3+3=1: Going up the Tiers

[Gildedragon]

I was thinking about ideal gestalt classes and came across a question I don't think I've seen addressed: is it possible to break into tiers 1 or 2 with a combination of lower tiered classes, either by multiclassing or gestalt, and if so, how would one go about doing that?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I was thinking about ideal gestalt classes and came across a question I don't think I've seen addressed: is it possible to break into tiers 1 or 2 with a combination of lower tiered classes, either by multiclassing or gestalt, and if so, how would one go about doing that?This kind of thing pretty much requires getting access to the most powerful T1-2 abilities, which just can't be done with T3 natively. You could go factotum 15 // warmage 5/rainbow servant 10 and end up as T1 by the end, but that's due less to gestalting lower tiers together and more to how warmage interacts with rainbow servant, with factotum granting tons of punch by boosting what the other side of the gestalt does.

I believe someone had asked about something similar regarding gestalting ALL of the T6-3 classes, and it was generally held that even gestalting every other class together, you could not reach the sheer gamebreaking power of a wizard or an artificer unless you used options like rainbow servant.

[johnbragg]

I was thinking about ideal gestalt classes and came across a question I don't think I've seen addressed: is it possible to break into tiers 1 or 2 with a combination of lower tiered classes, either by multiclassing or gestalt, and if so, how would one go about doing that?

No. Tier 1s are Tier 1s because they have, with 24 hours notice, unlimited access to a Tier 1 spell list. No one but a Tier 1 can do that.

Tier 2s are Tier 2s because they have access to a selection of an awesome spell list.

There was a thread a while ago on whether if you mega-gestalted all Tier 4-5s together would you equal a Tier 1. Most common answer was "no", contending fiercely with people furiously splatbook-diving to prove that the sum total of all Tier 4 spell lists was too as good as the Tier 1 list.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

No. Tier 1s are Tier 1s because they have, with 24 hours notice, unlimited access to a Tier 1 spell list. No one but a Tier 1 can do that.

Tier 2s are Tier 2s because they have access to a selection of an awesome spell list.

There was a thread a while ago on whether if you mega-gestalted all Tier 4-5s together would you equal a Tier 1. Most common answer was "no", contending fiercely with people furiously splatbook-diving to prove that the sum total of all Tier 4 spell lists was too as good as the Tier 1 list.Muahahahaha

[Eldariel]

I mean, not easily but a Tier 6 Commoner is fully capable of generating their own spell lists with feats and be Tier 1ish by the time they learn to cast Shapechange (which is basically the only spell you'll ever need). However, that involves getting some levels to get the feats first...or Wish-loops, or at the very least Vow of Poverty Elf Dark Chaos Shuffling (so some resources). That's, however, not in any way class-related and thus not really relevant to the Tier system. But anyone can get Tier 1-levelish powers, or go Pun-Pun.

[Gildedragon]

No
...
There was a thread a while ago on whether if you mega-gestalted all Tier 4-5s together would you equal a Tier 1. Most common answer was "no", contending fiercely with people furiously splatbook-diving to prove that the sum total of all Tier 4 spell lists was too as good as the Tier 1 list.


This kind of thing pretty much requires getting access to the most powerful T1-2 abilities, which just can't be done with T3 natively. You could go factotum 15 // warmage 5/rainbow servant 10 and end up as T1 by the end, but that's due less to gestalting lower tiers together and more to how warmage interacts with rainbow servant, with factotum granting tons of punch by boosting what the other side of the gestalt does.

I believe someone had asked about something similar regarding gestalting ALL of the T6-3 classes, and it was generally held that even gestalting every other class together, you could not reach the sheer gamebreaking power of a wizard or an artificer unless you used options like rainbow servant.

Hmm. I figured 1 was a stretch, but 2 is a far less snazzy title. Oh well. There goes that idea. Thanks.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It is possible to use glitches to break the game, such as through the d2 crusader or being an expert that takes ranks in Lucid Dreaming and going diplomancer, but those are unintended side-effects of combining badly written rules, rather than saying anything about the classes themselves, whereas the T1 and T2 classes were given that kind of power on purpose.

[AuraTwilight]

No. That being said, gestalting all Tier 5/6 classes nets a fairly powerful and fun tier 3 class.

[noob]

Factotum can cast any ninth level spell(and also all the lower level spells) if you have the metamagics sanctum spell and earth spell(each reduce the level of the spell of 1 when you are in the wrong situation so you can have shapechange but it will be considered as a level 7 spell) and that you are separated from the ground and are not in one of your sanctums(you just need to create no sanctums) thus it is a tier 3 class that can be T1 if you take two feats.
It also becomes T1 when you reach level 19 and that you can copy wizard spell-casting since it is extraordinary.
TLDR: factotum at high level can be like a wizard.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I think this ignores the fuzzy corner cases that end up in each Tier. Warblade might not help you get game-breaking powers aside from IHS, but the T3 spellcasters sure do. They just don't have access to enough of them individually to be considered Sorcerer-level in terms of craziness.

Let's take a look at, for instance, the Beguiler. Especially at low level, his list looks like The Logic Ninja picked it out from his original guide, excepting most of the cheese section. In addition, he gets access to Advanced Learning, which is very nice but small. In other words, a high T3 spellcaster like the Beguiler's difference with a Sorcerer isn't all that qualitative; it's quantitative. If he got to pick a larger number of Sor/Wiz spells, with more schools available, he'd be right up there with the Sorcerer.

So now, suppose you gestalted all the fixed list casters, plus Bard for good measure. In this case, your quantitative issue is solved. On top of the tricks provided by Beguiler and DN and Bard that approach T2 already, you have enough access to advanced learning to compare to a T2 caster's access, plus a level of versatility that makes a mid-op Wizard blush. Now, Sorcerers might have their own unique tricks, but that only means they're not at the bottom of T2. Even if you think this combination would end up lesser than the Sorcerer in terms of pure game breaker access, it still qualifies as T2 at least as much as Favored Soul does.

And of course, it's relatively easy to use (for instance) a Psion's T2 class features to get up to T1, but that's another discussion.

[Nifft]

I was thinking about ideal gestalt classes and came across a question I don't think I've seen addressed: is it possible to break into tiers 1 or 2 with a combination of lower tiered classes, either by multiclassing or gestalt, and if so, how would one go about doing that?

Warlock // Binder (without Zceryll) can emulate an Artificer.

So yes, if you accept Artificer is T1.


No. Tier 1s are Tier 1s because they have, with 24 hours notice, unlimited access to a Tier 1 spell list. No one but a Tier 1 can do that.
This definition excludes Artificer from T1, so apparently not everyone uses the same definition.

[Troacctid]

Factotum can cast any ninth level spell(and also all the lower level spells) if you have the metamagics sanctum spell and earth spell(each reduce the level of the spell of 1 when you are in the wrong situation so you can have shapechange but it will be considered as a level 7 spell) and that you are separated from the ground and are not in one of your sanctums(you just need to create no sanctums) thus it is a tier 3 class that can be T1 if you take two feats.

That doesn't work. First off, Earth Spell doesn't do that, like, at all. I don't know where you got that part from. Second, Sanctum Spell modifies a spell's effective level as you cast it, but it still uses a spell slot of its normal level, which means that, as a Factotum, you need to be capable of using spells of that level in order to apply Sanctum Spell to a spell, according to the rules for using metamagic with Arcane Dilettante.

[AvatarVecna]

To make a Beguiler T2 (or higher), just throw on some Shadowcraft Mage: combine Heighten Spell and Earth Spell, combine Arcane Thesis with Extend/Silent/Still Spell, and have Eschew Materials; now, whenever you cast Silent Image heightened to use a level X spell slot, you can replicate Evocation or Conjuration (Summoning/Creation) spells of level X or lower...and this uses no components and lasts 4 times the normal duration. There, now you've taken one of the most versatile T3 full casters and given them access to large swaths of the Wizard spell list they didn't yet have access to. Want to make it even worse? Find a way to take Arcane Disciple (Luck) to get Miracle as an Arcane Spell; now you can use your Silent Image to duplicate Miracle, which lets you duplicate other lower-power effects (and potentially powerful effects, depending on whether or not you have to get a deity's approval to perform fake miracles).

Note: this only works because Shadowcraft Mage is ridiculously versatile, and because Beguiler is for some reason considered T3.

[Cosi]

You can't make things "Tier 1", because the Tiers are stupid and being "Tier 1" means getting to break the game. You can make things that can play with Wizards (Rogue // Binder and Warblade // Factotum are probably passable), but you won't and shouldn't make anything that is "Tier 1".


Let's take a look at, for instance, the Beguiler. Especially at low level, his list looks like The Logic Ninja picked it out from his original guide, excepting most of the cheese section.

The Beguiler is as good (or better) than a Wizard without cheese. He casts from a brace of good Wizard spells, casts spontaneously, and casts more spells per day. You can't cheese it as hard (at least, not without Rainbow Servant or Divine Oracle + substitute domain or something), but the baseline is incredibly high. Doubly so at low levels.


he'd be right up there with the Sorcerer.

The Beguiler (or Dread Necromancer) is at least as good as the Sorcerer. Like, without any changes or PrCs or anything. If you had just the offensive spells on the Beguiler list, that would already be a respectable Sorcerer. And the Beguiler also gets Trapfinding, UMD, utility spells for free, and a spell knowledge mechanic that is made of winning. Beguiler > Sorcerer any day of the week.


This definition excludes Artificer from T1, so apparently not everyone uses the same definition.

The Artificer should not be T1. He's a UMD-monkey. He gets:

1. Infusions. Most of those suck, and they all take ten minutes to cast. The only one that I remember being even potentially useful is the spell-storing one, and even that doesn't do anything to make you win combats.
2. Magic Item Crafting. He can make items cheaper and faster (also, it sort of doesn't cost XP). That's impressive, but the level of cheese people throw around when discussing "T1" characters involves infinite wealth, so it's not meaningfully better or even meaningfully different from buying items. You have a bunch of gold, you take some downtime to spend it, then you have a bunch of items.
3. Metamagic Spell Trigger/Spell Completion. Passably unique, but not impressive enough to qualify as T1 by any standard I've seen anyone use.

It's like a Rogue, except massively more complicated and somewhat more powerful in ways that don't matter when you're allowed to use planar binding. If the Artificer is T1, every class with UMD is also T1.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

*snip*Optimization floors don't have much to do with the higher tiers, IME. The highest-floor classes, like ToB and fixed-list casters, tend to be in T3, because their potential (ceiling) is significantly lower (at least, without PrCs that make the class nearly irrelevant, like Rainbow Servant or Sublime Chord.)

If I were to make a single-classed Beguiler, Sorcerer, and Wizard, the tiers would be quite apparent. The Beguiler would be highly competent, of course. But the wizard and sorcerer's lists of spells prepared/known would barely resemble the Beguiler's list after around spell levels 1-2. Which is to say, to you it might seem like the Beguiler is taking the best "non-cheesy" options, but one man's cheese is another man's practical optimization.

For instance, it's not like you have to twist the wording of Polymorph to turn your fighter buddy into a War Troll. The application is very straightforward and quite in keeping with the trappings of the genre. The only problem is it's too powerful and open-ended.

Now, to someone new to the game, the Beguiler (or ToB, for that matter) is going to seem really powerful, because it's very difficult to screw up. But there's still the opportunity for a noob to stumble upon core spells like Polymorph, or go for a draconic sorcerer theme and start looking up Sorcerer-only spells in Races of the Dragon and Dragon Magic and go nuts from there. That's a big part of the tiers - it's showing you the opportunity for something to go horribly, horribly wrong.

If a player says "I'm going to play a Beguiler," you pretty much know you're going to get a highly competent caster. But with a Sorcerer or Wizard (or a T3 omnistalt)...

[Eldariel]

The Artificer should not be T1. He's a UMD-monkey. He gets:

1. Infusions. Most of those suck, and they all take ten minutes to cast. The only one that I remember being even potentially useful is the spell-storing one, and even that doesn't do anything to make you win combats.
2. Magic Item Crafting. He can make items cheaper and faster (also, it sort of doesn't cost XP). That's impressive, but the level of cheese people throw around when discussing "T1" characters involves infinite wealth, so it's not meaningfully better or even meaningfully different from buying items. You have a bunch of gold, you take some downtime to spend it, then you have a bunch of items.
3. Metamagic Spell Trigger/Spell Completion. Passably unique, but not impressive enough to qualify as T1 by any standard I've seen anyone use.

It's like a Rogue, except massively more complicated and somewhat more powerful in ways that don't matter when you're allowed to use planar binding. If the Artificer is T1, every class with UMD is also T1.

There's a few nice Infusions. Metamagic Item, for instance, is a 3rd level Infusion that allows applying any metamagic you know (including Persist) to your itemized magic. Makes it pretty trivial to persistify stuff from fairly early levels onwards.

And infinite wealth is certainly not on board in all T1 games. It's certainly possible to accomplish endless wealth fairly easily with any T1 class but it's perfectly reasonable for a DM to rule that out, and that doesn't really negatively influence the performance of said classes. Artificer in particular makes any amount of wealth worth its weight in gold, so in any game where WBL matters, an Aartificer shines.

[Jormengand]

There was a thread a while ago on whether if you mega-gestalted all Tier 4-5s together would you equal a Tier 1. Most common answer was "no", contending fiercely with people furiously splatbook-diving to prove that the sum total of all Tier 4 spell lists was too as good as the Tier 1 list.

I think that Marty (as we called him) turned out to be able to wreck tier 1s' faces until about level 15, when he was still capable of contending with them, and then at level 17 healer got gate and at level 20 truenamer did as well, and then he was right back where he started. I think the fact that Universal Aptitude and all of the marshal auras gave you a free pass to wreck any skill check in the face, your saves were through the roof because you added practically everything to them, and you were immune to everything under the sun helped.

As for adding two tier 3s, I'm struggling to think which ones you would add together to make a T1, but there probably is some combination somewhere. I mean, I think that some kind of item-making (or using) class with truenamer for rebuild item and metamagic catalyst might work (warlock//truenamer throws a maximise on a scroll, and then later tears it up and puts a Rebuild Item on it), but that happens at too high a level to be amazing.

[Cosi]

There's a few nice Infusions. Metamagic Item, for instance, is a 3rd level Infusion that allows applying any metamagic you know (including Persist) to your itemized magic. Makes it pretty trivial to persistify stuff from fairly early levels onwards.

That's not really that much more impressive than Metamagic Spell Trigger. You get it two levels sooner (yay!) and it costs no charges (yay!) but you only get one metamagic feat (boo!) and you only get it a few times per day (boo!). Don't get me wrong, it's a nice trick. But it's not really giving the Artificer anything new or powerful in my estimation.


Artificer in particular makes any amount of wealth worth its weight in gold, so in any game where WBL matters, an Aartificer shines.

It creates items. It's not really better than a Wizard at doing it, and massively worse than a Wizard in other respects. You could cheese costs down to 3%, but I find the idea of a DM that accepts that but bans actual WBL tricks laughable.


(at least, without PrCs that make the class nearly irrelevant, like Rainbow Servant or Sublime Chord.)

Stop repeating Char-Op groupthink without analyzing it. Rainbow Servant sucks for a Wizard. You spend ten levels to become a Cleric who pays for spells and has a worse chassis. Rainbow Servant is completely insane for a Beguiler, because you cast spontaneously from the entire Cleric list. Rainbow Servant is a power-up for a Beguiler. But Beguiler is also a power-up for a Rainbow Servant.


If I were to make a single-classed Beguiler, Sorcerer, and Wizard, the tiers would be quite apparent.

Sweet burn. But you'll recall that I specified that outside cheese the Beguiler is as good as the Wizard. The Wizard gets a bigger variety of spells, but the Beguiler gets plenty of great spells and casts them spontaneously. In all honestly, the best case for a power gap is the Beguiler being half a spell level behind rather than any real power discrepancy. Things change if you allow people to cheese up, but Wizard/Incantatrix is still about even with Beguiler/Rainbow Servant.

The Sorcerer comparison is laughable. The Beguiler gets four times as many spells, better class features, and a single PrC level and/or a magic item shreds any claim the Sorcerer makes about "unique spells". I would pick Beguiler over Sorcerer for a caster in any conceivable game. It's better at low levels with Trapfinding, better at mid levels with charm monster + Diplomacy, and better at high levels with Rainbow Servant, Prestige Domains + substitute domain, or just using all the Sorcerers tricks to get more spells with a better base list.


For instance, it's not like you have to twist the wording of Polymorph to turn your fighter buddy into a War Troll. The application is very straightforward and quite in keeping with the trappings of the genre. The only problem is it's too powerful and open-ended.

While there are certainly broken applications of polymorph in combat, using it that way will never be as broken as a Beguiler who uses charm monster (which he knows automatically) and Diplomacy (which is one of his class skills) to give Anime-style Defeat Means Friendship (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DefeatMeansFriendship) speeches to everything he fights.


That's a big part of the tiers - it's showing you the opportunity for something to go horribly, horribly wrong.

If that was what JaronK wanted to do, then he should have ranked abilities. Diplomancy breaks the game whether it comes from a Marshal/Warlock/Bard multiclass that cheeses the check into the stratosphere, a Beguiler that casts charm monster and makes the DC 20 check to make people Helpful, or a Artificer who makes skill boosters. FFS, the best way to break the game (Candle -> Efreet -> wish) requires no levels in any class.

[Troacctid]

It creates items. It's not really better than a Wizard at doing it

Whaaaaaaaat.

That's like saying "A wizard casts spells, but it's not really better at it than a bard." Like, no, have you seen the class? It does it so much better.

[Cosi]

Whaaaaaaaat.

That's like saying "A wizard casts spells, but it's not really better at it than a bard." Like, no, have you seen the class? It does it so much better.

It has advantages, but I don't really consider them super important.

It gets free feats. That's nice, but the diminishing returns on magic item creation feats are substantial (particularly if you allow the custom items Artificers depend on). Do you really need to make a Ring of True Sight when you have Craft Wondrous Item and could make some Goggles of True Sight?

It gets around XP costs to various degrees. Personally, I think XP costs are stupid and the game should not include them. Even if you play by RAW, you can do restoration and/or Thought Bottle tricks to not spend "real" XP on crafting.

It crafts items early and from obscure lists. Unique and valuable, but also stupid and cheesy. You could get animate dead at 1st level, but you could also buy a Candle of Invocation.

It doesn't even have protected access to the feats that discount item creation. A Wizard, Sorcerer, or Beguiler could totally take those if he was not busy taking better feats.

It's an okay package, but no one that any reasonable person would consider equal to "being a Wizard" or even "being a Sorcerer". And even then, the versatility is basically non-exist. You "could have different items" to the same degree the Fighter "could have different feats". That is to say, you were free to select anything, but once you actually did you're locked in.

[Troacctid]

Right, just like how a wizard gets more, better spells than a bard, and at lower levels, but it doesn't matter because candles of invocation are a thing. And that's why wizards aren't significantly better at spellcasting than bards.

[Deophaun]

It has advantages, but I don't really consider them super important.

Do you consider CoDzilla important? Because with Metamagic Spell Trigger and later Metamagic Spell Completion it out CoDzillas the CoDzilla.

[Florian]

Ah, gotta love moving goalposts, right?
The Tier system as originally posted doesn´t take items into account, them being the great equalizer here.
The Artificer class can only do shenanigans with item. So, please guys, make up your mind: Do items count or not?

[Cosi]

Right, just like how a wizard gets more, better spells than a bard, and at lower levels, but it doesn't matter because candles of invocation are a thing. And that's why wizards aren't significantly better at spellcasting than bards.

They have one trick that is meaningful. And that trick is broken. They dumpster dive through splats to gain real ultimate power. Like someone casting polymorph or planar binding. Those spells are broken, and so is the Artificers "I get to be two levels higher than everyone else, also I gain real power because it is theoretically possible for anyone anywhere to play a Trapsmith" shtick.

It's like if you had a Bard and a Bard with planar binding. The second one isn't better, it just has a broken ability.


Do you consider CoDzilla important? Because with Metamagic Spell Trigger and later Metamagic Spell Completion it out CoDzillas the CoDzilla.

I mentioned that earlier, but it has exactly nothing to do with their ability to create items. Also, for anything that lasts over rounds/level you're probably better off not burning the six extra charges and just casting it at the start of each fight/dungeon/day. Which is a thing the Rogue could already do, and he gets sneak attack. But even then, you're not a Cleric Archer. Because the Cleric Archer can wake up tomorrow and pick a totally different set of buffs, battle magic, and utility spells and you can't.

[DarkSonic1337]

Sweet burn. But you'll recall that I specified that outside cheese the Beguiler is as good as the Wizard. The Wizard gets a bigger variety of spells, but the Beguiler gets plenty of great spells and casts them spontaneously. In all honestly, the best case for a power gap is the Beguiler being half a spell level behind rather than any real power discrepancy. Things change if you allow people to cheese up, but Wizard/Incantatrix is still about even with Beguiler/Rainbow Servant.



Have you considered that your definition of cheese and someone else's definition of cheese could be different?

Polymorphing is totally fine at my table, as is planar binding, free metamagic (but no nightstick stacking strangely), uncanny forethought casting time abuse, your typical scry and die tactics, fishing for spells off lower level lists for Chameleons/Artificers. The cutoff at my table is basically...no free wishes, no fast time shenanigans, no infinite wblmancy (though cost reduction tricks are fine), diplomacy has a ton of houserules on it, no permanantly gaining feats with DCFS(though the shuffle itself is okay), and don't be a **** with having a ton of minions follow you around and slow down combat with a million turns on your side (though you can have an army do other things if you want). Oh, and actual wishes/miracles are only used for the listed examples in the spells, unless given by the DM as a reward/plothook.

Does your table allow these things? Maybe, I have no idea. But I will say that there are certainly tables where these things would be considered cheesy and the Wizard wouldn't be so far ahead of the beguiler for levels of the game at those tables. At least until they go into contemplative and sovereign speaker to grab some domains

[Troacctid]

Ah, gotta love moving goalposts, right?
The Tier system as originally posted doesn´t take items into account, them being the great equalizer here.
The Artificer class can only do shenanigans with item. So, please guys, make up your mind: Do items count or not?
Relevant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?427628-Disregard-Money-Acquire-Buff-Spells-Artificers-without-the-Artifice)


They have one trick that is meaningful. And that trick is broken. They dumpster dive through splats to gain real ultimate power. Like someone casting polymorph or planar binding. Those spells are broken, and so is the Artificers "I get to be two levels higher than everyone else, also I gain real power because it is theoretically possible for anyone anywhere to play a Trapsmith" shtick.

It's like if you had a Bard and a Bard with planar binding. The second one isn't better, it just has a broken ability.
Crafting stuff two levels higher isn't "one trick." It's not even a trick. It's just a basic rule of how the class functions. You get stuff sooner. Like how a wizard gets stuff sooner than a bard.

[Cosi]

Have you considered that your definition of cheese and someone else's definition of cheese could be different?

I'm not calling "no cheese" because the Beguiler is in any way bad in a high OP game. Beguiler/Rainbow Servant is up there with Druid/Planar Shepherd or Wizard/Incantatrix in the running for "most powerful builds without wish cheese". I'm calling "no cheese" because the Tier System fanboys insist that you allow the Wizard to have planar binding and polymorph and so on, but cry foul the second the Beguiler UMDs a runestaff or takes Arcane Disciple or gets a prestige domain or does any kind of optimization whatsoever.


Crafting stuff two levels higher isn't "one trick." It's not even a trick. It's just a basic rule of how the class functions. You get stuff sooner. Like how a wizard gets stuff sooner than a bard.

Yah. And "has planar binding" is a basic rule of how the Wizard functions. But it is stupid and broken, and calling the class good because of it is a bad argument.

[Troacctid]

Yah. And "has planar binding" is a basic rule of how the Wizard functions. But it is stupid and broken, and calling the class good because of it is a bad argument.

It's not stupid and broken, and it's a perfectly good argument, thank you very much. I think most reasonable people would consider a faster progression to be a significant power bump. Hence why the adept is so much weaker than the cleric.

[Zancloufer]

Artificer is definitely a Tier 1. It's also worth noting with all their free bonus feats and special crafting feats they have access to make them kind of the UMD Rouge. If the UMD rouge was like 2x as good at UMD and could make all his stuff for >1/4th market value. I mean they can make scrolls of wish by level 15, and with the reduced EXP cost feats could actually cast wish for less EXP than it costs a Wizard to. Two levels earlier than said wizard.

[Cosi]

Hence why the adept is so much weaker than the cleric.

The Adept is an NPC class. If the Artificer is allowed to have an ability progression that is to PCs as PC ability progression is to NPCs, that is obviously broken. Just like it would be obviously broken to play a Wizard in a party of an Adept, an Aristocrat, an Expert, and a Warrior.


I mean they can make scrolls of wish by level 15, and with the reduced EXP cost feats could actually cast wish for less EXP than it costs a Wizard to. Two levels earlier than said wizard.

No, they get wish four levels later. Because planar binding exists.

[Deophaun]

I mentioned that earlier, but it has exactly nothing to do with their ability to create items.
Yes, it does, because they produce items cheap enough that they can afford versions with high CLs.

Also, for anything that lasts over rounds/level you're probably better off not burning the six extra charges
Metamagic Spell Trigger on a minor schema burns no charges.

Because the Cleric Archer can wake up tomorrow and pick a totally different set of buffs, battle magic, and utility spells and you can't.
But the Cleric won't (really, they don't; I can count the number of times I've seen a CoDzilla change their buff routine on one finger), and the Artificer has chosen his from the list of all spells, while the Cleric just gets spells from his list and a couple domains.

As for battlemagic and utility spells, the Artificer has an infusion for anything he hasn't made. It's not necessary to prepare different spells when one spell gives you several thousand.

[Telonius]

Yah. And "has planar binding" is a basic rule of how the Wizard functions. But it is stupid and broken, and calling the class good because of it is a bad argument.

Having stupid and broken stuff is pretty much the heart of what makes a Tier 1 a Tier 1. If it couldn't make reality cry twice before getting out of bed in the morning, it wouldn't be a Tier 1 to begin with.

[Cosi]

Yes, it does, because they produce items cheap enough that they can afford versions with high CLs.

They don't get any unique discounts.


But the Cleric won't (really, they don't; I can count the number of times I've seen a CoDzilla change their buff routine on one finger), and the Artificer has chosen his from the list of all spells, while the Cleric just gets spells from his list and a couple domains.

You're overstating the advantage the Artificer has. The Cleric could dip into other lists with anyspell or limited wish out of domains. That he doesn't is a sign those spells aren't all that good.


As for battlemagic and utility spells, the Artificer has an infusion for anything he hasn't made. It's not necessary to prepare different spells when one spell gives you several thousand.

He has infusions for spells up to 4th level. And it costs XP. Conversely, the Cleric has the entire Cleric spell list every morning. Or more if he optimizes.


Having stupid and broken stuff is pretty much the heart of what makes a Tier 1 a Tier 1. If it couldn't make reality cry twice before getting out of bed in the morning, it wouldn't be a Tier 1 to begin with.

If that is the case, you have three tiers:

1. Can cast planar binding.
2. Has UMD to get planar binding.
3. Needs to buy a Candle.

Those tiers tell you something, but it's not of any concern in a game. If you are going to use "broken stuff" as your standard, you need to tier abilities rather than classes. With wish in the picture, the Wizard is not more powerful than the Sorcerer or even the Commoner. They all have infinite power.

[Gildedragon]

Yes, it does, because they produce items cheap enough that they can afford versions with high CLs.

Metamagic Spell Trigger on a minor schema burns no charges.


Schemas are spell completion not spell trigger

[Troacctid]

The Adept is an NPC class. If the Artificer is allowed to have an ability progression that is to PCs as PC ability progression is to NPCs, that is obviously broken. Just like it would be obviously broken to play a Wizard in a party of an Adept, an Aristocrat, an Expert, and a Warrior.
By this logic, the adept is "obviously broken", because its spell progression is to a PC class (paladin) as a PC's is to an NPC's.

Different classes have different specialties. A given class can and should be better at its specialty than other classes. Artificers are better at crafting than wizards are. In exchange, they're not quite as good at casting as wizards are. When it all shakes out, this ends up being not an unreasonable tradeoff, which is why artificers and wizards are generally considered to be at similar levels of brokenness.


No, they get wish four levels later. Because planar binding exists.
They also get planar binding two levels sooner, so...

[Deophaun]

They don't get any unique discounts.
They get their crafting pool and retain essence. Those are quite substantial discounts. And he's crafting his version of plane shift with the Ur Priest discount of CL 5.

You're overstating the advantage the Artificer has. The Cleric could dip into other lists with anyspell or limited wish out of domains. That he doesn't is a sign those spells aren't all that good.
No, it means worshipping Boccob isn't that good. (Also, yes, anyspell isn't that good for this purpose because you'd need a spellbook or scroll on hand at the time and 15 minutes to prepare it "spontaneously.")

He has infusions for spells up to 4th level. And it costs XP.
They're swimming in XP thanks to retain essence and most of the utility spells you want are 4th level or lower anyway. From any list. Which includes things like clairvoyance at level 1.

Conversely, the Cleric has the entire Cleric spell list every morning. Or more if he optimizes.
Which means he's not worshipping Boccob.

Those tiers tell you something, but it's not of any concern in a game. If you are going to use "broken stuff" as your standard, you need to tier abilities rather than classes. With wish in the picture, the Wizard is not more powerful than the Sorcerer or even the Commoner. They all have infinite power.
Edit:
Schemas are spell completion not spell trigger
Typo. Change Metamagic Spell Trigger to Metamagic Spell Completion. The point is: no charge to expend.

[Cosi]

By this logic, the adept is "obviously broken", because its spell progression is to a PC class (paladin) as a PC's is to an NPC's.

Yes, because the Paladin is a spellcasting class.


Artificers are better at crafting than wizards are.

Except they aren't. The Artificer has no abilities which make his crafting better than a crafter Wizard. Other than getting spells two levels higher. Which is broken. I literally cannot understand what you are missing here. It's like saying the Truenamer is "balanced" to the Wizard because it gets at-will gate.


They get their crafting pool and retain essence. Those are quite substantial discounts.

No, those do literally nothing. Because Thought Bottles and level loss/restoration exist. Nobody pays XP costs for crafting.


And he's crafting his version of plane shift with the Ur Priest discount of CL 5.

So is the Wizard. Read his spell acquisition carefully. He can add any spell from the Sorcerer/Wizard list to his spellbook, but he doesn't have to add them at the level they appear on that list. If he finds a Death Delver scroll of animate dead, he can use it as a 2nd level spell. The only benefit the Artificer gets is counting as two levels higher. And that is broken. Just like a feat that gave you the spells of a Wizard two levels higher than you would be broken.

[Deophaun]

Except they aren't. The Artificer has no abilities which make his crafting better than a crafter Wizard. Other than getting spells two levels higher. Which is broken.
This is basically your argument right here: The Artificer is no stronger than anyone else, because anything that makes them stronger is by definition broken and so invalid.

It's a terrible argument.

[Troacctid]

Yes, because the Paladin is a spellcasting class.
Right.


Except they aren't. The Artificer has no abilities which make his crafting better than a crafter Wizard. Other than getting spells two levels higher. Which is broken. I literally cannot understand what you are missing here. It's like saying the Truenamer is "balanced" to the Wizard because it gets at-will gate.
"They have no abilities that make them better at crafting than a Wizard, except for all the various abilities they have that make them better at crafting than a Wizard."

[Deophaun]

So is the Wizard. Read his spell acquisition carefully. He can add any spell from the Sorcerer/Wizard list to his spellbook, but he doesn't have to add them at the level they appear on that list.

Ah, the "it doesn't say you can't" theory of D&D rules. Sorry, but no. Wizards cannot do what you say. Artificers, however, are explicitly told they can.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'm getting PTSD-induced JediPotter flashbacks. Is anyone else getting JediPotter flashbacks?

[DarkSonic1337]

Actually...a Wizard CAN add an arcane scroll he finds to his spellbook, so long as it's on the wizard list.

He however adds it as a wizard spell of the level it appears on the wizard/sorc list. Artificer is comparable to Archivist in that it doesn't actually have a spell list and explicitly allows you to use spells at the level they appeared on the list you acquired them from.

[Cosi]

This is basically your argument right here: The Artificer is no stronger than anyone else, because anything that makes them stronger is by definition broken and so invalid.

"They have no abilities that make them better at crafting than a Wizard, except for all the various abilities they have that make them better at crafting than a Wizard."

Fine. "Counts as two levels higher" is a balanced ability. So is an 11th level Wizard summoning CR 18 demons with planar binding. Clearly, that is the correct balance point for the game.


Ah, the "it doesn't say you can't" theory of D&D rules. Sorry, but no. Wizards cannot do what you say. Artificers, however, are explicitly told they can.

Did you read the rules? How about a quote:


A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll ... the wizard must first decipher the magical writing ... Next, she must spend a day studying the spell. At the end of the day, she must make a Spellcraft check ... If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into her spellbook.

Technically, that allows you to add any spell to your spellbook. However, the Rules Compendium altered it such that you can only add spells on your list. So you can't learn raise dead at any level (because it is not on the Sorcerer/Wizard list) but you can learn animate dead at 2nd level (because it is on the Sorcerer/Wizard list, and you have version that is 2nd level).

[Zancloufer]

Except they aren't. The Artificer has no abilities which make his crafting better than a crafter Wizard. Other than getting spells two levels higher. Which is broken. I literally cannot understand what you are missing here. It's like saying the Truenamer is "balanced" to the Wizard because it gets at-will gate.

Except the ability to make items that requires spells not on the Wizard's spell list. Or the free crafting EXP every level. Or the ability to destroy unwanted magical loot for free crafting EXP. Or getting as many free crafting feats as a Wizard 20 has feats (before race) AND getting the same number of feats as a wizard normally could. Which they could spend on those -25% Time/GP/EXP for crafting feats. A Wizard 20 spending ALL of his feats on crafting is as good as an Artificer 18 who has spent NONE of his feats on crafting at crafting magical items.

[Deophaun]

Technically, that allows you to add any spell to your spellbook. However, the Rules Compendium altered it such that you can only add spells on your list. So you can't learn raise dead at any level (because it is not on the Sorcerer/Wizard list) but you can learn animate dead at 2nd level (because it is on the Sorcerer/Wizard list, and you have version that is 2nd level).

That bolded part? That's the thing the rules don't say you can do. That's you saying "it doesn't say I can't." It's wrong.

[Cosi]

Except the ability to make items that requires spells not on the Wizard's spell list.

Hey look, it's limited wish and his friend wish.


Or the free crafting EXP every level. Or the ability to destroy unwanted magical loot for free crafting EXP.

Are you unfamiliar with the Thought Bottle? Or how level loss works? Free XP isn't an ability, it's a way to simplify accounting.


Or getting as many free crafting feats as a Wizard 20 has feats (before race) AND getting the same number of feats as a wizard normally could.

Diminishing returns dude. You can just make all your magic items Wondrous Items, which costs one feat. You can capture 70%+ of the value of the Artificer's feats with one feat the Wizard was probably taking anyway.


That bolded part? That's the thing the rules don't say you can do. That's you saying "it doesn't say I can't." It's wrong.

It says you copy the spell. Not "you copy the spell at the level where it appears on your class list". You're falling into the same trap JaronK did when he wrote the tiers: you're giving worse classes more favorable readings because otherwise they would suck, and better classes less favorable readings because otherwise they would rock. The Wizard can do every trick the Artificer can do by RAW. But if that's true, the Artificer would suck, so clearly it can't be true.

[AnachroNinja]

If you copy the "Spell" then you copy "Animate Dead" which does not include any qualifiers as regards level and such because that is not part of what spell it is. It's not Animate Dead level 2, it's just Animate Dead. "A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list" is a direct quote from the srd. Copy whatever you want into your spell book, you can only cast from your spell list. That means casting it at the listed level for your spell list.

[Troacctid]

Fine. "Counts as two levels higher" is a balanced ability. So is an 11th level Wizard summoning CR 18 demons with planar binding. Clearly, that is the correct balance point for the game.

"Anything anyone does that's more powerful than something someone else does is broken, because that's exactly the same thing as planar binding, which is broken."

[Deophaun]

Diminishing returns dude. You can just make all your magic items Wondrous Items, which costs one feat.
No, you can't. You can't make a +5 Vorpal Wondrous Item. Wondrous Item versions of scrolls, potions, and wands are really, really expensive comparatively. Aside from certain common enhancements (like the deflection bonus on a ring of protection), there's no way without DM fiat to make wondrous item versions of rings or rods. Certainly not staves. There's no way any of your wondrous items work with metamagic spell trigger or metamagic spell completion, because wondrous items aren't those. Just, no. The game does not work that way.

[Cosi]

It's not Animate Dead level 2, it's just Animate Dead.

No, it's 2nd level animate dead. Spells in magic items have levels, and the description of spell acquisition doesn't overwrite the source level. I understand the desire to not allow this. I wouldn't allow it. But it is RAW.


"A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list"

First, there exist Wizards which cast spells which are not arcane (for example, a Wizard/Rainbow Servant who has learned raise dead) and spells which are not on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list (for example, a Wizard/Wyrm Wizard who has learned glibness). Clearly, that statement doesn't override anything (unless you want to break anything that adds spells to a Wizard's list to avoid a balance problem, which would be sadly typical of this forum).

Second, that doesn't say anything about spell level. The Death Delver's 2nd level animate dead is still arcane (check) and still on the Sorcerer/Wizard list (check), so casting it at 2nd level fulfills 100% of the restrictions made by that piece of text.


Wondrous Item versions of scrolls, potions, and wands are really, really expensive comparatively.

Use activated, one use: SL * CL * 50
Use activated, one use/day: SL * CL * 400

If you plan to use your item more than eight times, you should make it a wondrous item. It gets worse if you factor in resale value, which is zero for potions and normal for wondrous items.


There's no way any of your wondrous items work with metamagic spell trigger or metamagic spell completion, because wondrous items aren't those. Just, no. The game does not work that way.

Uh, sure. I'm not sure why a Wizard cares if his items work with Artificer abilities, but they certainly would not.

[Deophaun]

Use activated, one use: SL * CL * 50
Use activated, one use/day: SL * CL * 400

If you plan to use your item more than eight times, you should make it a wondrous item. It gets worse if you factor in resale value, which is zero for potions and normal for wondrous items.
If you can make it at all. Anything made by the chart in the DMG is DM fiat territory.

Uh, sure. I'm not sure why a Wizard cares if his items work with Artificer abilities, but they certainly would not.
Metamagic Spell Trigger is a feat. You know this, of course, as you were talking about a rogue using it.

So, the spirit of that comment means we are done here.

[Troacctid]

But it is RAW.

[...]

Second, that doesn't say anything about spell level.

I'd be hard-pressed to call it RAW if the rules don't say anything about it. Looks to me like the default rule is that you cast spells from the wizard list, and I'm not seeing any more specific text contradicting that here like there is with Wyrm Wizard (which provides an exception to the usual rules) or Rainbow Servant (ditto).

[Zanos]

IIRC, an 8th level artificer can use a 4th level infusion to create 3 1 charge wands for free that each last 8 hours that can contain any spell on any list of 4th level or lower.

So there's that.

[Cosi]

If you can make it at all. Anything made by the chart in the DMG is DM fiat territory.

I have never seen someone talk about the Artificer and not assume custom items. But sure, if you want to not do that I don't really care. At that point you're left looking a lot like a Sorcerer who happens to have some metamagic shenanigans and the Wizard is just better than you without bothering to step on your toes.


Metamagic Spell Trigger is a feat. You know this, of course, as you were talking about a rogue using it.

I think you misread. I was talking about not using Metamagic Spell Trigger at all (because it costs more charges than it saves) and simply activating without metamagic, like a Rogue already can. The feat is okay, but if you wanted metamagic on your items you would craft items of DMM: Persist spells after dipping Sacred Exorcist.


I'd be hard-pressed to call it RAW if the rules don't say anything about it. Looks to me like the default rule is that you cast spells from the wizard list, and I'm not seeing any more specific text contradicting that here.

The default rule for casting is that you can cast spells which are on the Sorcerer/Wizard list (although that is obviously problematic in the context of Wyrm Wizards or Arcane Disciples). animate dead is on the Sorcerer/Wizard list. The question is whether learning it from a Death Delver scroll lets you learn it as a 2nd level spell. I think that you can, as the language is "copy", which implies that you would keep the spell level.

[AvatarVecna]

First, there exist Wizards which cast spells which are not arcane (for example, a Wizard/Rainbow Servant who has learned raise dead) and spells which are not on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list (for example, a Wizard/Wyrm Wizard who has learned glibness). Clearly, that statement doesn't override anything (unless you want to break anything that adds spells to a Wizard's list to avoid a balance problem, which would be sadly typical of this forum).

While I'm too tired to determine how accurate the rest of your argument is, I would like to point out that the existence of the "specific trumps general" rule (which is what you're calling out in this passage) does not automatically make loose constructionist readings of the rules RAW. That being said, while I'm sure there's a more specific rule about how one can learn spells, I'm sure somebody else here ITP is enraged enough with your argument to find it for me.

[Troacctid]

I have never seen someone talk about the Artificer and not assume custom items. But sure, if you want to not do that I don't really care. At that point you're left looking a lot like a Sorcerer who happens to have some metamagic shenanigans and the Wizard is just better than you without bothering to step on your toes.
I've been talking about the artificer without assuming custom items, like, this whole time. Wands, scrolls, schemas, and non-custom items should cover all your needs without much trouble.


The default rule for casting is that you can cast spells which are on the Sorcerer/Wizard list (although that is obviously problematic in the context of Wyrm Wizards or Arcane Disciples).
It's not problematic at all. There's a general rule. Wyrm Wizards and Arcane Disciples have specific exceptions that violate the general rule. In the absence of such exceptions, the general rule applies. This is covered on page 5 of the Rules Compendium.

[AnachroNinja]

Spells do not have levels. Animate dead is a spell. It's level has no bearing. Spell lists have levels. The rules do not say you can cast anything ON the wizard spell list. The spells you cast are drawn FROM the wizard spell list. That means you cast them at the level they are on the list. Certain specific abilities ADD spells TO the wizard spell list, at which point you can cast them. Unless something specifically adds Animate Dead to the wizard spell list at v level two, you must cast it from its default level.

[Cosi]

It's not problematic at all. There's a general rule. Wyrm Wizards and Arcane Disciples have specific exceptions that violate the general rule. In the absence of such exceptions, the general rule applies. This is covered on page 5 of the Rules Compendium.

Okay, and where does the general rule say literally anything about spell level defaulting? The language isn't even ambiguous. It says "copy", which implies that it preserves things like level.

[AnachroNinja]

It says copy the Spell. Go to the srd, click spells. See the big list of all the spells in alphabetical order. Tell me how many of them have a level next to the name. I'll wait. None of them? Now go to the section for spell lists. Huh, that is broken down by level. It is almost as though spell level is solely a function of relative power based on where it falls on a classes spell list.

So yes, you can copy Animate Dead. The wizard spell list says where it goes unless you have an ability that says otherwise.

[Troacctid]

If the general rule is that you prepare and cast spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard list, then you would prepare and cast the spell from the Sorcerer/Wizard list (as per the general rule), where it's a 4th level spell. This is bad for a Wizard copying Animate Dead from a Death Master, but good for a Death Master copying Animate Dead from a Wizard.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Stop repeating Char-Op groupthink without analyzing it.Stop hurling ad hominem without analyzing what I actually wrote. Classes aren't put into tiers because of PrCs that can make them great. They're put there due to their native class features. If you did start including PrC combinations, builds that included base classes in Tier X could easily move to Tier Y, all the time. No one disagrees that a Rainbow Servant who ends up spontaneously casting the Cleric list due to the properties of fixed list casting is anything but T1. But that doesn't change the fact that a straight classed Beguiler doesn't have T1 capabilities, while a straight-classed Wizard does.
Sweet burn. But you'll recall that I specified that outside cheese the Beguiler is as good as the Wizard.No true Scotsman.
The Wizard gets a bigger variety of spells, but the Beguiler gets plenty of great spells and casts them spontaneously. In all honestly, the best case for a power gap is the Beguiler being half a spell level behind rather than any real power discrepancy. Things change if you allow people to cheese up, but Wizard/Incantatrix is still about even with Beguiler/Rainbow Servant.I'll take the build that starts out at T1, comes online way earlier, and creates effects that other T1s can't achieve all that easily, please. But comparing build stubs is outside the scope of the tier system. Or rather, once you get into specific builds, they do both fall into the same category (at least, once the RS gets that capstone). You might notice that Beguiler isn't necessary at all there; only being a fixed list caster matters. And yet Warmage is clearly lower tier than Beguiler.
The Sorcerer comparison is laughable. The Beguiler gets four times as many spells, better class features, and a single PrC level and/or a magic item shreds any claim the Sorcerer makes about "unique spells". I would pick Beguiler over Sorcerer for a caster in any conceivable game. It's better at low levels with Trapfinding, better at mid levels with charm monster + Diplomacy, and better at high levels with Rainbow Servant, Prestige Domains + substitute domain, or just using all the Sorcerers tricks to get more spells with a better base list.How about you list all those fun ways to get unique Sorcerer spells so I can show you how they're generally bad or DM-dependent? Also you're overrating Charm Monster.


While there are certainly broken applications of polymorph in combat, using it that way will never be as broken as a Beguiler who uses charm monster (which he knows automatically) and Diplomacy (which is one of his class skills) to give Anime-style Defeat Means Friendship (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DefeatMeansFriendship) speeches to everything he fights.At the very worst, diplomacy as a class skill costs a feat. Sorcerers have the rest, and they're CHA-based. If this was such a potent combo, Bards actually do it better... but it's not. It requires that the monster in question (1) Fails its save, (2) Isn't immune to mind-affecting, and (3) Doesn't have friends who can deal with the effect before you rush diplomacy on round 2. You'd be hard-pressed to find a mid-to-high-op fight of actual consequence that doesn't make at least one of these conditions troublesome, especially by 8th level. There's a reason mid-op guidebook writers like Treantmonk prefer multi-target effects, if you're going to allow for a save at all.

Of course, optimized diplomacy can achieve a lot of this without the annoyance of landing a single target mind affecting SoL. But all the Beguiler has going in terms of diplo pumping in this context is that it's a class skill without effort. In other diplo contexts like negotiating, he can alter the perceived threat points using Glibness. I'm actually surprised that hasn't come up; it's one of the Beguiler and Bard's neat tricks that is at least somewhat annoying for T1s to grab.


If that was what JaronK wanted to do, then he should have ranked abilities.How about you do that, and see how easy it is?
Diplomancy breaks the game whether it comes from a Marshal/Warlock/Bard multiclass that cheeses the check into the stratosphere, a Beguiler that casts charm monster and makes the DC 20 check to make people Helpful, or a Artificer who makes skill boosters.One of these things is not like the other.
FFS, the best way to break the game (Candle -> Efreet -> wish) requires no levels in any class.And yet, JaronK had the audacity to focus on imbalance stemming from native class features, as opposed to particular broken abilities, when there is absolutely no room to discuss both!

[Cosi]

Classes aren't put into tiers because of PrCs that can make them great. They're put there due to their native class features. If you did start including PrC combinations, builds that included base classes in Tier X could easily move to Tier Y, all the time.

Yes, it would take more work. But it would actually be useful. People claim the tier system doesn't rank skills, feats, items, or PrCs. When was the last time you built a character with no skills, feats, items, or PrCs? Personally, I've never done that, so I have difficulty appreciating the value of a set of rankings that excludes those things.


But that doesn't change the fact that a straight classed Beguiler doesn't have T1 capabilities, while a straight-classed Wizard does.

charm person, charm monster, dominate person, dominate monster, simulacrum, ice assassin, Diplomacy, probably some Illusions or Enchantments I'm forgetting.


I'll take the build that starts out at T1, comes online way earlier,

Exactly. At first level, the Wizard comes out with color spray and sleep while the Beguiler is forced to settle for color spray and sleep. The Wizard pulls ahead at mid levels, and even then only if the Beguiler can't buy items or use Diplomacy.


How about you list all those fun ways to get unique Sorcerer spells so I can show you how they're generally bad or DM-dependent?

Prestige Domain + substitute domain wand, swapping your Good domain to any domain you happen to want for near perfect spell access
UMD + Runestaff/Knowstone, replicating the most common trick to expand a Sorcerer's list (except better because UMD technically lets you cast at-will with Runestones)
Arcane Disciple/(RAW) Extra Spell


It requires that the monster in question (1) Fails its save, (2) Isn't immune to mind-affecting, and (3) Doesn't have friends who can deal with the effect before you rush diplomacy on round 2.

1. charm monster isn't really a combat spell in most cases. The fact that it works there is useful, but if you're worried about saves you can just have your other minions capture the target and throw charms at him until he rolls a 1.
2. More than half of monsters aren't. Even if you literally only encounter one monster a level you can charm, you double (actually, more) your combat effectiveness.
3. Literally every effect is vulnerable to "monsters allies have a counter". That's not even an argument.


How about you do that, and see how easy it is?

If you think listing broken effects would be too difficult to be feasible, why are you supporting a tier system with rankings based off of access to broken effects?


And yet, JaronK had the audacity to focus on imbalance stemming from native class features, as opposed to particular broken abilities, when there is absolutely no room to discuss both!

A discussion that looks the Wizard's ability to cast planar binding but not the Dread Necromancer's ability to do the same or everyone's ability to buy a Candle and concludes that the Wizard is "broken" is not on any level a useful discussion to have.

[ericgrau]

Hmm so a bard / warblade to counteract some mild optimization wizard tricks? That sounds about right in actual play. As for the 1,001 zany tricks that require a reflex save vs flying DMG, I simply ignore those and it makes life a lot easier. No offense to people who enjoy theoretical discussions, as long as they are applied only to theoretical situations.

[Cosi]

Hmm so a bard / warblade to counteract some mild optimization wizard tricks? That sounds about right in actual play.

Not "Tier One", really, but definitely workable for a balance perspective. The basic plan that Bardblades, Rogues, and Swift Hunters have (make a bunch of attacks for a large pile of bonus damage) stacks up pretty well against monsters for most of the game. If you layer some basic utility/defensive options on top of that, you would have a character that could play in the same basic ball park as a Wizard. If you had a Warblade that got some dice of extra damage on attacks, a few combat spells (like wraithstrike or short-range teleports), and some utility (like fabricate or plane shift), that character would be totally capable of contributing to a party with a Beguiler, a Wizard, and a Druid.

There are a few other changes I'd make if you were doing that. Mostly accounting stuff. The Bardblade should just get however many dice of damage from his music as you consider appropriate and not have to dumpster dive for various bonuses to music. Maybe have a formalized system for getting defensive buffs and utility magic. You need to do something to combat the fact that while "do a bunch of damage on a lot of attacks" is a level appropriate fighting style, there isn't much variance once you've decided where to get your bonus damage and whether to fight with two swords or a bow.


As for the 1,001 zany tricks that require a reflex save vs flying DMG, I simply ignore those and it makes life a lot easier.

I agree. But as long as people keep using the Tiers (rather than the SGT or some other useful measure) when talking about bringing classes "up to the Wizard", people will talk about how you need planar binding and other broken stuff rather than actually making interesting classes.

[Hal0Badger]

I agree. But as long as people keep using the Tiers (rather than the SGT or some other useful measure) when talking about bringing classes "up to the Wizard", people will talk about how you need planar binding and other broken stuff rather than actually making interesting classes.

Like you do?

On the topic, no I don't think 3+3=1 in terms of tiers, however some classes in tier 4 may become tier 3 if they are combined in the manner 4+4=3.

[ben-zayb]

A Warmage X / Rainbow Servant 10 is a 1st-party T1 build, but a homebrewed "Rainbow Warsnake, the base class" is a T1 class. But the thing with threads like these, is that you're more or less homebrewing a new class from a hodgepodge of different classes, so you could claim that the result could be a prebuilt T1 class instead of a T1 build. So, is it possible if done this way? I think so, if you are adding PrCs that enable access to T1 powers.
I'm getting PTSD-induced JediPotter flashbacks. Is anyone else getting JediPotter flashbacks?

Nah, you're probably thinking of a different banned poster instead of JP. I wouldn't say it's rare for me, though, considering I'm having four different sorts flashbacks from threads where 4 (actually 5, which could mean another forum rule is being broken) certain accounts post.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Yes, it would take more work. But it would actually be useful. People claim the tier system doesn't rank skills, feats, items, or PrCs. When was the last time you built a character with no skills, feats, items, or PrCs? Personally, I've never done that, so I have difficulty appreciating the value of a set of rankings that excludes those things.There is no perfect solution. Your granular ability-ranking system would be worse at providing a holistic, context-laden comparison. The only way to do that is to compare builds directly, of which there are wayyyy too many to judge.
charm person, charm monster, dominate person, dominate monster, simulacrum, ice assassin, Diplomacy, probably some Illusions or Enchantments I'm forgetting.First of all, a Sorcerer could pick up all of those. As is abundantly clear, access to a specific spell or broken ability doesn't make you T1. Maybe Ice Assassin gets you to T2... Truenamer gets there.
Exactly. At first level, the Wizard comes out with color spray and sleep while the Beguiler is forced to settle for color spray and sleep. The Wizard pulls ahead at mid levels, and even then only if the Beguiler can't buy items or use Diplomacy.We're comparing a Wizard/Incantatrix to a Beguiler/RS. Such a wizard gets to persist a pile of buffs on herself for free starting at level 8, or level 7 with friends/domain access. To think that some items and diplomacy - which are just as available to a Wizard who desires them - are going to fix that discrepancy at that level is absurd. And it lasts at least until 8th level spells start showing up, which is a long time.
Prestige Domain + substitute domain wand, swapping your Good domain to any domain you happen to want for near perfect spell access
you can swap one of your current domains for another that your deity offers.Best case: You have a deity with good domain selection, which gives you good but not T1 spell access. Worst case: You don't worship a deity, and are SOL.
UMD + Runestaff/Knowstone, replicating the most common trick to expand a Sorcerer's list (except better because UMD technically lets you cast at-will with Runestones)So, first, aside from being Dragon material, Knowstones are expensive; it's often better to just carry a scroll. Second, Runestaves, while nice, are limited in scope without venturing into custom magic items. Third, most importantly, I thought we were talking about ways a Beguiler could expand his repertoire, not any spontaneous caster. Sorcerers get UMD and are CHA-based, so they can pull these shenanigans even earlier than Beguilers can. The domain tricks, I'll grant that they're obviously best for fixed-list casters, as they add to the list instead of spells known directly. Beguiler, already very high T3, may even push himself into T2 with clever deity/domain choices before most of the functional game is over (IMO far more important than hitting that RS capstone late-game). But this is just a variation on the "Commoner with the Candle of Invocation" problem.
Arcane Disciple/(RAW) Extra SpellArcane Disciple is redundant with the Substitute Domain trick specified above, unless that trick is unavailable. Extra Spell, at its best reading, gives you one spell, and is available to everyone.

One good thing about Extra Spell is that, unlike all these other methods you listed, it actually solves my question of how you're getting unique, Sorcerer-only spells onto the Beguiler's list, as long as you have a particular reading of its use. Too bad it's a whole feat per one spell.
1. charm monster isn't really a combat spell in most cases. The fact that it works there is useful, but if you're worried about saves you can just have your other minions capture the target and throw charms at him until he rolls a 1.If you're a caster and can't do this sort of thing to someone entirely under your power, that should boot you out of T3. Oh, hello, Warmage. How's it going?
2. More than half of monsters aren't. Even if you literally only encounter one monster a level you can charm, you double (actually, more) your combat effectiveness.Charm isn't doing the heavy lifting here - that would be the diplomancy. And even if it were, again, it's one trick that's not unique at all to the Beguiler.
3. Literally every effect is vulnerable to "monsters allies have a counter". That's not even an argument.You may have an argument, but it is made entirely from equivocation. The tricks that can be mustered by a well-oiled sorcerer can't be suppressed by a meager Protection From Evil effect. The ease of countering a tactic matters, because generally-prepared foes will have cheap countermeasures, but not necessarily expensive or obscure ones.
If you think listing broken effects would be too difficult to be feasible, why are you supporting a tier system with rankings based off of access to broken effects?It's based on the amount of access to spells/powers in general, with an underlying acknowledgement that you can find broken material and combinations all over D&D, or just unintentionally-good options at a lower-op table. You don't have to count up every effect to make your case.
A discussion that looks the Wizard's ability to cast planar binding but not the Dread Necromancer's ability to do the same or everyone's ability to buy a Candle and concludes that the Wizard is "broken" is not on any level a useful discussion to have.To a certain extent, if there was a class called "Commoner with regular WBL and unrestricted item access," its capabilities could mirror T1 classes without much in the way of items. But when you're comparing classes, the productive thing is to look at the problematic areas within the classes themselves. Whether this is CW Samurai leading to a path of suck, or a Wizard leading to almost any path it wants. What's completely unproductive is to say "Well, any class can break the game." We know any class can break the game. The commoner can break the game. But we're comparing class balance, and the level of access to all these crazy things the class itself provides.

Now, the other unproductive thing to do is to pretend the Tier System attempts more than it says - something both its detractors and its defenders claim. Even JaronK offered balance suggestions, or tier restrictions. These are pointless. The general rule still holds: Player > Build > Class. Turning a "these classes have X level of crazy stuff" descriptive system into a prescriptive system is misguided at best. But if you take it for what it is, it can give you a decent baseline for what to expect.

[Florian]

Yes, it would take more work. But it would actually be useful. People claim the tier system doesn't rank skills, feats, items, or PrCs. When was the last time you built a character with no skills, feats, items, or PrCs? Personally, I've never done that, so I have difficulty appreciating the value of a set of rankings that excludes those things.

I rather find the methodology used to be faulty. Talking Core only, equaling class with spell makes sense because with the limited selection of options available, there´s only one class with all-access to arcane spells and only two classes with UMD as class skills.
With more and more material being available, tho, this breaks down. Class equals spell doesn´t hold up anymore, then, and can´t be used as a basis.

[Cosi]

Your granular ability-ranking system would be worse at providing a holistic, context-laden comparison.

Worse than a system like the SGT. Not worse than the tiers, because the tiers conflate imbalance with game breakers.


As is abundantly clear, access to a specific spell or broken ability doesn't make you T1.

Why? The most common effect of breaking the game is infinite power. Once you have that, what possible power standard could you not meet?


Such a wizard gets to persist a pile of buffs on herself for free starting at level 8, or level 7 with friends/domain access.

Look at that. It's the exact level where the Beguiler gets charm monster.


Best case: You have a deity with good domain selection, which gives you good but not T1 spell access.

That's still more spells that the Sorcerer learns. You could also worship a pantheon (appears in the Eberron books), which gives you all the domains any of its gods have.


Third, most importantly, I thought we were talking about ways a Beguiler could expand his repertoire, not any spontaneous caster.

The Beguiler is the only spontaneous caster (with 9th level spells natively) that gets UMD. It's at the very least the best at these particular tricks. Also, another class having some access to your tricks doesn't move you down a tier.


Sorcerers get UMD and are CHA-based, so they can pull these shenanigans even earlier than Beguilers can.

You seem confused. Here's a list of the Sorcerer's class skills:


The sorcerer’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Bluff (Cha), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Knowledge (arcana) (Int), Profession (Wis), and Spellcraft (Int).

Unless I'm much less literate than I thought, none of those are UMD. While I'm not going to quote the Beguiler list for copyright reasons, it should be noted that the Beguiler does have UMD. The difference between CHA and INT casting isn't that big of a deal. The Beguiler probably has a 14 or 16 in CHA, and a bonus that is the same or better than the Beguiler. Unless you want to blow a feat on Apprentice, I which case I should point out that claiming that one class is better than another because it can spend feats to emulate that class' abilities is a poor argument.


If you're a caster and can't do this sort of thing to someone entirely under your power, that should boot you out of T3.

Wow, I didn't realize the goalposts were all the way over here. Maybe you should put up the Sorcerer tricks you think are so much better, so I can explain how the DM contorts the game so they aren't a problem.


But when you're comparing classes, the productive thing is to look at the problematic areas within the classes themselves.

But that doesn't mean anything if you're measuring "ability to break the game". Because people can (and do) break the game without regard to class. It is intellectually dishonest to say that you are going to count the Wizard's ability to buy a scroll of planar binding and break the game, but not the Rogue's ability to buy a scroll of planar binding and break the game because the Wizard "has planar binding as a class feature".


But we're comparing class balance, and the level of access to all these crazy things the class itself provides.

You're not actually comparing class balance. You're saying "JaronK sorta thought you could rank classes, here's his first draft". If you were comparing class balance, you would test things. Like the SGT does. You have a hypothesis, and you are treating it like a theory.


The general rule still holds: Player > Build > Class.

So I care about at thing that ranks literally the least important part of CharOp because? Oh right, I don't.

[Lans]

@ the discussion about artificers- Artificers are tier 1 on basis of there spell storing infusion up till level 9 or 10.

[AnachroNinja]

Cosi seems to fail to understand some fairly basic concepts of measuring balance. If one were attempting to test the relative speed of several Olympic athletes, their ability to buy a plane ticket and fly at a couple hundred miles per hour isn't really relevant. In much the same way that anyone being able to buy a candle of invocation isn't relevant to class balance. If, on the other hand, one of these athletes was secretly Superman and could fly at Mach 2 under his own power, that is actually relevant to the relative abilities of said athletes. In much the same way, a wizards ability to cast planar binding natively, is relevant to class balance. It is an aspect of power inherent in the class itself. To put it in more simple terms, having the ability to buy a shotgun and shoot Mike Tyson in the face, does not make me the better boxer.

That said, Beguilers simply do not have the level of game breaking power necessary for tier 1. The much vaunted charm monster is a tool possessed by every tier 1 class, and a level sooner then the Beguiler at that. The point of tier 1, is that they possess that ability, and the potential for a nearly limitless amount of other game breaking abilities, built right into the chassis, rather then requiring a helpful DM to give you the right items or scenarios. A Beguiler is reduced to the power level of an expert with UMD by mind affecting immune monsters. Now your going to point out your army of alleged minions, which only exist if the DM and game to that point have made them possible. Right out of the box, starting a level 10 campaign as a Beguiler, if your enemy is a golem, you are going to run, hide, and cry... Not necessarily in that order.

An argument could perhaps be made for a Beguiler to be tier 2 if you were to account for the potential feat choices, but as noted, the tier system isn't really designed for that. It would have necessitated a complexity that would hinder it's usefulness. It's right there in it though that sufficient optimization can bump you up or down a tier. So yes, a sufficiently optimized Beguiler could likely play as a tier 2 class. But it's not the base functionality of the Beguiler getting it there, which is why it's tier 3.

The Beguiler is personally my favorite class to play. I love it like a son, but you've got to get past your personal bias. It's a very well designed class, which is exactly what tier 1 classes are NOT.

[Cosi]

@ the discussion about artificers- Artificers are tier 1 on basis of there spell storing infusion up till level 9 or 10.

That ability is overrated. Spending a minute and some XP to cast any spell is only useful for utility spells, and while that's certainly valuable, it doesn't meaningfully overcome the Artificer's lack of combat ability at low levels.


Cosi seems to fail to understand some fairly basic concepts of measuring balance.

That is impossible to do in the context of the Tier system, because it does not measure balance. It hypothesizes about balance, but it doesn't test it. As such, no "measurement" can occur for me to even potentially misunderstand.


If one were attempting to test the relative speed of several Olympic athletes, their ability to buy a plane ticket and fly at a couple hundred miles per hour isn't really relevant. If, on the other hand, one of these athletes was secretly Superman and could fly at Mach 2 under his own power, that is actually relevant to the relative abilities of said athletes.

That's not the argument the Tier system makes. The argument the Tier system makes is closer to "I don't own a private jet, Usain Bolt does, therefore Usain Bolt is faster than me". It may be true that Usain Bolt is faster than me. In fact, it is almost certainly true that Usain Bolt is faster than me. But he's not faster than me because he owns a private jet. He's faster than me because he is physically faster. No one is going to ban Candle -> Efreet -> wish but allow planar binding -> Efreet -> wish, so predicating your balance discussion on that assumption makes it worthless.


The much vaunted charm monster is a tool possessed by every tier 1 class, and a level sooner then the Beguiler at that.

That argument is self-defeating. If Tier One classes having charm monster means the Beguiler can't be Tier One, then logically all those other classes should stop being Tier One as well. The Tier System isn't about "best at X". It's about "very good at X". It's why the Archivist and the Cleric are in the same Tier.


Right out of the box, starting a level 10 campaign as a Beguiler, if your enemy is a golem, you are going to run, hide, and cry... Not necessarily in that order.

Or, you know, cast silent image and bypass the encounter. I also fail to see how "you never ever encounter any monsters that are not 100% immune to Mind Effecting spells" doesn't count as exactly the "very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat" that JaronK said describes Tier One classes.


the tier system isn't really designed for that. It would have necessitated a complexity that would hinder it's usefulness.

Useful: If you assume no one has skills, feats, items, or PrCs, JaronK kind of thinks classes might fall into these tiers.
Not Useful: A Beguiler with access to books X, Y, and Z can defeat encounters of CR = Level at levels A, B, and C.

[Florian]

Cosi seems to fail to understand some fairly basic concepts of measuring balance. If one were attempting to test the relative speed of several Olympic athletes, their ability to buy a plane ticket and fly at a couple hundred miles per hour isn't really relevant. In much the same way that anyone being able to buy a candle of invocation isn't relevant to class balance. If, on the other hand, one of these athletes was secretly Superman and could fly at Mach 2 under his own power, that is actually relevant to the relative abilities of said athletes. In much the same way, a wizards ability to cast planar binding natively, is relevant to class balance. It is an aspect of power inherent in the class itself. To put it in more simple terms, having the ability to buy a shotgun and shoot Mike Tyson in the face, does not make me the better boxer.

That said, Beguilers simply do not have the level of game breaking power necessary for tier 1. The much vaunted charm monster is a tool possessed by every tier 1 class, and a level sooner then the Beguiler at that. The point of tier 1, is that they possess that ability, and the potential for a nearly limitless amount of other game breaking abilities, built right into the chassis, rather then requiring a helpful DM to give you the right items or scenarios. A Beguiler is reduced to the power level of an expert with UMD by mind affecting immune monsters. Now your going to point out your army of alleged minions, which only exist if the DM and game to that point have made them possible. Right out of the box, starting a level 10 campaign as a Beguiler, if your enemy is a golem, you are going to run, hide, and cry... Not necessarily in that order.

An argument could perhaps be made for a Beguiler to be tier 2 if you were to account for the potential feat choices, but as noted, the tier system isn't really designed for that. It would have necessitated a complexity that would hinder it's usefulness. It's right there in it though that sufficient optimization can bump you up or down a tier. So yes, a sufficiently optimized Beguiler could likely play as a tier 2 class. But it's not the base functionality of the Beguiler getting it there, which is why it's tier 3.

The Beguiler is personally my favorite class to play. I love it like a son, but you've got to get past your personal bias. It's a very well designed class, which is exactly what tier 1 classes are NOT.

I think you actually got that one backwards.
For example, the ability to use Gate > Efreet > Wish is pretty much unimportant because everyone can do it, not even UMD required for it. It´s not unique, it´s not class-bound and therefore not the singular domain of Wizards. But the Tier system treads it like it is.
That´s a bit like saying: "Ok, I get a Porsche for free, that counts, you got to pay for it (even if its pocket change for you), so it doesn´t for you"

So either a Tier system is "butt naked" and only goes for the naked class features, discounting any form of magic, items, WBL, or it drops the double standard and gives all classes equal opportunity to go for it.

Insofar, Cosi is right, something that has never been proven and can´t even explain its underlying assumptions right, is just meaningless words on the internet.

[AnachroNinja]

It's about having a baseline. In the absence of limitless wealth, everything not intrinsic in the class carries an opportunity cost. Yes, anyone can but a scroll of planar binding. A wizard can cast planar binding without the scroll and spend that scroll money on something else useful. Everytime your forced to spend money or another finite resource to replicate am ability that's intrinsic in a tier 1 class, you are falling behind.

Cosi's example didn't even make sense. Your not slower then him because he has a plane. Your slower then him because he can fly under his own power, and you think buying a planev that makes your as fast as he is means you are equivalent, ignoring the fact that he can use HIS money to buy a tank. Now he's got two options to your one.

[Troacctid]

Also why having UMD is still better than not having it—scrolls and wands are cheaper than potions and oils, so you can get the same effects cheaper.

[Florian]

It's about having a baseline. In the absence of limitless wealth, everything not intrinsic in the class carries an opportunity cost. Yes, anyone can but a scroll of planar binding. A wizard can cast planar binding without the scroll and spend that scroll money on something else useful. Everytime your forced to spend money or another finite resource to replicate am ability that's intrinsic in a tier 1 class, you are falling behind.

Cosi's example didn't even make sense. Your not slower then him because he has a plane. Your slower then him because he can fly under his own power, and you think buying a planev that makes your as fast as he is means you are equivalent, ignoring the fact that he can use HIS money to buy a tank. Now he's got two options to your one.

It´s a baseline that gives a wrong impression and leads nowhere.

The "problematic" spells we´re talking about are powerful independent of the class that uses them. A wizard using Planar binding is not better at it than a commoner using a scroll. Trying to justify it with opportunity costs is just trying to gloss over a deeply ingrained error that simple has been accepted as standard and repeated ad nauseam.

The "Wizard fallacy" is equaling that class with these spells (Where they are not better at than anybody else) and disregarding what the class actually has an edge in (Which, incidentally, are direct target spells that need a save)

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Worse than a system like the SGT. Not worse than the tiers, because the tiers conflate imbalance with game breakers.JaronK does talk about metaphorical "nukes" and the like at higher level, but really T1 is more about being able to do whatever qualitative type of thing it wants, and quite well. Beguilers, even with substitute domain, don't qualify as this without RS and a whole lot of levels.
Look at that. It's the exact level where the Beguiler gets charm monster.You and your love of one particular trick that isn't even special to a Beguiler. A Barbarian can deal over 9000 damage on a charge, and yet he's in T4. Why? Because it's so easy to ruin his day... but apparently that qualifies as the DM "contorting" things.

And even if everything goes as planned, what sort of monsters are you hoping to charm/mostly just diplomance so that this Beguiler competes with the raw power of a persisting Incantatrix? Second question: Same, but the Incantatrix doubles as a talky-guy; he decides to get diplomacy as a class skill, has the same CHA as the beguiler, prepares Charm Monster, and does the same trick, but with persistent buffs helping him.
That's still more spells that the Sorcerer learns.Quantity vs. Quality. If this was a Beguiler vs. Favored Soul argument I might be convinced, which does suggest (as I said in my first post in this thread) that Beguiler is on that fuzzy edge of the tiers. When you're on the edge, you can often be nudged up to the next tier with some build-related effort.
You could also worship a pantheon (appears in the Eberron books), which gives you all the domains any of its gods have.That book allows you to worship the Sovereign Host specifically (or the Dark Six, but that's probably a bad idea). So if you're in Eberron, sure, you could worship them and access their domains. That would be one particular way to significantly improve the Beguiler's spell access early on. It doesn't answer the question of how to access unique sorcerer-only spells, but it does start nudging Beguiler into that territory where he has good enough spell access to qualify as low T2.
Unless you want to blow a feat on Apprentice, I which case I should point out that claiming that one class is better than another because it can spend feats to emulate that class' abilities is a poor argument.If the thing you're touting is worth at most a lame feat, it's probably not that big of a deal. That's the point. Also, I seem to recall someone talking about Extra Spell getting a small fraction of a Sorcerer's abilities.
Wow, I didn't realize the goalposts were all the way over here. Maybe you should put up the Sorcerer tricks you think are so much better, so I can explain how the DM contorts the game so they aren't a problem.The goalposts are and have always been tricks that are actually impressive enough to get into T2. Not a way to get minions through diplomancy and a spell - once again, as you perpetually ignore, is readily accessible Sorcerers and Wizards and others - that makes your diplomancy slightly easier, if XYZ conditions are met. A good chunk of the Beguiler list itself is a far better trick than that. How about just using Dimension Door or Teleport as intended, for a "trick" that's far more impressive?
Why? The most common effect of breaking the game is infinite power. Once you have that, what possible power standard could you not meet?

But that doesn't mean anything if you're measuring "ability to break the game".Which, as I've pointed out, isn't the main thing being measured. It's the main thing you're focused on. But Polymorph, for instance, doesn't really actually break the game in the same way that CoI or other gate-based loops do. The game is still playable if you can turn folks into a War Troll or a Jarilith. It's just not balanced. And Wizards get access to tons of these simple, point-and-click, no-items-required powerful abilities, without any IC or build-related effort at all. The beguiler has some neat tricks, but if these tricks were represented by a Venn Diagram, the wizard circle would be huge and completely encompass the small beguiler circle.
Because people can (and do) break the game without regard to class. It is intellectually dishonest to say that you are going to count the Wizard's ability to buy a scroll of planar binding and break the game, but not the Rogue's ability to buy a scroll of planar binding and break the game because the Wizard "has planar binding as a class feature".Hah, I'm intellectually dishonest? You just gave an example where the wizard actually went and bought a scroll of a spell from his own list, when he adds spells to his book for free, and even gets Scribe Scroll for free barring ACF. Wow.

And then, lest we forget, going from taking RAW Extra Spell to emulate a single Sorcerer-only spell, to saying that taking a feat is a bad way to argue that classes can emulate each other's features. Oh man. Good one, that "intellectually dishonest" petard.
You're not actually comparing class balance. You're saying "JaronK sorta thought you could rank classes, here's his first draft". If you were comparing class balance, you would test things. Like the SGT does. You have a hypothesis, and you are treating it like a theory.SGT is fine and all, but it's not at its best as an empirical test as you describe; it's cleaner as a thought experiment, which is far closer to what JaronK is doing anyway. Once you get your hands dirty and start testing it with real players and GMs, there are more potential sources of bias than spells printed in 3.5. I wouldn't trust the results of an empirical test either way.
So I care about at thing that ranks literally the least important part of CharOp because? Oh right, I don't.Ah yes, I often find people who don't care about something posting lengthy vitriol-laden comments about it.

But sure, why focus on class when player and build are more important? Classes are printed in the books/online, and they can feasibly be sorted. Unlike the larger aspects, they are comparable. And it's not like class is completely unimportant. You'll still have a harder time of it trying to build and play a competent CW Samurai than, for instance, a Beguiler. And when compared to Sorcerer and Wizard, it's still harder for a Beguiler to get a bunch of interesting tricks that aren't just the same ol', everybody-can-do-it game breakers like diplomancy or chain gating, and where the wheels don't come off at higher levels of optimization.

[Florian]

But sure, why focus on class when player and build are more important?

It´s when things start to become a meme, like showcased in this very thread.

[AnachroNinja]

Florian, your ignoring the point. The tier list is designed as a tool for DMs and players to understand how classes interact and play together in a generic setting and game, independent of anything but the basics. Yes, anyone can buy scrolls or candles of invocation, if the DM let's them, if the players are deliberately searching for them. Wizards just have planar binding. If they choose it for one of their two new spells in level up, nothing short of a house rule can prevent them from breaking the game with it if they choose to. It is useful and worth while to know that not only can that happen, but it can happen by accident. A brand new player might decide to try that out and have the idea of binding a genie. And if he does, you either have to be ready for it, or start making last minute rules changes. If I don't want commoners binding genies, all I have to do is not make that scroll available.

[Florian]

Ah, no. There´re more things tied to the basic rules, like the CR/EL system and WBL. These things all mesh together. The argument that you can make one change by dm fiat (there are no scrolls) holds true the other way around (there are no spells above 7th level. have fun with meta magics).
Talking especially about new players not knowing the system is even more atrocious, because those will not look for something like Planar Binding because they don´t know it is there before they get really deep into the system.

[Cosi]

EDIT: Anachro posted while I was posting.


Cosi's example didn't even make sense. Your not slower then him because he has a plane. Your slower then him because he can fly under his own power, and you think buying a planev that makes your as fast as he is means you are equivalent, ignoring the fact that he can use HIS money to buy a tank. Now he's got two options to your one.

You've crawled so far up your own analogy that you've missed the point of the original topic. "Cost" doesn't matter, because the power you are getting is "all of it".


Wizards just have planar binding. If they choose it for one of their two new spells in level up, nothing short of a house rule can prevent them from breaking the game with it if they choose to.

And this is not true about the Candle because? If your answer was "the DM can totally say you can't buy one because reasons", I should point out that people have made very similar arguments about the ineffectiveness of planar binding as it relates to getting wish.


You and your love of one particular trick that isn't even special to a Beguiler.

It's totally unfair for me to use an ability other classes can have. I should be like you, defending the Wizard with unique options like Persist Spell or polymorph.


Because it's so easy to ruin his day... but apparently that qualifies as the DM "contorting" things.

False equivalence. There's a world of difference between the things that counter charging (for example: chairs) and the things that counter the Beguiler (for example: you literally never ever encounter any enemies at all that are not 100% immune to Mind Effecting spells, no not even if you go off to look for them specifically).


Second question: Same, but the Incantatrix doubles as a talky-guy; he decides to get diplomacy as a class skill, has the same CHA as the beguiler, prepares Charm Monster, and does the same trick, but with persistent buffs helping him.

It's almost like when characters expend resources they gain abilities. But yes, it is 100% fair to compare a Wizard with a PrC, feat investment, and metamagic to a Beguiler with literally only his class features. No one could ever think that was in any way unreasonable.


That book allows you to worship the Sovereign Host specifically (or the Dark Six, but that's probably a bad idea). So if you're in Eberron, sure, you could worship them and access their domains.

Remember which book the Incantatrix is in? Hint: it is a setting book.


It doesn't answer the question of how to access unique sorcerer-only spells,

You mean (greater) arcane fusion? Because the action economy you get from that seems unimpressive when the Beguiler gets his minions going, which is two levels before you get the spell.


The goalposts are and have always been tricks that are actually impressive enough to get into T2.

It's almost like you're using a phrase you won't commit to a definition of, so that you can claim whatever the Beguiler does isn't good enough.


once again, as you perpetually ignore, is readily accessible Sorcerers and Wizards and others

That is at best tangentially relevant. You don't get into a tier by being better than the worst class in that tier. You get in by meeting the minimal standards for that tier.


I wouldn't trust the results of an empirical test either way.

"If you showed me evidence I was wrong, I wouldn't change my position!"

It is no longer worth talking to you about this or any subject.

[Jormengand]

If your answer was "the DM can totally say you can't buy one because reasons"

It's not that unreasonable for there to be no CoIs in this town for you to buy, or for you not to be in a town in the first place. It's more unreasonable for you to be unable to get a spell because, I dunno, because I say so.

The tiers describe classes in actual play. "Everyone uses free wish shenanigans, GG" is not actual play.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

False equivalence.Ah, this phrase. I like this phrase.
It's totally unfair for me to use an ability other classes can have. I should be like you, defending the Wizard with unique options like Persist Spell or polymorph.False equivalence. I'm using Polymorph as a rhetorical example of an ability which is overpowered but not game breaking. The wizard has plenty of these, to varying degrees. Persistent spell was part of a build comparison, where the wizard got to persist spells for free; more on that later.
There's a world of difference between the things that counter charging (for example: chairs) and the things that counter the Beguiler (for example: you literally never ever encounter any enemies at all that are not 100% immune to Mind Effecting spells, no not even if you go off to look for them specifically).Charm is easily countered in a fight, and redundant for what you're trying to do outside of a fight. I've never contended anything else.

Do you know another class who can go and find high-CR stuff and control it to become overpowered? The commoner. And yet, people can look at the commoner class and note that he's less powerful than a wizard. Funny, that.
It's almost like when characters expend resources they gain abilities. But yes, it is 100% fair to compare a Wizard with a PrC, feat investment, and metamagic to a Beguiler with literally only his class features. No one could ever think that was in any way unreasonable.Lest you forget, we were comparing a Wizard/Incantatrix to a Beguiler/Rainbow Servant. Let me know all those abilities and feats that the Beguiler/RS is getting pre-capstone that compares to free persistent spells. Oh, right, Diplomacy, plus a spell that may help. Woo hoo.
Remember which book the Incantatrix is in? Hint: it is a setting book.False equivalence. Mechanically, if you want to get all the pantheon domain-swapping benefits, you have to actually worship the deities listed in the Sovereign Host. That means they have to exist in your setting. Whereas mechanically, gaining levels in Incantatrix requires that you have some skill ranks, feats, spellcasting ability, and access to the abjuration school.
You mean (greater) arcane fusion? Because the action economy you get from that seems unimpressive when the Beguiler gets his minions going, which is two levels before you get the spell.I mean all 20+ sorcerer-only spells accessible. Or, at least, the ones you might expect a sorcerer to take. That includes (G)AF, but also Wings of Cover, Wings of Swift Flying (Greater), and Wings of Flurry. Also, Arcane Spellsurge isn't sorcerer-only, but a Sovereign Host worshiper (for instance) couldn't add it to his list easily.
It's almost like you're using a phrase you won't commit to a definition of, so that you can claim whatever the Beguiler does isn't good enough.Or, maybe, your "trick" is just using diplomacy with a spell tacked on to make it seem more Beguiler-y. The only goal posts that this would manage to score on would net you a participation trophy.
That is at best tangentially relevant. You don't get into a tier by being better than the worst class in that tier. You get in by meeting the minimal standards for that tier.Again, access to a game breaker like diplomancy, and a particular spell that may or may not improve it depending on the situation, does not change your tier.

But more importantly, you seem to have forgotten what you were claiming - that a Beguiler is hands down better than a Sorcerer, and also better than a Wizard. Unless you just want to drop those positions, comparing the classes and their capabilities directly is quite relevant.
"If you showed me evidence I was wrong, I wouldn't change my position!"

It is no longer worth talking to you about this or any subject.So, if I show you evidence that you just manufactured a pathetically-transparent straw man, would you change your position?
I wouldn't trust the results of an empirical test either way.As in, if someone ran a test where a Beguiler sucked rocks and a Sorcerer destroyed the entire thing, I wouldn't trust the results, because of the rampant biases you so conveniently ignored. But by your own admission you're beyond having a worthwhile discussion. You have been ever since you first commented.

[Cosi]

It's not that unreasonable for there to be no CoIs in this town for you to buy, or for you not to be in a town in the first place. It's more unreasonable for you to be unable to get a spell because, I dunno, because I say so.

I have had multiple discussions on this board with people who claimed that you cannot ever get creatures you summon with planar binding to do anything, because summoning a creature with planar binding makes any possible request inherently unreasonable.


The tiers describe classes in actual play. "Everyone uses free wish shenanigans, GG" is not actual play.

But, you know, without any feats, items, or PrCs. Because those things never come up in actual play.


Or, maybe, your "trick" is just using diplomacy with a spell tacked on to make it seem more Beguiler-y.

Once again, you demonstrate the abject futility of arguing with you. Rather than presenting set goal-posts, which could potentially be used to disprove your position, you opt to insult me. I'm personally unimpressed, but I assume it works for you.


that a Beguiler is hands down better than a Sorcerer,

Why don't we test that? Write up a spells known list for a 10th level Sorcerer, and we'll see how trivial it is for a Beguiler to get a better list and also some other stuff.

Oh, wait, I know why. You don't believe in evidence.


and also better than a Wizard.

If you discount cheese. It's a Wizard that casts spontaneously and gets some minor but extant goodies. How is that not obviously better?

If you allow cheese, it is merely "about as good, give or take optimization". Like the Cleric or Druid.


As in, if someone ran a test where a Beguiler sucked rocks and a Sorcerer destroyed the entire thing, I wouldn't trust the results, because of the rampant biases you so conveniently ignored.

The position "evidence doesn't matter" does not magically become one worth arguing with if it applies to both sides. If you reject evidence as a reason to believe things, there is no possible way to persuade you.

[Troacctid]

But, you know, without any feats, items, or PrCs. Because those things never come up in actual play.

Yes, this is called controlling for confounding variables. In this case, when we want to analyze the relative power of base classes, we remove feats and items from the equation by assuming that each feat slot and gold piece provides a roughly average amount of value for every character, without worrying about the specific choices you might make.

Now, you could introduce additional stratification to provide a more complex, nuanced data set. That might looks something like bekeleven's tiers by optimization level (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?459141-Optimization-and-Tiers-The-Tier-System-Expanded) or Person_Man's niche ranking system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System), both of which more accurately reflect the classes' relative power levels and generate more useful data as a result.

[AnachroNinja]

Just to clarify this particular strain of nonsense that made an appearance earlier... Denying a wizard spells that explicitly exist and are choosable at level up, is not anywhere near the same thing as you not being allowed to buy any scroll it magic item ever. There is no rule that says you can automatically buy anything you can afford. Your DM literally has to deliberately give you access to things just for you to be able to pretend to be a wizard, at cost. Your argument fails.

[Cosi]

Yes, this is called controlling for confounding variables.

But that's fundamentally unhelpful. Suppose you had two classes. One has "win the game" as a class feature at first level. The other has no class features, but is introduced in a book that also includes the feat "win the game" which requires only that you play that class. Any ranking system that says one of those classes wins the game at level one, but the other doesn't is not providing useful information.

No one plays a class. People play builds, and ignoring that makes you results much less meaningful. Just like if you ranked classes by assuming no one cast spells, or used weapons, or anything else fundamental to playing a character.


That might looks something like bekeleven's tiers by optimization level (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?459141-Optimization-and-Tiers-The-Tier-System-Expanded) or Person_Man's niche ranking system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System)

Neither of those are testable. Or at least, neither is tested. It's the same fundamental issue as the tiers. You're treating a hypothesis like a theory. You have to actually do work to get conclusions.


Just to clarify this particular strain of nonsense that made an appearance earlier... Denying a wizard spells that explicitly exist and are choosable at level up, is not anywhere near the same thing as you not being allowed to buy any scroll it magic item ever. There is no rule that says you can automatically buy anything you can afford. Your DM literally has to deliberately give you access to things just for you to be able to pretend to be a wizard, at cost. Your argument fails.

First, no you can't. There aren't restrictions on what items you can buy, short of "you aren't in a large enough city".

Second, the issue was raised specifically in the context of Candle v planar binding, where the argument was made that it was possible to argue that you could not use the Candle but not possible to argue that you could not use planar binding. The argument that planar binding cannot be used to get a wish because calling a creature makes any possible request unreasonable (made by at least one person on this forum) was pointed to as a counter-example.

[AnachroNinja]

Actually Cosi, the issue was raised by Florian and is completely unrelated to anything you just said, but thanks.

To respond to your particular nonsense, the point of evaluating the class is to evaluate the range and breadth of builds available to it. The tier list explicitly is not designed to be based off the maximum level of builds optimization for each class. As has been pointed out by everyone, yourself included, any class up to and including commoners can break the game with enough optimization. The tier list is designed to evaluate how easy it is to do that, and what you can expect from each class in relation to each other.

Yes, a Beguiler can be optimized to break the game with diplomacy shenanigans or rainbow warsnake tricks. A high level player might try to do that. The same player might play a wizard and sit in his personal demiplane using loves pain to systemically kill everything in existence over CR 3. At that point, everyone involved is playing a very complex game regardless where everything has to be examined in a case by case manner.

At more reasonable levels of play, someone might play a stock Beguiler, pick up arcane disciple and spell spell focus feats. Hes going to play a dynamic but somewhat limited character. At the same level, a wizard might not be using wish cheese or simulacrums, but he still has a variety of options that the DM needs to be aware of and prepared for, that the Beguiler really isn't going to match.

[Troacctid]

But that's fundamentally unhelpful.
Isolating variables is the opposite of unhelpful if you want your system to be generally applicable absent the context of a specific build. If you were trying to determine whether Knowledge Devotion is a more powerful feat than Weapon Focus, you wouldn't get useful results comparing a Druid with Weapon Focus against a Monk with Knowledge Devotion. It's the same principle. You isolate the variables you want to compare.


Suppose you had two classes. One has "win the game" as a class feature at first level. The other has no class features, but is introduced in a book that also includes the feat "win the game" which requires only that you play that class. Any ranking system that says one of those classes wins the game at level one, but the other doesn't is not providing useful information.
No need to suppose here, we have concrete examples of this in the text. Necropolis Born, for example, gives you spells akin to a 1st level caster. Generally, I think most people would consider actual casters to be better at that. Another example is Draconic Aura vs. the Dragon Shaman. In that case, the Dragon Shaman is a pile of rubbish, but that's mostly unrelated to the existence of the feat. Or, for a simpler example, Bards have Diplomacy as a class skill, while other classes can gain it with a feat. We'd still say Bards are better at Diplomacy, because they get it for free while everyone else has to pay for it. (Also, they have all of the synergy bonuses, and they scale with Charisma.)

To do otherwise would be to rank the Giacomo Monk the same as the Batman Wizard. That is, of course, quite silly, and not very useful.


No one plays a class. People play builds, and ignoring that makes you results much less meaningful. Just like if you ranked classes by assuming no one cast spells, or used weapons, or anything else fundamental to playing a character.
Ranking a specific build means your rankings are no longer generally applicable. It's literally impossible to go through and rank every single permutation of race, classes, feats, and items. And I think it's pretty unlikely that I'd be able to go through old Iron Chef in the Playground judgings and just happen to find the exact 20-level build I'm running in my home game.

Say you run the SGT with your Sorcerer build and pass most of your encounters with Gaseous Form or Blindness/Deafness, with help from your air elemental familiar. Well, that's great for your Sorcerer build, but what if my Sorcerer build didn't take those spells, and has a rat familiar? Now your test result is useless to me.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Once again, you demonstrate the abject futility of arguing with you.

...

Rather than presenting set goal-posts, which could potentially be used to disprove your position, you opt to insult me.Pot, kettle, etc.
Why don't we test that? Write up a spells known list for a 10th level Sorcerer, and we'll see how trivial it is for a Beguiler to get a better list and also some other stuff.I would, if you had shown yourself to be open to actual discussion. Perhaps, if you have a shred of imagination left to explore possibilities outside your blindly-held position, you could take a look at some of the spells I've already mentioned to see how a Sorcerer might have capabilities far outside what the Beguiler can accomplish.

Or perhaps you call everything that disproves your claim cheese, and sail off into your No True Scotsman sunset.
The position "evidence doesn't matter" does not magically become one worth arguing with if it applies to both sides. If you reject evidence as a reason to believe things, there is no possible way to persuade you.You just keep erecting that strawman in your head and see how it works out for you. I'm sure you're winning that argument every time. Next time you want to respond to an actual point I made, let me know, because you haven't for a while.

[Soranar]

To go back to the initial question, there's just not that many choices to attain tier 1 if you're going to use tier 3 classes. A noncasting class is just not going to cut it so that leaves beguiler and dread necromancer. But they are hardly complimentary, arguably a beguiler//warmage would be a better combo but that's still probably just a tier 2 combo. As for noncasting combos, a factotum//warblade would be the strongest combo but I'm not even sure it goes up a tier. Tier 1 break the game, tier 3 classes do not. It's just that simple.

[Lans]

That ability is overrated. Spending a minute and some XP to cast any spell is only useful for utility spells, and while that's certainly valuable, it doesn't meaningfully overcome the Artificer's lack of combat ability at low levels.

That is a problem with this tier system.




Or, you know, cast silent image and bypass the encounter.
Unless its awakened



Yes, this is called controlling for confounding variables. In this case, when we want to analyze the relative power of base classes, we remove feats and items from the equation by assuming that each feat slot and gold piece provides a roughly average amount of value for every character, without worrying about the specific choices you might make.
.

One problem is that each feat slot and gold piece don't provide the same value for every character. A sorcerer can spend a feat to get 1 spell, a beguiler can spend a feat to get 9 spells and then use another spell to swap those 9 spells for another 9 spells. The beguiler class may not be tier 2, but a beguiler build can get there with a feat.

Its kind of like the equal optimization problem where a beguiler is basically the same at every optimization level. Wizards and bards not so much.

[Florian]

Just to clarify this particular strain of nonsense that made an appearance earlier... Denying a wizard spells that explicitly exist and are choosable at level up, is not anywhere near the same thing as you not being allowed to buy any scroll it magic item ever. There is no rule that says you can automatically buy anything you can afford. Your DM literally has to deliberately give you access to things just for you to be able to pretend to be a wizard, at cost. Your argument fails.

Ah, you know, double standards? It´s either "all access" for everyone or none at all. Items, WBL, prices are all part of the core rules and freely available by the core rules, because they´re only tied to availability (Incidentally: the same rules that cover how wizards have to buy their spells).
In the same vain, when all feats and all spent gold are the same, then all spells are the same. Again, double standard and repetition of rubbish ad nauseam.

Edit: Remember that a huge part of a Wizards/Archivists power is contributed to a broad spell base, keeping slots open an prepping the right spell for the right time. That means acquiring the spells some way, or do you want to use the 2 free spells per level for that? Acquiring the spells, again, means interaction with the rest of the rules (the double standard) or else, Cleric/Druid would be the only T1 classes and Wizard/Archiviest T3, behind the Beguiler.

Edit 2 @Cosi:
Hyperbole, actually. The whole argument back then was, if I remember it correctly, that any time the rules incorporate actual RP instead of a mechanical formula to crunch, then no blanket assumptions on the outcome can be made.

[Troacctid]

One problem is that each feat slot and gold piece don't provide the same value for every character. A sorcerer can spend a feat to get 1 spell, a beguiler can spend a feat to get 9 spells and then use another spell to swap those 9 spells for another 9 spells. The beguiler class may not be tier 2, but a beguiler build can get there with a feat.

Its kind of like the equal optimization problem where a beguiler is basically the same at every optimization level. Wizards and bards not so much.

A Sorcerer can spend a feat to get 9 spells too. And if you're talking about substitute domain, that trick works for Sorcerers, but not for Beguilers, because Sorcerers can get domain access via ACF, while Beguilers need a prestige class. (Arcane Disciple gives you domain spells, but not a domain, which is defined as a set of nine domain spells and a domain-granted power.)

Yes, I realize that's just an example. Power disparity between feats really isn't a big issue, though, because in practice, the only feats with a big enough power imbalance to matter tend to be either equally powerful for all classes (Leadership) or only really disproportionately powerful for classes that are top-tier without the help (Natural Spell). At best, good feat selection could break the barrier from T5 to T4--maybe from T4 to T3--but on the other hand, if a class is that close to the line, you could probably argue that it was misclassified from the start. (A lot of JaronK's rankings are clearly off the mark.)

[Florian]

A Sorcerer can spend a feat to get 9 spells too. And if you're talking about substitute domain, that trick works for Sorcerers, but not for Beguilers, because Sorcerers can get domain access via ACF, while Beguilers need a prestige class. (Arcane Disciple gives you domain spells, but not a domain, which is defined as a set of nine domain spells and a domain-granted power.)

Yes, I realize that's just an example. Power disparity between feats really isn't a big issue, though, because in practice, the only feats with a big enough power imbalance to matter tend to be either equally powerful for all classes (Leadership) or only really disproportionately powerful for classes that are top-tier without the help (Natural Spell). At best, good feat selection could break the barrier from T5 to T4--maybe from T4 to T3--but on the other hand, if a class is that close to the line, you could probably argue that it was misclassified from the start. (A lot of JaronK's rankings are clearly off the mark.)

That´s a gross oversimplification of the matter. Most options (ex: feats, PrC) can have an additive, multiplicative or transformative quality (same as spells). The core of system mastery has always been to create something where the sum is greater then the parts.

[Cosi]

Yes, a Beguiler can be optimized to break the game with diplomacy shenanigans or rainbow warsnake tricks. A high level player might try to do that. The same player might play a wizard and sit in his personal demiplane using loves pain to systemically kill everything in existence over CR 3.

So because the Wizard is Tier One and the Beguiler is Tier Three, players will optimize the Wizard more than Beguiler, which means that the Wizard is Tier One and the Beguiler is Tier Three.


Isolating variables is the opposite of unhelpful if you want your system to be generally applicable absent the context of a specific build.

But variables are synergistic. For example, Prestige Domains. Those aren't of constant value. They're worth more if you're a fixed list spontanteous caster. They''re worth more if you have access to substitute domain. If you rank everything individually, you lose all that information. Like the Tier System for PrCs, which says that the Rainbow Servant is just as good for a Wizard as it is for a Beguiler and just as good for a Sorcerer as it is for a Warmage.


Say you run the SGT with your Sorcerer build and pass most of your encounters with Gaseous Form or Blindness/Deafness, with help from your air elemental familiar. Well, that's great for your Sorcerer build, but what if my Sorcerer build didn't take those spells, and has a rat familiar? Now your test result is useless to me.

The Sorcerer is Tier Two for some reason, right? Some set of spells exists that makes them that tier. What if you just don't take those spells? Holy crap, the Tiers are useless!

Also, the SGT generally doesn't run at that level of specificity.


Pot, kettle, etc.

Obviously, in addition to not knowing what arguments are, you don't know what irony is.

Also, does your keyboard not have an "enter" key?


(A lot of JaronK's rankings are clearly off the mark.)

Maybe that's because there's no way to test the Tiers and no effort to create one.

[AnachroNinja]

You mention my point Florian while apparently missing it entirely. Availability of scrolls and items is the limiting factor. Not every game will take place around metropolises. Not every game will have every item available. A DM does not have to change any rules for you to not get access to a scroll of planar binding or a candle of invocation. He didn't even have to try to not give them to you, he just has to not actively provide them to you. A wizards yep spells per level are guaranteed by the rules. Unless a DM starts actively removing spells, you get those two. That makes them much more consistent and reliable then hoping get the right scroll from the monsters your fighting.


To address Cosi. You looked at my example and saw two different levels of optimization, favoring the wizard, despite the fact that my example for Beguiler optimization was the one YOU have been using as the pinnacle of tier one power that they exemplify. Whereas the wizard example was a random idea of the hundreds of possible high end strategies. The fact that you think the Beguiler was the wuss in that scenario anyway, should tell you a lot.

[Cosi]

The fact that you think the Beguiler was the wuss in that scenario anyway, should tell you a lot.

Because the scenario is representing different levels of optimization as equivalent to prove that the same level of optimization makes the Wizard better than the Beguiler. If you have to present "takes a good PrC" and "abuses love's pain and genesis to kill everything with no risk" as the same to win your argument, you have lost.

[AnachroNinja]

So you tell me what the higher level optimization is for the Beguiler. Tell me what he can do that's better then rainbow servant and diplomacy abuse. Don't worry, I'll wait.


Anyone wanna bet his answers gonna involve scrolls of spells the Beguiler can't cast?

[Cosi]

So you tell me what the higher level optimization is for the Beguiler. Tell me what he can do that's better then rainbow servant and diplomacy abuse. Don't worry, I'll wait.

I don't know. Maybe casting literally any of the spells he gets from domains? For example, shapechange. Or casting any spell off the Cleric list? For example, gate. I mean, I assume those don't count, because they involve using resources to gain abilities, but they are things you can do.

[Lans]

So you tell me what the higher level optimization is for the Beguiler. Tell me what he can do that's better then rainbow servant and diplomacy abuse. Don't worry, I'll wait.


Anyone wanna bet his answers gonna involve scrolls of spells the Beguiler can't cast?

Kobold with sovereign host to have the cleric spell list added to his own at level 1 is a good start. Maybe add in versitile spell caster to get his spells up a level.

[Troacctid]

But variables are synergistic. For example, Prestige Domains. Those aren't of constant value. They're worth more if you're a fixed list spontanteous caster. They''re worth more if you have access to substitute domain. If you rank everything individually, you lose all that information. Like the Tier System for PrCs, which says that the Rainbow Servant is just as good for a Wizard as it is for a Beguiler and just as good for a Sorcerer as it is for a Warmage.
There aren't even rules for gaining domains as a fixed-list spontaneous caster, so I don't see how you can be so certain it's better for them than it would be for a Cleric. Anyway, the tier list doesn't consider prestige classes. The tier definitions can be used as benchmarks for a specific build, but that's different.

(You should ignore the Tier System for PrCs. It's stupid.)


The Sorcerer is Tier Two for some reason, right? Some set of spells exists that makes them that tier. What if you just don't take those spells? Holy crap, the Tiers are useless!
Then it would be T3, like it usually is in practice. JaronK's rankings overrate the Sorcerer.


Maybe that's because there's no way to test the Tiers and no effort to create one.
The tier list is a complicated way of saying that high-level spells are overpowered and more high-level spells will make you more overpowered. By now, in the optimization community, I think that's not really in dispute.

[Florian]

You mention my point Florian while apparently missing it entirely. Availability of scrolls and items is the limiting factor. Not every game will take place around metropolises. Not every game will have every item available. A DM does not have to change any rules for you to not get access to a scroll of planar binding or a candle of invocation. He didn't even have to try to not give them to you, he just has to not actively provide them to you. A wizards yep spells per level are guaranteed by the rules. Unless a DM starts actively removing spells, you get those two. That makes them much more consistent and reliable then hoping get the right scroll from the monsters your fighting.

I´m just not taking a stick, drawing a line in the sand and arbitrarily calling that the baseline.

What I do is look up three things:
a) All rules involved (WBL amongst it)
b) The bare-bones class framework in the books (The bottom, no system mastery involved)
c) The known guides for a class (The ceiling, full system mastery involved)
... and simply compare Bottom with Ceiling (in relevance to the rules).

Now you are right to point out that nothing happens in a vacuum and the ongoing happening in the actual game dictates what is possible and what not. So, the only thing you can be assured of is having access to the Bottom and work with it, because it can´t get lower than that.

Part of the argument that happens is assuming "all access" and "all spells known" for the Wizard (or other spell book casters) to be true, something that is pretty far away from the bottom and also disregards the basic rules for a) Availability and b) WBL.

(Using PF for this) Compare:

Class: Wizard
Spells: Wizard
Base: 3 + 38 + INT spells in book
Max: (All spells) 3 + 38 + INT + Writing Cost (+ Scrolls)
Best: Wish
Known Ceiling: Full Wizard plus Full Druid spell list access

Class: Witch
Spells: Witch
Base: 3+ 38 + INT + 9 (special) spells in book
Max: (All spells) 3 + 38 + INT + 9 (special) + Writing Cost (+ Scrolls)
Best: Miracle
Known Ceiling: Full Witch plus Full Druid spell list access

Class: Oracle
Spells: Cleric + special
Base: 54 + 9 (special)
Max: 54 + 20 + 10 + 9 (special) (+ spells known item cost)
Best: Miracle, Wish
Known Ceiling: Full Cleric plus 2*9 fixed (special) plus 10 Wizard

Class: Cleric
Spells: Cleric
Base: All + 2*9 special - Alignment Restricted
Max: All + 3*9 special - Alignment Restricted
Best: Miracle
Known Ceiling: All + 3*Special + Miracle as SLA

Class: Sorcerer
Spells: Wizard + special
Base: 54 + 9 (special)
Max: 54 + 20 + 10 + 9 (special) (+ spells known item cost)
Best: Wish
Known Ceiling: Full Wizard plus 9 fixed (special) plus full Druid spell list access.

Class: Fighter
Spells: None
Base: None
Max: (All spells) 3 + 28 + INT + Writing Cost (+ Scrolls)
Best: Planar Binding, Wish (Item)

I hope it is clear that these are pretty unbiased numbers that can simple give a picture from what starting to what ending point a class can develop and what to expect from it (in regards to spell casting) without making any assumptions about what a class could have at any given moment with any given sum of WBL spent on it.
Amongst other things, that should showcase how changing WBL and availability interacts with the flexibility of the classes and how much effort one of the spell book classes must put into spells to overtake spells known casters in the first place.

The sad thing is, that is just one metric amongst many.
Let´s look at others:
Burst Damage: Magus 300+ (Thanks Gerald)
Sustained DPR: Fighter 100+
Boosted DPR: Barbarian 160+

And so on...

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Obviously, in addition to not knowing what arguments are, you don't know what irony is.Do you mean the irony of you completely devolving to basic troll responses instead of even trying to form an argument, and then complaining about insults? Or do you mean complaining that I don't know what an argument is when you can't even seem to sense them as they appear?

Or, perhaps, you are simply too busy bashing out a response on your keyboard to even consider what the other person is actually writing. That's probably it; but that's not ironic. It's just sad.

[AnachroNinja]

Somehow Florian, I think we rolled around to mostly arguing the same point without realizing it. I fully agree with you about baselines. That's why my argument is, sticking to the earlier example, if a Beguiler has to pay money to access the same powerful spells that a wizard can acquire for free (via the two free per level) then it's baseline power is at a lower level.

Basically wizard spells give a baseline power of 8. Beguiler spells give a baseline power of 6. Both have a wbl of N. The Beguiler can subtract from N to increase its power via resources, but that doesn't make Beguiler better, it just shows the value of WBL. I think that made sense....

I consider it useful to know where a butt naked wizards baseline is, so that if I want to avoid say... Planar binding shenanigans, I don't have to start changing rules, if instead I just encourage the player to be a Beguiler or warmage, and don't make that scroll easily available. To me as a DM, I find that to be useful. Just knowing that much more effort has to go into a Beguiler player breaking the game world, when a wizard might select the wrong spells by accident.

It's not the be all end all, it's a useful metric to help me gauge things, and to explain to players where I want to games baseline to be.

[DarkSonic1337]

Out of curiosity, what sourcebooks are considered fair game for a wizard to just pick his 2 spells from level up from at will. Can he pick up any spell that exists in core? Can he pick any spells from any sourcebooks your campaign has open? Can he pick spells he's encountered even if the sourcebook is unavailable to the players?

The games I've played typically follow the "if the sourcebook is open, you can pick spells from it" rule...and we often allow spell compendium so that's quite a large list. So when I play a wizard I use my 2 free spells per level up to pick up the kind of spell that I think just won't be freely available due to RP reasons. I don't pick dimension door when I level up because I can just buy it, I pick black tentacles or planar binding (if allowed).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Out of curiosity, what sourcebooks are considered fair game for a wizard to just pick his 2 spells from level up from at will. Can he pick up any spell that exists in core? Can he pick any spells from any sourcebooks your campaign has open? Can he pick spells he's encountered even if the sourcebook is unavailable to the players?The RAW answer is that any existing spell is fair game. But if your DM has restricted spell access to PCs, that ruling almost certainly extends to spells the wizard can add in his book. If this becomes especially troublesome, you may want to look into ways to increase your free spellbook additions, such as Elven Generalist and Collegiate Wizard. But often enough it isn't a huge deal.

[Florian]

@DarkSonic1337:

The RAW answer is that any spell printed in an edition is fair game.
The more problematic answer, as it not being based on clear rules, is that spells that are considered to be "race" or "organization"-only are negotiable. Here, the RAI is clear, the RAW is not. It´s personal preference how to handle stuff from here on out.

@AnachroNinja:

Here our approach differs. That makes the main difference to me.
I do not equate specific spells/options with a specific class and do not make a difference between WBL and inherent class ability to gain it. Both are the same and will lead to the same result. Practically speaking, the power ceiling is always the same for all classes because the spells are all the same.
It is important to note the difference between "early access" and "regular access", as that can differ between 10 levels, more if the player is risky. Mixing these up will only muddle the overall picture.

Taking the effect of Gate or Wish out of the picture, where is a class ranked then? Let me stick to PF for this, because the effect is more accentuated here.

The difference between class- and non-class skill is nonexistent (a mere +3) and a trait will always modify a skill to be a class skill and give a bonus on top. So UMD is nothing to talk about or compare between classes. A non-issue.

Going by cost and WBL, we´re also talking about non-issues there - A 9th level arcane scrolls is 3,8K + reagents, pretty much do-able at lvl 4th talking about by-the-book WBL tables.

I could go on and on in this vain, also agreeing with Cosi along the way that the Ceiling of a good build could be much higher, but that would just be me, ranting a bit.

The thing is, once you divorce spells from classes, the Tier ranking change radically, especially for PF.

(I´m not biased, I´m playing one right now, so..) For example, the Wizard is in itself a pretty lousy class with nothing really to offer than than the much vaunted flexibility to work with spells.

If we were to redo the whole Tier system, taking stuff like that into account, a lot of the rankings would simply change. Me, I´ve got the permanent feeling that it all was done for Core and everything that came after was shoehorned in to fit anywhere in relation to what has been given and that is simply wrong.

[mabriss lethe]

You can also use various psionic tricks to bootstrap any class up to at least T2, and easily T1 with s2p erudite cheese. of course, none of those abilities beyond your psionics will breach t3, but some of them might be able to combine with them make your psionic abilities really nasty.

[bahamut920]

Out of curiosity, what sourcebooks are considered fair game for a wizard to just pick his 2 spells from level up from at will. Can he pick up any spell that exists in core? Can he pick any spells from any sourcebooks your campaign has open? Can he pick spells he's encountered even if the sourcebook is unavailable to the players?

The games I've played typically follow the "if the sourcebook is open, you can pick spells from it" rule...and we often allow spell compendium so that's quite a large list. So when I play a wizard I use my 2 free spells per level up to pick up the kind of spell that I think just won't be freely available due to RP reasons. I don't pick dimension door when I level up because I can just buy it, I pick black tentacles or planar binding (if allowed).
RAW, he can pick any spell on the wizard spell list. Period. Any splatbook, any spell, as long as a wizard of his level can cast it. Use the most recent printing when applicable, but other than that, it doesn't matter what book or source the spell is from. There's no "only core spells" restriction on the wizard's two freebies, just like there's no restriction on the sorcerer's or bard's spells known.

Obviously, campaign-specific house rules supersede that. If your DM has banned the Spell Compendium, insisting on picking Moonbow or Sphere of Ultimate Destruction is going to at best get you a stern "stop it" and the enmity of your DM (at least for a while). If your group has a "only core spells for wizard freebies" houserule in place for some reason, then only pick your wizard freebies from the Player's Handbook, and be sure to save money for scribing spells from other books.

If you're talking about any sort of social conventions or widely-held gentlemen's agreements about what books are the cheesiest, I don't really think there are any. Most of the cheesiest stuff spell-wise is core, anyways. Time Stop, Shapechange, Wish/Miracle, Planar Binding, Contingency, etc. Occasionally, you get spells from a splatbook that approach that level (like Arcane Fusion or Celerity), but in general none of the splatbooks are as bad in the spell department as the core rules.

As for the OT, Factotum is a pretty strong gestalt with almost anybody, because more skill points and and the ability to break the action economy in half never hurt anyone. I'd say it's probably the best gestalt class out of the Tier 3s, only suffering a bit when combined with classes for which Int is usually a dump stat. As to whether or not you can make a Tier 1 equivalent character out of it, I sincerely doubt it. Those guys are up there because they have access to a different set of abilities each day, and can theoretically tailor their daily powerset to whatever challenges they expect to face that day. A theoretically omniscient Tier 1 can only really be challenged by another theoretically omniscient Tier 1.

[Waazraath]

When discussing the tier list, and what would be needed to get into tier 1 or 2, I always think it's useful to look at the definitions used (from: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658 ).

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. ....

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. ...


The important question here is imo: what are these "mechanical abilities" or "tricks" that are mentioned?

As far as I see it, there are 2 possibilities: 1) basic tricks, consisting of single spells or obvious combo's, that are really powerful though: think single spells, wildshape, DMM. Option 2 is the really 'broken' stuff, TO. Problem: ymmv what is concidered TO. I'm thinking about punpun, infinite wealth, locate city bombs and infinity loops, but at most of the tables I played it also means diplomacy as written and planar binding to get a stronger caster then the caster casting planar binding.

As for no 2, I think we can skip that: I don't think that is meant as part of the tier system. After all, if you really play 'strict RAW', you have pun pun, and infinite wealth, and hardly any game does. But if a DM allows infinite wealth, then it doesn't matter what class you are: a wizard might cast flesh to salt every day and sell the salt according to listed price, and a binder might summon creatures every 5 rounds with a SLA that creats something, and then sell those... but the commener buys all ladders in town, cuts them up in 2 ten ft poles and fire wood, and has infinite wealth as well, cause those prices in the PHB are RAW!!1! This is one of the reasons I seriously never understood the obsession with RAW on forums, cause obviously pure RAW is impossible, and even contradicting other RAW. Cause the DM's task to keep the balance, and the notion that all classes should be balanced is also RAW (and no, this is not a 'rule 0' falacy, in the rules this is written just as much as what 'gate' does). But I digress.

Ok, given that with tricks and mechanics possibly option no 1 is meant, what does that mean? What are these 'mechanics' or 'tricks' then? I think: the ability to use powerful divinitions to get answers and information that are otherwise unavailable; the ability to change shape (specificly, the polymorph line and wildshape); the ability to heavily influence the action economy in your favour; supreme mobility (through flying, burrowing, etherealness and/or teleportation). The ability to controll lots of minions (wether undead, or through domination, or something else).

From that point of view, the tiers as listed are pretty correct. A wizard or cleric can do all this stuff, or at least most of it. A sorcerer or wilder with a limited spell selection could do some of it: they usually have acces to a few of these tricks, but not all of them (I think a psion could, but then again, I think the tier list is flawed in several respects - oh well, I digress, again). A duskblade or crusader might be a very good character, do a lot of damage, and be a useful contribution to a party, but lacks the really impressive tricks or mechanics. Classes like beguiler and dread necro... well, one might make a point that ther minionocracy might be strong enough to be seen as tier 2; I 'm not having a very strong opinion on it, but I dont' see them having a big arsenal of these abilities (as tier 1's should have).

To ad my 2 cents on this.

As far as 'what does the tier list exactly measure': I think (but I can't find the links, my google-fu fails me, or else my memory) a lot off the discussion took place based on certain scenario's. I remember "infiltrate in a walled city with a tyranical regime, get into contact with the resistance, and help to assasinate the tyrant", and "get into the dragons lair, that is heavily trapped and guarded, and take out said dragon". If you think out these secenario's, you find quickly that some classes can pick only a part of the puzzle (a rogue can bypass the traps in a dungeon, but not take out a lot off guardian monsters and a BBEG), some can hardly contribute at all (a fighter without social skills might find it hard to even enter the city, could maybe contribute to the fight with a dragon but not take it out on his own), and others have too many options to choose (a wizard could choose how to enter the city; charm some folks, either a caravan or some guards; go invisible; cast fly; dimension door; disguise or alter self; same with getting in contact with the resistance, use divinitions, charms, dominate; or skip that, and use scry and kill tactics on the tyrant directly).

Though I don't remember these scenario's being really specified (level, for example), and at the table in actual games this isn't so black & white (especilly with stuff factored in like "time pressure", which makes it more difficult for casters to have the perfect spell ready, and anti magic area's, anti teleportation area's, etc.) - I do remember all in all it was a pretty convincing thought excercise.

So I think there is quite some effort and thought gone into the system, also with a clear idea of what it was that was measured, by a quite knowledgeable part of the charop community.

And this comes from somebody who isn't a big fan of this list. I think several classes are not listed correctly; think that for some classes, certain powerful feats are assumed (hello druid / natural spell and factotum extra inspiration), but for others classes not 'because only the class is ranked'; think that a good tier list should consist of several lists, for different levels (lvl 1 has a seriously different list as lvl 5 as has lvl 10 as has lvl 15); has some biases, etc. etc. I find the 'niche ranking system' by person man, brought to minmaxboards by plzbreakmycampaign, to be a better tool, since it gives both an overview of power differencies between classes, but it helps players to be aware of the different kinds of roles that could (sometimes should) be covered by a party.

But the tier system of JaronK did provide a coherent framework for the discussion on balance, for the first time as far as I'm aware, and this is very important in 3.5, and it made many players and DM's aware of the power disparities that could come into being when playing the game, and made them aware that this could be disruptive to the game. For that, credits where credits are due, it does so for what, almost ten years now?

[Sahleb]

So because the Wizard is Tier One and the Beguiler is Tier Three, players will optimize the Wizard more than Beguiler, which means that the Wizard is Tier One and the Beguiler is Tier Three.



No. Players who optimize can accomplish more if they start with a wizard than if they had started with a beguiler.

[tsj]

What about balancing classes by having a specific spell list for wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid and others?

Other spells can only be learned at the DMs discretion

[Sahleb]

What about balancing classes by having a specific spell list for wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid and others?

Other spells can only be learned at the DMs discretion

That's quite heavy handed, but it could work. It's basically how the archivist works anyway.

[Troacctid]

What about balancing classes by having a specific spell list for wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid and others?

Other spells can only be learned at the DMs discretion

Too much work, and doesn't solve the more pressing problem of lower-tier classes being underpowered.

[Cosi]

(You should ignore the Tier System for PrCs. It's stupid.)

It's also inevitable. If you insist on ranking "no items, classes only, final destination", then you get things like that. For example, there are a bunch of ways to let Rogues do sneak attack damage to things that are normally immune. If you insist that those things are not part of the Rogue's ranking (because they are items, not class features), then you get stupid results when ranking them. How good is a Wand of grave strike? It's pretty good for a Rogue, but it's completely worthless for a Fighter.

Using a bunch of discrete lists is just as complicated as a single holistic list, but all that complexity is exported to lists that people won't generally look at or know about, which makes the system people do end up using misleading. Once you've committed to the claim that rankings are constant across level/optimization/other character choices, how do you rank Rainbow Servant without doing something stupid?


The tier list is a complicated way of saying that high-level spells are overpowered and more high-level spells will make you more overpowered. By now, in the optimization community, I think that's not really in dispute.

High level spells (more accurately: high level spellcasters) are more powerful than high level mundane options. But that doesn't make them "overpowered". You need some standard of what correctly powered looks like to say that. You could say that standard is the Warblade or Incarnate, which would make the Wizard or Beguiler overpowered. But there's no a priori reason to say that those guys (and not the Cleric or the Expert or the Bard) are correctly powered.


No. Players who optimize can accomplish more if they start with a wizard than if they had started with a beguiler.

I don't think that's true. The floor is higher (in that you get good spells automatically and cast spontaneously, so you can only really screw yourself over with attribute assignment) and the ceiling (all the power, via wish) is the same. I suppose you could make the argument that the variety of intermediate power levels available to the Wizard either is larger or skews higher, but that seems to depend on restrictions that aren't reasonable.


What about balancing classes by having a specific spell list for wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid and others?

Isn't that already how it works? There is a list of spells Druids can cast: the Druid list. There are spells that are on it (like entangle) and spells that are not on it (like gate).

Maybe you mean shortening the list? That seems pointless to me. Picking from balanced spells is balanced, picking from unbalanced spells is unbalanced. If your new list has gate and nothing else on it (i.e. the Truenamer), then it's still broken when you get to whatever level gate is. On the other hand, if the list of spells doesn't contain anything broken, making it shorter just causes there to be less possible Wizard builds.

If you want to balance classes by fiddling with spells, you should do it by giving spells to people who don't have them, not by changing spell lists. There are a bunch of classes/builds that are sort of defensible on one axis, but fall short on others. The Swift Hunters and Bardblades of the world do admirable amounts of damage in combat, but have very little to do when the combat music isn't playing. If they got a couple of random SLAs 3/day, they would have some ways to mitigate that. Conversely, Incarnates or Factotums basically suck in combat, but have a bunch of abilities that are useful outside combat. If the Incarnate got a pile of BFC options, then the fact that they have skill bonuses which are "very large" could sometimes matter.

[Troacctid]

It's also inevitable. If you insist on ranking "no items, classes only, final destination", then you get things like that. For example, there are a bunch of ways to let Rogues do sneak attack damage to things that are normally immune. If you insist that those things are not part of the Rogue's ranking (because they are items, not class features), then you get stupid results when ranking them. How good is a Wand of grave strike? It's pretty good for a Rogue, but it's completely worthless for a Fighter.
Do you really think rankings for every possible permutation of classes is inevitable? That's not really the word I'd use. I'd probably go with something more like "impossible," or "ridiculous."


Using a bunch of discrete lists is just as complicated as a single holistic list, but all that complexity is exported to lists that people won't generally look at or know about, which makes the system people do end up using misleading. Once you've committed to the claim that rankings are constant across level/optimization/other character choices, how do you rank Rainbow Servant without doing something stupid?
How would I rank it? I'd rank it using a rating system other than the tier system.

[Cosi]

Do you really think rankings for every possible permutation of classes is inevitable? That's not really the word I'd use. I'd probably go with something more like "impossible," or "ridiculous."

It's inevitable that using the Tier System results in things that are stupid in the exact way the Tier System for PrCs is. Because things do not have a constant value in D&D. grave strike does nothing for anyone who doesn't have sneak attack. But it's awesome if you have sneak attack (and fight undead). What's the "value" of that? What's the "value" of having sneak attack if you assume you don't get that? Why are you trying to answer those questions instead of "how do people play Rogues"?

[johnbragg]

High level spells (more accurately: high level spellcasters) are more powerful than high level mundane options. But that doesn't make them "overpowered". You need some standard of what correctly powered looks like to say that. You could say that standard is the Warblade or Incarnate, which would make the Wizard or Beguiler overpowered. But there's no a priori reason to say that those guys (and not the Cleric or the Expert or the Bard) are correctly powered.


Well, it started way back in the days of Core 3.0 and 3.5. It didn't take long to catch on to the idea that, compared to everyone else, Wizards and Clerics and Druids, and sometimes Sorcerers, were WAY more powerful than mundanes. And that Fighters and Monks and Paladins were not that good at wrecking things with weapons or fists. Barbarians and Rogues and Bards were pretty good at what they were supposed to be doing, but full casters could outshine them at it if they put a little effort into it.

So the full casters' porridge was TOO HOT. And the mundanes' porridge was TOO COLD. So Tier 3 (or at least Tier 2-4) must be JUST RIGHT. (The intuitive truth of this, I think, has let JaronK's Tier definitions piggyback on this argument. So anything that doesn't fit Tier 3 isn't good enough, whether or not the porridge is the right temperature in actual play.)

[Troacctid]

The fact that class- and role-specific items exist is mostly irrelevant to tier rankings because there are enough generally useful items that any character can spend their gold effectively, even if the MIC doesn't have goodies that are specially designed for them. Furthermore, even in cases where class-specific items are above the baseline value of generally useful items (and Grave Strike is not such a case IMO), they're almost never far enough above the baseline for it to really matter—you're still within one standard deviation of the mean, so to speak.

Having native access to a wider range of items to choose from is an advantage, which is why the ability to use wands and scrolls gives you points, although it's debatable whether it gives you enough points to have a significant effect on your ranking. (Personally, I think it can bump you up over the edge when it's close, but it can't carry you singlehandedly, which is why the Warlock gets to be T3 but the Expert is still T6.)

[Cosi]

Well, it started way back in the days of Core 3.0 and 3.5. It didn't take long to catch on to the idea that, compared to everyone else, Wizards and Clerics and Druids, and sometimes Sorcerers, were WAY more powerful than mundanes.

"Better" does not mean "overpowered". Seven is larger than three. Does that mean seven is a "big number" and three is a "small number"? No! If you're counting standard deviations, both seven and three are big. If you're counting national populations, neither seven nor three is big. You can't make a claim about objective power level (X is overpowered) from an inequality (X is better than Y) unless you have some additional objective data (Y is balanced).


So the full casters' porridge was TOO HOT.

Why? I like Wizards, and think we should put the balance point much close to them than the Fighter, or even the Bard.


And the mundanes' porridge was TOO COLD.

Why? While I personally don't like Fighters, if you want to do LotR at every level in the game, you should probably balance around them.


So Tier 3 (or at least Tier 2-4) must be JUST RIGHT.

That's the golden mean fallacy.

[johnbragg]

"Better" does not mean "overpowered". Seven is larger than three. Does that mean seven is a "big number" and three is a "small number"? No! If you're counting standard deviations, both seven and three are big. If you're counting national populations, neither seven nor three is big. You can't make a claim about objective power level (X is overpowered) from an inequality (X is better than Y) unless you have some additional objective data (Y is balanced).

You're asking where the idea that Tier 3 is the ideal balance point came from. I laid out the basic thought process.

The name of the genre is "sword and sorcery." Up until 3E, dudes with swords were competitive with dudes with sorcery.


Why? I like Wizards, and think we should put the balance point much close to them than the Fighter, or even the Bard.

That's fine. Play unmodified 3X. You've made a good point in the past about balancing around the Tier 1 classes, and the CR system which assumes you have those abilities readily available.

Why are you haunting threads where people are modding 3X? You have unmodded 3.5. It's doing everything you want it to do.


That's the golden mean fallacy.

That's not quite appropriate here. You're saying "Show me the balance point and justify it!" Well, there is no "right balance point." There's only what people want to play and enjoy playing. And there seems to be a weight of opinion, expressed in JaronK's Tier system, in the development of E6, of 4E, of 5E, and of a ton of 3X homebrew, that in the 3X architecture full casters get too powerful after you get past low levels.

On the other hand, you have the PAthfinder designers who said, nuts to that, caster supremacy isn't a problem. Just cap our organized Pathfinder Society campaign at level 12 and there's no problem.

[Cosi]

The name of the genre is "sword and sorcery." Up until 3E, dudes with swords were competitive with dudes with sorcery.

My (admittedly limited) knowledge of earlier editions is that it was still "go caster or go home" at high level. That's also basically the way it works in a lot of the source material. Vlad Taltos has two different kinds of magic, in addition to being able to stab people quite proficiently. Gandalf has a sword. Rand is a master swordsman and fights with a magic sword made of fire. At the high end of fantasy, pretty much everyone is a Wizard and having a sword is basically a matter of personal taste.


Why are you haunting threads where people are modding 3X? You have unmodded 3.5. It's doing everything you want it to do.

3e is better at what I want to do than other versions of D&D, but that doesn't make it flawless. I would consider doing any of the following an improvement:

4e style tiers.
Going from open multiclassing to class/subclass multiclassing.
Random or partial random magic items rather than WBL.
Adding rules for kingdoms or mass battle.


And that's just stuff that involves serious design overhauls. You could also improve the game by cleaning up the rules for polymorph or planar binding, or writing new classes. The Wizard is cool, but a class that could reasonably play with a Wizard and used a Rage Meter or Drain power setup would also be cool. Even the prospect of combining existing classes (as this thread suggests) is interesting.


the development of E6, of 4E, of 5E,

E6 isn't a justification for Wizard nerfs. It's the opposite. If you have clear power progression from level 1 to level 20 and people want to play at a specific point on that power progression, they should just do that. I don't demand the game exclude LotR because I don't want to play LotR characters. I just play at a higher level. You can do exactly the reverse if you don't want Lord of Light characters, and that's what E6 does.

4e (IMHO) wasn't really a reaction to Wizards being overpowered. It was just designers being lazy. If you cut out anything in 3e that is complicated or hard to balance, you basically get 4e without any more directives about nerfing Wizards.

[johnbragg]

My (admittedly limited) knowledge of earlier editions is that it was still "go caster or go home" at high level.

Not really. In AD&D 1 & 2, high level mundanes' saving throws were a significant protection against magic, and there were a lot fewer "no save just suck" options. Casting in melee was exceedingly difficult--you got hit, you lose the spell you were casting, too bad so sad. Well, tomorrow you can spend one hour per spell level of the spell memorizing it back. From your finite spell book, limited to N spells per level if you didn't have 19+ intelligence, which wasn't something you could count on getting.


3e is better at what I want to do than other versions of D&D, but that doesn't make it flawless. I would consider doing any of the following an improvement:

4e style tiers.
Going from open multiclassing to class/subclass multiclassing.
Random or partial random magic items rather than WBL.
Adding rules for kingdoms or mass battle.


Those are all worthy projects. But what good do they do in threads taht usually premise "How can we play a 3X game where Conan and Thulsa Doom are both valuable party members?"


And that's just stuff that involves serious design overhauls. You could also improve the game by cleaning up the rules for polymorph or planar binding, or writing new classes. The Wizard is cool, but a class that could reasonably play with a Wizard and used a Rage Meter or Drain power setup would also be cool. Even the prospect of combining existing classes (as this thread suggests) is interesting.

None of which really benefits from a jihad against the Tier system, does it?


E6 isn't a justification for Wizard nerfs. It's the opposite. If you have clear power progression from level 1 to level 20 and people want to play at a specific point on that power progression, they should just do that. I don't demand the game exclude LotR because I don't want to play LotR characters. I just play at a higher level. You can do exactly the reverse if you don't want Lord of Light characters, and that's what E6 does.

Well, E6 in practice, at least in some practice, allows a power progression other than the WOTC 1-20 progression. An E6+15 Wizard, say, is a significant upgrade from a 6th level wizard, while not being the same upgrade as an 9th level wizard. An E6 + 15 Barbarian isn't terribly different from an 9th level Barbarian.


4e (IMHO) wasn't really a reaction to Wizards being overpowered. It was just designers being lazy. If you cut out anything in 3e that is complicated or hard to balance, you basically get 4e without any more directives about nerfing Wizards.
Well, 4e spent a lot of time on balance. Look, it's balanced? Every class has the same power level and pretty much the same powers! Balanced!

[johnbragg]

My (admittedly limited) knowledge of earlier editions is that it was still "go caster or go home" at high level.

Not really. In AD&D 1 & 2, high level mundanes' saving throws were a significant protection against magic, and there were a lot fewer "no save just suck" options. Casting in melee was exceedingly difficult--you got hit, you lose the spell you were casting, too bad so sad. Well, tomorrow you can spend one hour per spell level of the spell memorizing it back. From your finite spell book, limited to N spells per level if you didn't have 19+ intelligence, which wasn't something you could count on getting.


3e is better at what I want to do than other versions of D&D, but that doesn't make it flawless. I would consider doing any of the following an improvement:

4e style tiers.
Going from open multiclassing to class/subclass multiclassing.
Random or partial random magic items rather than WBL.
Adding rules for kingdoms or mass battle.


Those are all worthy projects. But what good do they do in threads taht usually premise "How can we play a 3X game where Conan and Thulsa Doom are both valuable party members?"


And that's just stuff that involves serious design overhauls. You could also improve the game by cleaning up the rules for polymorph or planar binding, or writing new classes. The Wizard is cool, but a class that could reasonably play with a Wizard and used a Rage Meter or Drain power setup would also be cool. Even the prospect of combining existing classes (as this thread suggests) is interesting.

None of which really benefits from a jihad against the Tier system, does it?


E6 isn't a justification for Wizard nerfs. It's the opposite. If you have clear power progression from level 1 to level 20 and people want to play at a specific point on that power progression, they should just do that. I don't demand the game exclude LotR because I don't want to play LotR characters. I just play at a higher level. You can do exactly the reverse if you don't want Lord of Light characters, and that's what E6 does.

Well, E6 in practice, at least in some practice, allows a power progression other than the WOTC 1-20 progression. An E6+15 Wizard, say, is a significant upgrade from a 6th level wizard, while not being the same upgrade as an 9th level wizard. An E6 + 15 Barbarian isn't terribly different from an 9th level Barbarian.


4e (IMHO) wasn't really a reaction to Wizards being overpowered. It was just designers being lazy. If you cut out anything in 3e that is complicated or hard to balance, you basically get 4e without any more directives about nerfing Wizards.
Well, 4e spent a lot of time on balance. Look, it's balanced? Every class has the same power level and pretty much the same powers! Balanced! (Wait, what was not balanced in 3rd? Casters. Oh yeah.)

[Cosi]

But what good do they do in threads taht usually premise "How can we play a 3X game where Conan and Thulsa Doom are both valuable party members?"

Any solution to that involves houserules. Regardless of what you believe the optimum balance point for 3e is, it is demonstrably true that there is not an extant balance point with Conan and Thulsa Doom in it. And once you're house-ruling, it is not at all clear to me that there is any reason to balance to the Duskblade rather than the Wizard.


Well, 4e spent a lot of time on balance. Look, it's balanced? Every class has the same power level and pretty much the same powers! Balanced!

No it didn't, and no it's not. The skill challenge system was revised more than a dozen times after print. Monster HP was pared down at least once and maybe twice. Classes are all over the place, particularly in core. The Wizard and Ranger are awesome, the Warlock sucks. The Yogi Hat Ranger confers a level of invincibility more absolute than anything in 3e (short of maybe Aleax + true mind switch). "4e is balanced, 4e is bad, balance is bad" is not only based on faulty logic, but faulty premises as well.

A thought experiment to rebut that line of thinking. Suppose you took 4e, multiplied monster HP by five, then multiple the damage of each power by a random number between one and twenty-five. The game is now less balanced, but nothing else has changed. Is it better or worse?

[johnbragg]

Any solution to that involves houserules.

I suppose there's some distinction between "Houserules" "Homebrew" and "Modding" that escapes me. E6 is a houserule, is it not? PAthfinder is a mod of 3.5. The point of these threads is to explore, improve and perfect those houserules by having other sets of eyes, minds and table experiences and styles look at them.


Regardless of what you believe the optimum balance point for 3e is, it is demonstrably true that there is not an extant balance point with Conan and Thulsa Doom in it. And once you're house-ruling, it is not at all clear to me that there is any reason to balance to the Duskblade rather than the Wizard.

The reason is that you started houseruling to move 3X closer to the Conan balance point.


Words about 4e

I don't know enough 4e to even follow most of that.

[Cosi]

The reason is that you started houseruling to move 3X closer to the Conan balance point.

Conan isn't a "balance point". It's a level range. Specifically, it's like level eight. If you want to play a game where characters are level eight, you can just do that.

[Zanos]

Well, 4e spent a lot of time on balance. Look, it's balanced? Every class has the same power level and pretty much the same powers! Balanced! (Wait, what was not balanced in 3rd? Casters. Oh yeah.)
The great tragedy is that while 4e doesn't contain many(I don't want to say any, knowing WotCs editing history) reality shattering exploits, it's still pretty widely agreed that the Wizard is the most powerful class, and many splatbook classes have so little external support that they're basically considered useless at accomplishing their intended role.

[Lans]

I don't think that's true. The floor is higher (in that you get good spells automatically and cast spontaneously, so you can only really screw yourself over with attribute assignment) and the ceiling (all the power, via wish) is the same. I suppose you could make the argument that the variety of intermediate power levels available to the Wizard either is larger or skews higher, but that seems to depend on restrictions that aren't reasonable.
.

1 the wizard could be considered to have a higher practical floor
2 They could be only comparing options completely native to the class. Like comparing a barbarian with whirling frenzy and pounce, and other class abilities and 0 feats to a fighter with 11 feats.
3 Cognitive Bias

[Sahleb]

It's also inevitable


I don't think that's true. The floor is higher (in that you get good spells automatically and cast spontaneously, so you can only really screw yourself over with attribute assignment) and the ceiling (all the power, via wish) is the same. I suppose you could make the argument that the variety of intermediate power levels available to the Wizard either is larger or skews higher, but that seems to depend on restrictions that aren't reasonable.



Sure it is.
Beguiler only tricks that wizards can't access: Rainbow Servant, Arcane Disciple.
Wizard only tricks that beguilers can't access: Uncanny Forethought, Malconvoker, Spontaneous Divination(i.e. the ability to spontaneously convert prepared spells to any divination spell), a bunch of spells(polymorph).

Also, wizard incantatrices are better than beguiler incantatrices, because those are limited to their spell list, and wizards spell list is better. (Yeah arcane disciple, but by RAW you have to find and worship the particular god with the domains you want. Also, while you're using your feats to expand the spell list, the wizard is getting more metamagic.)

I'll absolutely contend that the variety of intermediate power levels availible to the wizard is higher than that of beguilers, because if a beguiler picks up one of the wizard tricks that involve prestige classes instead of going Rainbow Servant, his spell list will be inferior.

[Cosi]

Wizard only tricks that beguilers can't access: Uncanny Forethought, Malconvoker, Spontaneous Divination(i.e. the ability to spontaneously convert prepared spells to any divination spell), a bunch of spells(polymorph).

Rainbow Servant is a better version of the spontaneous casting part of Uncanny Forethought, and the Beguiler has enough spell emulation that it can cast most spells you'd care about as a standard action.

Malconvoker is pretty bad, with the minor exception of the boost to planar binding's HD cap. That makes "cast one planar binding" slightly better, but it doesn't effect "cast a thousand planar bindings" much or "get a wish from an Efreet" at all.

Spontaneous Divination was changed in errata to require you to know the spells. It's now good, but not particularly better than the Beguiler.

polymorph is unique, but greater anyspell gets draconic polymorph if you want it. You'd be surprised at how much of the Wizard list appears on at least one domain.


I'll absolutely contend that the variety of intermediate power levels availible to the wizard is higher than that of beguilers, because if a beguiler picks up one of the wizard tricks that involve prestige classes instead of going Rainbow Servant, his spell list will be inferior.

Only if he doesn't dip for some Prestige Domains and substitute domain.

[Sahleb]

Rainbow Servant is a better version of the spontaneous casting part of Uncanny Forethought, and the Beguiler has enough spell emulation that it can cast most spells you'd care about as a standard action.

Please recall that Rainbow Servant levels are not free. The opportunity cost of being a rainbow servant is either your race, three feats, and your class levels 2-11, or it's just your class levels 7-12. As such, you must compare the power gained to at very least the first six levels of incantatrix, your race(which could have landed you the dragonblooded subtype, bonus feat(s) or more intelligence), and two feats that you spent on earth spell and friends, whereas the wizard had only to grab Iron Will for prerequisites. You've also been a straight beguiler with less class skills for the prior 9 levels, since you can't pick up Substitute Domain before you get access to cleric spells.

Let's say that the wizard picks up Spell Mastery and Uncanny Forethought with those extra feats. Are you really certain that you can stand up to that, even with your 'better version'? What about the last, say, 9 levels, where the wizard had uncanny forethought and you were a beguiler with less good spells and some pretty bad starting feats?

What if the wizard spent the time you spent on Rainbow Servant to pursue Red Wizardry?


Malconvoker is pretty bad, with the minor exception of the boost to planar binding's HD cap. That makes "cast one planar binding" slightly better, but it doesn't effect "cast a thousand planar bindings" much or "get a wish from an Efreet" at all.[quote]

Power matters on lower ends of the optimization scale as well. Malconvoker is very good in the context of a certain level of power.

Power also matters in the mid levels.

[quote]Spontaneous Divination was changed in errata to require you to know the spells. It's now good, but not particularly better than the Beguiler.

Considering the very low cost of wizard spells known on the level of optimization you seem to be assuming, this is hardly relevant information.


polymorph is unique, but greater anyspell gets draconic polymorph if you want it. You'd be surprised at how much of the Wizard list appears on at least one domain.

Spend a 2nd level spell slot, then spend a sixth level spell slot, to cast a 5th level wizard spell. Is that versatility? Sure. It's not that useful in the grand scheme of things, though.

[quote]Only if he doesn't dip for some Prestige Domains and substitute domain.

Now you're relying on spending 10 minutes before you can cast the spell you want. If it's cast through anyspell of the spell domain, you need to spend 15 minutes on top of that, and have the right spell on hand in a spellbook, to acces the spells. This really isn't as clean cut as you want it to seem, I don't think.

Also, these dips you're talking about must be countered by what the wizard could do with the same levels. For example, there's more incantatrix, or red wizard levels.

[Cosi]

You've also been a straight beguiler with less class skills for the prior 9 levels, since you can't pick up Substitute Domain before you get access to cleric spells.

Or, you know, wands.


What if the wizard spent the time you spent on Rainbow Servant to pursue Red Wizardry?

Then you would cast spontaneously from almost every spell in the game, and he would have caster level tricks. You would be different, albeit comparable spells. Uncanny Forethought muddles things somewhat, but you cast most of your spells as full-round actions and you still have a more limited selection in your spellbook.


Power matters on lower ends of the optimization scale as well. Malconvoker is very good in the context of a certain level of power.

No, it isn't. Malconvoker trades a caster level to specialize in a bad line of spells in a way that is largely indistinguishable from simply casting the higher level version (which you could do if you were not a Malconvoker).


Considering the very low cost of wizard spells known on the level of optimization you seem to be assuming, this is hardly relevant information.

I means you can't get non-Wizard spells. Which makes it rather unimpressive.

[Sahleb]

So, regardless of how the power of incantatrix metamagic abuse or red wizard circle magic + Uncanny forethought + spontaneous divination compares to the power of being able to spontaneously cast all cleric spells, you're basically pretending that levels 11+ are the only ones in the game, insisting that we consider only the levels after you hit rainbow servant 10.

I find that position rather flawed, if you don't mind me saying so. As for relying on Wands of Substitute Domain, that is perfectly doable, perhaps after level 6, where you have the funds and two domains to fiddle around with. But that's still 10 minutes of wandcasting every time you want to change it up. And requires an UMD of +15 in order to not periodically waste charges.

How many spells does the beguiler have that increase his UMD bonus? I think you'll need an item of UMD +5, on top of that 4500gp wand.

With those funds, a wizard can pay the fees for 350 levels of spells (7000/50), and copy them with Secret Page.

[Troacctid]

And discussing multiclass builds as if they mattered for the base class's rankings? Sure, okay. Hey, by the way, did I show you my proof that Dragonfire Adept is T1? You just have to go Dragonfire Adept 5/Ur-Priest 2/Eldritch Disciple 9 and you've got full 9th-level casting off the Cleric list, it's great. It's also pretty easy to get Scout to T1 as well—you just go Scout 1/Druid 19, and that should do it.

[Cosi]

And discussing multiclass builds as if they mattered for the base class's rankings? Sure, okay. Hey, by the way, did I show you my proof that Dragonfire Adept is T1? You just have to go Dragonfire Adept 5/Ur-Priest 2/Eldritch Disciple 9 and you've got full 9th-level casting off the Cleric list, it's great. It's also pretty easy to get Scout to T1 as well—you just go Scout 1/Druid 19, and that should do it.

I've noticed that this puts the Strawman in T1 as well.

[Sahleb]

I means you can't get non-Wizard spells. Which makes it rather unimpressive.

Lol. Keep pretending that there exists only one measure of power in D&D.

If you make a narrow enough definition of 'power', you can claim that literally any class is the most powerful in d&d.

You've decided that 'the ability to spontaneously cast as wide a variety of spells as possible' is power the only definition of power. So obviously, your build is inferior to the Spell to Power Erudite.

That said, how many people, out of all the people who play beguilers, will use your exact build?

I don't think it's that many. Consequently, a list that puts the beguiler on top in terms of power will be completely useless.

[Sahleb]

I've noticed that this puts the Strawman in T1 as well.

See, this part was a strawman;


Hey, by the way, did I show you my proof that Dragonfire Adept is T1? You just have to go Dragonfire Adept 5/Ur-Priest 2/Eldritch Disciple 9 and you've got full 9th-level casting off the Cleric list, it's great. It's also pretty easy to get Scout to T1 as well—you just go Scout 1/Druid 19, and that should do it.


This part remains entirely legitimate:


And discussing multiclass builds as if they mattered for the base class's rankings?

Cry Strawman all you want - it's still painstakenly obvious.

[Cosi]

You've decided that 'the ability to spontaneously cast as wide a variety of spells as possible' is power the only definition of power. So obviously, your build is inferior to the Spell to Power Erudite.

No, I'm just pointing out that the ability to spontaneously cast spells is less good if you cast spontaneously from a smaller list of spells.

And yes, there are a variety of ways to be powerful. The DMM Cleric or Incantarix is powerful, and so is the StP Erudite or Beguiler/Rainbow Servant, and so is the guy who spams planar binding or animate dead. They're powerful in different ways, but they're all powerful.

And back on topic, the tiers don't really care if X character is better than Y character. If they did, you'd have to boot both the Wizard and the Cleric for being worse than the Archivist. They care about meeting the standard for a given tier. I have difficulty imagining a case where "spontaneously cast any spell in a domain starting at 7th and any spell on the Cleric list starting at 16th" doesn't meet that standard.

[Troacctid]

I've noticed that this puts the Strawman in T1 as well.
How is it a strawman? Are you saying you don't think prestige classes and multiclassing should be considered when ranking the base class? So why are you going on about Rainbow Servant, then?


That said, how many people, out of all the people who play beguilers, will use your exact build?

I don't think it's that many. Consequently, a list that puts the beguiler on top in terms of power will be completely useless.
I also don't think it's that many. Rainbow Servant tosses out all your skill points, which are normally a key part of the class's identity, and doesn't give you a decent payoff for it until 10 levels later. I'd honestly rather be a Mystic Theurge.

[Cosi]

How is it a strawman? Are you saying you don't think prestige classes and multiclassing should be considered when ranking the base class? So why are you going on about Rainbow Servant, then?

Because there is a unique synergy between Rainbow Servant and fixed-list casters. Dragon Shaman/Ur-Priest doesn't do anything particularly different from Marshal/Ur-Priest and as such shouldn't be ranked differently. For full replacement PrCs like Ur-Priest or Sublime Chord, you should just have a ranking for the PrC.

The multiclassing thing is pretty out of left field, but even insofar as I think it should be counted (mostly builds with feats like Song of the White Raven or Swift Hunter), it seems disingenuous to count a 1/19 split as being build of the class you took one level of.

[Troacctid]

Because there is a unique synergy between Rainbow Servant and fixed-list casters. Dragon Shaman/Ur-Priest doesn't do anything particularly different from Marshal/Ur-Priest and as such shouldn't be ranked differently. For full replacement PrCs like Ur-Priest or Sublime Chord, you should just have a ranking for the PrC.

The multiclassing thing is pretty out of left field, but even insofar as I think it should be counted (mostly builds with feats like Song of the White Raven or Swift Hunter), it seems disingenuous to count a 1/19 split as being build of the class you took one level of.

Dragonfire Adept has the unique capability to get full 9th level casting and full invoking. It's the only class that can easily do so. Warlocks have poor Fortitude saves, so they can't qualify for Ur-Priest until very late. No other class can qualify for Eldritch Disciple. It's a legitimately unique build that wouldn't work for another class. Marshal/Ur-Priest is garbage in comparison, and the gap is a lot bigger than the gap between a Beguiler/Rainbow Servant and a Wizard/Rainbow Servant.

Scouts can multiclass as a Druid and still gain full skirmish progression with the normal 3/4 BAB thanks to Swift Avenger, so it's clearly a unique synergy, and you don't lose any notable class features or even really class skills by multiclassing, so I'm not sure what else you want.

[Cosi]

Dragonfire Adept has the unique capability to get full 9th level casting and full invoking. It's the only class that can easily do so.

That's just Ur-Priest + Theurge. Maybe that gets its own ranking, but I kind of doubt it. The value of invocations is not super huge compared to the value of Cleric spells.


Scouts can multiclass as a Druid and still gain full skirmish progression with the normal 3/4 BAB thanks to Swift Avenger, so it's clearly a unique synergy, and you don't lose any notable class features or even really class skills by multiclassing, so I'm not sure what else you want.

Sure. But it's a unique Druid synergy. Like Planar Shepherd or Vow of Poverty.

[Troacctid]

That's just Ur-Priest + Theurge. Maybe that gets its own ranking, but I kind of doubt it. The value of invocations is not super huge compared to the value of Cleric spells.
It's a unique combination, and it plays plenty differently from other Ur-Priest builds.

You might as well say that a Druid is just a Cleric with wild shape instead of domains, or a Beguiler is just a Rogue with casting instead of sneak attack.


Sure. But it's a unique Druid synergy. Like Planar Shepherd or Vow of Poverty.
Try doing it without Scout then. It's a unique Druid + Scout synergy.

Just because you only have 1 level of Scout doesn't mean it's not a Scout build. And that's according to your standard, not mine—I believe you suggested Beguiler 1/Rainbow Servant 10 as a Beguiler build, yes?

[Cosi]

It's a unique combination, and it plays plenty differently from other Ur-Priest builds.

Sure, but I don't think it's particularly more powerful than Binder/Ur-Priest/Divine Anima Mage or similar builds. And the goal is to measure power, not play style.


Just because you only have 1 level of Scout doesn't mean it's not a Scout build. And that's according to your standard, not mine—I believe you suggested Beguiler 1/Rainbow Servant 10 as a Beguiler build, yes?

I don't think I've ever mentioned early entry. Also, those Rainbow Servant levels advance your casting which Scout does not do for Druid. And they're half your class levels, rather than 95% of them.

[johnbragg]

Would it progress the argument any to declare all spontaneous caster/Rainbow Servant 10 builds to be Tier 0? Spontaneous access to an entire Tier 1 list?

[Sahleb]

I don't think I've ever mentioned early entry. Also, those Rainbow Servant levels advance your casting which Scout does not do for Druid. And they're half your class levels, rather than 95% of them.

Ah, so your build, which you posted to show that beguilers are more powerful than wizards, only works at level 16+ instead of 11+, ignoring playability in 75% of the non-epic levels, whereas with early entry, it ignored merely half of them.

[Sahleb]

Would it progress the argument any to declare all spontaneous caster/Rainbow Servant 10 builds to be Tier 0? Spontaneous access to an entire Tier 1 list?

Cleric derives quite a bit of its tier 1 capacity from its ability to turn undead. Still, that can be accomplished, and Dread Necros get it natively.

And the 'cast all cleric spells spontaneously' thing applies only to Warmages, Beguilers and Dread Necromancers, not all spontaneous casters.

[johnbragg]

Cleric derives quite a bit of its tier 1 capacity from its ability to turn undead. Still, that can be accomplished, and Dread Necros get it natively.

And the 'cast all cleric spells spontaneously' thing applies only to Warmages, Beguilers and Dread Necromancers, not all spontaneous casters.

And Sorcerers, unless I'm missing something important.

Is there some reason that Sorcerer 6/Rainbow Servant 10 or even Bard 7/Rainbow SErvant 10 couldn't pull it off? (Bard 7/RS 10/Bard 3 doesn't get spell levels 7-9, but Sorcerer 6/RS 10/Sorcerer 4 does)

[Cosi]

Ah, so your build, which you posted to show that beguilers are more powerful than wizards, only works at level 16+ instead of 11+, ignoring playability in 75% of the non-epic levels, whereas with early entry, it ignored merely half of them.

I said that the Beguiler was ahead of the Wizard in a very specific context (no cheese). Outside that context, they're merely "about the same". Like the Wizard and the Druid or the Wizard and the Cleric. Any context where we're talking about Wizard/Incantatrix is clearly not without cheese.

At first level, they are close as makes no odds. They both get the best offensive spells (color spray, sleep, minor image) and each class has its own advantages. The Beguiler gets Trapfinding and casts spontaneously, the Wizard gets a Familiar and can learn grease.

By eighth level, they are similarly close. The Beguiler gets charm monster + Diplomacy and his first Prestige Domain. The Wizard gets Metamagic Effect. The Wizard is a little ahead on brute force, but the Beguiler is actually better at having the right spell at the right time.

As things go on, the Wizard gets some more metamagic and the Beguiler gets more Prestige Domains. They continue to have minor utility options (the Beguiler could have taken a level of Mindbender, the Wizard could have Spontaneous Divination, and so on). They're really about equal throughout the game. The Wizard pulls ahead at odd levels, but there are a lot of domain spells.


And Sorcerers, unless I'm missing something important.

Is there some reason that Sorcerer 6/Rainbow Servant 10 or even Bard 7/Rainbow SErvant 10 couldn't pull it off? (Bard 7/RS 10/Bard 3 doesn't get spell levels 7-9, but Sorcerer 6/RS 10/Sorcerer 4 does)

Rainbow Servant adds spells to your spell list, which you can learn normally. For example, a Wizard/Rainbow Servant could scribe Cleric spells into his spellbook. That makes it awesome for the Beguiler (or Warmage or Dread Necromancer) because they learn spells automatically, but unimpressive for the Sorcerer because he has to learn each spell he wants to cast.

[johnbragg]

Rainbow Servant adds spells to your spell list, which you can learn normally. For example, a Wizard/Rainbow Servant could scribe Cleric spells into his spellbook. That makes it awesome for the Beguiler (or Warmage or Dread Necromancer) because they learn spells automatically, but unimpressive for the Sorcerer because he has to learn each spell he wants to cast.

Thanks. So it is a trick that only the arcane fixed-list casters can carry off, at level 17+.

[Waazraath]

All this stuff about rainbow servant, is that assuming the non-existing rule that "text trumps two different tables and the example build"? is in place and the Rainbow servant has full casting? Because, when it's 3 times mentioned in a book that it hasn't, and only 1 time that it does, it's pretty safe to say that it isn't stict RAW that it has, and at the very, very least this is 'ask your DM' territory.

And isn't putting the beguiler at a certain powerlevel just because of RS missing or ignoring the points of the tier-system that 1) when assessing the power of classes the emphasiss is put at the power of the build at level 5-12, cause those are the levels most played (was assumed at that time by the charop community), so a great power boost at lvl 17 isn't doing much, given the tiers, and 2) that this is a specific build, and it's nonsensical to assume an entire class has a certain level of power with one and only one specific prestige class (especially one heavily disputed on if its full casting is RAW)?

As for beguiler at lower levels: just curious, who has actually playing experience with them? Because my experience is that at the lower levels, they really aren't that impressive, even compared with martials. Let alone with an optimized druid, psion or wizard. Fun, lots of skillpoints, not too squishy, few very good spells... but also a lot of enemies against which you are pretty helpless with low levels illusions and charms.

[Cosi]

All this stuff about rainbow servant, is that assuming the non-existing rule that "text trumps two different tables and the example build"?

Text trumps table. Doesn't matter how many tables.


1) when assessing the power of classes the emphasiss is put at the power of the build at level 5-12, cause those are the levels most played (was assumed at that time by the charop community), so a great power boost at lvl 17 isn't doing much, given the tiers, and

Sure. Which is why I've also mentioned substitute domain and charm monster + Diplomacy. You could also go Shadowcraft Mage if you wanted to. If you want to talk about that level range, the optimal build is probably Beguiler 5/Mindbender 1/Rainbow Servant 4/Divine Oracle 1/Something 1. That gets three prestige domains, which can be whatever you want.


2) that this is a specific build, and it's nonsensical to assume an entire class has a certain level of power with one and only one specific prestige class (especially one heavily disputed on if its full casting is RAW)?

The second part is argument ad populum. The first part is just a double standard. A Wizard with spell X is a build. But Wizards are tier one because spell X and be polymorph or planar binding.


but also a lot of enemies against which you are pretty helpless with low levels illusions and charms.

Most things that are immune to mind-effecting spells are mindless creatures that lose to minor image.

[Troacctid]

Sure, but I don't think it's particularly more powerful than Binder/Ur-Priest/Divine Anima Mage or similar builds. And the goal is to measure power, not play style.
The goal is to measure power of a class. If prestige classes can count as part of the power ranking for the base class, then Dragonfire Adept is T1. "But it's not more powerful than other T1 classes!" No, it's not. Hence why they're in the same tier.


I don't think I've ever mentioned early entry.
So you're a Beguiler 6/Rainbow Servant 10 then. Sure. Throw away your skill points for a capstone benefit that won't come online until the campaign is basically over already. Frankly, I'd rather be a Cerebremancer, but okay, to each his own.

But whatever. We can just change the Scout build to Scout 4/Druid X if you like. Grab that bonus feat. Still a T1 caster.


Also, those Rainbow Servant levels advance your casting which Scout does not do for Druid.
Druid levels do advance skirmish, the primary class feature of a Scout. No, it doesn't advance any other class features, but by your standards, that shouldn't be a problem as long as you advance the best one. After all, Rainbow Servant doesn't advance any Beguiler features other than casting.

[Cosi]

The goal is to measure power of a class. If prestige classes can count as part of the power ranking for the base class, then Dragonfire Adept is T1. "But it's not more powerful than other T1 classes!" No, it's not. Hence why they're in the same tier.

When there is a synergy that is meaningful. Dragonfire Adept/Ur-Priest is probably better than other Ur-Priests, but other Ur-Priests are still Tier One. So it's not "DFA is Tier One" it's "Ur-Priest is tier one".


But whatever. We can just change the Scout build to Scout 4/Druid X if you like. Grab that bonus feat. Still a T1 caster.

Only if you ignore losing four levels of casting.


Druid levels do advance skirmish, the primary class feature of a Scout. No, it doesn't advance any other class features, but by your standards, that shouldn't be a problem as long as you advance the best one. After all, Rainbow Servant doesn't advance any Beguiler features other than casting.

It continues to advance, yah. But there's no synergy. None of the class features of Druid get any better if you are also a Scout, but both Prestige Domains and the Rainbow Servant capstone get better if you are a Beguiler.

[Troacctid]

When there is a synergy that is meaningful. Dragonfire Adept/Ur-Priest is probably better than other Ur-Priests, but other Ur-Priests are still Tier One. So it's not "DFA is Tier One" it's "Ur-Priest is tier one".
How is it not synergistic? It allows you to get 9th level spells with only a 2-level dip. That's a pretty damn good synergy, if I may say so. And that's not even counting the inherent synergy between invocations and Vancian casting, or the stuff you can do with rebuking.


Only if you ignore losing four levels of casting.
Which you can do and still be T1.


It continues to advance, yah. But there's no synergy. None of the class features of Druid get any better if you are also a Scout, but both Prestige Domains and the Rainbow Servant capstone get better if you are a Beguiler.
Are you kidding? Skirmish gets way better if you're a Druid. You have built-in access to pounce, loads of attack buffs, better mobility, touch attacks, Freedom of Movement, a sidekick to help you out, all sorts of useful crap. You can even get Favored Enemy and add Swift Hunter to the mix if you want. It's great.

[Cosi]

How is it not synergistic? It allows you to get 9th level spells with only a 2-level dip.

That's not synergy. It's just a lowered cost. Your Ur-Priest doesn't make your DFA any better, nor does the reverse.


Which you can do and still be T1.

I open laugh at any system which puts Wizard 5 and Wizard 1/Fighter 4 at the power level.

[Troacctid]

That's not synergy. It's just a lowered cost. Your Ur-Priest doesn't make your DFA any better, nor does the reverse.
Sure they do.


I open laugh at any system which puts Wizard 5 and Wizard 1/Fighter 4 at the power level.
I didn't say they're the same. They're just in the same tier. Kind of like how Clerics and Cloistered Clerics are both T1 despite the obvious power disparity between them.

[tsj]

Ok so limiting spell lists wasn't the answer. ..

But it seems that prc's does give the ability to bring some of the lower tier classes/flavors to T1

So now we "just" need enough home brew prc's to bring all other classes to T1 and some kind of DM safeguard against reality being shattered...

If that means all must be casters and that conan knows spells then so be it...

For example a prc that can advance both druid and barbarian class features if entered as druid x/barbarian x so you end up as
Druid x/barbarian x/new prc x

Fluff it with a ancestral totem spirit or guardian angel that controls all the spell MOJO?

Req: class based rage, bab x+, spell level x & wild shape x?

?

(It seems fairly obvious that pure mundanes will never be able to hold a candle to a caster)

And another prc option ...

A cha or even str based mix of fighter and wizard with a prc to advance both and a bit of fluff... hint... the familiar controls all the spell MOJO?

Req. Bab x, weapon specialization any, spell level x & familiar?

[Gnorman]

I open laugh at any system which puts Wizard 5 and Wizard 1/Fighter 4 at the power level.

Except Troacctid didn't say that. It's more comparing Wizard 20 to Wizard 16 / Fighter 4. They're still both Tier 1.

But anyway. I think a lot of the disagreement here stems from your stated preference for high-level games. Let's look at this little gem from a few posts back.


The Wizard pulls ahead at odd levels, but there are a lot of domain spells.

If the Wizard is "ahead" for almost literally half the game, how can you make a principled argument that the Beguiler is on par with it? The answer: you can't, unless you're dismissing everything below level 17-18.

[Waazraath]

Text trumps table. Doesn't matter how many tables.

Unless you can quote some text that says so, that's an opinion. I'm pretty sure the text is something along the line "if at any point there is a conflict between a text and a table, the text takes preference". I don't remember it phrased as "any number of tables", in any case. By the way, we are talking about the same class that has DM fiat in its prereqs - to find the temple of the couatls in the jungle. All nice and well, but the nearest jungle can be 1000 miles away in any campaign.


The second part is argument ad populum. The first part is just a double standard. A Wizard with spell X is a build. But Wizards are tier one because spell X and be polymorph or planar binding.

No, the second part is a rephrasal of my earlier argument: it's not RAW, because the RAW is ambigious. The fact that a lot of people disagree, and that this discussion goes on for over a decade, and sage and cust serv have give conflicting answers on this matter in the past, are all prove of this ambiguity.

The first part: also, no. Spell X is part of the wizard class, on the wizard class list. Beguiler needs another class to do the work. So yes, both are part of the 'build', but there is no double standard. Cause the wizard uses a wizard build, and not a wizard/incantatrix, while the beguiler needs RS.


Most things that are immune to mind-effecting spells are mindless creatures that lose to minor image.

Please explain to me, how? Because in my experience: at low levels, you encounter more undead then stuff like plants and constructs. Many low CR undead aren't mindless. Mindless ones often have a controler, leader, necromancer who isn't mindless, and can direct / command them. Even against the mindless ones, minor image isn't instant win, but might be just a delaying effect or ineffective, depending on how a DM judges how int 0 creature interacts with illusions. It's a good tactic, but not a 'win', and not something you can do all the time. And you haven't that much other tools in a situation like this, as a low level beguiler.

[Gnorman]

Unless you can quote some text that says so, that's an opinion. I'm pretty sure the text is something along the line "if at any point there is a conflict between a text and a table, the text takes preference". I don't remember it phrased as "any number of tables", in any case.

In Cosi's defense, I'm afraid that you're grasping at logical straws here. The relevant text is this:


When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry.

This sets up "text" as a primary source, and "table" as a secondary source. It doesn't matter how many tables you have that disagree with the text; the primary source is the correct one. WotC could have printed a hundred tables in that book that said the Rainbow Servant only gets 6/10 casting, and the text would still win according to the official canons of construction we are supposed to use.

If I have a rule that says "Rock always beats Scissors," I know that Rock beats Scissors. I don't need a secondary rule to tell me that "Rock beats any number of Scissors."

[Waazraath]

In Cosi's defense, I'm afraid that you're grasping at logical straws here. The relevant text is this:

This sets up "text" as a primary source, and "table" as a secondary source. It doesn't matter how many tables you have that disagree with the text; the primary source is the correct one. WotC could have printed a hundred tables in that book that said the Rainbow Servant only gets 6/10 casting, and the text would still win according to the official canons of construction we are supposed to use.

If I have a rule that says "Rock always beats Scissors," I know that Rock beats Scissors. I don't need a secondary rule to tell me that "Rock beats any number of Scissors."

Thanks for providing the text. But I really don't agree with your interpretation. It's text, in a rule book, with context. The way you describe it, it's more a mathamatical formula, X is always bigger then Y. And if you follow that logic, indeed, you end up with an explanation where one line in a book that contradicts 100 tables, would go first. Which is, no offense meant, a silly outcome.

"text trumps table" is a handy rule, made for when two rules unfortunately collide. No more, no less. Our most holy designers most likely never conceived the idea that within the same rule book, rules conflict at no less then 4 points. It simply isn't taken into account, so you have to start working out what was meant. And when you look at Complete Divine, you see that several classes have exactly the same problem. All of those classes, if you examine the goodies they get for the rest, wouldn't have full casting, if you compare with other prestige classes have that are published in that time (see for example the classes in Complete Arcane). If you look at it from an writer's perspective, it's pretty likely somebody simply made a copy/paste error and copies the entries of the full casting class in other classes as well. But I don't want to repeat the entire argument that has been going around for years, there are valid counter points to all this. But it's not just a text and a table, there's much more. And if we are going to follow text trumps table, that, then let's do it really as written, and look at the text you quoted again:


When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry.

Since there is a disagreement against four rules scources, and a text and three tables, this isn't flying. So "ask your DM territory". But hell, I don't even want to go this line of argumentation. Cause I would advocate to stop being very literal about the text a few steps back, and conclude there 'the rules are messed up and unclear'. And al this about a prestige class, that's dragged in a comparison between wizards and beguilers....

[Gnorman]

No offense taken! This would be, in textual construction parlance, an "absurd result." And don't get me wrong, I certainly agree with you that "text trumps table" is a simplistic rule that doesn't cleanly navigate convoluted scenarios, and I definitely agree, on a personal level, that this was probably a mistake that the designers didn't intend to bring about.

But we have canons of construction for a reason, and if you want to maintain the strictest RAW reading possible, that's the result you get. Text always wins. The tables do not somehow become greater than the sum of their parts, and none of their parts trump the text. We don't have disagreement between "four rules sources" or "a text and three tables," we have three separate instances of disagreement between two sources, the text and "a table," and the text takes precedent in each. Otherwise you're left without a rule covering the situation at all, and textual construction generally tries to avoid this when possible. Because WotC wasn't kind enough to provide us with a rule that says "Primary sources take precedence over secondary ones, except when multiple secondary sources agree with each other but not the primary source," anything beyond "text trumps table" is, well, a house rule.

But you're right, this is very much an ancillary issue.

[Waazraath]

No offense taken! This would be, in textual construction parlance, an "absurd result." And don't get me wrong, I certainly agree with you that "text trumps table" is a simplistic rule that doesn't cleanly navigate convoluted scenarios, and I definitely agree, on a personal level, that this was probably a mistake that the designers didn't intend to bring about.

But we have canons of construction for a reason, and if you want to maintain the strictest RAW reading possible, that's the result you get. Text always wins. The tables do not somehow become greater than the sum of their parts, and none of their parts trump the text. We don't have disagreement between "four rules sources" or "a text and three tables," we have three separate instances of disagreement between two sources, the text and "a table," and the text takes precedent in each. Otherwise you're left without a rule covering the situation at all, and textual construction generally tries to avoid this when possible. Because WotC wasn't kind enough to provide us with a rule that says "Primary sources take precedence over secondary ones, except when multiple secondary sources agree with each other but not the primary source," anything beyond "text trumps table" is, well, a house rule.

But you're right, this is very much an ancillary issue.

I understand your reasoning, and it's solid. Personaly, I see it that, as you say, "we are left without a rule covering the situation", that's why I come to the conclusion "up to the DM", but I definitely see where you're coming from. Thnx for the exchange in views!

[redzimmer]

Would a binder/warlock or binder/marshal gestalt warrant a 2 or 3 tier?

[ComaVision]

Would a binder/warlock or binder/marshal gestalt warrant a 2 or 3 tier?

Binders are a T2 or T3 class by themselves anyway. The gestalt wouldn't change things.

[redzimmer]

Binders are a T2 or T3 class by themselves anyway. The gestalt wouldn't change things.

Oops. Meant to say Warlock/Marshal.

[Soranar]

After reviewing tier 3 classes for a while, I think I found a tier 2 (or maybe tier 1) combo

Beguiler//Duskblade

Both rely on INT, both can cast in armor and they have complementary spells

With x6 skillpoints, virtually every skill you need, decent BAB, decent hitpoints and decent spell access, you can emulate what a tier 1 character does with buffs with your class features and still pull of tier 1 spells with the beguiler chassis.

As for a Warlock//Marshal combo, I don't really see the appeal except a slightly higher UMD roll.

A Warlock//Dread necromancer would arguably be a better combination though I have a hard time deciding what tier that combo would attain. The warlock gives the dread necro a few useful abilities (a spammable attack form you can use from behind your undead horde) and at will abilities that effectively replace spells but you still lack the power of a tier 1 or 2 class

[OldTrees1]

After reviewing tier 3 classes for a while, I think I found a tier 2 (or maybe tier 1) combo

Beguiler//Duskblade

Both rely on INT, both can cast in armor and they have complementary spells

With x6 skillpoints, virtually every skill you need, decent BAB, decent hitpoints and decent spell access, you can emulate what a tier 1 character does with buffs with your class features and still pull of tier 1 spells with the beguiler chassis.

The parts of the buffs you are emulating(I don't see immunity to damage or any of the other Tier 1 buffs) are those that Tier 1 uses to preform as a strong Tier 3 with mere fractions of its resources. So this only points to Beguiler//Duskblade being at least Tier 3, rather than pointing to Tier 2 status.

The stronger piece of evidence is using Advanced Learning to acquire a very small number of game breaking/campaign smashing abilities(The Tier 2-Tier 3 divide). You get 5 Sor/Wiz spells from the Enchantment/Illusion schools (1 to 4 in the 5th-15th that the Tier list looks at). Some would quibble about how many you need to become Tier 2 and how many many more you would need to become Tier 1. I am not going to argue about that. I will just note that these are of the right kind to qualify.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Psychic warrior is possible to build as a T2 without too much difficulty, since it's possible to use Expanded Knowledge, paying for spellcasting services for psychic chirurgery, and mantles to access psion/wilder and discipline powers of 6th level and below, and since powers often augment up to 9th level equivalents regardless of your max power level, this gives the psychic warrior access to T2 9th level power equivalents. Gestalting one with a skillmonkey class also gives quite a lot of flexibility in skills, as well.

[Troacctid]

Psychic warrior is possible to build as a T2 without too much difficulty, since it's possible to use Expanded Knowledge, paying for spellcasting services for psychic chirurgery, and mantles to access psion/wilder and discipline powers of 6th level and below, and since powers often augment up to 9th level equivalents regardless of your max power level, this gives the psychic warrior access to T2 9th level power equivalents.
That's just the same functionality as a Wilder, which, IIRC, is T3.

[OldTrees1]

That's just the same functionality as a Wilder, which, IIRC, is T3.

or StP Psion(I did not mean Erudite, although a StP Erudite is involved) which is T1

[Waazraath]

That's just the same functionality as a Wilder, which, IIRC, is T3.

In the discussion of the tier thread the consensus seemed tier 2, but somehow it didn't end up in the main thread: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.msg163360#msg163360

By the system's standards, anything lower than tier 2 would be nonsense, imo. They have acceess to all the game breaking stuff that psion's have access to, can break the action economy in half, etc. But then again, by the system's standards, I think the psion is scaled in too low and is easily tier 1.

[Troacctid]

The wilder has access to 9th level powers, but when multiple classes with 9th level spells are listed in T3 and even T4, that's clearly not an automatic ticket to T2. If your standard for T3 is the beguiler, then wilder is T3.

[Waazraath]

The wilder has access to 9th level powers, but when multiple classes with 9th level spells are listed in T3 and even T4, that's clearly not an automatic ticket to T2. If your standard for T3 is the beguiler, then wilder is T3.

But access to 9th level powers never was the defining issue between tier 2 and 3. The healer has 9th level spells, and is considered tier 5. The defining difference between 2 and 3 is acces to game breaking abilities "nukes" or "campaign smashers". When you look at the wilder, they have access to the entire psionic 'destroy the action economy' toolkit, from sychronicity / linked power, temporal acceleration (time stop, only lower level), contignency, schism, fission, etc. etc. That alone is one of these 'campaign smashers, and they have access to these from the low levels onwards. And this is without bs unlimited power point loops, from which psionics also has several.

The beguiler is a good class, but the consensus between the people who made the tier list was that none of its abilities were truely game breaking.

[Efrate]

I no expert, but I thought the tier list was made to judge relative power of base classes. That was its purpose. Since its just base classes, why is there discussion of X prc X feat X item? The entire point is to say yes class X is better than Y in a vacuum, so you can look and say I want to have a game at tier 3 and have an idea of what things you can do around there. Depending on player, prc, etc. things can change, but isn't it entirely inherent in the concept that you don't take into account anything other than the base chassis?

There is no doubt a wizard is t1. They have everything they need and can only get better. Yes someone can do an all d6/level spell selection and be bad, but that is a player, not the class. Wizard has everything to be so much better.

I can see a case for beguiler to maybe be t2, time stop and such is quite good, but I think they fall into t3 quite easily. Yes options exist to push them further, but at is base they are fundamentally less powerful than a wizard. By themselves they cannot compete in t1.

Even tier 2 s sketchy as t2 is defined as Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 class but can't pull off nearly as many tricks. Beguiler doesn't have the same raw power of wizard. No where close. You could use dominate monster to get something to cast gate, which could gate in something that could cast wish, so by that line I can see an argument for t2 but it falls a bit flat, and doesn't feel right. YMMV.

As far as ghestalting anything into tier 1, I don't think that is easily doable, again using base chassis, but there are a significant amount of things to hit t2.

[Gnaeus]

There is no doubt a wizard is t1. They have everything they need and can only get better. Yes someone can do an all d6/level spell selection and be bad, but that is a player, not the class. Wizard has everything to be so much better.

I can see a case for beguiler to maybe be t2, time stop and such is quite good, but I think they fall into t3 quite easily. Yes options exist to push them further, but at is base they are fundamentally less powerful than a wizard. By themselves they cannot compete in t1.

Even tier 2 s sketchy as t2 is defined as Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 class but can't pull off nearly as many tricks. Beguiler doesn't have the same raw power of wizard. No where close. You could use dominate monster to get something to cast gate, which could gate in something that could cast wish, so by that line I can see an argument for t2 but it falls a bit flat, and doesn't feel right. YMMV.

As far as ghestalting anything into tier 1, I don't think that is easily doable, again using base chassis, but there are a significant amount of things to hit t2.

I've always thought of Beguiler as T2, which puts me in the minority, but I think is more defensible than T1. But there are a lot of issues.

1. We argue about the tiers like there is a strict definition, but there isn't. We know that Cleric Druid and Wizard are T1. But why? Is it broken power levels? Campaign nukes? Encounter trivializing abilities? Ability to redefine one's build every day? Ability to emulate non-native roles better than the classes that are designed to fill those roles? Ability to leverage downtime into power? the true T1s check all those boxes. But which ones are really important? There is less consensus on that than we would think.

To give one example, there was an old thread where we compared a super gestalt of all Tier 4-6 classes with a T1. Clearly, T4G checks a lot of those boxes, sometimes better than a T1. He can fight better than a fighter, skillmonkey better than a rogue, blast better than a warmage and heal better than a healer. He can trivialize many normal difficulty encounters. He can redesign significant parts of his abilities daily. But he doesn't have a lot of the most broken spells. No planar binding, delayed access to polymorph, etc. The predictable result was a 30 page argument. He is better than, equivalent to, or worse than a T1, depending on which part of the T1 definition you are using.

What does broken even mean? Is teleport a campaign nuke because you aren't going to have travel encounters anymore? Fly, because you can trivialize encounters with it? Is Planar Binding broken by itself, or does it require efreeti wish loops? Is Fabricate/Wall of Iron broken? Are teleport circles broken? And if the answer is yes, how does the campaign respond? I will agree that infinite money or wishes stomps the game. But is that a meaningful power measurement? The fighter player can pour coke over the DM's notes and kick him in the shin and walk out, and that will end the campaign as fast as a wish-loop. So if we assume that those powers, used abusively, will either be nerfed, or not used by agreement, or simply end the game, why do we use them as a milestone? Could there possibly be any less helpful measure of character power? The only reason that we would include that as part of the tier system is to throw a red flag at the DM that class X needs careful monitoring of what powers they use. The ability to nuke a city or wishloop in most campaigns, is less helpful than trapfinding, but we weigh the nuke heavily in tier calculations but trapfinding hardly at all. We don't even use the same standard across classes. RAW diplomancy is just as broken as RAW Planar Binding, for pretty much the same reasons. But we assume that no one uses RAW diplomancy because it is a stupid rule, but that RAW Planar Binding is a thing.

2. The tiers assume "equivalent optimization". Thats a hornets nest. I think Arcane Disciple is a no brainer on any Beguiler who isn't aiming at a PRC expanding his spells known. I think it is equivalent optimization to a sorcerer taking Polymorph and other top spells. But there isn't a rule, and no 2 of us will ever agree on the exact borders of what is mid-op, what is high-op, and what is TO.

3. The tiers assume a number of campaign assumptions, which are pretty good for ranking classes in isolation, but not necessarily reflective of play. The clearest example is UMD. I understand why we think of classes without gear. But pretty clearly, some classes benefit from normal or higher WBL and magicmart than others. So when Cosi mentions that some T1 powers get covered by a beguiler by wands, on one hand, than isn't reflected in the Tier system. But in most games, that is a component of the Beguiler (or Rogue, etc) that will disproportionally impact their versatility and power level in play.

[OldTrees1]

1. We argue about the tiers like there is a strict definition, but there isn't. We know that Cleric Druid and Wizard are T1. But why? Is it broken power levels? Campaign nukes? Encounter trivializing abilities? Ability to redefine one's build every day? Ability to emulate non-native roles better than the classes that are designed to fill those roles? Ability to leverage downtime into power? the true T1s check all those boxes. But which ones are really important? There is less consensus on that than we would think.

Don't you have that backwards? We have the definitions for the tiers from the original post and we quibble over if a case falls under one definition or the other.

However you are right that the definitions do not clearly form a partition(every theoretical/hypothetical case falling in exactly 1 bucket).
You are also right that the definitions we have run into all the same failings that language has (specifically when one uses a named concept like "campaign-breaking" instead of the full description of the concept, the understandings of that concept will vary).

[Gnaeus]

Don't you have that backwards? We have the definitions for the tiers from the original post and we quibble over if a case falls under one definition or the other.

However you are right that the definitions do not clearly form a partition(every theoretical/hypothetical case falling in exactly 1 bucket).
You are also right that the definitions we have run into all the same failings that language has (specifically when one uses a named concept like "campaign-breaking" instead of the full description of the concept, the understandings of that concept will vary).

We have descriptions. Why each class falls into each tier. But which part of the long T1 definition actually makes someone a T1? We clearly agree on which original classes are T1 (No one seriously disputes Wizard, cleric, druid, archivist, artificer, and I don't remember where concensus is on Psion but it seems likely). But which criteria makes them T1? Nukes? General power level? Ability to outdo other classes? Versatility in play in a dungeon type environment? Would the definition involve picking powers daily (because all those classes can do that)? If so, a hypothetical class with at will wish wouldn't qualify as T1. I have opinions on that, but we do not agree on it. We have an "I know it when I see it" kind of description, but not really a good definition.

[OldTrees1]

We have descriptions. Why each class falls into each tier. But which part of the long T1 definition actually makes someone a T1? We clearly agree on which original classes are T1 (No one seriously disputes Wizard, cleric, druid, archivist, artificer, and I don't remember where concensus is on Psion but it seems likely). But which criteria makes them T1? Nukes? General power level? Ability to outdo other classes? Versatility in play in a dungeon type environment? Would the definition involve picking powers daily (because all those classes can do that)? If so, a hypothetical class with at will wish wouldn't qualify as T1. I have opinions on that, but we do not agree on it. We have an "I know it when I see it" kind of description, but not really a good definition.


Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

This is the list of sufficient and necessary conditions, mixed with some descriptions for Tier 1 status.
"Capable of doing absolutely everything" (due to the lack of qualifiers, this is probably a necessary condition, although the amount of hyperbole is up to interpretation)
", often better than classes that specialize in that thing." ("often" means this is not a necessary condition)
"Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player." ("often" means this is not a necessary condition)
"Has world changing powers at high levels." (due to the lack of qualifiers, this is probably a necessary condition)
"These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party." (this has "can" as a qualifier and thus needs more careful dissection. My attempt to dissect it via coloring the clauses reveals it to be a necessary condition about ability of the class given specific context. Can is also being used to differentiate between having and using the ability, but mostly it is referencing and recognizing the fiat and houserule patches)

So the necessary conditions for Tier 1 are:
1) "Capable of doing absolutely everything" (degree of hyperbole unknown)
2) "Has world changing powers at high levels."
3) "can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge" barring "extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules"

So looking at your questions:
But which criteria makes them T1? Plural, see the 3 above.
Nukes? Nukes can be sufficient conditions to fulfill necessary conditions 2 and/or 3 depending on the nuke.
General power level? is not a sufficient condition for any of those 3 necessary conditions.
Ability to outdo other classes? is not one of those 3 necessary conditions.
Versatility in play in a dungeon type environment? is a necessary condition to fulfill the 1st necessary condition but does not fulfill it by itself.
Would the definition involve picking powers daily (because all those classes can do that)? It is not related to the definition at all.

[Gnaeus]

This is the list of sufficient and necessary conditions, mixed with some descriptions for Tier 1 status.
"Capable of doing absolutely everything" (due to the lack of qualifiers, this is probably a necessary condition, although the amount of hyperbole is up to interpretation)
", often better than classes that specialize in that thing." ("often" means this is not a necessary condition)
"Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player." ("often" means this is not a necessary condition)
"Has world changing powers at high levels." (due to the lack of qualifiers, this is probably a necessary condition)
"These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party." (this has "can" as a qualifier and thus needs more careful dissection. My attempt to dissect it via coloring the clauses reveals it to be a necessary condition about ability of the class given specific context. Can is also being used to differentiate between having and using the ability, but mostly it is referencing and recognizing the fiat and houserule patches)

So the necessary conditions for Tier 1 are:
1) "Capable of doing absolutely everything" (degree of hyperbole unknown)
2) "Has world changing powers at high levels."
3) "can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge" barring "extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules"

So looking at your questions:
But which criteria makes them T1? Plural, see the 3 above.
Nukes? Nukes can be sufficient conditions to fulfill necessary conditions 2 and/or 3 depending on the nuke.
General power level? is not a sufficient condition for any of those 3 necessary conditions.
Ability to outdo other classes? is not one of those 3 necessary conditions.
Versatility in play in a dungeon type environment? is a necessary condition to fulfill the 1st necessary condition but does not fulfill it by itself.
Would the definition involve picking powers daily (because all those classes can do that)? It is not related to the definition at all.

I think we still have some problems with that.
1. By that definition, an all T4 gestalt is clearly T1. It can do any role. It has game breaking powers at high level (like Gate, from healer), and it is incredibly difficult to challenge without DM fiat. T1, knocked out of the ballpark. Beguiler, under that definition, may well qualify, at least as well as some existing T1s, for most of level range. Beguiler 6 probably outperforms wizard 6 on those 3 criteria. It probably beats PF Druid (generally agreed to still be T1) based on those. Heck, PF Sorcerer pretty clearly beats PF druid if those 3 are the only factors. I think I can find more game breaking, role stealing powers in the top 6 sor/wiz spells per level than on the full (PF nerfed) druid list for most levels.
2. There is also the level range assumption. Namely, that 6-15 is weighted most heavily, followed by 1-5, followed by 16-20. Given that, why are we considering campaign breaking abilities acquired at 17+ as a significant factor?
3. "A: The Tier System is not specifically ranking Power or Versitility (though those are what ends up being the big factors). It's ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in any given situation" So even if that was strictly speaking JaronK's criteria, it doesn't even measure the thing it is trying to measure.
4.
Would the definition involve picking powers daily (because all those classes can do that)? It is not related to the definition at all. But it sort of obviously is. Because T2 says: Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility. So, if the T2 definition is "like T1, but less" then the T1 definition CAN'T be what you typed above, because EVERY T2 meets that definition. Spirit Shaman is often called T1, because of open selection off a t1 list, but between its low spells known and lack of supporting class features, isn't going to meet that definition as well as a sorcerer.

I'm not saying that the tier list is bad. I find it very helpful, and while I have a few opinions about classes that should be up/down 1 tier, that doesn't generally change the function of the list. But even if JaronK really believed the above quote (and my doubt is based on other statements in the tier thread and related arguments elsewhere) that doesn't make it a useful definition for OUR use in measuring what the tier system is designed to measure, namely, the power and versatility of classes.

In my arguments with JaronK about beguiler, questions that kept coming up were things like "how does the beguiler leverage downtime into long term power?" or "how does the beguiler acquire the informational advantage via divinations to let him tailor his strategies to the things that he is fighting". Regardless of the specific answers or their validity, those are the same kind of questions I still see in common tier discussions, and for good reason. They are a much better hallmark for the kinds of things we think of as T1 tricks than are campaign breakers. They help measure one's ability to get things done in any specific situation.

[OldTrees1]

I think we still have some problems with that.
1. By that definition, an all T4 gestalt is clearly T1. It can do any role. It has game breaking powers at high level (like Gate, from healer), and it is incredibly difficult to challenge without DM fiat. T1, knocked out of the ballpark. Beguiler, under that definition, may well qualify, at least as well as some existing T1s, for most of level range. Beguiler 6 probably outperforms wizard 6 on those 3 criteria. It probably beats PF Druid (generally agreed to still be T1) based on those. Heck, PF Sorcerer pretty clearly beats PF druid if those 3 are the only factors. I think I can find more game breaking, role stealing powers in the top 6 sor/wiz spells per level than on the full (PF nerfed) druid list for most levels.
2. There is also the level range assumption. Namely, that 6-15 is weighted most heavily, followed by 1-5, followed by 16-20. Given that, why are we considering campaign breaking abilities acquired at 17+ as a significant factor?
3. "A: The Tier System is not specifically ranking Power or Versitility (though those are what ends up being the big factors). It's ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in any given situation" So even if that was strictly speaking JaronK's criteria, it doesn't even measure the thing it is trying to measure.
1a) Does it have game breaking powers or only game breaking powers at high levels? (the later would be like Truenamer in that their late game is a different tier than their early and mid game).
1b) If the T4G fulfills the necessary conditions for Tier 1 (not saying it does since you mentioned exactly 1 late game ability), why would that be a problem?

2) IIRC 6-15 was the range the author considered when setting the definitions. This is why I, personally, focus less on Gate and more on Planar Binding. Given that, criteria #2 is probably looking at 13-15 not 17+n when it talks about high level.

3a) JaronK did word that vary poorly. Read it again with "Power xor Versitility" instead of "Power and/or Versatility". His examples seem to support the idea that it is measuring the classes power & versatility as it translates into being able to achieve what one wants in any given situation. Aka rank classes by their ability to do anything you might want in any situation you encounter (which is a function of both Power and Versatility). Personally I find the 3 criteria I listed to be a bit redundant towards that end but no 2 of them is sufficient on their own.


4. But it sort of obviously is. Because T2 says: Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility. So, if the T2 definition is "like T1, but less" then the T1 definition CAN'T be what you typed above, because EVERY T2 meets that definition.
Counterexamples:
1) A class with 10,000 Tier 1 abilities that they can use at will (not daily, but is Tier 1)
2) A class that selects 1 out of 10,000 Tier 5 abilities that they can use for the day (is daily, but is not Tier 1)
So no, daily selection is unrelated to Tier 1 status.


I'm not saying that the tier list is bad. I find it very helpful, and while I have a few opinions about classes that should be up/down 1 tier, that doesn't generally change the function of the list. But even if JaronK really believed the above quote (and my doubt is based on other statements in the tier thread and related arguments elsewhere) that doesn't make it a useful definition for OUR use in measuring what the tier system is designed to measure, namely, the power and versatility of classes.

In my arguments with JaronK about beguiler, questions that kept coming up were things like "how does the beguiler leverage downtime into long term power?" or "how does the beguiler acquire the informational advantage via divinations to let him tailor his strategies to the things that he is fighting". Regardless of the specific answers or their validity, those are the same kind of questions I still see in common tier discussions, and for good reason. They are a much better hallmark for the kinds of things we think of as T1 tricks than are campaign breakers. They help measure one's ability to get things done in any specific situation.
I never said the tier list was good so I think we are even on that point.

I do think JaronK's listed Tier definitions (not necessarily the same as his opinions) do strongly correlate with what they are trying to measure(The integral of outcomes you can cause across the situations one can encounter axis or Integral of O(s)ds if you prefer), however ignore that for a moment. The Tier system has gained a life of its own and I doubt you have the power to replace the established definitions with new definitions even if those new definitions have stronger correlations to the integral.

As evidence of this, I have not heard any ripples of "leverage downtime" in these discussions and "information advantage" has only appeared as a sufficient condition for a quantum utility belt to be accepted for criteria 1 rather than as a necessary condition in its own right. So it seems like your arguments with JaronK about beguiler have had negligible impact on the overall dialogue despite JaronK trying to add 2 conditions to block beguiler(If I read your account right).

[Cosi]

1. We argue about the tiers like there is a strict definition, but there isn't. We know that Cleric Druid and Wizard are T1.

But, do we? One of the more common arguments for putting the Beguiler in Tier Three is that it's worse than the Sorcerer. If we accept that you can be in the same tier as a better class (particularly if we ignore feats and PrCs), I think you have to boot Wizard and Cleric from Tier One. The Archivist can learn all the spells they learn, with comparable casting.


Is it broken power levels?

Remember, unless you define what you consider to be an appropriate power level, you can't really say anything is "broken". You certainly could argue that the intended power level of the game was "infinite ice assassins with infinite divine ranks" and anything below that was underpowered, but you could equally argue that the intended power level of the game was "singled classed core-only Fighters" and anything above that was overpowered. I consider both of those claims laughable, but until you nail something down, the word "broken" has no meaning.


I will agree that infinite money or wishes stomps the game.

Quibble: Infinite money doesn't break the game, game-breaking (even relatively, such as scrolls of 9th level spells at 2nd level) buyable items do. And if those items are buyable, you could presumably also obtain them by means of larceny or murder, and I don't think people are willing to describe those abilities as "game-breaking"


Could there possibly be any less helpful measure of character power?

Vowels in class name. BAB. Largest number of words with prime digital roots in class description. Hit die.


The only reason that we would include that as part of the tier system is to throw a red flag at the DM that class X needs careful monitoring of what powers they use.

As I've said, if that's your goal, the Tier System is one of the worst ways to achieve it. The fact that the Wizard is "Tier One" and the Rogue is "Tier Four" tells you nothing about what possible abuses to watch out for, because it does not describe those abuses. If you wanted to rank that, your tiers should contain things like "planar binding" or "teleport", not "Bard" or "Cleric".


Don't you have that backwards? We have the definitions for the tiers from the original post and we quibble over if a case falls under one definition or the other.

This sentiment is, in my mind, exactly what is wrong with discourse about the tiers. Saying we "have" the tier definitions, and need only apply them, misses a great deal of the point. It is certainly true that we need to argue about what classes belong in what tiers (although it is worth pointing out that, to my knowledge, no classes have shifted tier since JaronK's initial proposal), we also need to argue about those definitions. The hypothesis JaronK presented is not just "you could assign these classes to these tiers", but "you could have these tiers with these definitions".


We have an "I know it when I see it" kind of description, but not really a good definition.

I would argue that such a definition is not, in any meaningful sense, a definition at all. If two people can't expect to look at the same class and assign it to the same tier, the definitions of the tiers aren't doing anything.

[Florian]

@Cosi:

Don´t you mix up "base" with "possibility" a lot?

[Gnaeus]

1a) Does it have game breaking powers or only game breaking powers at high levels? (the later would be like Truenamer in that their late game is a different tier than their early and mid game).

Answering that would require a definition of "Game breaking powers". But it had this at 10

Level 10 T4G AL: LG* Worships: Sovereign host(Tier 4: Adept (Artifice Domain), Barbarian (Spirit Lion, Whirling Frenzy, Trapkiller), Hexblade (Dark Companion), Marshal, Ranger (arcane hunter, Feign Death), Rogue (Spell Reflection, Mimic, Disruptive Attack), Scout, Spellthief, Warlock, Warmage
Tier 5: Expert, Fighter (Zhentarim Soldier), Healer, Knight, Monk (Invisible Fist), Ninja (both), Paladin (Underdark Knight, curse breaker), Soulknife, Swashbuckler
Tier 6: Samurai,
Other: Divine Mind (Knowledge Mantle), Dragon Shaman (Copper) (Shamanic Invocation), Lurk, Psychic Rogue, Soulborn, Truenamer
Str 8, Dex 13+1=14, Con 10, Int 14, Wis 14(16), Cha 14+1=15 (17)
Base speed 70
Initiative +19 (+2 Dex, +1 scout, +4 Improved Initiative, +3 Marsha Aura+2 Intelligence (Lurk), +2 intelligence (R ninja) +5 Primal Instinct
AC 31 (Dex +2, Wis +3, Ninja +1, Divine Mind Aura +3, Swashbuckler Dodge Bonus +2, Dodge +1, Natural Armor +1, Greater Luminous Armor +8)
Fort Save +7 (Base) +0 (Con) +3 (Grace) +2 Great Fortitude+1 (Scout)=+13 (16v. spells/spell likes)
Reflex Save +7 (Base) +2 (Dex) +3 (Divine Grace) (+1 Swashbuckler Grace) +2 Lightning Reflexes=+16 (19 v. spells/spell likes)
Will Save +7 (Base) +3 (Wis) +3 (Grace) +2 (while he has Ki)= +15 (18 v. spells/spell likes, + still mind)
Power Points: 24 (Divine Mind) 37 (Lurk) 30 psychic rogue
Ki points: 7 (Ghost Step, ethereal) Turn Attempts: 5 Knights Challenge 0/day (because he grossly violates code every combat), Hexblade curse 5/day, Spike Stones 1/day (Paladin)
Detect Magic, Detect Evil, Blindsense 30, See Invisible, Darkvision At will Low Light Vision when underground, Arcane Sight 3/day
5d6 Eldrich Blast, 5d6 acid breath 30’line, Spider Climb, Flight 70 (good), Swim speed 70, Water Breathing at will
Lay on Hands (Paladin) 30 points (Dragon Shaman) 60 points (Monk) 20 points Fiendish Resilience (Fast healing 1 for 2 minutes) 1/day as a free action
Sudden Strike +5d6, Sneak Attack +5d6 Skirmish +3d6, +2AC,
Favored Enemy: Constructs +2, Undead +4, Arcanists +6, Smite Evil 2/day +3 to hit/+10 damage, Smite Opposition 3/day, +3 hit +10 damage, Kiai Smite 3/day +3 hit +3 damage, Insightful Strike (+2 damage on finessable weapons)
Mind Blade (Keen Short Sword): To hit +15/+10 or +13/+13/+8/+8 (17-20x2) (Improved TWF)(+10 BAB, +2 Dex, +2 greater Weapon Focus, +1 enhancement) Damage 1d6+5(-1 str, +2 insightful strike, +1 enhancement, +3 Psychic Aura) (+2d8 Psychic strike)
Unarmed Strike: +8/+8/+8/+3/+3 (ITWF, Flurry)(+10 BAB, +2 Dex) Damage 1d10+4 (-1 str, +3 Psychic Aura, +2 Int) Magic, Lawful
Eldrich Glaive: Touch attack: To Hit +13/8 (+10 BAB, +2 Dex, +1 Weapon Focus) Damage 5d6+5 (+3 aura, +2 Weapon specialization)

HP 70 (12+6.5*9),
DR 2/Cold Iron, DR 2/-,Acid Immunity, Sonic Resist 5, Fire Resist 5
Skills:
Diplomacy 13 ranks +3 (Skill Focus) +3 (Cha) +6 Beguiling Influence+3 Aura +2 Bluff +2 sense motive+2 Nymphs Kiss= +34+ skill mastery
Intimidate 13 ranks +3 (Cha)+6 Beguiling Influence +3 Aura, +3 Skill Focus Intimidate, +4 Staredown +2 bluff+2 Nymph's Kiss= 36 + Skill Mastery+ Never Outnumbered Skill Trick
Hide 13 Ranks +1 (Dex)+3 Skill Focus+3 aura=20+ skill mastery
Move S 13 ranks +1 (Dex)+3aura = 17 + Skill mastery
Search 11 ranks +2 (Int) +3 aura =+16
Bluff 5 rank +3 Cha +6 Beguiling Influence +3 aura +3 Skill Focus+2 Nymph's Kiss=+22
UMD 10 ranks +2 (Cha) +2 aura(Can Take 10 from Warlock) +2 Nymph's Kiss=+16
Spot 13 Ranks +2 (Wis) =15
Listen 13 Ranks +2 (Wis) =15
Concentration 13 ranks + 0 (Con) =13+ Skill Mastery
Know (Religion) 5 ranks +2 (Int) +3aura +3 (Knowledge focus (Truenamer)) =13
Sense Motive 5 ranks +2 (Wis)=7
Heal 1 rank +2 (Wis) +3 (Skill Focus)=6
Jump 1 rank +2 (Dex) +4 Ninja+2aura+2 Paladin=11
Spellcraft 4 +2 (Int) +3 (Aura) =9
Ride 4 +1 (Dex) +2 (Aura) =7
Knowledge Skills (untrained)=2 (Int) +1 (Divine Mind Aura)+3 marshal aura=+6
Truespeaking 13+2(int) +3 (aura)=+18
Class Abilities : Trapfinding (CA Ninja), Divine Grace (Divine Mind), Cleanse Fear (Healer), Cleanse Paralysis (Healer), Cleanse Disease (Healer), Cleanse Poison (Healer), Cleanse Spirit (Healer), Cleanse Blindness (Healer), Effortless Healing (Healer), Aura of Courage (Paladin), Divine Health (Paladin), Detect Evil (Paladin), Bulwark of Defense (Knight), Vigilant Defender (Knight), Free Draw of Mind Blade, Steal Spell Effect, Steal Energy Resistance, Steal Spell-like Ability, Steal Spell (5th), Dark Companion, Mettle, Evasion (Scout, lurk), Trapfinding (spellthief, scout, monk), Mimic (Rogue), Poison Use (Ninja), Fast Movement (Scout, Monk), Trackless Step (Scout), Uncanny Dodge (Scout), Improved Uncanny Dodge (Barbarian), Trapsense (Rogue), Trapkiller (Barbarian), Pounce (Barbarian), Whirling Frenzy 3/day(Barbarian), Grant move action 1/day (Marshal), Lurk Augments 12/day ( 2 at once:additional sneak attack, ignore concealment, sneak attack undead, Deceptive Strike), Shape Soulmelds, Acrobatic Charge (Swashbuckler), Improved Flanking (Swashbuckler), Mass Staredown (Samurai), Camoflage (Scout), Improved Poison Use (Ninja), Slow Fall 50 (monk), Improved Evasion (Monk), Bladewind (Soulknife), Absorb Spell (Spellthief), Skill Mastery (Intimidation, Diplomacy, Hide, Move Silently, Concentration), Swift Tracker, Woodland Stride (Ranger, Scout), Remove Curse (paladin 2/week), Extended Intimidation (Zhentarim), Swift Demoralization (Zhentarim)

Marshal Auras: Motivate Dexterity, Intelligence, Charisma,
Major Marshal Auras: Motivate Ardor (+1 damage), Resilient Troops (+1 Saves)
Draconic Auras (+3 Bonus): Vigor, Energy Shield, Presence, Senses, Power, Resistance
Divine Mind Psychic Auras (Always up): Defense (+3 AC), Power (+3 damage), +2 Knowledge)
Powers: Divine Mind: L1: Call To Mind (Spend 1 minute to reroll a failed Knowledge check at +4), Detect Teleportation
L2 Psionic Identify, Object Reading
Lurk: L1 Deaden Blow, Skate, Dimensional Pocket.
L2, Psionic Tongues, Animal Affinity, Energy Adaptation
L3 Greater Concealing Amorphia, Psionic Speak With Dead, Ubiquitous Vision
L4 Psionic Dimension Door.
Psychic Rogue:L1 Detect Secret Doors, Empathy, Vigor
L2 Psychic Knock, Read Thoughts, control sound
L3 Hustle, Dimension Slide
Spells: Healer: L1: Speak With Animals, Sanctuary x2, Protection From Evil x2, Twilight Luck, Divine Inspiration
L2 Calm Emotions, Cure Mod Wounds (2d8+13)x2, Lesser Restoration x2, Ayailla's Radiant Burst
L3: Close Wounds, Path of the Exalted, Telepathy Tap, Celestial Aspect, Status
L4: Death Ward, Freedom of Movement x2, Greater Luminous Armor
L5: Break Enchantment, True Seeing, Inquisition, Sicken Evil
Ranger:L1 Snipers Shot, Primal Hunter
L2: Primal Instinct, Burrow
Paladin: L1 Golden Barding, Rhino’s Charge
L2: Zone of Truth, Bulls Strength
Spellthief spells L1 (2/day): Enlarge Person, Golemstrike, True Strike, Shield
L2 (2/day): Blur, Alter Self, Rope Trick
Hexblade spells L1(2/day): Protection from Chaos, Distract Assailant, Alarm, Augment Familiar
L2 (2/day): Glitterdust, Suggestion, Touch of Idiocy
Adept Spells: L1: Bless x2, Obscuring Mist x2,
L2: Mirror Image, Web, Wood Shape
L3, Animate Dead, Stone Shape
Invocations: Eldrich Glaive, See The Unseen, Swimming the Styx, Beguiling Influence (from Dragon Shaman), Relentless Dispelling, Fell Flight, Walk Unseen
Magewright Spells: L1 Grease x2, Unseen Servantx2
L2 Arcane Lock x2, Locate Object
L3 Clairaudience/Clairvoyance
Warmage Advanced Learning: Persistent Blade, Sonorous Hum
1st-Level Warmage Spells 7/dayAccuracy, Burning Hands, Chill Touch, Fist of Stone, Hail of Stone, Magic Missile, Orb of Acid, Lesser, Orb of Cold, Lesser, Orb of Electricity, Lesser, Orb of Fire, Lesser, Orb of Sound, Lesser, Shocking Grasp, True Strike, Persistent Blade

2nd-Level Warmage Spells 7/dayBlades of Fire, Continual Flame, Fire Trap, Fireburst, Flaming Sphere, Ice Knife, Melf's Acid Arrow, Pyrotechnics, Scorching Ray, Shatter, Whirling Blade,

3rd-Level Warmage Spells 7/day: Fire Shield, Fireball, Flame Arrow, Gust of Wind, Ice Storm, Lightning Bolt, Poison, Ring of Blades, Sleet Storm, Stinking Cloud, Sonorous Hum

4th-Level Warmage Spells 5/day:Blast of Flame, Contagion, Evard's Black Tentacles, Orb of Acid, Orb of Cold, Orb of Electricity, Orb of Fire, Orb of Force, Orb of Sound, Phantasmal Killer, Shout, Wall of Fire

5th-Level Warmage Spells 3/day:Arc of Lightning, Cloudkill, Cone of Cold, Fire Shield, Mass, Fireburst, Greater, Flame Strike, Prismatic Ray


Feats:
L1 Fighter bonus Feat: Weapon Focus (Touch attacks). Weapon focus (soulknife), Imp unarmed Strike, Imp Grapple (Monk), EWP Bastard Sword (samurai), Skill Focus (Diplomacy) (Marshal), Track (Ranger), Human feat: Nymph's Kiss Level 1 Feat: Darkstalker, Weapon Finesse (Swashbuckler)
L2 Skill Focus (Hide)(Dragon Shaman), Combat Reflexes (Monk), Fighter Bonus: Weapon Focus Ranged Touch, Ranger Combat Style Feat: Two Weapon Fighting, Skill Focus (Heal) (Healer), Mounted Combat (Knight)
L3 Incarnum Feat (Soulborn), Endurance (Ranger), Level 3 feat: ???, Skill Focus Intimidate (Zhentarim Fighter)
L4 Fighter Bonus Feat Weapon Specialization Touch, Scout Bonus Feat:Dodge
L5 Spell Penetration (Hexblade), Great Fortitude (Knight)
L6 Speed of Thought (soulknife), Imp Trip (Monk), Fighter Bonus Feat Martial Study Shadow Jaunt, Ranger Combat Style ITWF, Level 6 Feat: Celestial Familiar
L7 Sudden Empower (Warmage), Incarnum Feat
L8 Skill Focus Bluff(Dragon Shaman), Fighter Bonus Feat Martial Stance Island of Blades, Improved Initiative (Samurai), Scout Bonus Feat Lightning Reflexes
L9 GWF Mind Blade (Soul Knife), Level 9 feat: Imperious command
L10 Sudden Enlarge (Warmage), Fighter Bonus Feat Improved Critical Ranged Touch, Greater Spell Penetration (Hexblade), Diehard (Knight), Blind Fight (R Ninja)

Ranger Pet: Wolf
Healer Pet Unicorn
Adept Familiar: Musteval Guardinal (at level 11 he will retrain Celestial Familiar to Draconic Familiar)
Periapt of Wis +2. Bracers of Entangling Blast x2 Headband of Cha +2.

IIRC, at level 12 it picked up the warlock trick of crafting and UMDing anything, and at 13 it gets Psychic Reformation on its Lurk list via a rogue bonus feat, so I'm gonna say yes.


1b) If the T4G fulfills the necessary conditions for Tier 1 (not saying it does since you mentioned exactly 1 late game ability), why would that be a problem?

It isn't, except to say that we do not have consensus about exactly what makes a T1. It was heavily disputed, but clear by your definition. Here's where we argued it http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?321668-Which-is-better-a-T1-or-a-gestalt-of-all-T4-and-below-classes&highlight=gestalt+t4g


2) IIRC 6-15 was the range the author considered when setting the definitions. This is why I, personally, focus less on Gate and more on Planar Binding. Given that, criteria #2 is probably looking at 13-15 not 17+n when it talks about high level.

Planar binding is good, yes. But clerics and druids can't duplicate it until much higher level, so it is probably not the hallmark of T1ness, and it is hardly the only broken minionmancy trick (in the above mentioned thread, I got so tired of people talking about planar binding that I eventually said that every time someone used planar binding to solve a problem I was going to walk up to a wizard tower and make a wizard my fanatical servant with diplomancy). It's really difficult to weigh in terms of power level. RAW I doubt we can even agree with what exactly it does (Can it generate wishloops? Does it even work without the knowledge planes to know what you are summoning? Are there IC repercussions? I promise if we took a poll we would be all over the map.)


Counterexamples:
1) A class with 10,000 Tier 1 abilities that they can use at will (not daily, but is Tier 1)
2) A class that selects 1 out of 10,000 Tier 5 abilities that they can use for the day (is daily, but is not Tier 1)
So no, daily selection is unrelated to Tier 1 status.

Maybe, but there is clearly more to the definition than you listed, because that definition would include classes that are tier 2, and some tier 2s by that definition perform better than some things that are argued as T1 (PF Druid, Spirit Shaman).


As evidence of this, I have not heard any ripples of "leverage downtime" in these discussions and "information advantage" has only appeared as a sufficient condition for a quantum utility belt to be accepted for criteria 1 rather than as a necessary condition in its own right. So it seems like your arguments with JaronK about beguiler have had negligible impact on the overall dialogue despite JaronK trying to add 2 conditions to block beguiler(If I read your account right).

We are our own people, and we can discuss class versatility for ourselves. If we use bad conditions to demonstrate class power (and rating by game brokenness is a bad definition, because we cant even agree what it means and because it doesn't help us measure what we are trying to measure) our results will be less than meaningful. You can take the parts of the definition where JaronK says things like "often" out of the definition, but in fact, we do use those things as benchmarks to determine where classes lie. We also use things like same game challenges, which isn't up there anywhere.

[Cosi]

@Cosi:

Don´t you mix up "base" with "possibility" a lot?

You should probably use more, or at least different, words because I have no idea what you think you're saying.


IIRC, at level 12 it picked up the warlock trick of crafting and UMDing anything, and at 13 it gets Psychic Reformation on its Lurk list via a rogue bonus feat, so I'm gonna say yes.

T4 Gestalt versus T1 isn't even a contest. You have Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (Religion) from <long list of classes>, and you get a Rogue bonus feat at 10th level that can be anything you want, including Epic Spellcasting. You can Solar Cascade, and the Wizard doesn't even have planar binding.

The Rogue bonus feat makes no judgments about whether prerequisites are need for bonus feats (compare Fighter, Monk). Thus, it defaults to the base case, which is described in MM as not needing prerequisites. There's possible ambiguity about PC and monster bonus feats, but the Half-Fiend Cleric's Weapon Focus (War domain bonus feat) is listed with the same superscript as monsters bonus feats.


(and rating by game brokenness is a bad definition, because we cant even agree what it means and because it doesn't help us measure what we are trying to measure)

Also, because there's no given standard for "breaking the game". If JaronK had said that the idea class was the Beguiler, or Sorcerer, or Fighter, or Factotum, or Monk, we could at least theoretically discus what abilities qualify as "broken".

[Gnaeus]

T4 Gestalt versus T1 isn't even a contest.

I would agree, and yet, you can read the 19 page argument about it. With highlights from many of our most prominent posters, on both sides.


you get a Rogue bonus feat at 10th level that can be anything you want, including Epic Spellcasting.

I would just put this under the heading "Equivalent optimization is a pain". Certainly, that is an interpretation I did not attempt when I wrote that beast. But I was trying to make it mid-op as much as possible. I'm not saying that you are wrong by RAW. I think you are right. But its just one more place where lots of people can break the game, so counting up the infinite loops and painful interpretations helps no one.

[OldTrees1]

Answering that would require a definition of "Game breaking powers". But it had this at 10

IIRC, at level 12 it picked up the warlock trick of crafting and UMDing anything, and at 13 it gets Psychic Reformation on its Lurk list via a rogue bonus feat, so I'm gonna say yes.
WOW! I did not expect you to do so much work. Briefly looking over it I can see lots of room for argument about whether it does or does not have "can easily break a campaign" through varying views of particular candidate abilities. I think I will leave the argument to that other thread, but it does look like an argument with merit.



It isn't, except to say that we do not have consensus about exactly what makes a T1. It was heavily disputed, but clear by your definition. Here's where we argued it http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?321668-Which-is-better-a-T1-or-a-gestalt-of-all-T4-and-below-classes&highlight=gestalt+t4g
It is rather hard to tell if the lack of consensus is with regard to placement of a specific example, with regard to the rules for placement, or with regard to vague terms like "Game breaking powers".

The lack of consensus I have seen is with regard to cases > terms >> rules. Your observations may differ, but we do agree that there is lots of cases where there is little consensus.



Planar binding is good, yes. But clerics and druids can't duplicate it until much higher level, so it is probably not the hallmark of T1ness, and it is hardly the only broken minionmancy trick (in the above mentioned thread, I got so tired of people talking about planar binding that I eventually said that every time someone used planar binding to solve a problem I was going to walk up to a wizard tower and make a wizard my fanatical servant with diplomancy). It's really difficult to weigh in terms of power level. RAW I doubt we can even agree with what exactly it does (Can it generate wishloops? Does it even work without the knowledge planes to know what you are summoning? Are there IC repercussions? I promise if we took a poll we would be all over the map.)
I apologize, I was stressing a focus on within the 6-15 range. I meant to list 1 example of a campaign-breaking ability that was within the relevant range. An example is not the same as a necessary condition, Druids do not need to have Planar Binding(+1 fanatical wizard) merely because Planar Binding(+1 fanatical wizard) was used as an example for Wizard.



Maybe, but there is clearly more to the definition than you listed, because that definition would include classes that are tier 2, and some tier 2s by that definition perform better than some things that are argued as T1 (PF Druid, Spirit Shaman).

Yes, that is true and is listed in the Tier 2 definition: "while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes"
While this part of the Tier 2 definition does distinguish the two, it is extremely vague at the cutoff point. I would not be surprised if there are some classes that are misplaced due to this vagueness alone.



We are our own people, and we can discuss class versatility for ourselves. If we use bad conditions to demonstrate class power (and rating by game brokenness is a bad definition, because we cant even agree what it means and because it doesn't help us measure what we are trying to measure) our results will be less than meaningful. You can take the parts of the definition where JaronK says things like "often" out of the definition, but in fact, we do use those things as benchmarks to determine where classes lie. We also use things like same game challenges, which isn't up there anywhere.
Thanks for reminding me about the same game challenges. As the challenges in a same game challenge approaches infinity(or at least approaches covering all kinds of desired outcomes for all kinds of situations) it becomes a much better metric (because it is directly measuring that integral I mentioned).

[Gnaeus]

WOW! I did not expect you to do so much work. Briefly looking over it I can see lots of room for argument about whether it does or does not have "can easily break a campaign" through varying views of particular candidate abilities. I think I will leave the argument to that other thread, but it does look like an argument with merit..

Thank you! It was a huge headache to do. I wouldn't do it again, although part of my brain wants to update the PF version to add all the T4 psychic and hybrid classes. The PF version was much easier, because PFsrd.

[Troacctid]

When you look at the wilder, they have access to the entire psionic 'destroy the action economy' toolkit, from sychronicity / linked power, temporal acceleration (time stop, only lower level), contignency, schism, fission, etc. etc. That alone is one of these 'campaign smashers, and they have access to these from the low levels onwards. And this is without bs unlimited power point loops, from which psionics also has several.

From a practical perspective, wilders don't realistically have access to those things. Their powers known are so tightly constrained that they simply can't afford to take most of the good powers. Okay, say you take a bunch of powers that break the action economy—fine, but if the best thing you can do with those actions is conjure up Astral Constructs and fire off souped-up Energy Rays, it's not that impressive. Plus, breaking the action economy is well within the realm of T3, which, let's not forget, is the home of Cunning Action and White Raven Tactics, some of the best action economy breakers around.

Sure, eventually you get Reality Revision and you can do whatever you want, but that comes around the same level that healers get Gate. Meanwhile, in all the levels leading up to that, you're a one- or two-trick pony whose tricks aren't really any stronger than those of a beguiler or dread necromancer. Think about it—what powers are you even taking that are better than Animate Dead and Dominate Person?

[AnimeTheCat]

SNIP
Lots of people talking about what exactly makes at T1 a T1.
SNIP

I know I'm new here, but I'm not really new to D&D. One thing that shines out for all the T1s that I've seen discussed and even in the definition talks about variety. Now I know that lots of classes have lots of variety, but I'm talking about variety in a single build. One single build of wizard, cleric, or druid has an incredible world of variety without losing much (if any) power. I think that's what justifies if something is T1 or not. A sorcerer can certainly be just as blasty (possibly more in very specific builds/situations/scenarios) as a wizard, HOWEVER, it requires very specific planning and thought for that specific situation to occur. On top of that, you're locked in. That's what you do. You blast. A wizard can be Optimized to do blasting, but it still has the unique ability to do so much more, given prep time. That's the big difference between T1/T2 I think. The ability to be GREAT at something and still do more.

After reading that, it sounds exactly like what the descriptions say (ok... not Exactly). In the sense that others earlier were talking about being able to select your spells making you T1, I see what you mean. Its the versatility and variety that makes them T1. It is also what separates other similar classes in other tiers (like rogue/ninja, SA vs SS).

I think if we take a look at that more generalized approach we can see where classes lie. We all want our favorite class to be considered T1, but maybe it's just not. That's my 2 cents, you may now proceed to rip me in to pieces.

[Gnaeus]

I think if we take a look at that more generalized approach we can see where classes lie. We all want our favorite class to be considered T1, but maybe it's just not. That's my 2 cents, you may now proceed to rip me in to pieces.

Thats kind of the "I know it if I see it" concept. And the examples you cite are, in fact, pretty clear. But not every example is that clear. The PF druid, for example, no longer has a pet as good as a fighter, and no longer can excel at combat without making choices just as permanent as that sorcerer. So, going back to the OP, can we find a combination of 2 tier 3s that have more power + versatility than the Pathfinder Druid, or the Spirit Shaman, which are close to the bottom of the tier? How many levels will those classes surpass a real T3 combo powerhouse, like Beguiler//warblade, or even just something like Investigator//hunter, in categories including "Doing anything", and "can be very hard to challenge without DM fiat"

[dextercorvia]

It is a specific build, but I would think something like:

Junior Idiot Crusader/Factotum17//Beguiler20 gets infinite actions per round, up to 6th level SLAs which means access to Planar Binding, which can be dominated thanks to Beguiler. Basically Factotum gives you (limited) versatility that Beguiler lacks, and Swordsage/Warblade/Crusader (taken at the right levels) give you White Raven Tactics.

[Florian]

You should probably use more, or at least different, words because I have no idea what you think you're saying.

When the topic of Tiers come up, you tend to mostly argue that PrC with a high transformative power to the base class should be taken into account as automatic for the base class, ex: the difference between and Beguiler with and without Rainbow Servant.

The original statement was that PrC were not taken into account because their transformative nature, thereby giving a distorted picture of what the base class alone is capable of. For example, anything you slap Ur-Priest immediately makes a jump in tier because it is now a 9th level full caster, no matter what the base class actually was.

So, I think the original statement is true and PrC should be either left out entirely or a vastly transformed class should gain its own entry into the tiers independent of the naked base class.


Also, because there's no given standard for "breaking the game". If JaronK had said that the idea class was the Beguiler, or Sorcerer, or Fighter, or Factotum, or Monk, we could at least theoretically discus what abilities qualify as "broken".

I´d say that there are two qualifiers for an ability to be considered broken:
- It can not be resolved mechanically but needs interpretation to complete.
- It lets the user take over creative control of the setting and events, displacing the gm.

[Troacctid]

I'd say that there are two qualifiers for an ability to be considered broken:
- It can not be resolved mechanically but needs interpretation to complete.
- It lets the user take over creative control of the setting and events, displacing the gm.
The first one is violated by children, which, barring rare exceptions like wyrmling dragons, cannot be statted out at all under the rules. Carrots, celery, and cabbage are also violations, as the rules contain no provisions by which you could determine their hardness and HP.

The second one is violated by spells as simple as ghost sound, which I think most people would agree is useful, but certainly not overpowered.

I don't think either of your metrics represent what most people think of as "broken" in this context.

[Florian]

The first one is violated by children, which, barring rare exceptions like wyrmling dragons, cannot be statted out at all under the rules. Carrots, celery, and cabbage are also violations, as the rules contain no provisions by which you could determine their hardness and HP.

The second one is violated by spells as simple as ghost sound, which I think most people would agree is useful, but certainly not overpowered.

I don't think either of your metrics represent what most people think of as "broken" in this context.

Something not being covered by the existing rules is different from something being an actual rules element that contains no rules and needs interpretation.

Equating broken only with powerful is understandable, but not very helpful. The condition that leads to something being powerful hinges on abusing the brokenness of the rules element.

Ghost Sound is a good example because it solely deals with creative input and creative reception and can potentially perform better than similar spell of equal level because no mechanics are involved that govern where the creative ceiling on using the spell is.

A lot of the spells that deal with creative input instead of pure mechanics tend to be the ones that see the most discussion and abuse.

Planar Binding might be the key example for both statements. They spell itself is a regular rules element and the formula is uses is one, too: "Call (X) to do (Y)". X and Y are not defined by the spell or further regulated by any containing rules elements, tho, that´s why you can´t "crunch the numbers on it".
The difference between "Call (Succubus) to do (Tie my shoe laces)" and "Call (Efreeti) to do (Wish for a Ring of Three Wishes") is vast.

[Cosi]

Sure, eventually you get Reality Revision and you can do whatever you want, but that comes around the same level that healers get Gate. Meanwhile, in all the levels leading up to that, you're a one- or two-trick pony whose tricks aren't really any stronger than those of a beguiler or dread necromancer. Think about it—what powers are you even taking that are better than Animate Dead and Dominate Person?

I think picking the two most disputed classes in Tier Three as the standard for that tier's power level is probably not the argument you want to be making. Also, class comparisons don't actually matter because the tiers are supposed to measure against standards rather than other classes.


When the topic of Tiers come up, you tend to mostly argue that PrC with a high transformative power to the base class should be taken into account as automatic for the base class, ex: the difference between and Beguiler with and without Rainbow Servant.

Not quite. I am of the opinion that if you are going to make a tool for balancing actual games, you should rank things as they appear in actual games. Because obviously. Rainbow Servant (or Domain dips, or Arcane Disciple, or Runestaves + UMD, or Shadowcraft Mage) is one example of that, but so is the idea that you should probably assume the Rogue is going to UMD some wands of grave strike at some point, because that is obviously why the spell exists.


So, I think the original statement is true and PrC should be either left out entirely or a vastly transformed class should gain its own entry into the tiers independent of the naked base class.

That's missing the point Whatever/Ur-Priest is not meaningfully dependent on what the Whatever is (Troacctid's rantings about the DFA/Ur-Priest master race aside), but Rainbow Servant is massively better in the hands of a Beguiler/Warmage/Dread Necromancer than a Sorcerer or a Wizard. Similarly, grave strike does literally nothing for a Wizard, but is totally awesome for a Rogue.


- It can not be resolved mechanically but needs interpretation to complete.

I agree that things in that form would be described as "broken", but it's not really the sort of thing that matters for the tiers. The Factotum's extra action ability is (by default) a standard action to use, and grants a standard action. That obviously doesn't work, but it's equally obvious that it not working doesn't make the class a higher tier.


- It lets the user take over creative control of the setting and events, displacing the gm.

That is what literally every ability in the entire game does. When you use your BAB to make an attack roll, you are taking the question of "do I hit" out of the DM's hands. When you use Diplomacy to convince the grizzled guardsman to explain what happened last night, you are taking the question of "do we get information about the werewolf attack" out of the DM's hands. When you use Craft (Boatmaking) to make a longship, you are taking the question of "do we have a way to cross the sea" out of the DM's hands. And so on for every ability anyone has ever had.

Also, you don't have a category for the most obvious type of broken ability: abilities that are mechanically better than (or worse than) the balance standard.

[tsj]

Maybe the solution is to create a full Tier 1 guide :

- that will take
as many classes as possible and show what builds that would make them Tier 1...
(Ie. Scout 1/Druid 19 would count as a way to make scout tier 1)

- that would maybe even contain a small usage guide for the build (s)
- that could be expanded as new builds were discovered

Then a DM could search that catalogue for builds that are both T1 and that match a players prefs. The usage guide would then help players and DM to use the build in a sensible way...

[ComaVision]

Then a DM could search that catalogue for builds that are both T1 and that match a players prefs. The usage guide would then help players and DM to use the build in a sensible way...

The thing is X 3/Druid 17 is Tier 1 where X is any combination of classes. Same for the other T1 classes.

[Gnaeus]

More problematically, Tiers are based on comparable optimization. Thats hard enough to hammer out with generic classes, but the more specific you get, the more confusing it will be. We know fighter is T5, but is the one level fighter dip a specialized grab to pick up a key feat in a feat tree, or a wizard trying to pick up plate mail and cast all of his spells stilled? The tiers assume certain power at certain level ranges. In borderline cases, it is entirely possible that the order in which you take classes could up or downshift the tier by 1. As much grief as we have trying to explain why Rogue is tier 4 or beguiler tier 3, do we really want to try to do that for every possible class combination? Ugh.

[Waazraath]

As much grief as we have trying to explain why Rogue is tier 4 or beguiler tier 3, do we really want to try to do that for every possible class combination? Ugh.

Hell no. It's inaccurate enough as it is already ;)