiers being voted on, instead of discussed, would be detrimental to the list and how robust it could be.

What should be done is to have a new thread discussing a separate class started up on an interval, where discussions regarding that class' tier is then discussed civilly and intelligently, with evidence used to back individual arguments. At the end of the interval, a general consensus is found and the class is put into its tier.

The idea that only handbook writers, optimization contest winners, DMs and such should have their beliefs noted just feels elitist and counterproductive, because the discussion should be inclusive, rather than exclusive.

The fact you want something quick-and-dirty, here and now, as opposed to something well thought out, discussed and painstakingly analyzed, seems counter to why a tier system was formed in the first place, to help people better understand how classes stand on their own and interact within the game's power structure. What this ought to be is a conversation within the community, and not just a ballot-box-stuffing.

I'll admit I'm beginning to lean towards this and am thinking of just going with 1 thread at a time. But I don't think we'll reach a consensus very easily on some things (I'm reminded of tiering a warlock thread...). I think I'll do a hybrid then. Everyone can post on the thread but I'm going to look for a pattern of agreement if I can find it and go with that. However, I'm still going to have everyone post at the top of the their post the tier they think applies most and I'm probably going to go with an average if we don't have enough consensus. If there's a better way of going about this then what I just mentioned above let me know.

New conditions set in original post. Must be 18 or older to enter (just kidding).

New slimmer and skinnier/bare minimum list I can get away with:
ardent
divine mind
dragon shaman
dragonfire adept
eidolon
eidoloncer
incarnate
lurk
mystic
noble
psionic artificer
shadowcaster
shaman
shugenja
sohei
soulborn
spellcaster
spirit shaman
totemist
urban adept
wilder
wu jen

It contains a mere 22 items. Still not sure about some of the variants like savage bard even though I removed them from this list. If there's demand for such things I guess we can have more threads later.

[Jeff the Green]

I'm happy to participate.

There are a few ACFs that probably do change tiers that weren't incorporated into JaronK's original analysis. Druid ACFs that drop wildshape, spontaneous summons, and/or animal companion might. Mystic ranger (and possibly other dragon ACFs) definitely does. The ardent custom mantles one may if ardent isn't already tier 2.

[gooddragon1]

I'm happy to participate.

There are a few ACFs that probably do change tiers that weren't incorporated into JaronK's original analysis. Druid ACFs that drop wildshape, spontaneous summons, and/or animal companion might. Mystic ranger (and possibly other dragon ACFs) definitely does. The ardent custom mantles one may if ardent isn't already tier 2.

I wanna get the ones in the skinny list out of the way first. But list what you think needs inclusion in this thread and when we get at least the 22 out of the way we can have a thread about what else may need inclusion to gauge possible participation (this second sentence is universally applicable and I would like any other listing possible to cover other possible things that need to be reviewed).

[eggynack]

Druid ACFs that drop wildshape, spontaneous summons, and/or animal companion might.
Seems somewhat unlikely, especially given that nothing trades away all three, and double-especially because big list prepared casting is something that generally implies tier one on its own. Also, do substitution levels need to be considered as though the character must take all of them? Because that's not really a thing, I think. Like, shifter druid substitution levels are pretty good, but if you have to take all of them then they're really bad.

[ThirtyThr33]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116483

Scroll down to find a table with most of the classes arranged into tiers based on community voting. It's pretty accurate in my opinion.

[eggynack]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116483

Scroll down to find a table with most of the classes arranged into tiers based on community voting. It's pretty accurate in my opinion.
It's pretty good, though I think the assessment of some classes has changed since then. For example, bard is usually considered the peak of tier three, while here it's hanging out under some tier fours, and the truenamer is generally placed at tier four, while that list has them at the bottom of tier five. It's a good start though. The real question, I suppose, is whether that list is more or less accurate than if you were to jumble up each tier, and then stack those randomized tiers. I'm honestly not sure, and the implication there is that the list just seems accurate because it kinda contours to the tier list.

[Jeff the Green]

The real question, I suppose, is whether that list is more or less accurate than if you were to jumble up each tier, and then stack those randomized tiers. I'm honestly not sure, and the implication there is that the list just seems accurate because it kinda contours to the tier list.

I doubt it. Even with bard/psion, there are pretty big breaks between 1 and 2 and 2 and 3. Going down from there there's more contour, but there's still kind of a jump.

[Vanitas]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116483

Scroll down to find a table with most of the classes arranged into tiers based on community voting. It's pretty accurate in my opinion.

You mean this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6383308&postcount=17)? I like it. I like it better than the tier system. What isn't this the standard? It even came from 339. Everything was better in 339.

[gooddragon1]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116483

Scroll down to find a table with most of the classes arranged into tiers based on community voting. It's pretty accurate in my opinion.


I wish that chart was labeled tier 1-6 and more than 5 people voted on some things and the person below didn't say that they basically voted on it without saying much. Just tell me they had a discussion and I might feel better. What I'd like is to take a consensus and average the ratings. The two things that kill that chart for me the most are that they don't label it tier 1-6. When/If the thread idea I'm proposing goes through I'll remind people to look at JaronK's tier thread when making their choice because tier 1 isn't just power as much as it's also flexibility. I'm thinking 3 days per class and I'll use that chart for filler maybe on stuff that's missed. What can it hurt anyways to have a nice discussion (hahaha) for 3 days per class and then maybe get consensus. I'll even link the threads to this main one so people can look at the discussion rather than a chart with just numbers.

So the reason for this dealie is now not unlike the large hadron collider. Let's turn it on and see what happens.

[ThirtyThr33]

It's pretty good, though I think the assessment of some classes has changed since then. For example, bard is usually considered the peak of tier three, while here it's hanging out under some tier fours, and the truenamer is generally placed at tier four, while that list has them at the bottom of tier five. It's a good start though. The real question, I suppose, is whether that list is more or less accurate than if you were to jumble up each tier, and then stack those randomized tiers. I'm honestly not sure, and the implication there is that the list just seems accurate because it kinda contours to the tier list.

Here's the info in a graph showing average and high/low standard deviations to show spread for each class. It's really clear that that 'The Big Five' are in their own tier and each class after that is a more gradual drop off until you get to the NPC classes which are left in the dust.

It is easy enough to relabel it as 10-8 = tier 1, 8-6 = tier 2 etc etc

http://imageshack.com/a/img571/1165/mtkq.png

[3WhiteFox3]

You mean this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6383308&postcount=17)? I like it. I like it better than the tier system. What isn't this the standard? It even came from 339. Everything was better in 339.

That list is all over the place. According to the chart Beguiler is apparently more powerful than both the Favored Soul and Spirit Shaman, two spontaneous classes that cast from vastly superior. Factotum, Binder, Totemist and Bard are behind the Warlock (and should definitely be in the Strong Tier). The Marshal and the Adept should also be much higher on that list (they are low Average Tier material at worst). Incarnate also seems low on there. Besides that, there are some placements that seem kind of odd to me, but on the whole it's not bad. I still prefer the Tier system, it at least gives you some information on what it's Tiers actually mean in play and how classes fit into them.

[eggynack]

I doubt it. Even with bard/psion, there are pretty big breaks between 1 and 2 and 2 and 3. Going down from there there's more contour, but there's still kind of a jump.
There are definitely some spots where our established understanding of power level within tiers has organized things in a manner that I wouldn't alter, especially at the very top and very bottom, but there are just as many spots, if not more, where I could easily shift things around by a lot. There's a lot of weird stuff on that list, like adepts hanging out between marshal and monk, and beguiler slotted above both spirit shaman and favored soul. A random list would have some places that would be clearly worse than that list, but in a lot of ways, it'd probably compare favorably. It's just not a great place to be for a class ordering.

Edit: It appears I've been unduly swordsage'd on a number of my points. In any case, the data being capable of being ordered in a fancy manner doesn't make it accurate. Especially when one of those NPC classes that are left in the dust is the adept.

[ThirtyThr33]

So why don't you guys all make up your own scores for each class out of 10 and I'll add it to the data and see if it changes anything?

The whole idea of the voting process is so that one person doesn't just get to say "I'm right, your wrong."

[Vanitas]

That list is all over the place. According to the chart Beguiler is apparently more powerful than both the Favored Soul and Spirit Shaman, two spontaneous classes that cast from vastly superior. Factotum, Binder, Totemist and Bard are behind the Warlock (and should definitely be in the Strong Tier). The Marshal and the Adept should also be much higher on that list (they are low Average Tier material at worst). Incarnate also seems low on there. Besides that, there are some placements that seem kind of odd to me, but on the whole it's not bad. I still prefer the Tier system, it at least gives you some information on what it's Tiers actually mean in play and how classes fit into them.

That's the beauty of it. All of that is very debatable. That's your opinion and that's very cool, but it's a lot better when we have a pool of opinions instead of "JaronK says so".


So why don't you guys all make up your own scores for each class out of 10 and I'll add it to the data and see if it changes anything?

The whole idea of the voting process is so that one person doesn't just get to say "I'm right, your wrong."

I'm all for it. You should start a second thread, probably.

[prufock]

I'm not sure you need to start from scratch on this. Google is your friend. Type '[class name] D&D tier' without the quotation marks and search. You will probably get multiple threads. Read for consensus, and if one is apparent, go with it. IF it rankles you because it's counter to your own interpretation of the class OR there seems to be no consensus THEN start a new thread here for the class.

For example, there are threads and threads on the tier for incarnum classes. General consensus seems to be:
Incarnate - tier 3 - can do everything, great skill monkey, hard to hurt, but no earth-shattering abilities.
Soulborn - tier 5 - can do all right with damage, but nothing outstanding, can't really do much of anything else, falls in same category as paladins, really.
Totemist - tier 3 or high tier 4 - great damage-dealer with natural attacks, not useless in other situations but definitely focused.

It will likely save you a bunch of work.

[gooddragon1]

I'm not sure you need to start from scratch on this. Google is your friend. Type '[class name] D&D tier' without the quotation marks and search. You will probably get multiple threads. Read for consensus, and if one is apparent, go with it. IF it rankles you because it's counter to your own interpretation of the class OR there seems to be no consensus THEN start a new thread here for the class.

For example, there are threads and threads on the tier for incarnum classes. General consensus seems to be:
Incarnate - tier 3 - can do everything, great skill monkey, hard to hurt, but no earth-shattering abilities.
Soulborn - tier 5 - can do all right with damage, but nothing outstanding, can't really do much of anything else, falls in same category as paladins, really.
Totemist - tier 3 or high tier 4 - great damage-dealer with natural attacks, not useless in other situations but definitely focused.

It will likely save you a bunch of work.

This approach also sounds very good and I like that it saves me effort.

[Oko and Qailee]

cloistered cleric
domain wizard
druidic avenger
All remain t1. CCleric and DWizard are better than their counterparts. Druidic Avenger isn't as good as Druid, but it's barely worse.

paladin of freedom
paladin of tyranny
paladin variant (from Complete Warrior)
All as Paladin

paladin of slaughter
Maybe a tier lower than Paladin, just because the CoC means you have to be an ***hole all the time, it's important to have allies and you ruin every social situation.

urban ranger
Maybe a tier lower than Ranger, because Favored Enemy (org) is worse than favored enemy (type)





Bolded in spoilers. These ones are obvious IMO, I'll think about harder one later,

[eggynack]

I'm pretty doubtful that urban ranger would face a tier reduction, and definitely not for the reason cited. The favored enemy (org) is a may ability, after all. Either way, the urban ranger still has their spells, and their skills, and their feats, and those are the tier-relevant things.

[Coidzor]

That's the beauty of it. All of that is very debatable. That's your opinion and that's very cool, but it's a lot better when we have a pool of opinions instead of "JaronK says so".

Granted, I haven't read through all of the pages and pages of discussion that he took part in before and after initially creating it, but reducing it to that level is doing everyone involved a profound disservice.

[Vanitas]

Granted, I haven't read through all of the pages and pages of discussion that he took part in before and after initially creating it, but reducing it to that level is doing everyone involved a profound disservice.

Not really, Coidzor. There was plenty of discussion on tier placement and even stuff everyone involved seemed to agree with was never added because he didn't agree with it. It gets specially bad when it comes to which books are considered for each class - all classes shoule be measured using only the book they appear in plus Core, apparently... all classes except the Factotum, the author's favorite class.
In the end it really comes down to whatever he wants to write it down as. He was a bit more flexible at the beginning, but as the thing became popular he would not budge at anything.

[HaikenEdge]

Not really, Coidzor. There was plenty of discussion on tier placement and even stuff everyone involved seemed to agree with was never added because he didn't agree with it. It gets specially bad when it comes to which books are considered for each class - all classes shoule be measured using only the book they appear in plus Core, apparently... all classes except the Factotum, the author's favorite class.
In the end it really comes down to whatever he wants to write it down as. He was a bit more flexible at the beginning, but as the thing became popular he would not budge at anything.

What this tells me, then, is that the new tier system needs to be redone, without bias.

[TrueJordan]

I'm sorry for my ignorance, I know ccleric is Cloistered, but what's Dwizard?

[ddude987]

I'm sorry for my ignorance, I know ccleric is Cloistered, but what's Dwizard?

domain wizard.

Also, I would say the duplicate classes are relievent. For example, OA samurai is better than CW samurai because its level 1 class feature can break wbl IIRC.

[Vanitas]

domain wizard.

Also, I would say the duplicate classes are relievent. For example, OA samurai is better than CW samurai because its level 1 class feature can break wbl IIRC.

It also has more skill points, a better skill list (including Iaijutsu Focus as a class skill) and several possible fighting styles (depending of your clan) instead of only one.

[Lans]

]It also has more skill points, a better skill list (including Iaijutsu Focus as a class skill) and several possible fighting styles (depending of your clan) instead of only the worst one.

Fixed

[Jeff the Green]

domain wizard.

Also, I would say the duplicate classes are relievent. For example, OA samurai is better than CW samurai because its level 1 class feature can break wbl IIRC.

Also because its class feature does not consist of poorly chosen fighter bonus feats and the ability to fall.

[3WhiteFox3]

Also because its class feature does not consist of poorly chosen fighter bonus feats and the ability to fall.

Except it totally does (minus the falling part). It's only real ability Ancestral Daisho is completely replaceable with the Ancestral Relic feat (level 3 and good alignment are the only prerequisites). It does have a list of different feats for each clan, but they are limited to core feats and the clans have pretty sucky lists. I'm not even sure if it's tier 5, it is still only just better than the Warrior (unless that warrior took Ancestral Relic) They are Fighters with a worse bonus feat list, better skill points and skill list (though only thanks to Iajutsu Focus) and exactly one easily duplicated trick.

[Lans]

Except it totally does (minus the falling part). It's only real ability Ancestral Daisho is completely replaceable with the Ancestral Relic feat (level 3 and good alignment are the only prerequisites). It does have a list of different feats for each clan, but they are limited to core feats and the clans have pretty sucky lists. I'm not even sure if it's tier 5, it is still only just better than the Warrior (unless that warrior took Ancestral Relic) They are Fighters with a worse bonus feat list, better skill points and skill list (though only thanks to Iajutsu Focus) and exactly one easily duplicated trick.

OAS also have diplomancy, sense motive, and a high will save. There bonus feats are better than the CWS, with 4-8 good choices by my count

[Hiro Protagonest]

You mean this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6383308&postcount=17)?

*clicks link*

*eyes glaze over*

[Kennisiou]

*clicks link*

*eyes glaze over*

Warlock > Factotum?

Psy Warrior > Factotum?

Duskblade > Factotum??

The ToB Classes > Factotum?

Rogue > Bard?

Factotum > Binder?

This list is honestly hilarious.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Warlock > Factotum?

Psy Warrior > Factotum?

Duskblade > Factotum??

The ToB Classes > Factotum?

Rogue > Bard?

Factotum > Binder?

This list is honestly hilarious.

Actually it's because I couldn't understand what all of those words were, much less the numbers. :smalltongue:

[Kennisiou]

Actually it's because I couldn't understand what all of those words were, much less the numbers. :smalltongue:

It's basically just measuring how many people rated each class and what the variance in the ratings looked like.

The results are what's more hilarious. So many people think Rogue is better than bard that it's not even funny. Like the top of t3 is basically

Beguiler
Factotum
Bard

And yet they're placing ****ing rogue above bard? Bard just barely over warmage?

Oh man and I didn't even notice the first time but Beguiler > Wu Jen, Spirit Shaman, Ardent and Shugenja? Oh my goodness that is hilarious. Spirit Shaman in particular since it's probably like the best T2 class or the worst T1 class (either them or Ardent in my book hold those titles).

Edit: And Dread Necro > Shugenja and Ardent?

Edit x2: Also, depending on the campaign favored enemy (org) is, like, waaay better than (type). When your entire campaign is based around taking down one evil organization, making them your favored enemy basically makes 90% of the things you'll face a favored enemy for you.

[JaronK]

Not really, Coidzor. There was plenty of discussion on tier placement and even stuff everyone involved seemed to agree with was never added because he didn't agree with it. It gets specially bad when it comes to which books are considered for each class - all classes shoule be measured using only the book they appear in plus Core, apparently... all classes except the Factotum, the author's favorite class.

Note: Factotums are not my favorite class and never were. They were just a very hated class by one of the people who really wanted his style of play (combat only, basically) to be the only kind used by the system on, so I ended up showing what Factotums could do a lot... so that guy insisted it was because of personal bias and that Factotums were my favorite class. I did admittedly like them a lot better than Rogues because they fit my play style when I'm playing a sneaky character, but that's true of Beguilers as well. At the time, my favorite class was IIRC the Dread Necromancer, but honestly I switch around a lot. I've only played a Factotum maybe twice. I'm currently really having fun with Archivists and Crusaders.

The actual books measurement I used was to assume that all classes count their book and core as assumed, that completes and MiC and SpC are likely, that setting specific or other random books are a maybe, and that dragon magazine is unlikely to be used. Homebrew is ignored. Note that in almost all of my talk about Factotums, I used core, completes, and SpC.


In the end it really comes down to whatever he wants to write it down as. He was a bit more flexible at the beginning, but as the thing became popular he would not budge at anything.

I stopped writing in more stuff simply because it wasn't necessary. Once people get the idea, they can place classes just fine. The main point is that people need to understand some classes are playing different games from other classes, and that that's okay. You just adapt to it if you want to play the same game together. I also never wanted to add in classes I didn't understand well enough, because sometimes people just get really personal and obsessive about their favorite or hated classes, and I didn't want to have such bias in the system. That's why most Psionic classes are missing, and the same is true of Incarnum classes. I just don't have the experience for it. I did add in a few though due to community consensus.

JaronK