Best floor to ceiling ratio?

[Tvtyrant]

Which classes do you think of as having the best floor to ceiling ratio? For instance, the Warmage and the Dreadnecromancer have similar floor levels but the DN has a much higher ceiling on average (Rainbows need not apply). I'm defining best here as "closest together" and "Somewhere from tier 4 to tier 1."

[Jormengand]

Bard's not half bad. It's difficult to play a bard who goes under T4 or over T3 without seriously trying. Ranger floats around T4 quite happily, and wizard/cleric/druid's not budging from Tier 1 unless you dump their casting stat.

[FocusWolf413]

Rogue is always a solid 4. It's almost impossible to mess up a ToB class, so they're 3 at the best, 4 at the worst.

[Eloel]

Druid. No matter how bad you screw up, you are still a bear that can summon bears.

[Troacctid]

I would say Crusader is probably the #1 closest floor and ceiling. It's so on rails, the class literally tells you what to do every single turn.

Warblade is close behind.


Bard's not half bad. It's difficult to play a bard who goes under T4 or over T3 without seriously trying. Ranger floats around T4 quite happily, and wizard/cleric/druid's not budging from Tier 1 unless you dump their casting stat.

Wizards have a pretty low floor. Not as low as Sorcerers, but still, you can suck really hard if you don't know what you're doing. Bards have a super low floor, too--not only is it fairly easy to gimp them with underpowered spells, but they can also be gimped if the DM is simply running the wrong kind of game for them, and their jack-of-all-trades nature can make them difficult to pilot because a noob simply won't know what to do. And because of Sublime Chord, the ceiling is insanely high. Cleric has a high floor, but it also has a high ceiling, and I think they're not actually that close together.

[Jormengand]

Wizards have a pretty low floor. Not as low as Sorcerers, but still, you can suck really hard if you don't know what you're doing.

Only for as long as it takes you to go buy some scrolls, write them in your book and rest, plus an hour, tops.

Bards can prepare bad spells, but it's far easier to choose spells which are actually useful. Plus, bards are useful in more types of campaigns than most other classes. Whether it's a battlefield full of illusions, a courtly intrigue where you need to change a few minds, or whatever, a bard has it down. Sublime Chords aren't bards, they're bard/sublime chords; you might as well talk about prestiging into Dragon Disciple so they have a lower floor. Cleric's high floor and high ceiling both fit "I'm defining best here as "closest together" and "Somewhere from tier 4 to tier 1."", and they're pretty close together. Your only real permanent choices are domains and feats, and yes you can use DMM persist, yes a psion can be pun-pun.

[Theodred theOld]

Druid. No matter how bad you screw up, you are still a bear that can summon bears.
And just in case you get bored you can summon some lions on the other side and have them play football against the bears. Win win

[Malimar]

I'mma disagree with people citing tier 1 classes, especially druid. I've seen tons of poorly-played druids who contributed much less to the party than the local fighter did; indeed, I've only ever seen one played with any level of competence at all. Clerics are a bit better, but still run the risk of wasting their spells and actions playing healbot. Of the three core T1s, I'd say wizard has the highest floor in practice, in that a newbie will generally wind up spamming Magic Missile and Fireball, which, while suboptimal, is not actively bad.

For my answer, I'm going to point at the ToB classes. It's almost impossible to screw up a ToB build. And although they'll usually outshine everybody else at low levels, it's hard to squeeze cheese out of them (short of d2 Crusader shenanigans). Ceilings and floors so close together they're almost touching.

[Jormengand]

I'mma disagree with people citing tier 1 classes, especially druid. I've seen tons of poorly-played druids who contributed much less to the party than the local fighter did; indeed, I've only ever seen one played with any level of competence at all. Clerics are a bit better, but still run the risk of wasting their spells and actions playing healbot.

But they can become better the moment a competent player takes over, running the exact same build. If you screw up a truenamer, fighter or even a sorcerer, no amount of good playing will save that build.

[Eloel]

I'mma disagree with people citing tier 1 classes, especially druid. I've seen tons of poorly-played druids who contributed much less to the party than the local fighter did
If they're so bad that they're actively trying to not contribute, yes, a druid can be worse than a fighter that's trying to contribute. Wildshape and spontenous SNA are both very core abilities that every single sentence in the druid description hint to. When you do one (you don't even have to do both), you contribute more than an average fighter.

[Red Fel]

I'mma disagree with people citing tier 1 classes, especially druid. I've seen tons of poorly-played druids who contributed much less to the party than the local fighter did; indeed, I've only ever seen one played with any level of competence at all. Clerics are a bit better, but still run the risk of wasting their spells and actions playing healbot. Of the three core T1s, I'd say wizard has the highest floor in practice, in that a newbie will generally wind up spamming Magic Missile and Fireball, which, while suboptimal, is not actively bad.

There's a difference between the floor of the class and the floor of the player. The former is purely mechanical - assuming you made a slew of atrocious mechanical choices, such as race, feat, and spell selection, could the character still function well? The latter is skill-based - even assuming you created a Tippyverse-level monstrosity, it could still be worse than useless in the hands of a drooling moron.

The easiest way to measure the floor of a class is to choose a race that gives penalties to the class' key features, swap out any useful feat for the most useless ones you can find, and select the worst possible spells or powers where applicable. A completely unoptimized Druid, from a race with a Wis penalty, who has taken Toughness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#toughness) for every single feat, is still a bear that can summon bears. It still has a host of powerful class abilities, even though its spellcasting is nerfed. It may not be able to cast while in wild shape, thanks to not taking Natural Spell, but it can alternate between face-mauling form and face-melting form as it likes. It's a fairly high floor.

Similarly, a Cleric can cast any spell from the Cleric list (except those with opposing descriptors); poor spell selection simply means waiting a day for better choices. Even without good spells, a Cleric has 3/4 BAB, two good saves, and good weapon and armor proficiencies - at its absolute worst, it is a moderately competent melee unit with spontaneous heals. A Cleric playing healbot isn't a problem with the class; it's a problem with a player who looks at a character sheet and proceeds to gnaw on a table leg, mistaking it for food. (Or, you know, maybe they like playing healbot. I'm still judging you, but I respect your life choices. Somewhat.) The Cleric itself, at its worst, is still functional; it has a reasonable floor.

A Wizard or Sorcerer, as others have mentioned, has a truly terrible floor. The wrong spell selection absolutely cripples you; taking the wrong feats makes you even more than useless. Without your spells, you have nothing; your familiar won't save your hide, your BAB is nothing to write home about, and that Will save will save you from neither poisons nor fireballs. A Sorcerer has it worse, due to his fixed spell list; at least a Wizard can research new spells to go into his spellbook, but a Sorcerer who makes bad choices has to live with them. If I give you a Wizard with Greater Nosepicking in his spellbook, and no feats except Toughness, with an Int penalty, he is baggage. He isn't even nice baggage, waterproof and spacious; he's sickly, drooling, idiotic baggage that you want to shiv in his sleep. That's the point.

Back on topic, I agree that ToB classes, in particular Warblade and Crusader, have a high floor/ low ceiling. Because of how maneuvers work, it's hard to do them badly; because they're melee, they can only be so optimized in comparison to your T1-T2 classes. It's a comfortable, if narrow, band of effectiveness.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Another vote for the ToB classes, especially the Crusader. Duskblade and Barbarian are also hard to mess up-- channel Shocking Grasp for the former, and Power Attack for however much your Rage grants you with the latter. The fixed list casters, of course. Totemist if someone explains how soulmelds work to you-- all you need to do is pick a couple natural weapon melds and go to town.

Tier 1 casters are hard to mess up build-wise, but easy to mess up in play-- the sheer number of options can be baffling and/or paralyzing to new players.


Bards can prepare bad spells, but it's far easier to choose spells which are actually useful. Plus, bards are useful in more types of campaigns than most other classes. Whether it's a battlefield full of illusions, a courtly intrigue where you need to change a few minds, or whatever, a bard has it down. Sublime Chords aren't bards, they're bard/sublime chords; you might as well talk about prestiging into Dragon Disciple so they have a lower floor. Cleric's high floor and high ceiling both fit "I'm defining best here as "closest together" and "Somewhere from tier 4 to tier 1."", and they're pretty close together. Your only real permanent choices are domains and feats, and yes you can use DMM persist, yes a psion can be pun-pun.
Disagreed. It's really easy to choose bad spells-- watch. I'm a level 5 gnome bard with:

2nd level: Animal Messenger, Invisibility
1st level: Disguise Self, Identify, Silent Image, Summon Monster 1

Cool looking spells, sure. Maybe even useful on occasion, but what can I do to contribute in combat? Anyone? "Not much," is probably the answer. Sure, I can do some useful stuff in a social situation, but my contribution to a fight is "yay people get +1 attack and damage!"

There's a reason bards being useless is a trope-- it's really easy to do. Your spells look crappy next to the wizard's, your melee is crap compared to the rogue and fighter, and your buffing doesn't seem to be doing much of anything. The one thing you're the best at at, talking, is probably the single most commonly abandoned part of the game (Either because of combat-focused games, groups that prefer to "just roleplay it" instead of rolling, or railroady DMs).

[Jormengand]

2nd level: Animal Messenger, Invisibility
1st level: Disguise Self, Identify, Silent Image, Summon Monster 1


Sweet. So, I sneak into the Big Bad's castle, throw wolves at him until he dies (I can summon my own challenge rating in wolves with enough CHA to cast my spells), and sneak out again after seeing exactly how sweet a sword I can loot from him if I have a spell spare. Plus, who takes Animal Messenger? I actually had to go look up and see what it does because I have never seen anyone use it. Also, it's not like ghost sound (wait, I can convince a room full of people that they're about to be eaten by a Dire freaking tiger? Sweeeeeet) is useless, and summoning random cellos to block doors can be surprisingly useful. Sure, you might take bad cantrips, but who actually would? There are some options that aren't great, but they don't even look great.

Also, your build doesn't stop being good just because the campaign isn't focussed on it - your barbarian doesn't stop being tier 4 just because there's no fighting and neither does your bard stop being tier 3 just because there's nothing but fighting. It just means that your character's tier doesn't help them in this instance. They might be worse in this situation, but they're not worse.

[With a box]

I don't think wizard/cleric/druid are have any ceiling at all.

[Jormengand]

I don't think wizard/cleric/druid are have any ceiling at all.

Neither does truenamer if you try hard enough. That's not really the point, though.

[nedz]

Monk — at last something in which this class excels — T5-T5


Barbarian are also hard to mess up, Power Attack for however much your Rage grants you with the latter. The fixed list casters, of course.

I've seen Barbarian screwed up: Don't bother with Power Attack, go TWF instead, and then Leroy every combat.

Beguiler can be screwed up if you don't know how to use Illusions, or the DM runs them strangely, or you focus on the Feint in Combat options: you know those class features everyone ignores.

[eggynack]

Monk — at last something in which this class excels — T5-T5
Pretty sure monk tops out somewhere between tier three and four, depending on whether you use dragon magazine stuff. Without it, you still have stuff like invisible fist and weird magic item stuff, and with it, you get wild and martial monk.


Beguiler can be screwed up if you don't know how to use Illusions, or the DM runs them strangely, or you focus on the Feint in Combat options: you know those class features everyone ignores.
This raises the real question, of whether the ratio is being measured solely on the basis of build, or on some combination of build and play. If the former, then beguilers are clearly high up there, and caster classes like druid, wizard, and cleric enter serious contention. If the latter, then it probably comes down to ToB classes.

[PaucaTerrorem]

And just in case you get bored you can summon some lions on the other side and have them play football against the bears. Win win

But it's a lose/lose for everyone watching. GO GREEN BAY!

[sideswipe]

CW samurai 20..... no matter how hard you work your more useless then the fighter.

commoner 20 (without commoner april fool stuff)

[Tvtyrant]

This raises the real question, of whether the ratio is being measured solely on the basis of build, or on some combination of build and play. If the former, then beguilers are clearly high up there, and caster classes like druid, wizard, and cleric enter serious contention. If the latter, then it probably comes down to ToB classes.

I think "with a player who is trying to work near class roles." Because a perfectly optimized spell selection on a Planar Shepard is meaningless if they do nothing but TWF with a none proficient huge greatsword.

[eggynack]

I think "with a player who is trying to work near class roles." Because a perfectly optimized spell selection on a Planar Shepard is meaningless if they do nothing but TWF with a none proficient huge greatsword.
The issue is where the line is. For example, should we account for the tactical efficiency with which spells are used? Should we consider daily spell selection? Should we take into account what wild shape forms a character uses? One reasonably workable theoretical construct is one where we consider some imaginary terrible character sheet, and hand it off to an expert player, and imagine how well they would do as opposed to some situation where they have a great character sheet. Under this mode of consideration, casters would clearly be quite effective, as most critical resources can be altered in their allocation relatively trivially, while more mundane classes would be less effective, as they're pretty much static. Long story short, no matter where you draw the line, whether it's at play, or selection, or build, or something else entirely, you're inevitably going to favor some classes over others in the analysis.

[bekeleven]

I rate standard classes based on 3 tier levels: Their Top-PO level (the cheesiest I would ever see someone bringing to a non-tippyverse game), Standard PO (approximately what I build for games on this forum), and Newbie-op: The class as I would've built it in 2003. For instance, in a party of equally newby people, my fireball-spamming wizard (he can fly too!) would play with the effectiveness of a tier 2 class, able to break a narrow selection of encounters, much to the awe of my healbot, meatshield and trap disarmer. In Top PO and Standard PO, wizard rises to a tier 1.

Essentially, I don't account for malicious intent in my lower grading tiers, just lack of system mastery. Anyone can be useless if they deliberately try.

To that end, the following classes are on the same tier in all three graded op levels:

1: Druid. If you hand my 2003 party a druid, a wizard, a fighter and a rogue, I guarantee the druid would've been the star of the table. It's really easy to play a druid effectively.
2: Tier 2 is a delicate power level. No class remains tier 2 among all op levels.
3: Beguiler, Binder (Book Vestiges only). Beguiler has spontaneous access to his entire list, such that eventually even my young self would've stumbled upon a trick that kept working. The Binder is similar. Just take the binder-specific feats, some of which are actually worth taking, and experiment around with the vestiges. I might not have taken KotSS, but that doesn't change the effectiveness by a whole tier if you're always comparing with similar-op players.
4: Warlock, Warmage, Healer (Sanctified Spell Access), Ranger. These classes are generally solid and give you a strong enough chassis to not entirely screw up at any op level.
5: Healer (Without sanctified spells), CA Ninja, Soulborn, Knight. You have a chassis and one or two tricks. Some poeple think the knight scales differently than I do, as I've seen it called tier 4 before. In really low-op games it's possible it would exceed my expectations, basically becoming "fighter with awesome extras." There are a few classes I haven't finished evaluating, but may fall into this category: OA Samurai, Rokugan Ninja, Divine Mind, and Sohei are straight tier 5 if they're tier 5 newbie-op.
6: Expert (Without Iaijutsu Focus), CW Samurai (Without Imperious Command), Warrior, Aristocrat, Commoner. These classes have nothing to offer on any op level.

[Flickerdart]

CW samurai 20..... no matter how hard you work your more useless then the fighter.
That's not at all the case - Samurai can boost their Intimidate to truly terrifying levels.

[sideswipe]

That's not at all the case - Samurai can boost their Intimidate to truly terrifying levels.

and they still get very little over any other class doing the same thing. some are even better.

[Spore]

Rogue is always a solid 4.

Uhm, are you serious?

[lsfreak]

Okay, let's assume someone has never played the game before. They have no system mastery at all, and are just taking what sounds cool. With that definition, I think ToB are absolutely the best. They don't pretend to be things they can't do, so the player has a good idea of how to build the character from the start. While there are more and less effective maneuvers, even a selection of the least-effective maneuvers is still useful more often than not. You simply can't mess up a ToB character because they basically do one thing only (melee) and they do it well. Beguilers are probably up there as well, though someone who knows their strength will get a lot more out of the silent image line of spells than someone who doesn't, and a new player might mistaken them for being a class that's meant to be in melee (Surprise Casting).

Bards, on the other hand, are fantastically easy to screw up without guidance or knowledge. Rogues, played by someone who wants to TWF but isn't capable of reliably setting up flanking (because they're a new player) is going to do much more poorly at combat than ToB or a run-of-the-mill barbarian. And despite what people are saying, druids can be messed up as well - one of my first characters was a druid who tried to be an archer-blaster, which I probably could pull off now, but Manyshotting with no bonus damage while controlling Flaming Sphere isn't the way to do it.

[eggynack]

And despite what people are saying, druids can be messed up as well - one of my first characters was a druid who tried to be an archer-blaster, which I probably could pull off now, but Manyshotting with no bonus damage while controlling Flaming Sphere isn't the way to do it.
As I've noted, it depends heavily on where you're taking the measurement. In this case, an experienced player, maybe even you now, could take that druid and absolutely destroy with it, regardless of these poor decisions. Within a round, you could spontaneously convert bad spells into good summons, or wild shape into something effective. Within an in-game day, you could change all of your spells over to the best ones possible, and swap out your animal companion. Thus, you didn't actually screw up the build to yield a poor character. Instead, you screwed up in the playing, in a manner which can be fixed at relatively low cost. Realistically, the only way to actually screw up a druid build is to trade away all of your features for crap, ditching wild shape, the companion, summons, and maybe prepared casting too, for things that are worth far less.

[lsfreak]

That is why I the metric I was using as being what a new player with no system mastery might do. Such a player will be capable of reliably producing good results from a ToB character, and more likely than not good results from a beguiler; on the other hand, bad results are very likely from characters like bards.

I seriously question how useful it is to look at the build and ignore the play. Using such a metric means clerics and druids, and to a lesser extent sorcerers/psions (thanks to psychic reformation) or wizards (thanks to buying new spells), have an extremely high floor, which contradicts the very real issue that new players may and probably often have trouble with them without some kind of outside help. You're no longer measuring floor or ceiling in terms of how easy or hard it is to optimize, you're measuring adaptability - which is, at its basis, largely just the Tier system in different name.

[Petrocorus]

I +1 the Crusader and the Warblade, but not really the Swordsage. It is less easy to build a Swordsage, more options and more of them are bad.

I've the feeling the Factotum is quite good too, simply because you can actually change what you do every in-game day.

On the other hand, the worst ratio is probably the Artificer. I'm sure it's pretty easy to build one stuck into T4 or even T5.


CW samurai 20..... no matter how hard you work your more useless then the fighter.

commoner 20 (without commoner april fool stuff)

A Commoner can make a lot with Handle Animal. And don't need any chicken for that.

[Troacctid]

You will get a more useful answer if you take into account how difficult the class is to pilot. At an actual table, that's a huge part of the class's floor.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You will get a more useful answer if you take into account how difficult the class is to pilot. At an actual table, that's a huge part of the class's floor.
Agreed. The floor for a monk is low because the monk is mechanically crap, while the floor for the wizard is pretty low because it's pretty easy to play a blaster wizard who never has defensive spells up.

[jiriku]

That is why I the metric I was using as being what a new player with no system mastery might do. Such a player will be capable of reliably producing good results from a ToB character, and more likely than not good results from a beguiler; on the other hand, bad results are very likely from characters like bards.

I seriously question how useful it is to look at the build and ignore the play. Using such a metric means clerics and druids, and to a lesser extent sorcerers/psions (thanks to psychic reformation) or wizards (thanks to buying new spells), have an extremely high floor, which contradicts the very real issue that new players may and probably often have trouble with them without some kind of outside help. You're no longer measuring floor or ceiling in terms of how easy or hard it is to optimize, you're measuring adaptability - which is, at its basis, largely just the Tier system in different name.

Word. "Class floor" should really be described as "how well does this function in the hands of a new player" and "Class ceiling" should be considered "how far can an expert push it?" A high floor is what comes to mind when you answer the question "What class should I recommend for this new person who's never played D&D before?" And whenever the DM bans his expert players from playing certain classes and hopes they'll play something more manageable instead, he's thinking of classes with a low ceiling.

[Petrocorus]

Word. "Class floor" should really be described as "how well does this function in the hands of a new player" and "Class ceiling" should be considered "how far can an expert push it?" A high floor is what comes to mind when you answer the question "What class should I recommend for this new person who's never played D&D before?" And whenever the DM bans his expert players from playing certain classes and hopes they'll play something more manageable instead, he's thinking of classes with a low ceiling.

I really like this definition. And according to me, the class with the best floor are the Druid, the Crusader and the Warblade.

However, what cab we say about the floor of some classes like the Factotum or the Psion who have the ability to basically rebuild themselves, and so, a new player may misplayed them but can correct his mistake as soon he understand them?

[bekeleven]

I really like this definition. And according to me, the class with the best floor are the Druid, the Crusader and the Warblade.

However, what cab we say about the floor of some classes like the Factotum or the Psion who have the ability to basically rebuild themselves, and so, a new player may misplayed them but can correct his mistake as soon he understand them?

The strongest stable-tiered characters are Druid (The only tier 1 class in newbie-op levels), Beguiler and Binder (Tier 3 at all op levels).

Psion (with Psychic Chirurgery) is tier 1 at top PO levels, tier 1 at standard PO levels, and tier 2 newbie op. Psion without it is tier 2 at top and standard PO levels, and tier 4 newbie op - similar to a sorcerer, its effectiveness falls to "blaster" in most newbie parties.

The factotum is tier 3 in top PO and standard PO, but tier 4 in newbie op levels. Most tricks simply wouldn't occur to the players. In practice, a new player using a factotum would be less useful to a party than one playing (for instance) a druid, beguiler, or binder.

The difference in my opinion is this: A newbie playing a binder will have a chapter of his sourcebook dedicated to explaining all of the vestiges. He will go through, read them all, figure out what it's like to play them. Eventually he'll try many (or most) of them, generally right when they're unlocked. Since each has only a few active abilities, he will use most of those abilities. Some he will use when they're particularly ineffective, and he may shy from those in the future. But others, he will figure out their uses, and add them to his toolbox. A newbie binder is less powerful than a PO binder, for certain, but it scales less drastically than many other classes: A druid will remain 2 tiers ahead with the same system mastery, and a soulborn will remain 2 tiers behind.

A factotum, on the other hand...

1) Knowing Where to Look. A factotum trying to get the most out of his skills needs Iaijutsu Focus from OA, and often takes a feat like Able Learner from CAdv. Getting the best use out of Arcane Dilettante requires high spell mastery; I generally used really obscure spells when I built factotums. Getting use out of Cunning Brilliance has a huge power curve based on your system mastery. Imperious Command and Knowledge Devotion are from relatively obscure sources - to say nothing of the online-only Font of Inspiration.

2) Knowing what to do. Knowing what attacks (and defenses) are worth your inspiration points from Cunning Insight is often unclear. Knowing when to use spells is even more important than for wizards, since you have so few. Unlike a class like a binder, whose combat powers are all at will (although with some cooldowns), everything a factotum does is resource management. One of the reasons GitP likes the class is because it's tricky to play. We get off on that stuff.

3) Knowing how you do. Cunning defense stacks with improved cunning defense. Cunning strike can be used multiple times per attack. Brains over Brawn applies dex to initiative checks. These aren't optimization tricks so much as knowing how rules work - but they're rules that players, and whole groups, with low system mastery can easily get wrong.

Because of these reasons (and likely more), a factotum is tier 3 when GitP plays it, but tier 4 in less advanced parties - the same tier as a warlock (whose at-will abilities are hard to mess up) or warmage (who has many ways to make things to boom)

[Flickerdart]

and they still get very little over any other class doing the same thing. some are even better.
Mass Staredown is far from "very little." Samurai are not very good, it's true, but slagging on them without understanding what they can actually do makes you look silly.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The difference in my opinion is this: A newbie playing a binder will have a chapter of his sourcebook dedicated to explaining all of the vestiges. He will go through, read them all, figure out what it's like to play them.
Maybe I'm just cynical, or I've played with too many busy people, but that strikes me as optimistic. An experienced player will go through the sourcebook and read all the vestiges (or look up a handbook for the best ones). A newbie, in my experience, will just pick one or two that look flashy and stick with them unless prodded by more experienced group members. The chapter is overwhelming otherwise.

[bekeleven]

Maybe I'm just cynical, or I've played with too many busy people, but that strikes me as optimistic. An experienced player will go through the sourcebook and read all the vestiges (or look up a handbook for the best ones). A newbie, in my experience, will just pick one or two that look flashy and stick with them unless prodded by more experienced group members. The chapter is overwhelming otherwise.

I started 3e with fighter, and you can bet after my first session I read through all of the fighter feats in PHB and CW (my first splat) like two or three times sitting in bed that night.

Your mileage my vary. As I said on the last page, my newbie-op ratings are based on me playing the class in 2003 as my reference point. I think at the very least, when a player levels up, they'd take a peek through the newly unlocked vestiges.

[Eloel]

Maybe I'm just cynical, or I've played with too many busy people, but that strikes me as optimistic. An experienced player will go through the sourcebook and read all the vestiges (or look up a handbook for the best ones). A newbie, in my experience, will just pick one or two that look flashy and stick with them unless prodded by more experienced group members. The chapter is overwhelming otherwise.

Compared to any spellcaster who has multiple different sourcebooks and Spell Compendium to go through, it's a single chapter in a single book - it's not that hard. Granted, there should probably be a more organized table somewhere in the book for all the abilities you can gain, but it's not that complex even without one.

[Petrocorus]

The strongest stable-tiered characters are Druid (The only tier 1 class in newbie-op levels), Beguiler and Binder (Tier 3 at all op levels).
...
...



Thank you very much. I don't know the Binder very much, and i've never played a Factotum.

Concerning the Psion, i was notably referring to Psy Reform. A newbie player who messed his build and start learning the good trick can reform his feaat and his choice of power. That's why i personally consider the floor to be good. But of course a player who don't learn will keep using him as a blaster.

Concerning the Beguiler, wouldn't a new player need to master how to use illusions at there best. I don't have the feeling that's so easy for a newbie.

[bekeleven]

Concerning the Beguiler, wouldn't a new player need to master how to use illusions at there best. I don't have the feeling that's so easy for a newbie.Although this is anecdotal, I feel like I've encountered an equal amount of new parties that don't know how to use illusions as parties that let illusionists get away with waaay too much (Silent image = invisibility, "This doesn't count as an attack," "The enemy cuffs himself upon seeing your silent image king," or what have you). So it's really hard to estimate, I'll admit.

[lsfreak]

While the X image line are probably the strongest part of a beguiler's spell list, they're not otherwise slacking. 1st level has charm person, color spray, sleep, and disguise self. 2nd has blur, invisibility, glitterdust, mirror image, and spider climb. 3rd has displacement, haste, slow, glibness, vertigo field, legion of sentinels, and suggestion. While there's some that are aren't likely useful for new players to be casting (nondetection) and a few that are underwhelming (...whelming burst), it's a strong spell list that covers a variety of things, even if it's not as foolproof as a warblade's selection of maneuvers.

[bekeleven]

not as foolproof as a warblade's selection of maneuvers.
Good thing they don't have to select them, then!

[lsfreak]

Good thing they don't have to select them, then!

Assuming this wasn't just a joke, I was referring to the total amount of abilities of a given level of a beguiler being less foolproof than a warblade's, as pretty much whatever ability you use as a warblade will be okay. A beguiler, however, may spend their action trying to cast Hypnotism in combat, or casting Daze Monster against one of a swarm of enemies, or expecting Whelm to deal decent single-target damage. It shouldn't take long for a new beguiler player to figure out what's good to use and what's not, but even that's more than a warblade really needs to do.

[jiriku]

The strongest stable-tiered characters are Druid (The only tier 1 class in newbie-op levels), Beguiler and Binder (Tier 3 at all op levels).


A beguiler, however, may spend their action trying to cast Hypnotism in combat, or casting Daze Monster against one of a swarm of enemies, or expecting Whelm to deal decent single-target damage. It shouldn't take long for a new beguiler player to figure out what's good to use and what's not, but even that's more than a warblade really needs to do.

This matches my experience as well. I had a new player join my group who had never played a tabletop roleplaying game before, and I steered him towards druid. His character was useful after just a few game sessions, and within a few months he had the strongest character in the party. My current group includes a beguiler player who has never played a beguiler before. She spent a lot of time getting unimpressive results from spells like whelm, ran into a dry spell because we fought a lot of intelligent undead for a while, and now tends to default to glitterdust, displacement, and legion of sentinels in most situations simply because they usually work. She's definitely climbing the power curve, but much more slowly than the druid did and to with much less in-game impact.