Tier Mobile Classes

[paperarmor]

Which Base classes are able to rise or fall within the tier system without using PRCs in the build? and what are the options that allow them to do so?

[MilesTiden]

I believe Binder can shift tiers through Zceryll, because Zceryll is well, broken as hell. :smalltongue:

[Dusk Eclipse]

Rangers are either Tier 4 (normal) or T3 (Wildshape), Psions technically can be Tier 2, 1 or even 0 all thanks to Erudite and StP variants. Also I belive Bard is considered T4 in a core-only game, and Tier 3 with splats.

[eggynack]

Also I belive Bard is considered T4 in a core-only game, and Tier 3 with splats.
Nah, I think they're still 3 on the basis of spells. Just consider the comparison to the tier 4 adept. Really solid list, and their other stuff is reasonable also. As for other stuff, I think it's been asserted that an optimized paladin can hit tier 3 or 4, using tactics akin to the A-game paladin, particularly as applies to things like sword of the arcane order. Additionally, fighter is often asserted to hit 4 with zhentarim soldier and dungeon crasher.

[Troacctid]

It's easy for high-tier classes to fall to lower tiers when played poorly. For example, a Sorcerer with poor spell selection is T4 or even T5 (compare Warmage), and one that's not actively attempting to break the game is more likely to be T3 than T2.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Well maybe, but I think they be at the bottom of Tier 3 as opposed to the top in a core-only environment, they are simply too unfocused, at least in my opinion.

You are spot on with the Paladin though, specially an A-game paladin with SotAO... actually Mystic SotAO would probably Tier 1 for the first ten levels or so, then slowly going towards T3

[Extra Anchovies]

I believe Binder can shift tiers through Zceryll, because Zceryll is well, broken as hell. :smalltongue:

It's not just Zceryll but all the online vestiges. Zceryll is the cake, sure, but you also have that wonderful frosting in the form of, say, the psionic vestiges. Binders are one of those classes that were perfect for web enhancements; their powers vary widely in terms of flavor, can be of any level, can be at-will, use-limited (1/5 rds), or continuous, and can emulate bits of other classes without fear of overshadowing. Thus, the online articles is where that class flourished.

It's also why the Binder is one of my favorite classes. It's about finding power in the world and making use of it, regardless of its source or the price you pay in order to gain it. For some reason it's a class concept that really appeals to me, so I'm glad they're a powerful class.

[A_S]

Healer hangs out around tier 5-6 without expanding its spell list, but probably hits tier 3 with Exalted spells and other stuff to get decent spells onto its list. That's ignoring the whole "gate = suddenly tier 1 at level 17" thing.

*edit* Factotum probably doesn't quite drop a full tier without it, but it's either top of tier 3 or bottom of tier 3 depending on whether it has access to Font of Inspiration.

Rogue is tier 5 if you don't use UMD, and pushing at the bottom of tier 3 if you use it exceptionally well. That goes for all the low-tier UMD classes.

[eggynack]

Well maybe, but I think they be at the bottom of Tier 3 as opposed to the top in a core-only environment, they are simply too unfocused, at least in my opinion.
I think it seems like a reasonable enough list to hang out in the midrange of the tier. Yeah, there are a lot of diverse elements there, and they don't all work together perfectly, but at the end of the day you're tossing around spells like silent image, alter self, glibness, and glitterdust, among others. That alone is enough to justify placement above large swaths of tier 3, particularly compared to something like duskblade. The comparison to something like beguiler is a tricky one, but I don't think the bard is necessarily worse, with the slower yet broader and more powerful list.

[Chronos]

As a solo adventurer, beguiler definitely passes up bard, with the same number of skills and a similarly-broad list, and a similar spell list, but with full-speed progression on that list instead of the up-to-6ths that a bard gets.

On the other hand, if we're looking at beguiler at all, then we're looking at splats, which means that the bard's buffing becomes much more valuable. An optimized DFI bard can add, what, +12d6 damage to every allied attack? That's usually going to be enough to justify a place in the party, even compared to a beguiler.

And there's no way, under any circumstances, that factotum is anywhere below T3. In fact, absent a lot of houserules, they're probably T2. They have multiple options of game-breaking power, just like the tier list says. The only reason people don't notice is that those options aren't spells. But Sleight of Hand and Diplomacy are both definitely game-breakers, and Bluff, Hide, and Move Silently can be pretty close behind.

[Flickerdart]

All T1 and T2 spellcasting classes have very low optimization floors. It's not difficult to put together a wizard who has absolutely no useful spells whatsoever, and is basically a glorified commoner.

[A_S]

And there's no way, under any circumstances, that factotum is anywhere below T3. In fact, absent a lot of houserules, they're probably T2. They have multiple options of game-breaking power, just like the tier list says. The only reason people don't notice is that those options aren't spells. But Sleight of Hand and Diplomacy are both definitely game-breakers, and Bluff, Hide, and Move Silently can be pretty close behind.
Uh...I'll grant you that Diplomacy and Bluff are immensely powerful if used precisely as written. Not convinced about the others, though. What exactly is it you think of as game-breakingly powerful that Hide, Move Silently, and Sleight of Hand can do? The stealth skills seem like "one more pretty good defense" at best to me, and I've never seen anything more impressive than the Lightning Thief from Sleight of Hand (which is cool, but nothing like as game-breaking as, like, the Planar Binding line).

[Flickerdart]

Uh...I'll grant you that Diplomacy and Bluff are immensely powerful if used precisely as written. Not convinced about the others, though. What exactly is it you think of as game-breakingly powerful that Hide, Move Silently, and Sleight of Hand can do? The stealth skills seem like "one more pretty good defense" at best to me, and I've never seen anything more impressive than the Lightning Thief from Sleight of Hand (which is cool, but nothing like as game-breaking as, like, the Planar Binding line).
Sleight of Hand is ridiculously OP:

The DC to steal something from someone is flat; you can't be stopped, all they can do is notice that you did it.
There is a flat modifier to perform a Sleight of Hand as a free action, meaning you can repeat anything infinity times.
An Epic use of the skill allows you to instantly move a creature 10 feet. If you can hit DC100 at all, you can rearrange everything in the world as a free action.

[Irk]

Uh...I'll grant you that Diplomacy and Bluff are immensely powerful if used precisely as written. Not convinced about the others, though. What exactly is it you think of as game-breakingly powerful that Hide, Move Silently, and Sleight of Hand can do? The stealth skills seem like "one more pretty good defense" at best to me, and I've never seen anything more impressive than the Lightning Thief from Sleight of Hand (which is cool, but nothing like as game-breaking as, like, the Planar Binding line).

I can see where you are coming from, but the stealth skills are the only thing that can really hide you; most every spell that tries to emulate them is beaten by true Seeing or the like. Sleight of Hand is good because it can be used to steal magical objects, among those being a Cleric's holy symbol. A lot of the time you can severely handicap an opponent, and you can make it into a free action. A free action to cripple a tier 1 caster is really good, and Factotum is one of the classes that excels at doing that sort of thing.

I don't think Factotum is quite tier 2, but I could be wrong. It's definitely at the top of tier 3 for cunning surge, at least. Factotum/chameleon, factoum/monk, or factotum/warblade, however, may be at the bottomish of tier 2 if done correctly.

Edit: ninja's by Flickerdart. Yeah, sleight of hand is one of the best skills in the game.

[mabriss lethe]

Believe it or not, the Soulknife has the potential to be fairly tier mobile: As-is, it's nestled near the bottom of tier 5, but with the right combination of ACF, race, and feat, it can migrate up to High T4 - very low T3. (tl:dr version: get a manifester level for an PLA via feats or race, use hidden talent to gain a power and tie it to your PLA manifester level. Use feats and pay for Psychic Chirurgery to expand your power list. Once you can cast a power, you gain bonus PP tied to your relevant ability score and manifester level.) The Bonus Feat ACF can fill in the gaps with Martial Study/Stance, and items can be used overclock the mindblade to epic levels and give it much greater flexibility. Feats, powers and items can even make Bladewind into a staple of a build instead of a horrible idea by improving reach and adding rider effects. The end result is a pretty flexible combat chassis that can manifest a small number of hand-picked powers.

Admittedly, the manifesting trick isn't really linked to the class, it just happens to be a convenient chassis for tacking on powers and getting started early.

[Flickerdart]

, the manifesting trick isn't really linked to the class, it just happens to be a convenient chassis for tacking on powers and getting started early.
If it's not linked to the class, it has nothing to do with tiers.

[mabriss lethe]

If it's not linked to the class, it has nothing to do with tiers.

It's more that the class comes with the tools to get an earlier and better start from using it and it's better than most other options the class normally gets.

[sideswipe]

truenamer, widely considered the worst class in the game, not because it is useless but because it is broken and does not work as intended.

but even as is if you optimise it (a lot) you have something that i believe is on par with initiators. before you rage hear me out.

initiators (for the most part) don't have too much utility, and what utilities they have are short lived buffs and such for the most part.
truenamers have a very similar setup to it, a small list of not quite as good as spells that can (potentially) be used unlimited times a day.
the utterances have a greater variety of effects, and each one is essentially 2 due to the reverse effects they have. and all are available at any time.

on top of this metamagic (if optimised) is free, its just a higher check. adding a bit more power in the mix. and does not use up higher "slots"
with a medium base attack and +5 to attacks and damage for a feat (knowledge devotion) they can make pretty good melee gishes.

this makes them a solid tier 4, and they would be their naturally if the were not crying and begging the writer to take pity on them.

[Curmudgeon]

Sleight of Hand is ridiculously OP:

The DC to steal something from someone is flat; you can't be stopped, all they can do is notice that you did it.

The DC to steal anything of any size (larger than a hat or loaf of bread) is quite tough. It's DC 50 to grab an enemy's sheathed dagger, or DC 70 to do so as a free action. And the bold part above is wrong; you can be stopped. If your opponent notices the attempt, they get an AoO (as per usual for any skill use which is normally a standard action) and if you're damaged from the AoO you only succeed on the Sleight of Hand attempt if you make the required Concentration check to continue.

[Flickerdart]

The DC to steal anything of any size (larger than a hat or loaf of bread) is quite tough. It's DC 50 to grab an enemy's sheathed dagger, or DC 70 to do so as a free action. And the bold part above is wrong; you can be stopped. If your opponent notices the attempt, they get an AoO (as per usual for any skill use which is normally a standard action) and if you're damaged from the AoO you only succeed on the Sleight of Hand attempt if you make the required Concentration check to continue.
They only get a limited number of AoOs, and you can just keep trying again because it's a free action. I'm not impressed by your stopping power.

[Lans]

The fixed list classes can go to tier 1 with sovereign archetypes

[A_S]

So, I'm not arguing that optimized Sleight of Hand isn't a good ability. It's cool. You can strongly debuff spellcasters by stealing their holy symbols/spell component pouches (if you can get up to them and get an action off). You can rearrange your nearby allies to get better positioning (the DC 80 use only works on willing creatures). You can hose some physical combatants by stealing their weapons (if you get the drop on them).

Those are all cool abilities. They'd better be, for the level of investment it takes to hit DC's of 50-100 reliably. But, to my eyes, they're not game-breakingly powerful the way that things like:
"get free wishes"
"gain allies with casting abilities equal to or better than those of your own character, with a single action"
"solve an encounter with a single spell, sometimes with no saving throw allowed"
"take an arbitrarily large number of actions at once"
"be immune to basically anything bad happening to you"...are. When I think about the game-breaking abilities that mark the difference between T2 and T3, those are the things that I think of. The Sleight of Hand tricks feel solidly T3 in quality to me (or maybe T4 if they're your only trick, but most characters who can pull that stuff off have several other tricks up their sleeve too).

[Irk]

"take an arbitrarily large number of actions at once"

Factotums are great at this.

[Soranar]

A warlock's tier is incredibly mobile due to

-his ability to take 10 on UMD checks by level 4
-his ability to create any magic item by level 12

that's without considering invocations or eldritch blast, it just concerns his use of UMD (umd is a very nice skill)

if you have access to the right wands and spells, you can easily reach tier 2 for a while by optimizing your wand usage through feats (metamagic spell trigger + extend spell + persist spell or wand mastery + reckless wand user + dual wand user)

if those wands use something like the trapsmith class for spells, you get better spells for far less

eldritch blast is fairly easy to optimize too (use eldritch chain vs mobs, eldritch glaive vs strong single opponents)

Even without hellfire warlock, a normal eldritch blast will deliver quite a lot of damage with a greater chasuble of power (+2d6) and the right eldritch essence (vitriolic blast adds 2d6 acid damage for several rounds). Making your average 3 attack round deliver over 30d6 damage a round with touch attacks.

Creating undead minions (with a desecrate spell from a wand or a scroll) is also a great downtime effect you can boost with undead creation feats. And you're not limited to animate dead spells due to UMD.

All in all, what limits a warlock is your DM's approval of his tricks

[Vhaidara]

Making your average 3 attack round deliver over 30d6 damage a round with touch attacks.

Sadly, EB is a standard. You can't full attack with it unless you're using Eldritch Glaive, in which case you are basically in melee.

[Soranar]

sorry I meant the 3 attacks a round to be eldritch glaive attacks

[icefractal]

I'm not convinced that extremes of certain skills (using the ELH rules, no less) says anything about the Factotum in particular. Diplomacy -> Fanatic is insane, true. Not by any means exclusive to the Factotum, a Cleric can do it just fine. And has other things to fall back on when the group decides that auto-win by Diplomacy is boring and stops using it.

Same thing for those other skills. The Factotum can possibly do more of them at once, but that's really their only edge - they're not even better at skills than other classes, except for 1/day/skill, and that's assuming they have all the exact same other buffs.

Now I'm not saying the Factotum is bad - skills + some spells + Int synergy is a decent combination. But I often see people acting like "powerful use of skills" is a "Factotum thing", and it really isn't.

[Curmudgeon]

... when the group decides that auto-win by Diplomacy is boring and stops using it.
That's an easy decision any time the DM wants to make it. Influencing NPC Attitudes (unopposed Diplomacy check) only works if the NPCs don't decide to negotiate instead (opposed Diplomacy checks).

[A_S]

Factotums are great at this.
Yeah, for sure! That's why I think access to Font of Inspiration is such a big factor in Factotum effectiveness/tier placement. Without it, you spend most of your career with so little inspiration that you have to blow basically all of it for just a couple extra actions, and then you can't do anything useful (like cast spells) for the rest of the fight. With it, you have one of the best action economy abuse abilities in the game, and enough inspiration to spare that you can actually use the extra actions to do useful stuff (which you also have to spend points on, of course).

I was just talking about the specific skill uses in the post you're quoting, not Factotums in general.

[Jormengand]

Truenamer:

T0: Use the Truenamer McApocalypse trick to get infinite wishes at first level.
T1: Ditto, but instead use the ability to get items of gate, ice assassin, greater celerity, heal, overland flight, and other nasty spells. Or be level 20 and get Conjunctive Gate, but that doesn't really count because it's level 20.
T2: Use DWK schenanigans and bad utterance wording to hit anyone, anywhere, through a wall. Do tons upon tons of damage. Abuse heightening utterances to get out of Law of Sequence. Have item familiars, custom items, and other things to push truespeak through the roof. Use IHS-like wording of Reversed Spell Rebirth to end epic spells, or reinstate them. Fix single-use items of high-level spells. Buff your knowledge checks up to infinity and subsequently know anything you like starting at level 4. Know all properties, ever, of an item just by touching it.
T3: Play a competent healer/mage-cheerleader with buffs such as eternal ability to hit ethereal opponents, first-level freedom of movement, use no-save-just-suck spells with effects like preventing someone moving out of the space they're in even with teleportation, abuse mortalbane to do more damage than the average blaster. Take Item Familiar or at the very least buff items.
T4: Play a healbot or a damagebot or a buffbot.
T5: You have medium BAB and ways to increase your damage.
T6: What's truespeak?
T7: Use the truenamer McApocalypse trick to DCS all the feats that you used to be competent at truespeak/knowledge away into useless ones, then PaO yourself into a squirrel.
T8: Use Transmute Weapon to turn your sword into Thinaun. Use the Truenamer McApocalypse trick to summon, call, or otherwise obtain a suitable minion. Order minion to:
Kill you with the sword.
Wait for the sword to turn back into steel.
Throw the sword (which is now no longer made of thinaun, so the soul can't be released by breaking it) into an active volcano.
Enjoy your new life as a volcano.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

All T1 and T2 spellcasting classes have very low optimization floors. It's not difficult to put together a wizard who has absolutely no useful spells whatsoever, and is basically a glorified commoner.

I totally get this for Wizards, but what is considered a realistic floor for Divine Classes? Someone trading away all their non spell abilities and picking useless spells is a little harder and trading away spontaneous casting is a little hard for me to swallow .

[Vhaidara]

I totally get this for Wizards, but what is considered a realistic floor for Divine Classes? Someone trading away all their non spell abilities and picking useless spells is a little harder and trading away spontaneous casting is a little hard for me to swallow .

Healbots are a thing. It is much easier for divine casters to fix a lack of optimization, but they can still absolutely suck.

[Jormengand]

Thing is, Clerics and Wizards can, unless they have low enough casting stat that they actually can't cast spells, always go to bed and wake up as a high-OP character just on spell selection (in the latter case, copying a few spells into your book is required first). Spontaneous classes can choose bad spells and are locked into them, but prepared classes find it very hard to suck terminally unless you're deliberately playing them badly.

[sideswipe]

Thing is, Clerics and Wizards can, unless they have low enough casting stat that they actually can't cast spells, always go to bed and wake up as a high-OP character just on spell selection (in the latter case, copying a few spells into your book is required first). Spontaneous classes can choose bad spells and are locked into them, but prepared classes find it very hard to suck terminally unless you're deliberately playing them badly.

a wizard can have a low floor, but a cleric has a d8hd, med base attack, 2 good saves, knows all spells on the list and can choose freely each day, has spontaneous casting too, has turn undead and can wear heavy armour.

any class can suck if you TRY to make them suck, but someone playing a first time cleric even in low OP will find that they cannot be bad unless they sabotage themselves.

wizards have a low floor, clerics do not in my opinion.

[Vhaidara]

wizards have a low floor, clerics do not in my opinion.

Again, they have a low floor with easy recovery. A healbot is very weak, but if you later acquire system mastery (or decide to stop messing around) you can recover and return to T1 power.

[Curmudgeon]

a wizard can have a low floor, but a cleric has a d8hd, med base attack, 2 good saves, knows all spells on the list and can choose freely each day, has spontaneous casting too, has turn undead and can wear heavy armour.
The bolded part is incorrect. Only arcane spellcasters have a known spell (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_knownspell&alpha=K) capability.
known spell

A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks. For sorcerers and bards, knowing a spell means having selected it when acquiring new spells as a benefit of level advancement. Divine spellcasters get what some deity wants to give them in response to their prayers/meditation. Usually, for the same sorts of prayers, they'll get the same spells. They know only those spells they've been granted (have prepared), and have no ongoing knowledge of all the spells that might be available to them on some other day.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Healbots are a thing.

Yes they are, there's a oft maligned class that's basically built to fill that dead end role and it's Tier 5 with arguments for getting bumped with Exalted spells. A Cleric that only casts spells from the Healer list has heavy armor, two domain abilities, and Turn Undead.

[sideswipe]

The bolded part is incorrect. Only arcane spellcasters have a known spell (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_knownspell&alpha=K) capability. Divine spellcasters get what some deity wants to give them in response to their prayers/meditation. Usually, for the same sorts of prayers, they'll get the same spells. They know only those spells they've been granted (have prepared), and have no ongoing knowledge of all the spells that might be available to them on some other day.

ok mister picky, explain archivists. do they not have a prayerbook and that gives them spells known?
also favoured souls specifically have a "spells known" table.
shugenja is a class i have never looked at, but are divine and have spells known.

frequently it reffers to them and states them as "spells known"
does specific not trump general? and for that they are divine casters with "spells known".

though with the whole cleric thing, yes they are not technically spells known, but they do know them for the day, i was not reffering to the rule, but to them having knowledge of and being able to cast them you are correct that they do not infact count as "spells known"

[Vhaidara]

heavy armor,

Because we all know how relevant armor is in optimization


two domain abilities

Which, since this is a healbot, are probably chosen from Healing, Good, and Sun.


and Turn Undead.

Which, without the right feats (the one thing you can't change easily) is one of the most situational abilities in the game

[sideswipe]

Yes they are, there's a oft maligned class that's basically built to fill that dead end role and it's Tier 5 with arguments for getting bumped with Exalted spells. A Cleric that only casts spells from the Healer list has heavy armor, two domain abilities, and Turn Undead.

healers are great!...... for nailing to a desk and forcing them to churn out scrolls of a lower level.....

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Because we all know how relevant armor is in optimization


When we're talking about floors, yes 3 points of AC matters.


Which, since this is a healbot, are probably chosen from Healing, Good, and Sun.


We can always hop this makes them randomly have Circle of Protection


Which, without the right feats (the one thing you can't change easily) is one of the most situational abilities in the game

At low levels there are times when unoptomized Turn Undead can be more effective than literally any spell you could cast. If we're talking about a party full of characters at their floor those skeletons were a real threat that your fighter couldn't have killed in the rounds he could survive tanking them.

[Bucky]

unless they have low enough casting stat that they actually can't cast spells

This is how you demote Clerics to tier 5. They still get enough class features from their domains to stay out of tier 6 though.

[kaffalidjmah]

*edit* Factotum probably doesn't quite drop a full tier without it, but it's either top of tier 3 or bottom of tier 3 depending on whether it has access to Font of Inspiration.


what is font of inspiration? (sorry for the ignorance)

[Jormengand]

This is how you demote Clerics to tier 5. They still get enough class features from their domains to stay out of tier 6 though.

Then take terrible domains. Medium BaB and turn undead ain't keeping your head above the muddy waters of T6.

[sideswipe]

Then take terrible domains. Medium BaB and turn undead ain't keeping your head above the muddy waters of T6.

we all know following in the footsteps of nup-nup creates bad characters. deliberatly gimping your character is not a low floor. otherwise you have to think about who comes off better with sabotage, and if you deliberatly sabotage every single class to the maximum point then clerics are still in the new "T3"or above. imagine a sorcerer with cha 2
or a commoner with toughness as each feat
a fighter with just toughness and no str and con, but int and dex or int and wis.

if your going to de-optimise you have to assume the whole list is deoptimising. otherwise your entire argument is null and void.

[eggynack]

we all know following in the footsteps of nup-nup creates bad characters. deliberatly gimping your character is not a low floor. otherwise you have to think about who comes off better with sabotage, and if you deliberatly sabotage every single class to the maximum point then clerics are still in the new "T3"or above. imagine a sorcerer with cha 2
or a commoner with toughness as each feat
a fighter with just toughness and no str and con, but int and dex or int and wis.

if your going to de-optimise you have to assume the whole list is deoptimising. otherwise your entire argument is null and void.
I think poor domain choice is actually a fair element of low optimization, rather than a thing that pushes the line to sabotage. It's not like everyone makes good domain choices, after all. I think that an exceptionally low casting stat, to the point where you can't even cast, is crossing that line however. ACF's and variants probably cross it somewhat also, as those are more the province of knowledgeable players. Definitely not entirely though, so it's closer to the line than the stat thing. Can't say I've seen much in the way of folks talking about bringing an 8 wisdom cleric to a table when it wasn't part of a challenge of some variety.

[Darkweave31]

So it was mentioned earlier that warlock has the ability to create any magic item without needing the spell requirements, much like an artificer. Could an argument then be made that warlock may qualify for tier 1 with scribe scroll, or does the artificer's crafting pool make all the difference?

Mostly just an interesting idea since it's generally considered to be lower in the tiers.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

what is font of inspiration? (sorry for the ignorance)

Font of Inspiration is a feat from the WotC archives that gives one point of Inspiration per time you take the feat. Thus, a character who took the feat thrice would gain a total of 6 points our of it (1 from the first feat, 2 from the second, and 3 from the third time).


So it was mentioned earlier that warlock has the ability to create any magic item without needing the spell requirements, much like an artificer. Could an argument then be made that warlock may qualify for tier 1 with scribe scroll, or does the artificer's crafting pool make all the difference?

Mostly just an interesting idea since it's generally considered to be lower in the tiers.

The free XP and feats are part of why artificer is higher. It also helps that the artificer has access to that schtick from level 1, gains the crafting feats roughly when they would otherwise come online, and has ways to temporarily change around items via class creatures and infusions.

[Telok]

I would argue that Rogue can be anywhere from t5 to t3.

The t5 rogue has an Int penalty that limits him to sneaking and perception, a sneak attack focus that prioritizes only damage, fails to boost to-hit and does not bypass immunities, and no UMD.
The t3 rogue will use actual stealth enablers like Darkstalker, a good UMD selection, functional sneak attack that bypasses most immunities, and intelligent use of the skill list to enable options beyond sneak attack and magic.

[Petrocorus]

I think poor domain choice is actually a fair element of low optimization, rather than a thing that pushes the line to sabotage. It's not like everyone makes good domain choices, after all. ........ Can't say I've seen much in the way of folks talking about bringing an 8 wisdom cleric to a table when it wasn't part of a challenge of some variety.
I agree, making good domain choice is probably the first thing a beginner will fail at, while any beginner immediately understand that he needs Wis = 10 + spell level to cast a said spell and so that he will need Wis 19 at some point and will not come with a cleric with less than 14 or 15 in Wis at 1st level.
The second thing a beginner will fail at is the feat selection, and he can end up with only useless feats, but that will not make his Cleric T2. Even without DMM a Cleric is T1.
The spell selection, he can waste it. But he will learn rapidly with playing what are the good, the bad and the ugly (in one way or the other) spells and since he can change the spell selection everyday, the problem won't last for long.
Depending on that, i believe the Cleric can go from T4 to T1 overnight, or the other way round. Because bad feat and domain choice won't make it less than low T1.


So it was mentioned earlier that warlock has the ability to create any magic item without needing the spell requirements, much like an artificer. Could an argument then be made that warlock may qualify for tier 1 with scribe scroll, or does the artificer's crafting pool make all the difference?

The Crafting Pool (and the Retain Essence ability) is certainly a big difference. Add the fact that the Arty gain most of crafting feat for free and that infusions are more versatile (if harder to use) than the invocations. And the fact that the Warlock need to wait until lvl 12 to do it, plus probably a 2 lvl dip in Chameleon while the Arty start doing that a lvl 1. Most of Warlock class features can be reproduced through items.

I do believe that the Warlock can go from T5 to low T3 depending on the OP and the type of campaign. They have a wide array of abilities (sadly can choose too few of them) and can be useful OoC. At lvl 6, Fly + Invisibility make Hide and MS obsolete (until higher lvl when see invisibility and blindsense, and etc become common). Baleful Utterrance has versatility. Eldritch Glaive and Claws can pump up their damage into T3 melee classes territory. I believe that well built, they can be low T3.

[Vhaidara]

Depending on that, i believe the Cleric can go from T4 to T1 overnight, or the other way round. Because bad feat and domain choice won't make it less than low T1.

No one is claiming Cleric isn't T1. In fact, this is exactly what I have been saying: Compared to a wizard, clerics have amazing recovery from bad optimization. The argument being made against us was that, even if the cleric picks bad spells, Turn Undead, Domain powers, and Heavy Armor redeem them up to T4.

Also, you assume a lot with the learning speed of people. A lot of people view clerics purely as buffbot/healbot, with the buffs being directed specifically at other party members, with a focus on bigger numbers.

[Zanos]

T0: Use the Truenamer McApocalypse trick to get infinite wishes at first level.
I'm not familiar with this, could you expand or offer a link?

[Jormengand]

I'm not familiar with this, could you expand or offer a link?

Essentially, the truenamer's Universal Aptitude utterance allows you to get a wish at first level with the BoVD sacrifice rules. The wish spell allows you to wish for magic items of more wishes, or magic items of any spell you like. This means that you can access pretty much any spell, power, or really anything else with judicious use of Wish, Gate, Miracle, and so forth.

[Petrocorus]

No one is claiming Cleric isn't T1. In fact, this is exactly what I have been saying: Compared to a wizard, clerics have amazing recovery from bad optimization. The argument being made against us was that, even if the cleric picks bad spells, Turn Undead, Domain powers, and Heavy Armor redeem them up to T4.

I may have poorly expressed my point. My point is that what make a cleric T1 is the spellcasting. The other stuffs, TU, Domain Granted Powers, Divine / Devotion Feats are just icing on the cake making the Cleric an average / high T1 instead of low T1. And the Cleric having access to his whole spell list, he can correct his spells selection overnight. So according to me, whether this other stuff alone can make him T4 or T5 is not really important, because this other stuffs (domains powers, feats) are the ones a beginner will have more difficulty to handle and will be even less optimised than the spell selection probably, and cannot be corrected overnight. So i don't see a beginner or someone without game mastery optimizing TU, Feats and Domain powers into making the Cleric T4 or T3 while in the same time being unable to grasp the potency of his spells and being unable to use any of the good ones properly. I believe using the spell quite well, or at least enough well to be efficient, requires less system mastery than optimizing the other things.
So according to me, after a few month of play, any cleric will be T2 (if the player focus only on a couple of cool nukes) or low T1.



Also, you assume a lot with the learning speed of people. A lot of people view clerics purely as buffbot/healbot, with the buffs being directed specifically at other party members, with a focus on bigger numbers.
Maybe i am. And of course healbot is a thing. But i think players who do only that end up being simply bored and try to look and learn to do other stuff. Not to mention that nowadays, many people will just google for advices. Any beginner googling "how to play a cleric?" will find a handbook and can implement a new spell selection in the next session.

[Curmudgeon]

Font of Inspiration is a feat from the WotC archives that gives one point of Inspiration per time you take the feat. Thus, a character who took the feat thrice would gain a total of 6 points our of it (1 from the first feat, 2 from the second, and 3 from the third time).
That's debatable, because Font of Inspiration (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070606) uses the ambiguous term "gain". Gain has two possible synonyms: "add" and "attain". You're assuming the correct synonym is "add". I prefer to assume it's "attain", meaning FoI provides a linear benefit because it's allowed to stack with itself (a clear improvement over the default — no additional benefit — for feats).
In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once. Ambiguous text is (as always) an individual DM's call.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

That's debatable, because Font of Inspiration (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070606) uses the ambiguous term "gain". Gain has two possible synonyms: "add" and "attain". You're assuming the correct synonym is "add". I prefer to assume it's "attain", meaning FoI provides a linear benefit because it's allowed to stack with itself (a clear improvement over the default — no additional benefit — for feats). Ambiguous text is (as always) an individual DM's call.

While there certainly is some ambiguity, I feel the use of the word "increase" implies the nonlinear benefit. Certainly, it would be easier to word the feat as 1 point/feat without using the language actually present.

[Curmudgeon]

While there certainly is some ambiguity, I feel the use of the word "increase" implies the nonlinear benefit. Certainly, it would be easier to word the feat as 1 point/feat without using the language actually present.
Easier wording would make the text more mechanical. D&D authors really like to display their creativity, which is why there are so many synonyms and circumlocutions in the rules. Eytan Bernstein needed to emphasize that Font of Inspiration provided a stacking (increasing) benefit, and exercised some verbal creativity in doing so.

Note: Eytan's listed as a "PR & Marketing Manager", making verbal puffery his stock in trade.

[eggynack]

Easier wording would make the text more mechanical. D&D authors really like to display their creativity, which is why there are so many synonyms and circumlocutions in the rules. Eytan Bernstein needed to emphasize that Font of Inspiration provided a stacking (increasing) benefit, and exercised some verbal creativity in doing so.

Note: Eytan's listed as a "PR & Marketing Manager", making verbal puffery his stock in trade.
I can't really think of anything else that's on that sort of scale, or even another case where they seem to have purposefully made things difficult to understand. That's especially true in the context of this particular rules object, which is defined by toughness' classically simple, "A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack." The idea that they would phrase a feat's working in a way that relies on particular application of the stacking rules in a way that introduces weird ambiguity seems ridiculous to me.

Edit: By contrast, of course, constructing a version of font of inspiration that has the increasing returns, and which doesn't point at all to linear growth, is far more difficult, and doesn't have much in the way of an easy to use template.

[sideswipe]

I can't really think of anything else that's on that sort of scale, or even another case where they seem to have purposefully made things difficult to understand. That's especially true in the context of this particular rules object, which is defined by toughness' classically simple, "A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack." The idea that they would phrase a feat's working in a way that relies on particular application of the stacking rules in a way that introduces weird ambiguity seems ridiculous to me.

i have to agree with this.
If you dissect the text to similes you get ambiguity, how you interpretation it at your table is up to you.
If however you read it all as one sentence the first thing that springs to mind, without any preconceptions or knowing D&D rules lawyering, is that it is a expanding progression and seems intended that way.
that is what i believe, and thats how i will always choose to view it. but your own interpretation is your own.

[Curmudgeon]

I can't really think of anything else that's on that sort of scale, or even another case where they seem to have purposefully made things difficult to understand.
Oh, there are plenty of other cases. One obvious one from the core feats:
Benefit: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round. The FAQ wants you to replace "same bonus" with "same base attack bonus", which is of course more reasonable. However, that's not what the rule text says. If you were benefiting from True Strike on the first attack you'd get the same bonus on the Cleave extra attack. If the second enemy were prone you'd get the same bonus on the Cleave extra attack, without the usual +4 melee attack bonus for that condition. The RAW text is not reasonable, but it is quite clear.

[eggynack]

Oh, there are plenty of other cases. One obvious one from the core feats: The FAQ wants you to replace "same bonus" with "same base attack bonus", which is of course more reasonable. However, that's not what the rule text says. If you were benefiting from True Strike on the first attack you'd get the same bonus on the Cleave extra attack. If the second enemy were prone you'd get the same bonus on the Cleave extra attack, without the usual +4 melee attack bonus for that condition. The RAW text is not reasonable, but it is quite clear.
That situation doesn't seem to have much parity with this one at all. There's some weird ambiguity, or perhaps you could just call it a straight dysfunction, but there's no clear attempt to use massive amounts of text to obfuscate the true meaning of the ability. In point of fact, cleave is actually missing words that would clarify things. I don't think anyone can dispute that the rules are dysfunctional and ambiguous on occasion. I just don't think they often use a massive paragraph where a single line would do, especially when the single line has precedence in other sources.

[Curmudgeon]

That's especially true in the context of this particular rules object, which is defined by toughness' classically simple, "A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack."

I just don't think they often use a massive paragraph where a single line would do, especially when the single line has precedence in other sources.
You've already provided an example of a paragraph as standard where a single line would do. "A character may gain this feat multiple times" is confusing and redundant, because they're stating the default rule (you may gain a feat multiple times), as a lead-in to an exception to the default (the feats stack).
Benefit
What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.
That's not what I'd call "classically simple"; it's SNAFU.

[eggynack]

You've already provided an example of a paragraph as standard where a single line would do. "A character may gain this feat multiple times" is confusing and redundant, because they're stating the default rule (you may gain a feat multiple times), as a lead-in to an exception to the default (the feats stack).
That's not what I'd call "classically simple"; it's SNAFU.
No, they're stating two exceptions to the default rule. You can't usually take feats twice in a way that's meaningful, which means that you might as well not be able to take More to the point, they often specifically mention that you can take a feat multiple times as a specific exception. As an example, look to weapon focus, where it says, "You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack." Even were you correct about the redundancy, the line would still not be confusing at all. It's also not even close to the scale of this case. It's one excess sentence, that's generally used to denote that subsequent words will tell you what taking the feat more than once will do, in comparison to what, in your interpretation, would be a massive, ambiguous, horrible mess.

Edit: Basically, it's not classically simple. It's regular simple, which is the level of simple that a normal writer would put on a page if they weren't going after perfect maximization of concision.

Double-edit: To put it a third way, it's basically an implicit exception to the rule, " In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once."

[Curmudgeon]

No, they're stating two exceptions to the default rule. You can't usually take feats twice in a way that's meaningful ...
There's nothing resembling that clause in the Toughness quote, so they're not making that point. (It would have been perfectly fine if they did insert a clarification there, but they accomplished the opposite.) They're just cluttering up the rules with their own creative writing efforts.

[Fallenreality]

Truenamer:
T8: Use Transmute Weapon to turn your sword into Thinaun. Use the Truenamer McApocalypse trick to summon, call, or otherwise obtain a suitable minion. Order minion to:
Kill you with the sword.
Wait for the sword to turn back into steel.
Throw the sword (which is now no longer made of thinaun, so the soul can't be released by breaking it) into an active volcano.
Enjoy your new life as a volcano.

I don't know what you're talking about, this is totally T0.

[eggynack]

There's nothing resembling that clause in the Toughness quote, so they're not making that point. (It would have been perfectly fine if they did insert a clarification there, but they accomplished the opposite.) They're just cluttering up the rules with their own creative writing efforts.
A single potentially excessive sentence is creative writing efforts now? It's barely excessive. I appreciate concision, but this level of it just seems ridiculous, especially in the context of font of inspiration, which directly replaces, "Its effects stack," with, "Each time you take this feat after the first time, the number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1 (for example, you gain 2 inspiration points if you take the feat a second time). The maximum number of times you can take this feat is equal to your Intelligence modifier." Hell, the fact that they included that first sentence in FoI implies that they were very much aware of the shorter and less ambiguous wording.

Edit: Besides which, slightly lower than possible concision doesn't even support your hypothesis. For evidence, your claim requires situations where the designers actively chose significantly less concise wording despite the availability of the easier version. Even if the line in toughness merely had the intended purpose of contradicting that line about taking a feat twice being pointless, that motivation in itself is sufficient to discredit it as an example.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I don't know what you're talking about, this is totally T0.

It harkens back to one of my favorte things I've seen written about D&D

"Wizard's can be than a Fighter at anything they want to, even if that thing is suck. The worst thing a Fighter can do is impale themselves on their own weapon. A wizards can find a dimension of pure insanity and teleport themselves to it to be tortured for all eternity."

[Vhaidara]

"Wizard's can be than a Fighter at anything they want to, even if that thing is suck. The worst thing a Fighter can do is impale themselves on their own weapon. A wizards can find a dimension of pure insanity and teleport themselves to it to be tortured for all eternity."

Ah, it wa you who posted that! Permission to sig, to actual purpose of referencing?

[eggynack]

Ah, it wa you who posted that! Permission to sig, to actual purpose of referencing?
I believe the original quote is by the ever-awesome JaronK, when he said (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?266508-The-Tier-System-explained-to-dummies/page2), "Frankly, a Wizard can suck even more than a Fighter could ever dream of sucking. A Fighter can stab himself to death, but only a Wizard could Plane Shift to some horrible far realm to be tortured for an eternity of insanity."

[Vhaidara]

Ah, thanks eggy. I misread his post and thought it was a claim of credit. Need to not post before coffee.