What are your definitions of the Tiers?

[aleucard]

We all use this particular system extensively, but it becomes painfully obvious very quickly that there is a LOT of wiggle room in the original definitions. Thus, as a thought exercise, I want you to post how YOU understand the Tiers to be set up. In other words, I want your interpretation. This should be amusing for at least a little while, and spark some interesting discussion.

First, the normal tiers.

T6 has major issues being competent in anything at all, even its professed specialty in most cases. To be fair, the majority of classes in this tier are for NPC's and as such shouldn't be player-accessible in a normal game, but still.

T5 is either capable of being competent in only a single specific field, very proficient in a very rarely needed/used field, or quasi-competent in several (better than T6, but not by much). Expert would be a good example of the first, Healer an example of the second, and Monk a truly iconic example of the third.

T4 is either very proficient in a single specific field at the cost of nearly everything else or competent in several fields but little more in anything. Barbarian would be a good example of the former and the Ranger a good if controversial example of the latter.

T3 is either exceptional at one field and competent in most others or very proficient in most things without being better than more focused classes in their specific fields. The Warblade is an example of the first and the Bard is an iconic example of the second (with the exception of being the Party Face).

T2 has access to game-breaking capabilities, albeit in limited doses per character (and thus can be planned for with minimal difficulty by an experienced DM). Tends to be highly-focused, and most are capable of being Focused-T3 even without their 'nukes'. Sorcerers and Psions are iconic examples of this tier.

T1 has plentiful access to a wide variety of ways to shatter campaigns, with individual characters being able to accrue several even by accident. Almost every member of this tier is capable of solving most encounters with a single turn, sometimes without even needing for it to be their actual turn. Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Archivist are the most well-known examples.

As for theoretical tiers.....

T7 classes are almost completely unplayable in their normal incarnation, oftentimes requiring high-op or DM houseruling to even function. More often than not, even with the rules being circumvented like this, the class itself is T6, with almost the whole remainder being T5. Truenamer is the poster-child for this unofficial tier.

T0 classes are capable of breaking campaigns just by existing, let alone if they actually take an action. They either have ALL the existing game-breakers available to T1-2 or have abilities that circumvent the need for even that much. In actuality, the list of real classes that occupy this tier is either vanishingly small or literally nonexistent, with most of the things that actually populate the tier being builds rather than classes. Pun-Pun is notorious for being of this tier for the first reason, and Epic Magic is notorious for being able to turn any full-progression Casting class into it for the second reason (also for being completely useless in almost any other case, but still).

What do you think?

[Vhaidara]

T0: Your answer is "Yes"
T1: You break everything in all the ways
T2: You break most things in most of the ways
T3: You do your job well, and can help when it isn't your job
T4: You do your job well, but are useless at everything else
T5: Someone else does your job better
T6: T5 does your job better
T7: What is your job?

[rollforeigninit]

Mostly the tiers seem to be a definitive way to offend someone who disagrees with your assessment of said classes place in the system. Also a fantastic way to spawn threads about the old myth of game balance.

[Divide by Zero]

There is no Tier 7. Truenamer isn't in the normal tier list because it reacts so weirdly to optimization, but if you cut out Truenaming entirely it's still strictly better than a Commoner, so it makes no sense to place it below that.

[eggynack]

Mostly the tiers seem to be a definitive way to offend someone who disagrees with your assessment of said classes place in the system. Also a fantastic way to spawn threads about the old myth of game balance.
The tier system is reasonably accepted in its current form, if not perfectly so in all of its positionings, and I'm not sure what there is about game balance that is a myth. The game is nowhere near balanced, and that's a thing that can be proved.

Anyways,
Tier 6: I can't do nothin'. I can't even get all my sentences grammatical like.

Tier 5: I can kinda do somethin', but not at the top of my class, and the thing I do ain't all that great.

Tier 4: I'm doin' pretty well now. I've got one trick that I do better than just about anyone apart from someone really trying, or a few tricks that I do at something like tier 5 proficiency.

Tier 3: Now I'm doing those few tricks at focused tier 4 proficiency, or a larger number of tricks at unfocused tier 4 proficiency. I can find my footing in most any encounter, though I'm unlikely to wipe them out singlehanded unless I'm focused on that thing.

Tier 2: I can now control the fabric of reality, but only in chosen ways. While I rarely lack a good solution to a problem, and while I sometimes have a great one, I can't call upon that great solution as often as a tier 2 class can, and a perfect solution tends to be out of reach, because I can't plan towards particular challenges as well. Still, controlling reality is an amazing thing, and I can often break the game in half as a result if so inclined.

Tier 1: View me in all of my splendor. I am the beginning and end of all things, capable of rerouting the universe to my will. More than that though, I am notable for the fact that I can do just about anything that can be done by another class, and can often do so while using up few to no long term resources. If there is a way to break the game, it is incredibly likely that I have access to it, and if there exists a way to obsolete another class, chances are I can do that too.

Something like that, anyway.

[bekeleven]

Power
High Flexibility
Medium Flexibility
Low Flexibility


Broken
Tier 1 (Cleric)
Low T1 (Wu Jen)
Tier 2 (Sorcerer)


High
"High Tier 3" (Bard)
Tier 3 (Swordsage)
Tier 4 (Warmage)


Moderate
Tier 3 (Incarnate)
Tier 4 (Marshal)
Tier 5 (Fighter)


Low
Tier 5 (CA Ninja)
Tier 5 (Healer)
Tier 6 (Commoner)


Here's a chart I made a bit back. Like the tier system, it doesn't distinguish between build flexibility and class flexibility. It also doesn't recognize that two classes can have the same power in their areas of expertise but have different abilities when outside of it. Still, it's an approximation.

Note that the Wilder has the highest tier slip among optimization levels, moving from 2 to 5 (Broken-Low to Moderate-Low; I consider it impossible to build a low-powered wilder unintentionally). The Truenamer only moves 2 tiers, from 4 to 6, which is also the difference in tiers shown by any spontaneous caster in high-PO groups vs. newbie-op groups.

[eggynack]

The Truenamer only moves 2 tiers, from 4 to 6, which is also the difference in tiers shown by any spontaneous caster in high-PO groups vs. newbie-op groups.
I think the difference between truenamers and spontaneous casters, in this context, is that while sorcerers experience a steady increase in power as you move from noob to high-PO, truenamers just kinda hold static at tier six or so until you learn how to optimize skill checks effectively, at which point they immediately jump up to a second nearly static power level, because there's not much of a ceiling beyond that point of competence. There are just so few good options, after all, and they're pretty easy to find. It's jittery little class, and the shifting place might just happen right along the optimization line that the tier system measures. At the same time though, were I to write the tier system right now, I'd probably just stick them in tier four with a note that you need to know how to optimize a skill check. Way easier to understand than the current tierless classification, I think.

[bekeleven]

Really? I've never played a truenamer in a game, but I got the impression that they could achieve some sort of tier 5 semicompetence at some point in their op-cycle. Like if you discovered item familiar but not competence bonuses, or vice versa.

[eggynack]

Really? I've never played a truenamer in a game, but I got the impression that they could achieve some sort of tier 5 semicompetence at some point in their op-cycle. Like if you discovered item familiar but not competence bonuses, or vice versa.
I suppose it's possible that you'd hit the point of sometimes making checks and not always doing so. Still, it does seem like a much sharper shift than most, where every chunk of game understanding gained leads to a small increase in sorcerer power, while everything about truenamers is linked to how good you are at increasing this one number.

[OldTrees1]

The Tiers have original definitions. The definitions are much more important than the subjective examples given for each tier. Here is my best effort at paraphrasing the definitions.

Terminology:
Encounter - any challenge or obstacle (combat, talking, investigating, dungeons, ...)
Engagement level: Skilled > Competent > Relevant > Irrelevant(unlisted = irrelevant)

Tier 1-2:

Can engage any encounter at a skilled level. (Versatile and Powerful)
Possess game breaking abilities. (Excessively powerful)Difference: Tier 2 has few game breaking abilities. Tier 1 has many.

Tier 3(specialist):

Can engage any encounter at a relevant level
Can engage one or more classes of encounters at a skilled level
Tier 3(generalist):

Can engage any encounter at a competent level


Tier 4(specialist):

Can engage one or more classes of encounters at a competent level
Tier 4(generalist):

Can engage any class of encounters at a relevant level
Tier 5:

Can engage one or more classes of encounters at a relevant level
Tier 6:

Cannot even engage one or more classes of encounters at a relevant level

[Necroticplague]

Simple way I see it:

1.Can do everything
2.can do anything
3.can do some things
4.can do something
5.can do a thing
6.can do no thing

Slightly hyperbolized, due to simplification, of course, but that's the general way I think of it. Incidentally, the tier list is also a list of how much equipment they need but can't make themselves.

1.needs no equipment they cannot make themselves.
2.needs little equipment they cannot make themselves.
3.needs a fair bit of equipment they can't make themselves.
4.needs a sizable amount of equipment they cannot make themselves.
5.needs significant amounts of equipment they cannot provide themselves
6. Needs large amounts of equipment they cannot guarantee access to.

[prufock]

Tier 6: Can't do its job.
Tier 5: Can do its job, but not as well as others.
Tier 4: Can do its job well, but not much else.
Tier 3: Can do its job well, and can contribute to other jobs.
Tier 2: Can do its job very well, and can do some other people's jobs better than they can.
Tier 1: Can do its own job as well as everyone else's job better than they can.

[Gwendol]

Tier 1: Powerful and versatile
Tier 2: Powerful but somewhat repetitive
Tier 3 and 4: Versatile and/or powerful, but not usually game-breaking (I fail to see the distinction between the two tiers)
Tier 5: Struggling to keep up

[Vhaidara]

Tier 3 and 4: Versatile and/or powerful, but not usually game-breaking (I fail to see the distinction between the two tiers)

3 is versatile and powerful, 4 is versatile or powerful

[Gwendol]

Except that looking at the tiered classes, the distinction becomes less obvious. I mean, duskblades are T3 while the warlock, ranger and warmage are T4. In practice the difference is insignificant.

[Vhaidara]

Except that looking at the tiered classes, the distinction becomes less obvious. I mean, duskblades are T3 while the warlock, ranger and warmage are T4. In practice the difference is insignificant.

IIRC, Duskblade is low T3 (just enough versatility)
Warlock is like the top class for T4 with high versatility and low power (with hellfire you can get it, but that's not part of warlock)
Ranger: versatile, but really low power without ACFs
Warmage: Again, IIRC, near the top of T4. Opposite of Warlock, high power, but not a ton of versatility.

[Feint's End]

I think most people make the mistake of thinking (and probably it was originally intended) that the Tier System is a linear scale from "bad" to "good". This is not quite true. If you can say that at all it applies at most to tier 6-3 since tier 2 and 1 are so massively out of reach of the other tiers that they would deserve their very own list so as to not confuse people thinking it is actually possible to jump into t2 via optimization as it is to jump between the lower tiers (hence it isn't linear as many people assume).

What I mean by that is that it is actually fairly common to say a well optimized *insert class below tier 2* can shift in tiers. Dungeoncrasher is a famous example. That was something bothering me recently. I read the Psycarnum Warrior (a famous Psychic Warrior build heavily utilizing Incarnum) and got very disturbed by the sentence describing the class as a tier 2. Nothing the Psycarnum Warrior gets makes them tier 2. The build has a very high level of optimization but optimization doesn't always shift you in tiers. I think a point could be made that with the wrong power selection a Psycarnum Warrior even sits at tier 4.

Now I don't want to rant about the build (I rather enjoy it). I just wanted so show an example of what I'm talking about.

My descriptions of the tiers are pretty much as written but I think there should be a bigger emphasize on the difference between tier 3 and 2. Maybe even give them a different name since they are essentially on a different level (potentially not even better in some ways but just on a different level). Like call the lower 4 tiers tier 4 - 1 and give the old tier 2 and 1 a different name.

[Gwendol]

IIRC, Duskblade is low T3 (just enough versatility)
Warlock is like the top class for T4 with high versatility and low power (with hellfire you can get it, but that's not part of warlock)
Ranger: versatile, but really low power without ACFs
Warmage: Again, IIRC, near the top of T4. Opposite of Warlock, high power, but not a ton of versatility.

The DB is a nova, it lacks the versatility and the staying power of T3 IMO. A warlock will outshine a DB in most cases outside of damage dealing. Warmage: lacks versatility, but then again has tremendous staying power. I still don't see a meaningful difference. High T3 is a different story though, with bards certainly outshining most other classes outside of certain full casters.

[Vhaidara]

I'm 99% sure that it's been stated that the difference between high T4 and low T3 is the closest in the system.

[Gwendol]

Yes, and there are numerous threads debating the position of those classes in the tier list. All fairly pointless since the distinction between the two is not well defined.

[Seppo87]

Power
High Flexibility
Medium Flexibility
Low Flexibility


Broken
Tier 1 (Cleric)
Low T1 (Wu Jen)
Tier 2 (Sorcerer)


High
"High Tier 3" (Bard)
Tier 3 (Swordsage)
Tier 4 (Warmage)


Moderate
Tier 3 (Incarnate)
Tier 4 (Marshal)
Tier 5 (Fighter)


Low
Tier 5 (CA Ninja)
Tier 5 (Healer)
Tier 6 (Commoner)


So, Hulking Hurler (or ubercharger, to some extent) would be: "Broken Power, Ridiculous flexibility". Right?

[HaikenEdge]

Minus Optimization, and viewed from the perspective of a DM with new players:

Tier 6: Trap classes. Don't let new players play these, because it will likely turn them off the game.
Tier 5: Almost trap classes. Can do one thing, but not even that well. Keep away from new players, because they're also likely a turnoff.
Tier 4: Can do one thing well, or a couple things competently Not a bad place to start new players, if they want to try something that's a bit challenging.
Tier 3: Can do a couple things well, one thing very well, or one thing well and a couple things competently. Great place for new players, since most are fairly straight-forward.
Tier 2: Can do most things very well, or all things well. Can be confusing for new players, who may find the versatility frustrating when they make a bad choice.
Tier 1: Can do everything very well. Not great for new players, who may find the versatility confusing and frustrating (like a Tier 2)

[Chronos]

I would add just a couple of elaborations to the standard tier system. First, Tier 0, which usually means "has access to a full list of T1 tricks, but all the time, without preparation". Nothing starts off here (except for Beholder Mage and Ilithid Savant, but neither of those is really relevant), but there are a few high-op tricks that can let you reach this point.

Second, I'd divide Tier 2 into two different tiers. Tier 2a can choose what they want from a full powerful list (like Tier 1), but only a limited selection of them and can't easily change it. This includes sorcerers, favored souls, psions, wilders, and arcane swordsages (if they exist). Tier 2b has access to all of their list of options, with preparation (like Tier 1), and the list includes some powerful options, but not nearly as many as a Tier 1. This includes the Wu Jen, the Spirit Shaman, a hypothetical druid with just its spellcasting, and a binder with access to the online vestiges.

It should be expected that there will be some disagreement about exactly where certain classes go. Some are bound to be near the boundaries, after all, and terms like "contribute well" or "broken powerful" are at least somewhat subjective. But every tier has classes that clearly and unambiguously fit in it, and no class except the Truenamer is uncertain by more than a fraction of a tier.

With truenamers, meanwhile, it's not just a matter of knowing how to optimize skill checks. It may not even be possible to do so. Any other class is functional using just core plus whatever book it was released in, but a truenamer with just Tome of Magic and core can't do any better than about 70% chance of success, versus an equal-CR target, on the first try of the day (and gods help you if you fight through some minions and then have a challenging encounter, like most adventures are set up).

[HaikenEdge]

I'd make the argument the Psionic can easily alter its power selection past level 7 through psychic reformation, so it fits closer into 2B than 2A.

[Gnaeus]

For me, the only real definitional question involves tier 1s and 2s, and it has to do with campaign nukes.

In printed classes, tier 1s (and 2s) are powerful characters who (after level 3-5) can occupy any party role they desire, competently engage any challenge within their challenge range, will often be able to completely invalidate challenges, has tremendous and flexible out of combat utility, changes their powers daily, and possess campaign nukes. The question comes in in homebrew classes, gestalt combinations, and other theory questions, where your (thing) has most but not all of those qualifications.

Personally, I would rate those things in importance as:
1. Can always competently engage CR appropriate challenges
2. Tremendous and flexible utility
3. Often completely invalidates challenges
4. Can fill any party role as needed.
5. Vary their abilities on a daily basis (I regard this as only being important because it helps with 1-4)
6. Have nukes. (I regard this of minimal importance, since nuking a campaign is not usually a helpful power, and any Player who wants to trash a campaign can usually do it without playing a tier 1.).

Some people regard the ability to nuke the campaign as the important point of the description.

So, for example, there was a discussion of a theoretical all tier 4-6 gestalt compared with tier 1. Uber-gestalt checks boxes 1-4, and fails boxes 5 & 6 (unless emulating a tier 1 in some manner). For me, that makes it tier 1 in every important measurement. For others, it falls far short.

Its an important distinction around the 2/3 border as well. High T3s hit 3. They mostly hit 1&2 although there may be niche fights where they fail 1, if badly built (of course, a T2 can fail them all if badly built). 5 is only a T1 thing (corner cases aside). But the T3 fails 4 and 6 (usually, depending on build).

[Chronos]

Psychic Reformation costs XP, though, doesn't it? That's enough to put it out of the threshold of "easily", for me: You really can't afford to use psychic reformation every day, the way a wizard can change his prepared list every day.

[bekeleven]

So, Hulking Hurler (or ubercharger, to some extent) would be: "Broken Power, Ridiculous flexibility". Right?

Damage is a high-powered trick, but unless you're really good at doing it (and not stopped by trivial miss chance, bad terrain, abrupt jaunt, etc.) you're a real one-trick pony. You could make the argument for tier 2 with some hulking hurler builds like the tauric, but in generally that places them in tier 4.

Most tier 3s have more reliable ways of dealing damage than on a charge. Charges are incredibly brittle, requiring a straight line, a full-round action, etc. Most good ubercharger builds can at least get around rough terrain and straight lines using feats and items, which is a start.

[HaikenEdge]

Psychic Reformation costs XP, though, doesn't it? That's enough to put it out of the threshold of "easily", for me: You really can't afford to use psychic reformation every day, the way a wizard can change his prepared list every day.

50 XP per level you want to go back; assuming you get 2 spells per level up until 10th, then an average of 1.5 spells per level from 11th through 20th, and assuming you don't need more than 2 different powers a day, given the higher level powers are significantly more versatile and you can learn a power of any level you can manifest, you only burn 50-100 XP per day, which shouldn't be that particularly prohibitive.

[ranagrande]

The tiers are good for baseline comparisons and evaluating homebrew and such, but their importance is greatly exaggerated. Specific builds and play styles always trump tier.

For instance, I could make a T1 Commoner fairly easily. I could also make a Wizard that would struggle to keep up with the CW Samurai.

[Feint's End]

Damage is a high-powered trick, but unless you're really good at doing it (and not stopped by trivial miss chance, bad terrain, abrupt jaunt, etc.) you're a real one-trick pony. You could make the argument for tier 2 with some hulking hurler builds like the tauric, but in generally that places them in tier 4.

This is not true and pretty much exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. Even if you could deal enormous amounts of damage every round without giving a chance to retaliate you are not above tier 4.

[Seppo87]

This is not true and pretty much exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. Even if you could deal enormous amounts of damage every round without giving a chance to retaliate you are not above tier 4. If you can throw rocks that deal that damage to the planet destroying the world where the campaign is set, isn't that technically gamebreaking (and, figuratively, a nuke)?

[bekeleven]

Rana: Tiers don't matter if you (a) explicitly set out to build poorly, or (b) are in the realm of TO, where any class can be played by a kobold and roll high on a knowledge (religion) check.

Within the realms of actual play, Wizards fluctuate about one tier: in high-PO games, they fulfill tier 1, and in newbie groups, they'll still break the game in one or two ways, making them tier 2. You'd have to try to make them not do so, or use the class in such a way that you can't say you're playing a wizard (dip it on a barbarian, build a wizard 3/favored soul 4/mystic theurge, etc).

For reference, the druid fluctuates from tier 1 to tier 1 because unless you build a poor one intentionally (wis 11 druid!) you can't do anything to the class that takes away their casting, and in general few things take away wild shape, animal companions, and spontaneous summons. In a group of all noobs, the druid will overpower the rogue and fighter by about the same margin as in a GiantITP group.

Commoners fluctuate from tier 6 to tier 6 because in any PO situation in which their power rises, the power of any class is still higher, and by the same margin. Yes, including partially charged wands.

The tier system explicitly doesn't take into account a group where Tippy plays with noobs, because doing so is both impossible and meaningless.

[Amphetryon]

So, Hulking Hurler (or ubercharger, to some extent) would be: "Broken Power, Ridiculous flexibility". Right?

The Tier System does not address prestige classes (and the Tier System for PrCs - by a different author - addresses them only in terms of adding or subtracting power to the base classes used for entry). It also is not geared toward particular 'builds,' but toward the (perhaps idealized) notion that everyone at the table is using roughly the same level of optimization. So, it really doesn't address Hulking Hurler in relation to that particular chart, or any others.

During the time of the Test of Spite, Doc Roc did put together a different sort of Tier system, ranking particular builds, because that was more apropos to the specifics of the ToS.

[Red Fel]

If you can throw rocks that deal that damage to the planet destroying the world where the campaign is set, isn't that technically gamebreaking (and, figuratively, a nuke)?

There's gamebreaking, and there's game-ending. Blowing up the planet isn't a measure of your versatility, but it can end the game.

Gamebreaking, generally speaking, refers to a character's ability to completely bypass the plot through various means. It can mean blowing up the castle without having to go in and fight the evil sorcerer. It can mean flying over the cursed valley altogether, rather than having to wander through it. It can mean Gateing in Solars and abusing Wish to pretty much accomplish anything, or using a combination of high Knowledge checks, scrying, and Greater Teleport to skip an entire campaign's worth of mystery and discovery and show up on the enemy's doorstep.

It can also means blowing up the planet. Game-ending can result from being gamebreaking, truth be told. But being game-ending isn't really measured by the Tier System. The d2 Crusader can deal NI damage to the planet, crack it open like an egg, game over, somebody grab Monopoly, we're going to play board games until you learn to behave. That doesn't mean the d2 Crusader is T1-2. (Frankly, the Tier System isn't designed to measure specific builds like the d2 Crusader, anyway.) But being gamebreaking? That's pretty much why a T1 is a T1 - because it has the tools to completely bypass and "win" the game. Checkmate in five moves, do not pass Go, three in a row, game over.

[Vhaidara]

For instance, I could make a T1 Commoner fairly easily.

Without the use of Chicken Infested (Dragon Mag, not Compendium), please explain how you intend to acquire Wish, Gate, and Shapechange.

[Seppo87]

How many Nukes (nuke = a way to break the game) are required to be T2?

And why do people keep telling Wish, Gate and Shapechange are the only things counting as Nukes? Did JaronK mention it or is it just a popular assumption?

[aleucard]

Without the use of Chicken Infested (Dragon Mag, not Compendium), please explain how you intend to acquire Wish, Gate, and Shapechange.

And for bonus points, explain how you do so that couldn't be accomplished as easily if not easier as another class. We're comparing classes, after all, not how permissive our DM's are with WBL breakage.

EDIT: Seppo, the biggest issue seems to be describing what exactly constitutes a 'nuke' in this case, not necessarily how many they have. Pun-Pun technically only really uses one nuke himself to ascend, after all. In this context, a nuke is some form of ability that the user could perform that causes the obviation of entire encounters (preferably, multiple types of encounters as well) on the completion of the actions required to perform them, preferably something that can fire in 1 FRA or less. Infinite damage doesn't do this without moderate planning, tactics, and/or luck, despite being able to instagib anything that it hits. Abrupt Jaunt, on the other hand, can easily render the user effectively immune to multiple attacks/day, with the only three things required being the ability to teleport, a safe spot in range (any other square in the case of most attack rolls), and knowing that the attack is incoming. Teleport (especially its stronger siblings) obviates most time-sensitive campaign ideas with some planning on the part of the player, and can easily be augmented with Divination to not even require that much. Freedom of Movement tells anyone and anything that relies on restricting a target's mobility with the single possible exception of encasing a then-unconscious target in a wall-type Forcecage or similar to sit down and shut up. The combination of Divine Power and Heroics is notorious for completely obviating the point of taking levels in vanilla Fighter except as prerequisites. Tier 2 is such for having access, but limited enough that they are over significant portions of game time known quantities. A Tier 1 can pick them up at any and all times, and if they have limited slots available for an individual example, swap them out inside of 24 hours. It's possible for a T2 class to become T1 if they are able to find an ability for getting that modularity, though, preferably without a noticeable cost. One thing Tippy is known for is stating as much in several cases.

EDIT 2: Just for the record, Extra Spell plus 2 Chameleon does not qualify for the jump from T2 to T1, though it does help a MASSIVE amount. This is cheesy at basically everyone but Tippy's table, regardless, for reasons which should be obvious.

[Vhaidara]

How many Nukes (nuke = a way to break the game) are required to be T2?

And why do people keep telling Wish, Gate and Shapechange are the only things counting as Nukes? Did JaronK mention it or is it just a popular assumption?

They aren't the only things, but between those 3 and Time Stop (Which I just forgot to include), there isn't really anything you can't do.

[Seppo87]

They aren't the only things, but between those 3 and Time Stop (Which I just forgot to include), there isn't really anything you can't do.
Anyway I think Jaronk had a different set of features in mind when he designed his Tier system.

Probably Greater Teleport should be considered a nuke.

[Red Fel]

Probably Greater Teleport should be considered a nuke.

Greater Teleport is a fairly gamebreaking ability. As stated above, you can use it to substantially bypass obstacles. But there are limits - it can't travel between planes, you need a reliable description of the destination, and there are ways to ward against teleportation.

Wish and Miracle are considered gamebreaking in the sense that they can literally do anything. Theoretically speaking, they can accomplish any objective. Gate is considered gamebreaking, in part, because it offers you access to Solars, an easy source of Wish. Shapechange is considered gamebreaking because it turns a single character into basically whatever kind of character you need, complete with size adjustments and (Ex) and (Su) abilities.

They are not the exclusive gamebreakers, but they are a good demonstration. At low levels, Fly is gamebreaking, because it allows you to completely bypass many encounters and challenges. Passwall can be gamebreaking, because it allows you to bypass a siege, maze, or deep tunnels. And so forth.

[Seppo87]

Wish and Miracle, as Shapechange, are nukes granting more nukes, if I understand it correctly.

The question is: how many nukes do you need to be T2?

iirc, JaronK said that a T2 "can't always have the right tool for the job" and basically T2 nukes are as powerful as T1s, but T2 can only choose between a limited subset of nukes.

While this might be not true (if you optimize a sorcerer, he will always have the right tool for the job) that is not required to be T2 by Jaronk's definition.
All that is needed are "some" nukes - even if they can't cover all situations

So, how many? Which ones?

[aleucard]

Wish and Miracle, as Shapechange, are nukes granting more nukes, if I understand it correctly.

The question is: how many nukes do you need to be T2?

iirc, JaronK said that a T2 "can't always have the right tool for the job" and basically his nukes are as powerful as Tier 1s, but he can only choose between a limited set of nukes.

While this might be not true (if you optimize a sorcerer, he will always have the right tool for the job) that is the minimum to be T2: "some" nukes, even if they can't cover all situations

So, how many? Which ones?

You're not going to get a specific number, so you may as well not bother there. The only real metric is by comparing to other classes; an equal-op Sorcerer will have significantly fewer than an equal-op Wizard, for instance. As for which ones, well any would work, though mostly the ones that work as such up to and including the mid-teens at least. Anything that gives a flight speed when your primary opponents are groundlocked and without significant ranged ability qualifies, but that list shrinks the higher level you go, and more hard counters start showing up. Still near-mandatory, mind, but now it's less like the fire that melts people's faces and more like your own body heat.

[ranagrande]

I was of course referring to chicken-infested. All other forms of Commoner optimization can be done (and probably better) by other classes.

[Mato]

Mostly the tiers seem to be a definitive way to offend someone who disagrees with your assessment of said classes place in the system. Also a fantastic way to spawn threads about the old myth of game balance.Agreed.

The best way to get people to talk about your ideas is to be wrong. Writing an article about how ever one else wrong with a dozen mistakes is the pinnacle of that concept. But think of it this way, you have been bored without it right?

[Seppo87]

Why is Warblade T3 anyway?
He's excellent at combat, but how is he better than a monk at everything else?

[aleucard]

I was of course referring to chicken-infested. All other forms of Commoner optimization can be done (and probably better) by other classes.

Considering that said flaw is 1) a joke (literally, they posted the damned thing as part of a joke article, look it up) and 2) obviously not written with this anywhere near RAI, or even within the boundaries of common sense, I wouldn't count it too much. If this is viable, then so is saying screw the flaw and doing it with a Component Pouch directly, since the thing has to have NI components in order to produce NI chickens, even with this absurdity in play.

EDIT: to my knowledge, Warblade's other qualifiers for T3 status is 1) his maneuvers have more utility than just melee combat, and are actually pretty decent when put to proper use, 2) he has fairly high Int and is very open to having multiclassing in play, thus making him a skillmonkey with minimal issues, and 3) if all else fails, Iron Heart SURGE!!!!! (read: he has several quasi-nukes, and as such is a good chunk of the way towards T2 on top of everything else). Making him into a ranged specialist is also not all that difficult if done properly, especially if you employ his ability to swap around weapon-specific feats; Spiked Chain one day, Composite Greatbow another. Not all that effective at purely peaceful encounters, but you don't need to cover EVERYTHING in order to be T3.

[Vhaidara]

Why is Warblade T3 anyway?
He's excellent at combat, but how is he better than a monk at everything else?

Stone Dragon for the Mountain Hammer Line, which works as Open Lock and Passwall.
Int synergy is so much better than Wis synergy

And monk isn't generally good at anything, which is why it's T5. Warblade is amazing at combat and has a few things for out of combat (the above, + social skills) that are helpful. Thus T3. Though IIRC it is mid-low T3

[Jormengand]

I was of course referring to chicken-infested. All other forms of Commoner optimization can be done (and probably better) by other classes.

That doesn't really make you T1. That just means you have at-will free-action True Creation only for chickens, which isn't enough to win everything on its own (unless you max out UMD and use the chickens to break WBL, I guess, but UMD is specifically assumed not to be happening in the Tier system because otherwise everyone is T1).

[Gnaeus]

Greater Teleport is a fairly gamebreaking ability. As stated above, you can use it to substantially bypass obstacles. But there are limits - it can't travel between planes, you need a reliable description of the destination, and there are ways to ward against teleportation.

Wish and Miracle are considered gamebreaking in the sense that they can literally do anything. Theoretically speaking, they can accomplish any objective. Gate is considered gamebreaking, in part, because it offers you access to Solars, an easy source of Wish. Shapechange is considered gamebreaking because it turns a single character into basically whatever kind of character you need, complete with size adjustments and (Ex) and (Su) abilities.

They are not the exclusive gamebreakers, but they are a good demonstration. At low levels, Fly is gamebreaking, because it allows you to completely bypass many encounters and challenges. Passwall can be gamebreaking, because it allows you to bypass a siege, maze, or deep tunnels. And so forth.

We are kind of talking about different things. There are powers that invalidate encounters, and there are powers that reshape campaigns. Tier 3s have lots of powers that invalidate encounters. Very few that reshape campaigns. Tier 1s get both. A beguiler can mindscrew a target and make them tell all about what really happened the night of the murder, or can sneak invisibly past a guard, or invalidate him with a SoL. A wizard can crash the economy, nuke cities, create self replicating spawn that ravage the countryside, bind/create an army, etc.

[Chronos]

Y'know, I would argue that commoner doesn't actually belong in Tier 6. The class was designed to do something, and it does extremely well at what it was designed to do. It's just that what it was designed to do was to suck.

Not really relevant, though, since nobody would ever actually play a commoner in a serious game unless they were forced to.

[OldTrees1]

How many Nukes (nuke = a way to break the game) are required to be T2?

And why do people keep telling Wish, Gate and Shapechange are the only things counting as Nukes? Did JaronK mention it or is it just a popular assumption?

Tier 2 has 2 necessary conditions. 2* "Nukes" would be sufficient to satisfy the "has gamebreaking abilities" necessary condition. The other necessary condition from the original definition is "at least more versatility than less versatility than Tier 3". I take that as intended to mean at least as versatile as the Tier 4(generalist) definition even if the literal meaning is "True".

*Some will argue that 1 is sufficient. I bet someone(singular) will argue that 3 are needed.

[Jormengand]

Y'know, I would argue that commoner doesn't actually belong in Tier 6. The class was designed to do something, and it does extremely well at what it was designed to do. It's just that what it was designed to do was to suck.

And if I designed a class with the intention of making it rule everything ever and it did that extremely well, it would be Tier 1. If I made a class with the intention of making it rule a few specific circumstances, and succeeded, it would be Tier 2. If I designed a class with the intention of wrecking face all the time without ruling everything, and it worked, it would be tier 3.

Sucking doesn't help in encounters, so it doesn't make you a higher tier. It doesn't matter how well a class is designed, it matters what the class actually does, by design or otherwise.

[Aliek]

Tiers should be rough estimates, and go in pairs.

Tiers 1 and 2 being the 'potentially gamebreaking' ones, where they might have something to bypass every challenge that could go their way. Tier 1s can have it with downtime easily, tier 2s not as much.(Other than the spirit shaman, which is its own special case)Or, for a few specific classes, tier 2s have a few abilities which are potentially able to overcome most challenges(Zceryll Binder, Wilder?)

Meanwhile tiers 3 and 4 are what I feel to be the sweet spot, either as generalists or specialists. They can contribute most of the time with some focus on being good at something. Nobody feels useless, plot-breaking is manageable at those levels.

Tier 5 and 6 are where you should thread upon only if you know what you're doing. Monk and fighter dips are great, but a pure fighter or monk, most of the time, isn't.

As a footnote, I don't think taking wild shape and the companion away from druid is enough to make them tier 2 :smallbiggrin:

[eggynack]

As a footnote, I don't think taking wild shape and the companion away from druid is enough to make them tier 2 :smallbiggrin:
That is accurate. Such is the power of a good list. Still, the loss is a pretty big one, more than some give it credit for, as you're effectively losing a big part of your list. First, you lose the spells that are good because of those abilities, like bite of the were X, greater magic fang, some of animal growth (you can still hit the summoned creatures), and of course enhance wild shape. Second, you lose the parts of those abilities that basically are spells, like flying forms providing overland flight, beefy forms providing free righteous might or whatever you want to call it, dire tortoise providing that chunk of ridiculousness, the animal companion providing a free minionmancy majig, and so on. You also lose some fantastic feat options, like aberration wild shape and natural bond, so that's annoying. So, yeah. Tier one, but probably at the bottom of that particular pile.

[Vhaidara]

That is accurate. Such is the power of a good list. Still, the loss is a pretty big one, more than some give it credit for, as you're effectively losing a big part of your list. First, you lose the spells that are good because of those abilities, like bite of the were X, greater magic fang, some of animal growth (you can still hit the summoned creatures), and of course enhance wild shape. Second, you lose the parts of those abilities that basically are spells, like flying forms providing overland flight, beefy forms providing free righteous might or whatever you want to call it, dire tortoise providing that chunk of ridiculousness, the animal companion providing a free minionmancy majig, and so on. You also lose some fantastic feat options, like aberration wild shape and natural bond, so that's annoying. So, yeah. Tier one, but probably at the bottom of that particular pile.

I feel spells only druid would be like T1.5: Either the very bottom of T1, or the very top of T2.

Also, isn't the Spirit Shaman considered T2 with an almost fundamentally better method of spell preparation (no spontaneous SNA is the only downside)? I know it suffers from slight MAD, but still.

[eggynack]

Also, isn't the Spirit Shaman considered T2 with an almost fundamentally better method of spell preparation (no spontaneous SNA is the only downside)? I know it suffers from slight MAD, but still.
It's really a worse method of spell preparation, due to the limit on spells retrieved. You usually have to wait three levels just to have access to a second spell of a given spell level, which is a problematic thing when druids are often running a couple of spells of a given spell level when they first access it, on top of summoning. Really, you're not even casting spontaneously at that point. At the same time though, it's pretty irrelevant, as there's no one thing that the spirit shaman is considered. They're sometimes placed at two, but they're also sometimes placed at a low one, and even sometimes at three. It's a class that's tricky as hell to place. Stuff-less druids are somewhat better though, so it seems reasonable to just stick them at low one and be done with it.

[Pex]

Originating from a discussion of how good or not good the fighter class is, one person who vehemently disagreed with others' claims of the fighter not being so bad off as people generally said it was decided to encompass his own thoughts of the fighter along with all the classes to explain his point of view. Knowing that discussion was quite opinionated, in formulating his thoughts into the Tier System he purposely and successfully wrote in an unbiased manner. It's inherently biased because it was his opinion, of course, but it was done as if the original fighter debate never happened. There was no emotional baggage, his own nor of detractors.

Unfortunately the Tier System's popularity mutated its original meaning. No longer a neutral presentation of class versatility comparisons, it has taken a form like a Gospel and used to justify telling people they're playing the game wrong, shouldn't play certain classes at all, or proof why they shouldn't even be playing 3E. Fortunately such a stance is not as common on these forums as there used to be, but there is still the occasional thread wanting a codification of new classes or help to change a class's Tier. It's as if they want/need the Tier System's permission to use or play the class in their campaign.

I recognize the Tier System's original intent of just explaining how the different classes have different versatility. It is a useful tool to help DMs and players watch out for spellcaster players breaking the game with various combinations of effects and to make sure warrior players don't feel useless when their preferred combat tactic isn't viable. I do find myself thinking about it when my group creates and develops their characters. While I don't reference it specifically because they never heard of it, when another player thinks some effect is too powerful or too weak I can give comparisons. Didn't work to keep psionics from being banned :smallfurious: but was helpful in ensuring everyone the barbarian using Come and Get Me feat exploiting AoOs is brilliant and not overpowered.

[Divide by Zero]

If you can throw rocks that deal that damage to the planet destroying the world where the campaign is set, isn't that technically gamebreaking (and, figuratively, a nuke)?

Being able to destroy the planet only matters if destroying the planet is your goal. Being Tier 1-2 means having the tools to solve a problem in pretty much any way you want.

[HaikenEdge]

Being able to destroy the planet only matters if destroying the planet is your goal. Being Tier 1-2 means having the tools to solve a problem in pretty much any way you want.

To be fair, destroying the planet, in most situations, will break the game, because whatever problem you were facing, likely no longer exists, along with the planet it was on, and will therefore will have been solved.

Dragon terrorizes village, then goes to hide in his trap laden cave? No more planet, no more cave, no more dragon, no more village.
Orc army wants to raid the city? No more planet, no more orc army, no more city to raid.

[OldTrees1]

Originating from a discussion of how good or not good the fighter class is, one person who vehemently disagreed with others' claims of the fighter not being so bad off as people generally said it was decided to encompass his own thoughts of the fighter along with all the classes to explain his point of view. Knowing that discussion was quite opinionated, in formulating his thoughts into the Tier System he purposely and successfully wrote in an unbiased manner. It's inherently biased because it was his opinion, of course, but it was done as if the original fighter debate never happened. There was no emotional baggage, his own nor of detractors.

Wow. That was the origin? That is a perfect example of attempted objectivity. The only bias I could find was the bias to simplify.

[Larkas]

I think most people make the mistake of thinking (and probably it was originally intended) that the Tier System is a linear scale from "bad" to "good". This is not quite true. If you can say that at all it applies at most to tier 6-3 since tier 2 and 1 are so massively out of reach of the other tiers that they would deserve their very own list so as to not confuse people thinking it is actually possible to jump into t2 via optimization as it is to jump between the lower tiers (hence it isn't linear as many people assume).

What I mean by that is that it is actually fairly common to say a well optimized *insert class below tier 2* can shift in tiers. Dungeoncrasher is a famous example. That was something bothering me recently. I read the Psycarnum Warrior (a famous Psychic Warrior build heavily utilizing Incarnum) and got very disturbed by the sentence describing the class as a tier 2. Nothing the Psycarnum Warrior gets makes them tier 2. The build has a very high level of optimization but optimization doesn't always shift you in tiers. I think a point could be made that with the wrong power selection a Psycarnum Warrior even sits at tier 4.

Now I don't want to rant about the build (I rather enjoy it). I just wanted so show an example of what I'm talking about.

My descriptions of the tiers are pretty much as written but I think there should be a bigger emphasize on the difference between tier 3 and 2. Maybe even give them a different name since they are essentially on a different level (potentially not even better in some ways but just on a different level). Like call the lower 4 tiers tier 4 - 1 and give the old tier 2 and 1 a different name.

I agree with most of this, but I have to point out that breaking the T3/2 barrier with optimization (and thus, with specific builds) is possible, if comparatively rare. Sublime Chord moves the normally T3 Bard into low T2 territory, and Rainbow Servant skyrockets a T4 Warmage straight into high T1 territory.

[Gnaeus]

I think most people make the mistake of thinking (and probably it was originally intended) that the Tier System is a linear scale from "bad" to "good". This is not quite true. If you can say that at all it applies at most to tier 6-3 since tier 2 and 1 are so massively out of reach of the other tiers that they would deserve their very own list so as to not confuse people thinking it is actually possible to jump into t2 via optimization as it is to jump between the lower tiers (hence it isn't linear as many people assume).

What I mean by that is that it is actually fairly common to say a well optimized *insert class below tier 2* can shift in tiers. Dungeoncrasher is a famous example. That was something bothering me recently. I read the Psycarnum Warrior (a famous Psychic Warrior build heavily utilizing Incarnum) and got very disturbed by the sentence describing the class as a tier 2. Nothing the Psycarnum Warrior gets makes them tier 2. The build has a very high level of optimization but optimization doesn't always shift you in tiers. I think a point could be made that with the wrong power selection a Psycarnum Warrior even sits at tier 4.

Now I don't want to rant about the build (I rather enjoy it). I just wanted so show an example of what I'm talking about.

My descriptions of the tiers are pretty much as written but I think there should be a bigger emphasize on the difference between tier 3 and 2. Maybe even give them a different name since they are essentially on a different level (potentially not even better in some ways but just on a different level). Like call the lower 4 tiers tier 4 - 1 and give the old tier 2 and 1 a different name.

Really not so much. There are very, very few tricks that a sorcerer or favored soul can do that a dread necromancer or beguiler cannot imitate with their base lists + Arcane Disciple, which I regard as very basic opti-fu for both classes.

[Pex]

Being able to destroy the planet only matters if destroying the planet is your goal. Being Tier 1-2 means having the tools to solve a problem in pretty much any way you want.

The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant compared to the power of the Schwartz.

[Gemini476]

Really not so much. There are very, very few tricks that a sorcerer or favored soul can do that a dread necromancer or beguiler cannot imitate with their base lists + Arcane Disciple, which I regard as very basic opti-fu for both classes.
How about Arcane Fusion, binding two outsiders in a single day, or healing people with a wand of Lesser Vigor? Or being capable of anything that isn't on the base list and would require two spells from two separate domains? Also, anything involving divine prestige classes. And I guess also kobolds because +1 effective sorcerer level is too good to not mention.

Domains can give you a lot of spells, but not all of them. Also, Arcane Disciple has somewhat limited uses per day.

Now, if you start bringing in prestige classes that add spells (looking at you, Rainbow Servant and Mage of the Arcane Order) then the gap gets much much smaller. Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are already teetering at the top edge of Tier 3: it doesn't take much for you to refine some uranium, so to speak.

In my personal opinion, there are very few classes that you can't build into Tier 2 if you find some tasty enough nukes. Hulking Hurlers were mentioned - I'd just like to note for a moment that while they can destroy the world, they could also just throw a big enough rock to crush Castle von Evil or the Caverns of Despair or the Swamp of Skellingtons instead. It's a nuke - not a very flexible nuke, but a nuke nonetheless. Once you have a hammer that powerful, quite a lot of non-nail objects start looking distinctly pointy with flat heads.

The same goes for the Chicken Infested Commoner - although his trick can mostly be replicated by either anyone with a Spell Component Pouch and a grudge against everything not covered in guano or someone with half a rank in Craft(wooden club making) who decides to go full-on Unlimited Club Works. Drown dungeons and then excavate them for loot later, create instant walls and/or tsunamis, etcetera etcetera.
The Commoner has a leg up on everyone else, though, since chickens are more useful than clubs (although not quite as useful as some of what is in a SCP) and they get the ability for negative cost. Like, literally. The ability to summon infinite poultry is the cost for getting an extra feat. Which could be Quick Draw, for instance.

The Commoner as a class is still Tier 6, though. It's just a single build that makes it to relatively highish tiers (Tier 2 for completely breaking dungeoncrawls in half? Tier 4 for having what amounts too a single good trick and no competence outside it?)

[Chronos]

You can't make clubs from thin air. You can make them from 0 GP worth of raw materials. You pick up a worthless stick, and turn it into a worthless club. But you still need to start with the stick.

[Divide by Zero]

You can't make clubs from thin air. You can make them from 0 GP worth of raw materials. You pick up a worthless stick, and turn it into a worthless club. But you still need to start with the stick.

How big is 0 gp of wood?

[OldTrees1]

How big is 0 gp of wood?

Big enough that it takes both arms of an Elder Titan to wield it.

[Gwendol]

Why is Warblade T3 anyway?
He's excellent at combat, but how is he better than a monk at everything else?

It looks as if all the ToB classes were lumped into T3. It doesn't make much sense, other than putting a lot of emphasis on the high optimization floor of those classes, since the crusader and especially the warblade really are only good at dealing damage. But as I said earlier, the difference between T3 and T4 is ill-defined and the boundary muddled.

[Amphetryon]

Really not so much. There are very, very few tricks that a sorcerer or favored soul can do that a dread necromancer or beguiler cannot imitate with their base lists + Arcane Disciple, which I regard as very basic opti-fu for both classes.

The main difference I see is that a DN or a beguiler is really fairly restricted to a few tricks, because of the nature of being list-casters. The sorcerer, though casting off of a more limited repertoire than the T1s, could utilize spells in ways that are simply unavailable to the list-casters, because they can never access the relevant spells, even with Arcane Disciple.

It's also worth noting that, as originally conceived, T2 is a relatively unusual Tier; JaronK noted that in at least a few cases, it was easier to jump a class from T3 to T1 than it was to elevate a T3 'just' to T1.

[Chronos]

It doesn't make much sense, other than putting a lot of emphasis on the high optimization floor of those classes, since the crusader and especially the warblade really are only good at dealing damage.
I won't comment on the warblade, but the crusader is also good at tanking (to the extent that anything in D&D is good at tanking), and also does some healing.

[aleucard]

I won't comment on the warblade, but the crusader is also good at tanking (to the extent that anything in D&D is good at tanking), and also does some healing.

To my knowledge, the Crusader is one of the only classes in 3.5 that does mid-combat healing well. The actual utility may vary, but sometimes having that as a buffer on top of being able to do other things at the same time is enough to turn a TPK into a win.

[Jormengand]

You can't make clubs from thin air. You can make them from 0 GP worth of raw materials. You pick up a worthless stick, and turn it into a worthless club. But you still need to start with the stick.

No. Read the skill description. You do not need a material component of 0gp cost. You need to pay a material component cost of 0gp. You just pay zero gold peices and a quarterstaff (which can be colossal if you like) pops into your hand.

All the rules require you to do is "Pay one-third of the item’s price for the cost of raw materials."

And then you can drop it as a free action too. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17860047&postcount=118)

[Chronos]

All the rules require you to do is "Pay one-third of the item’s price for the cost of raw materials."
And thus, you need raw materials.

[Jormengand]

And thus, you need raw materials.

No, you don't. You need one third of the item's price. That's what it says.

[aleucard]

No, you don't. You need one third of the item's price. That's what it says.

In general, a good judge of whether or not something is TO or Tippyverse-only is if the only logic it makes sense by is RAW. That's what I use, anyway.

[Chronos]

Yes, you need one third the item's price. And what do you need it for?

[Gemini476]

Yes, you need one third the item's price. And what do you need it for?

In the specific case of minting a gold coin, for instance, you need 1/150th pound of gold (worth 3.33 repeating sp). You end up with a gold piece weighing in at 1/50th of a pound.
That's an obvious case.

Making clubs is all kinds of weird, since before you spend a free action to turn a stick into a club it's an improvised weapon so you take -4 to hit I guess? Or if you have a ladder, for instance. A ladder is worth 5cp, so you could use the wood from it to create an infinite amount of clubs. Or a dozen clubs in less than a blink of an eye. Or you could take a 10-foot pole and turn it into three three-foot wooden clubs in one attosecond. The issue is less in the available material - which is still an issue, granted - and more in the amount of time needed to craft items costing 0gp. That being literally infinitely small.

The crafting rules are all kinds of broken, really. And it's not just for low-cost stuff either! Check how long it took IRL smiths to forge a suit of armor, then check how long it would take a 3.5 smith to do the same thing. (Despite the popular misconception that Mithral is easier to work with, it takes a significant amount of time longer than an equivalent item made out of iron.)

The time needed to craft something is directly proportionate to its price. This gets pretty dumb at times. That the time is vastly higher than for equivalently priced magical items is a related issue, but also just weird in general.

[aleucard]

In the specific case of minting a gold coin, for instance, you need 1/150th pound of gold (worth 3.33 repeating sp). You end up with a gold piece weighing in at 1/50th of a pound.
That's an obvious case.

Making clubs is all kinds of weird, since before you spend a free action to turn a stick into a club it's an improvised weapon so you take -4 to hit I guess? Or if you have a ladder, for instance. A ladder is worth 5cp, so you could use the wood from it to create an infinite amount of clubs. Or a dozen clubs in less than a blink of an eye. Or you could take a 10-foot pole and turn it into three three-foot wooden clubs in one attosecond. The issue is less in the available material - which is still an issue, granted - and more in the amount of time needed to craft items costing 0gp. That being literally infinitely small.

The crafting rules are all kinds of broken, really. And it's not just for low-cost stuff either! Check how long it took IRL smiths to forge a suit of armor, then check how long it would take a 3.5 smith to do the same thing. (Despite the popular misconception that Mithral is easier to work with, it takes a significant amount of time longer than an equivalent item made out of iron.)

The time needed to craft something is directly proportionate to its price. This gets pretty dumb at times. That the time is vastly higher than for equivalently priced magical items is a related issue, but also just weird in general.

Which whould be precisely why, in at least some circumstances (drown healing is another), RAW should not be the only test of validity in any circumstance save one where it's explicitly stated as RAW-is-God. We all know that Wizards does ****ty editing, we don't need to grind that particular horse's bones further into powder. It's already practically aerosolic right now.

[Divide by Zero]

And thus, you need raw materials.

Again, how much wood is there in 0 gp of raw materials?

[Gwendol]

I won't comment on the warblade, but the crusader is also good at tanking (to the extent that anything in D&D is good at tanking), and also does some healing.

I agree, which is why I put the emphasis on the Warblade. In my view the Swordsage is the most versatile of the martial adepts, followed by the crusader, and leaving the warblade behind. The warblade should really be T4, while the crusader on the merit of being able to "tank" in the D&D sense at least and heal without spending actions may merit a weak T3 ranking.

[Lans]

I agree, which is why I put the emphasis on the Warblade. In my view the Swordsage is the most versatile of the martial adepts, followed by the crusader, and leaving the warblade behind. The warblade should really be T4, while the crusader on the merit of being able to "tank" in the D&D sense at least and heal without spending actions may merit a weak T3 ranking.

What about its skill boosts and sensory options, and WRT?

[Gwendol]

For the warblade you mean? It helps in the sense that the warblade (much like the duskblade) have ways to not be crippled by various obstacles, and/or tilt action economy in their favor. They still are limited to mainly melee combat. But that's not my point.
My point is that the difference between T3 and T4 is not well defined, to the point of being meaningless.

[Chronos]

Again, how much wood is there in 0 gp of raw materials?
The answer to this is the same in D&D as in the real world: Unknown. One club's worth of raw materials is 0 GP, two clubs' worth of raw materials is 0 GP, zero clubs' worth of raw materials is 0 GP, etc.

Look, you know what the writers were trying to convey, there, right? They didn't actually mean that you could conjure clubs from thin air; they meant that clubs are just sticks of wood with no value. Well, how would you have written the crafting rules to convey that? If there's no clearer way to convey it than what they wrote, then they wrote it right, and the RAW really does say that you need valueless sticks to make clubs out of.

[Jormengand]

the RAW really does say that you need valueless sticks to make clubs out of.

No, it says you need money of equivalent value to valueless sticks. It requires that you pay the material component cost of 0gp, not that you need components worth 0gp.

[Chronos]

Where in the rules does it say that you just need the money? The bit you keep quoting says that you need to pay for raw materials.