Community Tiering for all 3.5 Base Classes

[Jormengand]

Currently voting: Rogue, Samurai (CWr), Savant (DrC), Scout (CAd), Sha'ir (DrC), Shadowcaster (ToM)

So, recently there's been a lot of arguing about tiers and what class is in what tier and why, so I decided to make this thread to help the community decide together. This is a relatively involved process, and is going to take a while to complete, but at the end there'll be a complete tier list.

The rules of the thread are:

A) We are going to vote on the tiers of all base classes, except variants for another class, which were released as a 3.5 class. There are sixty-seven of these. Once the list is finished, any variants may be considered separately.

These classes are Adept, Archivist (HoH), Ardent (CPs), Aristocrat, Artificer (ECS), Barbarian, Bard, Battle Dancer (DrC), Beguiler (PH2), Binder (ToM), Cleric, Commoner, Crusader (ToB), Death Master (DrC), Divine Mind (CPs), Dragon Shaman (PH2), Dragonfire Adept (DrM), Dread Necromancer (HoH), Druid, Duskblade (PH2), Expert, Expert (UA), Factotum (Dgs), Favoured Soul (CDv), Fighter, Healer (MHB), Hexblade (CWr), Incarnate (MoI), Jester (DrC), Knight (PH2), Lurk (CPs), Magewright (ECS), Marshal (MHB), Monk, Mountebank (DrC), Mystic (DCS), Ninja (CA), Noble (DCS), Paladin, Psion (XPH), Psychic Warrior (XPH), Ranger, Rogue, Samurai (CWr), Savant (DrC), Scout (CAd), Sha'ir (DrC), Shadowcaster (ToM), Shugenja (CDv), Sorcerer, Soulborn (MoI), Soulknife (XPH), Spellcaster (UA), Spellthief (CAd), Spirit Shaman (CDv), Swashbuckler (CWr), Swordsage (ToB), Totemist (MoI), Truenamer (ToM), Warblade (ToB), Warlock (CAr), Warmage (CAr), Warrior, Warrior (UA), Wilder (XPH), Wizard and Wu Jen (CAr).


B) We are going to vote using the alternative vote system between tiers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and X. What these tiers are will be explained in a moment for those who don't know. Please write your votes like this or in another way that is easy to read: Class name: 324X561

The alternative vote system means that you put the tiers in order of preference for which you decide most accurately describes the class. For example, if you think that the Facepuncher is just tier 3, but might just slip into tier 4, you could vote "Facepuncher: 34", "Facepuncher - 3>4" or "Facepuncher 3, 4" or some other way which is clear. If on the other hand you think that the Facepuncher is clearly a tier 1, and you want to make sure it's the highest tier possible, you might vote "Facepuncher: 123456" (or the same with X thrown in somewhere). The alternative vote system is resolved by the following method:


Look at the first tier in each person's list. For each tier which got the fewest first-place votes, discount that tier.
Look at the first tier in each person's list again, removing all the tiers which you discounted in the first round.
Keep discounting tiers and looking at lists until only one tier is left.
If at any point you try to discount tiers, but then there would be none left, instead check which one got the most first-place votes. If each one got the most, check which one got the most second-place votes, and so on.
If there's still a tie, choose randomly.


For example, if the votes were 123, 321 and 421, then the class would be considered Tier 1 (because Tier 2 is discounted in the first round). Notably, this means that there is no way of making your preferred tier less likely to win by providing alternative tiers.

C) Every week, starting at (about) midnight GMT on Thursday 29 December 2016, six classes will be put up to vote. These six classes will be chosen alphabetically, for the sake of fairness. It happens to be the case that the NPC classes Expert and Warrior are in the same set of six as the generic classes of the same name. You can vote at any time during this period, even if the classes haven't been explicitly stated to be up for vote yet. This time is to be used for discussion of the six classes, so that each class is in the spotlight long enough to discuss it where needed.

D) You are strongly encouraged to include reasons with your votes. Voting for an established T1 class as 654321 without a supporting reason is likely to get your vote discounted as a troll vote. Voting for the same class as 123456 probably won't, though it's still useful to explain why.

E) Please don't use this vote for joke votes, protest votes, or discussion of whether or not the tier system is a good idea. If you don't think the tier system is an accurate decription of classes, then what can you possibly hope to gain by posting in a thread for making the tier system? This is meant to be a useful resource for DMs and players, so the tier 1 commoner meme isn't a good idea - even if it's an obvious joke, it will throw doubt on whether or not the rest of this thread is serious. This thread is also not for arguing about how the tiers should be defined - they are what they are, and having more than one conflicting standard for tiering is only really going to cause confusion.

EDIT:

F) To clear up some confusion: you are expected to vote for your preference during the 7 days you have to do so. While the time you have may not be exactly 7 days, it is always as soon as feasible after a minute past midnight GMT Thursday. There are no re-votes.

G) To clear up some more confusion: You should consider the original printing of the class, plus any errata. Do not consider alternate class features, substitution levels, variants of that class, or anything else which intrinsically alters what class it actually is. After the vote, these may be considered as though they were separate classes. You may also consider the class with access to variants in general at that time. If you try to consider the class with variants before this time, I will ignore your vote. If you include separate

H) To prevent the excessive levels of antagonism that have been present in the thread, do not attack other posters or the thread procedure. This is really basic stuff. If you do, your account will be added to my ignore list. I appreiate that this is an extreme measure, but "Don't attack people for their views on a game" is really, really basic stuff.


My general philosophy is that the only balance that really matters in D&D is the interclass balance between the various PCs in a group. If the group as a whole is very powerful and flexible, the DM can simply up the challenge level and complexity of the encounters. If it's weak and inflexible, the DM can lower the challenge level and complexity. Serious issues arise when the party is composed of some members which are extremely powerful and others which are extremely weak, leading to a situation where the DM has two choices: either make the game too easy for the strong members, or too hard for the weak members. Neither is desireable. Thus, this system is created for the following purposes:

1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group

2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.

3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).

4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a Fighter, and a Rogue, maybe you shouldn't let that fly.

5) To help homebrewers judge the power and balance of their new classes. Pick a Tier you think your class should be in, and when you've made your class compare it to the rest of the Tier. Generally, I like Tier 3 as a balance point, but I know many people prefer Tier 4. If it's stronger than Tier 1, you definitely blew it.

This post is NOT intended to state which class is "best" or "sucks." It is only a measure of the power and versitliity of classes for balance purposes.

Psionic classes are mostly absent simply because I don't have enough experience with them. Other absent classes are generally missing because I don't know them well enough to comment, though if I've heard a lot about them they're listed in itallics. Note that "useless" here means "the class isn't particularly useful for dealing with situation X" not "it's totally impossible with enough splat books to make a build that involves that class deal with situation X." "Capable of doing one thing" means that any given build does one thing, not that the class itself is incapable of being built in different ways. Also, "encounters" here refers to appropriate encounters... obviously, anyone can solve an encounter with purely mechanical abilities if they're level 20 and it's CR 1.

Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier in terms of tier descriptions, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level. As a rule, parties function best when everyone in the party is within 2 Tiers of each other (so a party that's all Tier 2-4 is generally fine, and so is a party that's all Tier 3-5, but a party that has Tier 1 and Tier 5s in it may have issues).

As a further note, some classes have specific variants or options to them that drastically change their abilities. These classes are noted on multiple tiers. If a variant is not mentioned, it's in the same Tier as the standard class (for example, the Cloistered Cleric is not mentioned because it's T1 like the Cleric. The same goes for the Battle Sorcerer and the Wilderness Rogue). Classes in blue are on the high side of their Tier and can easily move up. Classes in red are on the low side of their Tier and can easily move down.

The Tier System

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. 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.

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.

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

Note that a few classes are right on the border line between tiers.

JaronK

Tier X is the place that classes get left behind if they don't scale with optimisation like they're supposed to. Essentially, if an Omnipotent One and a Suckimancer are badly optimised, then the Omnipotent One will still be better than the Suckimancer. The same is true if they're both well optimised. Sure, a well-optimised Suckimancer played by someone who knows what they're doing can be better than the Omnipotent One, but assuming the same optimisation level, the Omnipotent One is still Tier 1 and the Suckimancer is still Tier 5, whatever that optimisation level is. But the Variturge just won't play fair. A badly-played Variturge is worse than even a badly-played Suckimancer, but a well-played Variturge is better than a well-played Suckimancer - even when the two classes are the same optimisation level, it matters a great deal what that optimisation level is. Tier X is essentially what happens when there's no one single tier that you can reasonably put a class into.

Classes currently being voted on are marked with a V.

Adept 4
Archivist (HoH) 1
Ardent (CPs) 2
Aristocrat 6
Artificer (ECS) 1
Barbarian 4
Bard 3
Battle Dancer (DrC) 5
Beguiler (PH2) 3
Binder (ToM) 3
Cleric 1
Commoner 6
Crusader (ToB) 3
Death Master (DrC) 2
Divine Mind (CPs) 5
Dragon Shaman (PH2) 5
Dragonfire Adept (DrM) 3
Dread Necromancer (HoH) 3
Druid 1
Duskblade (PH2) 3
Expert 5
Expert (UA) 4/5
Factotum (Dgs) 3
Favoured Soul (CDv) 2
Fighter 5
Healer (MHB) 3
Hexblade (CWr) 4
Incarnate (MoI) 3
Jester (DrC) 3
Knight (PH2) 5
Lurk (CPs)
Magewright (ECS)
Marshal (MHB)
Monk
Mountebank (DrC)
Mystic (DCS)
Ninja (CA)
Noble (DCS)
Paladin
Psion (XPH)
Psychic Warrior (XPH)
Ranger
Rogue V
Samurai (CWr) V
Savant (DrC) V
Scout (CAd) V
Sha'ir (DrC) V
Shadowcaster (ToM) V
Shugenja (CDv)
Sorcerer
Soulborn (MoI)
Soulknife (XPH)
Spellcaster (UA)
Spellthief (CAd)
Spirit Shaman (CDv)
Swashbuckler (CWr)
Swordsage (ToB)
Totemist (MoI)
Truenamer (ToM)
Urban Druid (DrC)
Warblade (ToB)
Warlock (CAr)
Warmage (CAr)
Warrior
Warrior (UA)
Wilder (XPH)
Wizard
Wu Jen (CAr)

The first round of classes to be voted on are Adept, Archivist (HoH), Ardent (CPs), Aristocrat, Artificer (ECS) and Barbarian.

Adept is probably Tier 4, though I could make a case for 3 or 5. It does a lot of jobs, but none of them amazingly well. It's like a cleric, but subpar, strapped to a wizard, but also subpar. My current vote for it is probably Adept: 453X.
Archivist seems to be a solid Tier 1 class, given that it's a spellbook-based cleric, in effect. My vote is Archivist: 123X45.
Ardent I'll leave to those who know more about the class, but my current feelings are that as an exceptionally limited but full-manifesting psionic class it's probably tier 3 or 2. I vote 32X for now Ardent: 23X.
Aristocrat seems to be essentially a bad chassis with no abilities beyond the high starting wealth, so my vote is Aristocrat: 65.
Artificer is essentially wizard but with magic items, so my vote is Artificer: 123X45.
Barbarian deals damage and not much else, although skills help. I vote Barbarian: 453.

(Disclaimer: I use Purple to raise procedural points in this thread and to call attention to results. This doesn't mean I'm a mod. Red text by a moderator supersedes purple - or any other colour - text by me).

[Zanos]

Adept: 435
Casts spells at severely limited progression from a fixed list, but fixed list is surprisingly strong, including staples such as sleep, protection from X, obscuring mist, cause fear, invisibility, see invisibility, scorching ray, web, mirror image, darkness, animate dead, polymorph, true seeing, wall of stone, heal, baleful polymorph, and commune, as well as some remove X spells. Often useful, but somewhat crippled by gaining access to effects long after characters are assumed to have access to them.

Archivist: 1
I can see no other option here. Significantly more powerful than even many other tier 1 classes with access to druid/cleric/domain/PrC spell lists.

Ardent: 23x
23 powers known and full power point progression. Not as good as a psion, but not weak enough to drop it a tier.

Aristocrat: 6
d8, 3/4 bab, proficiency with all martial and simple weapons. 4 skills per level off of a so-so skill list. Nothing of any real merit.

Artificer: 1
Gets access to every spell effect in the game 2 levels earlier than every other class. Power is extremely tied to WBL, but is tier 1 under normal WBL easily.

Barbarian: 453
Hits stuff really hard, but is significantly better at hitting stuff really hard than many other classes. 4+int skill points, but skill list lacks any game changing options.

[JBarca]

I imagine most classes will stay in the Tier normally assigned to them, but for the less-known classes, this seems pretty useful. Looking forward to the results.

Let's see.
Adept - Well, we have playable a caster, but one without 9ths (or even 6ths). So that pretty much knocks out Tiers 1,2, and 6 from contention. A Familiar is a nice touch, too. Several "ok" spells and a few very useful ones (such as Commune, a few BFC options, and the ever popular Polymorph). Relatively few spells/day, and prepared off a fixed list - two more downsides that limit versatility and power. "capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining" - Polymorph does this by itself, right? So I think I'd vote 4, 3, 5.

Archivist - I really don't see the need to elaborate a whole lot, here. A full prepared caster casting off a powerful list (Cleric), with some access to any other Divine list (including what is arguably the best list in the Druid's). Other class features range from neat (Lore Mastery) to great (Dark Knowledge). Only real limitation is the player's ability to not pick exclusively awful spells. So I think I'll vote 1, X, 2.

Ardent - I'm very unfamiliar. Limited Powers known, but still Powers. I'd guess that T3 is most likely. My vote'll be 2, 3, X. I could be way off, but that's the feeling I get right now.
- updated to reflect discussion.

Aristocrat - No Class Features, decent skills. Not much to say or analyze. So 6, 5, X.

Artificer - Wow, ok. A lot to handle here, so I'll summarize. Item crafting is basically spellcasting when done at this level. Coupled with "Infusions" (read: spellcasting), and you have a pretty solid class. Their Infusions make them basically a fixed-list spontaneous caster (a la Warmage, Beguiler) with a ton of added versatility through items. So T1 seems reasonable. Vote - 1, 3, 2, X.

Barbarian - Potential for a ton of damage with Rage and great ACFs and such. One very useful skill (Intimidate) and that's it. Most of its Class Features are basically useless in this discussion - no added power or versatility, just flavor and minor benefits. "Capable of doing one things quite well" hits the nail on the head. The potential for Intimidate to be great in social encounters can vary, but may push the Barb into T3 sometimes. And in some levels of optimization, a Barbarian's damage is near useless. Vote - 4, 3, 5, X.

Well, a fun exercise if nothing else. I look forward to the other votes and results!

[Troacctid]

Adept: 5
Slow spell progression, a limited spell list, and harshly restricted spells per day means that, while you can one or two things, you can't do any of them particularly well. This is the definition of T5. I don't think you can reasonably go to any other tier, although domains do help somewhat. It's not T4 because it doesn't fill its role well, and it's not T6 like the other NPC classes because it is actually capable of doing something even if it doesn't do it very well.

Archivist and Artificer are obviously 1s. Not much to say, they can do everything.

Ardent is a 2. It can do a relatively small number of extremely powerful and potentially game-breaking things (especially with the Mind's Eye ACFs, both of which are crazy strong), but has restrictions on powers known that hold it back from T1. I guess Ardent can fall to T3 if you don't take any of the mantles with truly busted powers in them, so I'll give it a 2>3.

Aristocrat is a 6 and is roughly tied with Expert. High-op might get you to 5, but you'd still never play one.

Barbarian is pretty much the archetypal 4. It does its thing and it does it competently. You could argue for 5 if you exclude ACFs, and it's easy enough to get to 3 with prestige classes (although they really shouldn't count), so I say 4>5>>>3.


Adept - Well, we have playable a caster, but one without 9ths (or even 6ths). So that pretty much knocks out Tiers 1,2, and 6 from contention. A Familiar is a nice touch, too. Several "ok" spells and a few very useful ones (such as Commune, a few BFC options, and the ever popular Polymorph). Relatively few spells/day, and prepared off a fixed list - two more downsides that limit versatility and power. "capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining" - Polymorph does this by itself, right? So I think I'd vote 4, 3, 5.

Adept: 435
Casts spells at severely limited progression from a fixed list, but fixed list is surprisingly strong, including staples such as sleep, protection from X, obscuring mist, cause fear, invisibility, see invisibility, scorching ray, web, mirror image, darkness, animate dead, polymorph, true seeing, wall of stone, heal, baleful polymorph, and commune, as well as some remove X spells. Often useful, but somewhat crippled by gaining access to effects long after characters are assumed to have access to them.
At low levels, you don't have enough spell slots to be effective as a caster. At high levels, you still don't have enough spell slots to be effective as a caster, and you're way behind on spell progression. Maybe you can argue that animate dead alone gets you to T4 (even though you're doing nothing for your first 7 levels?), but definitely not T3, you're way below the benchmarks for that.


Artificer: 1
Gets access to every spell effect in the game 2 levels earlier than every other class. Power is extremely tied to WBL, but is tier 1 under normal WBL easily.
Forget WBL, infusions alone are totally busted! Have you seen spell-storing item? You can spontaneously cast any spell of 4th level or lower off of any class's spell list, out of a 1st level infusion slot! And metamagic item straight-up gives you free metamagic, so you can have no money at all and still wear persistent buffs as well as or better than any cleric.


Ardent - I'm very unfamiliar. Limited Powers known, but still Powers. I'd guess that T3 is most likely. My vote'll be 3, 4, X, 2. I could be way off, but that's the feeling I get right now.
9th level manifesting off a decent list with full progression and plenty of powers known gets you to T2 without too much trouble. You get a lot of the best powers of any given level, like metamorphosis, time hop, anticipatory strike, psionic teleport astral construct...and even with weaker mantles, you're never going to fall below T3. So 4 is way off.

[Muggins]

Adepts are Tier 5/6. Some of their spells are quite strong, but their average chassis and the option to flub up spell selection lower their potential. Delayed spellcasting progression chokes them bigtime.

Archivists are Tier 1/X. Good class features, spells from anywhere, and skills to boot. The ceiling is high, but their basic abilities are such that they can contribute to the party even with poor spell selection.

Ardents are Tier 2/X. No class features to speak of, really, but they're the only class to get full access to mantles for free (and with full powers known and power point progression!). Further, the common reading of their manifester level-based power progression (as opposed to class-level) gives them plenty of wiggle room. Variant mantles, mantle abilities, and favoured mantle push them to the heights of Tier 2, but bad mantle/power selection can seriously numb their potency. A Cleric, at least, always has their non-domain spells; the Ardent doesn't.

Aristocrats are Tier 6. Is this better than a commoner? I don't know. Even if it is, that's not a high benchmark.

Artificer are Tier 1/X. So many class features, so little time; they all amount to pseudo-spellcasting, though, and that's worth a lot in DnD. Especially if you're pulling from all arcane or divine spell lists ever, even level-compressed ones like Trapsmith, or if you're a psionic artificer and you also have psionic powers to abuse. Again, you can mess around with this class and produce less-optimal results, but there's a reason this class has been known (informally) as the omnificer.

Barbarians are Tier 4/5. They can do good damage, but that's really all they can do, even if they do it well. Even a poorly-built barbarian can do that, while an Adept might just sit around preparing only Detect Law and Aid. ACFs can give them a flexibility, but it's nothing that special.

[Troacctid]

The problem with Adept is it's just not good at what it does. T4 requires you to be able to fill your role with competence—well enough not to be overshadowed in it. Adept doesn't do that. It' subpar in its own role. That's T5.

[flappeercraft]

Since I only really have experience with barbarians whether on playing them, DMing player who play them or seeing them be played in general I will only give my opinion about them.

As for barbarian I would give them a Tier 4 just because the only thing they really shine in is melee combat. They have the ability to deal great damage and take a good punch due to d12 HD, DR and with high Fort saves to stay up against death effects, poisons, etc. Other than that they do not influence things in a way that any other class could not do so equally or better and usually it is just better to wait for someone else to deal with it as they might end up screwing things up if they try to search for traps, knowledge checks, using magic devices, etc for which is my reason for Tier 4.

[AvatarVecna]

Adepts gain lvl 5 divine spellcasting over the course of 20 levels...and that's about it. Their chassis is nothing impressive - a d6 Hit Die and a good Will save don't make it particularly impressive - and their only feature besides spellcasting is the rather mediocre ability to summon a familiar. In a Core-only game, their spell list is...decent enough, but their slower casting progression is slow enough that their lack of supportive class features will prevent them from being on par with even a Core-only Bard past level 3. Fortunately, the spell list has enough solid Core spells that it can be relatively comparable to some non-casting classes. The ability to cast certain arcane spells as divine spells is potentially useful for somebody looking for sneaky tricks to pull, but most sneaky tricks require non-Core material. Adept is a solid low-tier caster for those people who love playing casters but don't want to be so ridiculous that they leave their noncasting teammates in the dust..but that's only in Core. Unfortunately, outside of Core, the Adept receives little support; where other casters gain more spells from every splat, the Adept can only hope that particularly useful or powerful feats are available to boost their casting. Having potential access to their entire list doesn't mean much when their list is so small.

Overall, while the Adept has some usually powerful/versatile spells on their list, their delayed spell progression means these abilities can be more than a few levels behind full casters, preventing them from fully utilizing those abilities. Overall, an adept that makes good feat and spell choices can potentially be either powerful enough or versatile enough to warrant being called low T4, but it would take some significant optimization (or a ludicrously high Wisdom) for them to be considered both powerful enough and versatile enough IMO to warrant being T3. One solid point is that, because all adepts have access to their entire list, it's difficult to really screw up making one, since you can just pick better spells tomorrow, but their list isn't robust enough to keep them out of T5.

This one's gonna be much shorter and simpler than the Adept, since that's kind of a weird class. Archivist's tier is much more straightforward: it's a prepared full caster (so 9ths by 17) on the cleric list (one of the best lists) with the ability to snipe spells from any other list (so awesome) using Intelligence (the best casting stat IMO, since it assists skills and lets you play your character smart without being accused of metagaming), prepares from a spellbook prayerbook (allowing your spells to be stolen potentially, but also allowing additional spells to be scribed beyond your starting spells), has a solid caster chassis (d6 HD/4+Int SP/poor BAB/Good Fort/Good Will), and has actual class features (unlike the Cleric and Wizard). This belongs in T1, no question about it.

Not much to say here: it gets 9th lvl powers, but has relatively limited access to powers, but has enough access to pick up the better ones in combination. T2 or high T3 if you pick less-than top-shelf mantles, nuff said.

A mediocre-to-decent skill list that features Diplomacy, a big pile of starting cash, and a higher hit die than it deserves doesn't save this class from it's complete lack of features.

An artificer, without crafting anything, has access to powerful, versatile pseudo-casting and metamagic shenanigans, including using metamagic whenever they like via wands/scrolls without said metamagic if they feel like it. When it comes to crafting, they at bare minimum double their wealth, have a pool of bonus XP for crafting purposes, can craft replicating any spell in the game, and have access to feats that further reduce crafting costs. Even if you only ever craft existing items, this is absolutely ridiculous; if you craft custom items that are restricted by skill/class/alignment, it gets even worse both in regards to effect and cost. Artificer is hands down one of the most versatile classes in the entire game, and among the most powerful.

A shining example of a T4 class: Barbarian fights really well, and is basically useless outside of fighting. Some ACFs can give enough options that it starts knocking on that T3 door, but not enough to give it a real chance of busting through IMO. Similarly, though, it's easy to get drawn into trap options on the coolness factor here, making T5 enough of a possibility to be worth mentioning.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Adept: Tier 5 at low levels, rising to 4; overall I have to agree with Troccaid, though, in that while they get a good spell list they just don't get enough spells to be really useful.

Archivist (HoH): Tier 1; while it has the usual full-caster low floor... it's T1.

Ardent (CPs): Tier 2; rising or falling to T1 or T3, depending on mantle choice and level of cheese.

Aristocrat: Tier 6. It does nothing.

Artificer (ECS): Tier 1, but looks like it could easily fall to a T3 or T4 if you don't know what you're doing and/or don't get downtime, and play it mostly like a 6th level caster.

Barbarian: T4, but high-- a Spirit Lion/Wolf Totem Trapkiller Whirling Frenzy Barbarian with a glaive and intimidation feats has quite a few effective strategies and methods to contribute outside of combat. Can fall to T5 with poor choices, as with most classes.

[eggynack]

The problem with Adept is it's just not good at what it does. T4 requires you to be able to fill your role with competence—well enough not to be overshadowed in it. Adept doesn't do that. It' subpar in its own role. That's T5.
They're relatively bad at magic, but I think that adepts do more useful stuff than tier five classes. It's not just about doing good stuff within your role, but about doing good stuff in general, or doing general stuff with sufficient capability. It's like, melee combat is a bad role that barbarians are great at, and magic is a great role that adepts are pretty bad at, and the two things get to the same place. As I pointed out last time this came up, animate dead isn't the end all and be all either. Their list has really strong options at every level, options often considered among the best in the game. It's enough to give consistent value throughout progression, even if that value doesn't get them to the same place as, say, a bard, which also relies on relatively slow and weak access to really strong spells, but gets those spells a decent amount faster and better.

Anyways, as for this thread, I think it's a pretty good idea, but the rank choice voting system is weird. When I give something a tier, it's not because I somehow prefer that tier, and other tiers are reasonable but not as good. I give it that tier because that's the tier I think it is. Adepts aren't 435 or 453 or 456, they're 4, maybe with a high or low appended, because this stuff does have gradations. With that in mind, I think that maybe an averaging system could work better. If one person follows a 4 with some numbers, and the other follows a 6 with some numbers, I'm inclined to think a 5 makes sense where just giving it the high or low number doesn't, and fractional scores actually make sense in tiering. I'll occasionally use the ranking, particularly with the barbarian where I feel like there's more wiggle room, but I'd rather not be tiering with some sort of weird other motivating force.

So, the tiers:

Adept: 4. As I said, really strong list, accessed crappily. Sleep, web, animate dead, and polymorph are really great spells for their levels, and most of the 5th level spells are really great in such a way that I'd rather not discard consideration of most of them by naming one spell. Each level then has a ton of extra utility and strength, offering what is overall a weirdly power dense list of spells. They strike me as right in the middle of the tier too, so they don't make much sense for any other tier. The spells/day is a downside, but the spells themselves are a major upside making up for that lack of daily endurance.

Archivist: 1. Obviously. With low force power seeking, they're already combining the cleric and druid lists into something very powerful. With real effort, they're getting an absolutely ridiculous spell list that hits just about everything. Where they fall between those two points is partially DM dependent and partially dependent on how far the player is willing/able to go, but anywhere on that spectrum is great.

Ardent/Artificer: I dunno. Seriously. Ardent, I just haven't looked that closely at, so I'd generally trust the assessment of others, and if that's the case, why am I saying anything? Artificer, it makes some sense to me that they'd be tier 1, but I've seen a lower tier claimed. I'm nowhere near certain of the latter number that I'd be willing to stake the number out there, so I'll just leave the existing number to stand on its own merits. I'd be comfortable with them landing where they seem to be landing, y'know?

Aristocrat: 6. Honestly, looking the class over, it's a bit better than I thought it was. Without checking, I thought it was a commoner with some starting cash, when really it's more like an expert trading some of its solid skill prowess for some melee power. Like some kinda expert/warrior compromise. But neither of those two classes is liable to leave tier 6 by my reckoning, and the pseudo-combination is worse than either of those.

Barbarian: 4/3/5. This one is interesting. Most of me feels like they're a direct tier four. Really good at hitting stuff hard, but perhaps in a way that could be interrupted. Maybe they have a couple other things of note, like dealing with traps or intimidation, but it's not that exciting. But then, there's also a part of me that thinks, damn, they're really really good at hitting stuff hard. Like, occasionally game-breaking good at it. They can kill anything they get their hands on, and do so with incredible action-speed. How much does that count for? How much should that count for? In a really direct hack and slash game, without too much variety, couldn't that hit the game weirdly hard? Should we account for that case? I dunno, and that part of me, a smaller part than the tier four part, puts them at tier 3.

Then again, there's also the part of me that thinks, yeah, they're good at hitting stuff hard enough to kill it, but isn't everyone? Or, can't everyone be? People have built ubercharging commoners. Not ones as good as the ubercharging barbarian, but it still kills stuff, doesn't it? Pounce effects are non-trivial to access, but they're not insanely difficult to get either, and should I really give barbarians tier four over a single ACF? Or over their first two levels? Dealing this kinda damage might be useful, but maybe it's also easy, easy enough that it shouldn't be given that much credit. This part of me is smaller than either the other two parts, so it's listed last, but I think there's truth to it, which is why it's listed at all.

[neriractor]

Adept: 345

Archivist: 1X

Ardent: 23X

Aristocrat: 6

Artificer: 1X

Barbarian: 45X

[AnachroNinja]

I'm mostly interested in weighing in on Adept because I've actually used it in normal play. Yes, they do have a terribly low number of spells per day. That is a huge limiting factor, but in my opinion not a crippling one. They can generally afford to launch at least one useful spell into each combat in a normal day once they hit about fifth level. That's not fantastic, but it is useful. It gets better if you support them properly with items/reserve feats/whatever to give them useful actions outside of their spells as well.

They're never going to be combat powerhouses on their own, though animate dead is a huge step in that direction when they get it. They're divine spellcasting does allow them to dip sacred exorcist to get DMM access. Their spell list isn't great for that, but especially with Reach Spell you can potentially manage some reasonably fun shenanigans.

A big factor is unfortunately mild house rule territory, and that's how your DM rules on their access to familiar feats due to their fairly unique divine access. If you can access improved familiar via your divine caster level, that potentially gives you a good bit more versatility. There's also options like Alternate Source that may or may not grant an arcane caster level depending on interpretation.

Yeah, they don't get a lot of support, bit I think they can contribute in a meaningful way at most levels of optimization, so I put forth my vote...

Adept: mid to high Tier 4... Maybe low Tier 3

Of less interest to me...
Archivist: T1
Aristocrat: T6
Argent: T2 or high T3
Artificer: T1
Barbarian: mid to low T4

[Troacctid]

I mean, maybe with ACFs an Adept can get to T4? The Religious Adept from Eberron Campaign Setting gets a free domain without even having to give anything up, which definitely helps. And the Urban Adept from Sharn, City of Towers has charm person, which is a good boost to low levels. But you still have weak spell progression, no skill points, no class abilities to speak of, and too few spell slots to make it through a full adventuring day. Aggregate niche rankings are roughly at the same level as the Dragon Shaman and Knight, both of which seem like pretty solid T5s to me.

[eggynack]

I mean, maybe with ACFs an Adept can get to T4? The Religious Adept from Eberron Campaign Setting gets a free domain without even having to give anything up, which definitely helps. And the Urban Adept from Sharn, City of Towers has charm person, which is a good boost to low levels. But you still have weak spell progression, no skill points, no class abilities to speak of, and too few spell slots to make it through a full adventuring day. Aggregate niche rankings are roughly at the same level as the Dragon Shaman and Knight, both of which seem like pretty solid T5s to me.
I didn't even really know about those. I just think the spells are good enough. Because the spells are really good. They have downsides, obviously, but they have some of that wide reaching capability to really change things, in combat and also not, and it's enough, I think. I think they do the weak spell thing better than a healer without alternate spell sources (including sanctified), for example. And worse than a bard, so they kinda slot in between. I'd take an adept over a knight any day.

[Troacctid]

No, Healer definitely does it way better, even without an expanded spell list, and it's not remotely close. Remember, at the same level the Adept gets her first single 4th level spell slot (that's 1/day if you have a bonus spell), the Healer is getting her choice of a lammasu companion that casts as a Cleric 7, a water naga that casts as a Sorcerer 7, or a gynosphinx that gets symbol of death, symbol of fear, symbol of insanity, symbol of pain, symbol of persuasion, symbol of sleep, and symbol of stunning as spell-like abilities with week-long durations and no material components (as well as several other notable SLAs, including legend lore, dispel magic, and clairaudience/clairvoyance). All that is on a separate body with its own full set of actions each round. That's right, the Healer has a class feature that's better than the Adept's entire class. Meanwhile, the Healer herself has spells up to 6th level at this point, and by the time the Adept finally gets to the next spell level, the Healer has gate.

[eggynack]

No, Healer definitely does it way better, even without an expanded spell list, and it's not remotely close. Remember, at the same level the Adept gets her first single 4th level spell slot (that's 1/day if you have a bonus spell), the Healer is getting her choice of a lammasu companion that casts as a Cleric 7, a water naga that casts as a Sorcerer 7, or a gynosphinx that gets symbol of death, symbol of fear, symbol of insanity, symbol of pain, symbol of persuasion, symbol of sleep, and symbol of stunning as spell-like abilities with week-long durations and no material components (as well as several other notable SLAs, including legend lore, dispel magic, and clairaudience/clairvoyance). All that is on a separate body with its own full set of actions each round. That's right, the Healer has a class feature that's better than the Adept's entire class. Meanwhile, the Healer herself has spells up to 6th level at this point, and by the time the Adept finally gets to the next spell level, the Healer has gate.
Sure, the healer has the edge at higher levels, but earlier on it seems a lot less healer favored. Before that point, the healer really doesn't have much that isn't straightforward and boring healing stuff. Maybe the occasional solid buff, but rarely anything that can ever solve a problem. Take level seven, for the sake of argument, to avoid the whole animate dead thing. The adept is getting web, invisibility, mirror image, scorching ray, and even a few other things of interest. The healer is getting cure critical, cure mass light, death ward, FoM, and panacea. There's a solid chance I'd prefer the adept list there, even accounting for castings/day. 12th level seems like a solid break point where the healer overcomes the adept, but the healer might actually go up a tier on the basis of that ability anyway.

[Troacctid]

Web and invisibility aren't so much better than freedom of movement and close wounds that it's worth having insufficient daily resources to make it through an adventuring day. Certainly none of them matches up against animate with the spirit.

[eggynack]

Web and invisibility aren't so much better than freedom of movement and close wounds that it's worth having insufficient daily resources to make it through an adventuring day. Certainly none of them matches up against animate with the spirit.
In some ways they are. FoM and close wounds aren't fully unimpactful, but they don't really do all that much to make encounters be defeated, and that's generally what you want to be doing. Web and invisibility both help some encounters end, web for combat and invisibility for stealth, and that means a lot. I agree that animate with the spirit is better, but I also think that animate with the spirit, and other spells of that kind, push healer to something like tier three, so that fact's not hurting adept overmuch. I mean, that's probably the top ranking I'm going to be giving healer when it comes around, if that means something. That or four, but I think pretty highly of sanctified and corrupt spells.

[Troacctid]

Healers and Adepts are both support classes at that level. Healer does it better, because the class simply has more resources and better action economy. Not to mention more skill points, a better chassis, and the ability to serve as a capable face outside of combat, with Diplomacy and Sense Motive as class skills keying off of primary/secondary stats.

[eggynack]

Healers and Adepts are both support classes at that level. Healer does it better, because the class simply has more resources and better action economy. Not to mention more skill points, a better chassis, and the ability to serve as a capable face outside of combat, with Diplomacy and Sense Motive as class skills keying off of primary/secondary stats.
Healers provide one very specific kind of support, eliminating status ailments, maybe with occasional defenses eventually. Adepts provide a multitude of forms of support, along with some things I wouldn't define as support. Like, is web really just support? Doesn't diminish in its impact all that much as you level either. Just does its usual webbing thing.

[Troacctid]

I'd say web is support, yeah. And it's also only one kind of support. I wouldn't call it a multitude.

[eggynack]

I'd say web is support, yeah. And it's also only one kind of support. I wouldn't call it a multitude.
I'd classify it more as a straight up combat spell, but whatever. The point isn't that web is somehow multiple kinds of support. It's that web is one of several forms of support an adept can provide at that level. It's just the best one. At that level, they also have invisibility, as was noted, which is a defensive buff, an offensive buff, and a stealth enabler, mirror image, which, while personal, does its particular job really well, scorching ray, which is straight up direct damage and of a pretty good form at that (and it scales well, so it doesn't matter quite so much that you're running a 2nd level blasting spell) and so on. They can help their allies in a way that actually allows them to end combat faster, or directly act to end combat themselves, or do things that have nothing to do with combat.

The healer's list is ridiculously homogeneous by comparison. Those fourth level spells are actually a bit atypical in this way. The best non-healing spell they have at second level spells is probably calm emotions. The best at third level is either non-existent or maybe status, depending on whether you think status is a thing worth casting. Sanctuary, at first level, is at least kinda interesting, but it's a pretty rare thing, and the comparison between the two classes seems really adept slanted early on anyway.

[AvatarVecna]

My understanding was that this thread was for voting on tier and explaining your vote, not incessantly arguing your reasoning when others don't kowtow to your way of thinking. We already have several threads for that kind of stuff on the front page.

[bekeleven]

Is there a particular optimization level I should be assuming? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?459141-Optimization-and-Tiers-The-Tier-System-Expanded)

[Troacctid]

I'd classify it more as a straight up combat spell, but whatever. The point isn't that web is somehow multiple kinds of support. It's that web is one of several forms of support an adept can provide at that level. It's just the best one. At that level, they also have invisibility, as was noted, which is a defensive buff, an offensive buff, and a stealth enabler, mirror image, which, while personal, does its particular job really well, scorching ray, which is straight up direct damage and of a pretty good form at that (and it scales well, so it doesn't matter quite so much that you're running a 2nd level blasting spell) and so on. They can help their allies in a way that actually allows them to end combat faster, or directly act to end combat themselves, or do things that have nothing to do with combat.

The healer's list is ridiculously homogeneous by comparison. Those fourth level spells are actually a bit atypical in this way. The best non-healing spell they have at second level spells is probably calm emotions. The best at third level is either non-existent or maybe status, depending on whether you think status is a thing worth casting. Sanctuary, at first level, is at least kinda interesting, but it's a pretty rare thing, and the comparison between the two classes seems really adept slanted early on anyway.
The Healer might have a primarily defensive role, but at least it actually has the tools to perform that role fairly effectively without running out of gas after two rounds, and it scales up to become more versatile later on. Also, Sanctified spells can provide some more proactive options, like diamond spray, and hammer of whatsit, and that one light spell that damages and blinds evil creatures, I don't know, I'm AFB, you know the one I'm talking about.

Try running an Adept through some encounters, especially at lower levels, and you'll quickly run into problems because you simply don't have enough to do with your actions. I've only played them as a DM, but their typical play pattern tends to be either "Unload all your spells in one encounter because you're an NPC and you only have one encounter per day" or "Conserve resources by only casting one spell per combat, maybe two if the second one is 1st level, and then fire a crossbow for the rest of the fight." Sure, you can unload a lightning bolt or scorching ray...once. And then you're spent. It's not a role you can play on a consistent basis. Maybe you look okay in one encounter, but average out your performance over four encounters and it looks a lot less impressive.


My understanding was that this thread was for voting on tier and explaining your vote, not incessantly arguing your reasoning when others don't kowtow to your way of thinking. We already have several threads for that kind of stuff on the front page.
It's on-topic and civil. I don't see the problem. *shrug*

[eggynack]

The Healer might have a primarily defensive role, but at least it actually has the tools to perform that role fairly effectively without running out of gas after two rounds, and it scales up to become more versatile later on. Also, Sanctified spells can provide some more proactive options, like diamond spray, and hammer of whatsit, and that one light spell that damages and blinds evil creatures, I don't know, I'm AFB, you know the one I'm talking about.
I know the sanctified spells. Again, not especially pertinent, because they push the healer high enough that them being better than the adept does not make the adept tier five.


Try running an Adept through some encounters, especially at lower levels, and you'll quickly run into problems because you simply don't have enough to do with your actions. I've only played them as a DM, but their typical play pattern tends to be either "Unload all your spells in one encounter because you're an NPC and you only have one encounter per day" or "Conserve resources by only casting one spell per combat, maybe two if the second one is 1st level, and then fire a crossbow for the rest of the fight." Sure, you can unload a lightning bolt or scorching ray...once. And then you're spent. It's not a role you can play on a consistent basis. Maybe you look okay in one encounter, but average out your performance over four encounters and it looks a lot less impressive.
The better spells are pretty decent on a one per encounter basis. More web than scorching ray, because unloading a single blasting spell in a combat tends to be sad. That you do have what is possibly the worst nova in existence is nice though. I don't think it's impressive, in any case, but it's not awful either. You're losing endurance but gaining surprising variety and some meaningful power.

[Jormengand]

My understanding was that this thread was for voting on tier and explaining your vote, not incessantly arguing your reasoning when others don't kowtow to your way of thinking. We already have several threads for that kind of stuff on the front page.

Then you misunderstand. The whole point of only doing this six at a time is so that we can discuss our views. Actually seeing people's discussion about the ardent, for example, is probably going to make me go back and change my vote, which is the point.


Is there a particular optimization level I should be assuming? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?459141-Optimization-and-Tiers-The-Tier-System-Expanded)

While a different optimisation level is going to change things, in general, any class that doesn't scale well with optimisation should probably be Tier X. That is, if there's a massive difference between [low B/high C]-optimisation and [high B/low A] optimisation, then the class is likely Tier X. The tier system, as specified, should hold across all optimisation levels because a 10th-level wizard, in low-optimisation, is still dealing about four or five times as much damage as the fighter, and also has access to fly and dimension door, which even a low-OP group will quickly realise can circumvent a lot of encounters. It's still "Breaking the game", because the core assumptions of the game are that the cleric will heal, the wizard will throw a few spells and then stand there using a crossbow, the fighter will beat face and the rogue will sneak around and open locks, which simply isn't what happens once the cleric and wizard actually read their spell lists. At medium optimisation, the cleric and wizard are supposed to be relatively versatile, the fighter is meant to fight three people at once and throw them around, and the rogue is meant to pass nearly every skill check he comes across, and that still isn't what happens because by medium optimisation the wizard's realised that polymorph is a spell. If there were a reasonable optimisation level where a level 6-16 wizard were generally worse than, say, a bard of that optimisation level, that would make it Tier X.

[AvatarVecna]

Then you misunderstand. The whole point of only doing this six at a time is so that we can discuss our views. Actually seeing people's discussion about the ardent, for example, is probably going to make me go back and change my vote, which is the point.

There's a difference between engaging in a discussion of what tier a class belongs in, and shouting your opinion at everybody who pops into the thread, just in case they posted without somehow seeing your half-dozen other posts on the exact same topic.

But since this thread is apparently for discussing tier, I'll make it known that I think saying Adept can't be T4 because Healer is better than Adept and Healer is T4 is an argument based on the assumption that Healer belongs in T4...which I don't think it does, and Troacctid's evidence of their abilities seems to corroborate that, so Adept being worse than Healer in a variety of ways doesn't mean Adept is worse than T4, it means Healer is better.

[Troacctid]

I know the sanctified spells. Again, not especially pertinent, because they push the healer high enough that them being better than the adept does not make the adept tier five.

The better spells are pretty decent on a one per encounter basis. More web than scorching ray, because unloading a single blasting spell in a combat tends to be sad. That you do have what is possibly the worst nova in existence is nice though. I don't think it's impressive, in any case, but it's not awful either. You're losing endurance but gaining surprising variety and some meaningful power.
I don't think web carries you. Sure, the best-case scenario is pretty good, but you won't always have two convenient anchor points with enemies in between them. And even when you do get to cast it, you become limp and useless after blowing your sticky white load. I like a class with stamina.

It all comes back around to the same problem: Yeah, you can do a few things that are okay, but you can't do them well, or reliably. Your spells are not really level-appropriate due to your delayed progression, and you don't have enough of them to contribute meaningfully in every encounter (unless you have like 30 Wis). If the best you can do is run at bare minimum capacity 40% of the time, that's not competence in my book. And without competence, you can't call yourself T4.

Oh, and, you can't really have meaningful variety when you only get to prepare two or three spells per day. In practice, your options are actually harshly limited. Scorching ray is always going to be sad, so you're probably not going to bother preparing it, which means you might as well not even have it. (You can use wands of it, but it's even sadder at CL 3, so that doesn't help much.)


While a different optimisation level is going to change things, in general, any class that doesn't scale well with optimisation should probably be Tier X. That is, if there's a massive difference between [low B/high C]-optimisation and [high B/low A] optimisation, then the class is likely Tier X. The tier system, as specified, should hold across all optimisation levels because a 10th-level wizard, in low-optimisation, is still dealing about four or five times as much damage as the fighter, and also has access to fly and dimension door, which even a low-OP group will quickly realise can circumvent a lot of encounters. It's still "Breaking the game", because the core assumptions of the game are that the cleric will heal, the wizard will throw a few spells and then stand there using a crossbow, the fighter will beat face and the rogue will sneak around and open locks, which simply isn't what happens once the cleric and wizard actually read their spell lists. At medium optimisation, the cleric and wizard are supposed to be relatively versatile, the fighter is meant to fight three people at once and throw them around, and the rogue is meant to pass nearly every skill check he comes across, and that still isn't what happens because by medium optimisation the wizard's realised that polymorph is a spell. If there were a reasonable optimisation level where a level 6-16 wizard were generally worse than, say, a bard of that optimisation level, that would make it Tier X.
I'm not sure if there is any class that truly fits in such a wide spread. It's pretty rare to vary by more than one tier at reasonable levels of optimization (bekeleven's A, B, and C grades) if you aren't including prestige classes. I guess maybe Wilder? Having so few powers known makes it really easy to screw the class up, so you can totally be T5 with bad choices, T4 with a mix of good and bad, T3 with a mix of good and medium, or T2 with heavy optimization and/or cheese.

Okay, sure, I can get behind Wilder as an X.

[stanprollyright]

Adept, Archivist (HoH), Ardent (CPs), Aristocrat, Artificer (ECS) and Barbarian.

Adept: 43. crappy list of 5th level spells, but still a spellcaster with full CL, and thus better than tier 5.

Archivist: 123. prepared 9th level spells. moving on.

Ardent: not familiar enough with class or mechanics.

Aristocrat: 65. not much going for it except that diplomacy is strong.

Artificer: X31. Too many independent factors. Optimization level, wealth, downtime, amount of splat support, and availability of magic items. Assuming the class functions as intended with a baseline amount of all of the above, it is probably at least tier 3 when unoptimized, but can easily copy the wizard's tricks and be tier 1.

Barbarian: 45. Hits stuff, like, really hard. Has bucketloads of hp. Also has a couple skills and some minor utility abilities. No door is safe. Quintessential tier 4.

[Inevitability]

This I like. This I like indeed. Let's take a look at those classes!

On a related note, I'll be assuming prestige classes are disregarded. No adepts sneaking into Hexer and stuff like that.

Adept: 4563. The class's few spells and lack of real class features place it somewhere between tier 4 and 5 in my opinion. If it weren't for the familiar (which can get pretty cool even though Improved ones are out of the question), I'd put them in tier 5, but with one tier 4 is barely reached.

Past that, I feel tier 6 fits the adept better than 3. I find an adept who's simply useless in most situations easier to imagine than one shining in one area and decent everywhere else; the spell list is simply too small for that.

Archivist: 1X2. Cleric casting alone is already great, and with virtually limitless spell learning from virtually every list tacked on...

Ardent: 2X3. Less powers than a psion, but quite abusable mechanics. Not too familiar with it otherwise.

Aristocrat: 65. It's a warrior with more starting wealth and better skills. I guess an ubercharger aristocrat isn't impossible, but apart from that...

Artificer: 1X2. Low optimization artificers can be pretty weak, but past that it's just great, game-breaking goodness all around.

Barbarian: 4. To me, the barbarian is a prime example of tier 4. It's good at one thing (bashing in faces) and has a few other ways to contribute (skills, trapkiller, other ACF's).

[eggynack]

I don't think web carries you. Sure, the best-case scenario is pretty good, but you won't always have two convenient anchor points with enemies in between them. And even when you do get to cast it, you become limp and useless after blowing your sticky white load. I like a class with stamina.
I wouldn't expect a single web alone to carry the class, but you're usually running at least one other second, which at that point is probably invisibility or another web. It's not a perfect spell, but, as you note, when it works it works, and you get an effect out of league with what other characters in your tier are typically doing. There's something to be said for doing something pretty good every combat, but I think there's also something to be said for doing something really good every other combat, and something mediocre to alright the rest of the time.


It all comes back around to the same problem: Yeah, you can do a few things that are okay, but you can't do them well, or reliably. Your spells are not really level-appropriate due to your delayed progression, and you don't have enough of them to contribute meaningfully in every encounter (unless you have like 30 Wis). If the best you can do is run at bare minimum capacity 40% of the time, that's not competence in my book. And without competence, you can't call yourself T4.
Sleep does go down in quality as you level, but a lot of the adept's spells don't get hurt all that much by notions of level appropriateness.


Oh, and, you can't really have meaningful variety when you only get to prepare two or three spells per day. In practice, your options are actually harshly limited. Scorching ray is always going to be sad, so you're probably not going to bother preparing it, which means you might as well not even have it. (You can use wands of it, but it's even sadder at CL 3, so that doesn't help much.)
It's not like you lose first level spells when you get seconds, so you're only briefly facing that low a quantity of spells (or never, if you account for orisons). That being said, scorching ray's gotta be a bit better when you're running like four second level spells and one or two third level spells. At that point that ray doesn't represent a fourth of your major output.



I'm not sure if there is any class that truly fits in such a wide spread. It's pretty rare to vary by more than one tier at reasonable levels of optimization (bekeleven's A, B, and C grades) if you aren't including prestige classes. I guess maybe Wilder? Having so few powers known makes it really easy to screw the class up, so you can totally be T5 with bad choices, T4 with a mix of good and bad, T3 with a mix of good and medium, or T2 with heavy optimization and/or cheese.

Okay, sure, I can get behind Wilder as an X.
Truenamer and spirit shaman will probably get that classification quite a bit, on a different basis. I'm not a big fan of the rating though, so I'm inclined to give the former a four and the latter a two. Artificer probably has a solid spread too.

[Jormengand]

I'm not sure if there is any class that truly fits in such a wide spread. It's pretty rare to vary by more than one tier at reasonable levels of optimization (bekeleven's A, B, and C grades) if you aren't including prestige classes. I guess maybe Wilder? Having so few powers known makes it really easy to screw the class up, so you can totally be T5 with bad choices, T4 with a mix of good and bad, T3 with a mix of good and medium, or T2 with heavy optimization and/or cheese.

Okay, sure, I can get behind Wilder as an X.

I mean, Tier X was originally the truenamer tier. I can just about see that: at lowish-optimisation it's about Tier 5 (It's basically relegated to healing, damage-dealing and very minor utility in an all-around bad way) and at higher optimisation it can swing up to tier 3, easily able to do a job it's built for and contribute in other situations. With Universal Aptitude and its bonus recitations, it can contribute to a lot of rogue skills, and it can also heal people, fly, and deal utterly ludicrous amounts of any type of energy damage it likes. That means that you can build a truenamer who can kill things more effectively than most classes, and can also contribute elsewhere, but it's not easy. Standard for me, but not easy.

[Muggins]

In my rankings I treated Tier X as a label for "you can really mess this up." To various degrees. It's a way to give super-spellcasters like the Archivist the respect they deserve while acknowledging the flaws with having a selectable spell list.

A Warmage, for example, isn't going to have that problem, nor a Healer. I'll leave discussion of those classes for when they come up, though.

[Troacctid]

I wouldn't expect a single web alone to carry the class, but you're usually running at least one other second, which at that point is probably invisibility or another web. It's not a perfect spell, but, as you note, when it works it works, and you get an effect out of league with what other characters in your tier are typically doing. There's something to be said for doing something pretty good every combat, but I think there's also something to be said for doing something really good every other combat, and something mediocre to alright the rest of the time.

Sleep does go down in quality as you level, but a lot of the adept's spells don't get hurt all that much by notions of level appropriateness.

It's not like you lose first level spells when you get seconds, so you're only briefly facing that low a quantity of spells (or never, if you account for orisons). That being said, scorching ray's gotta be a bit better when you're running like four second level spells and one or two third level spells. At that point that ray doesn't represent a fourth of your major output.
Okay, a better comparison might be the Shadowcaster, which I think is a solid T4. Adept seems significantly worse. You fall behind in spells per day fairly quickly, and your higher-level spells are weaker and you get access to them more slowly. Putting the two classes in the same tier seems unreasonable—or at the very least, highly misleading.

[eggynack]

Okay, a better comparison might be the Shadowcaster, which I think is a solid T4. Adept seems significantly worse. You fall behind in spells per day fairly quickly, and your higher-level spells are weaker and you get access to them more slowly. Putting the two classes in the same tier seems unreasonable—or at the very least, highly misleading.
Might take some time for me to get a good estimate on how that comparison looks, but as a simpler counterargument, it also seems rather unreasonable to me to have, say, core monks or fighters hanging out in the same tier as adepts. There's just so much less power and versatility there.

[Troacctid]

I think Monk is a fine comparison, actually. You've got Invisibility, you've got Blink, you've got a little bit of combat ability but you don't really excel. Seems about right. I bet they hit similar benchmarks. Adept might even be worse.

[eggynack]

I think Monk is a fine comparison, actually. You've got Invisibility, you've got Blink, you've got a little bit of combat ability but you don't really excel. Seems about right. I bet they hit similar benchmarks. Adept might even be worse.
The adept's non-combat utility is significantly broader though, and their combat utility more unique within that power range, for whatever that's worth.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Gah, Alternative Vote! Kill it with fire!!!

...Sorry, this brings back some less-than-pleasant memories, as I'm sure other British playgrounders will understand. Though that's not quite how Alternative Voting normally works anyway. Aaand moving swiftly on...

Adept: 5 4 6

Archivist: 1

Ardent: 2 3 1

Aristocrat: 6 5 4

Artificier: 1 X 2

Barbarian: 4 5 3

[Troacctid]

The adept's non-combat utility is significantly broader though,
I don't think it is. Monks have stealth, perception, social skills, and a little mobility. Adepts have Spellcraft and some extremely resource-intensive low-level spells usable a limited number of times per day.


and their combat utility more unique within that power range, for whatever that's worth.
Knights and Dragon Shamans have unique abilities too, and they're still T5.

[Pleh]

I thought Monks were pretty standard T5, if we're using them for comparison? Don't they usually have trouble shining even in their own niche?

[Troacctid]

Yes, Monks are T5. Adepts aren't significantly better than Monks, so they're also T5.

[Pleh]

Ah, thought it was being argued they were T4. Excuse my silly and carry on.

[CaPtMalHammer]

Edited:

Adept : tier 54

Cleric spell casting list, even truncated at this is, makes them versatile. NPC class so not the full fledged flavor of a PC class. Spellcasting is good and is a good 1 trick pony. Solid Tier 5. With some optimization and Prestige classes can be raised to a low tier 4 with a few extra tricks.


Archivist (HoH):
Tier 43

Ok Spell casting similar to the Ardent in that they have access to cleric spell list, even if truncated. They have a few more tricks then the adept. Dark Knowledge helps in certain situations. They have a skill list with knowledges that help them out of combat but like the Adept is not great. A solid Tier 4 for having a few more tricks. Add in Optimazation and PRC's etc and with the right build can get their power level to a lower Tier 3.

Ardent (CPs): Tier 3

Solid Power point progression. mantles give them access to some good versatility. they have a possible many tricks but can really only do one or maybe 2 at a time. no earth shaking things that will break a game. Solid class and a solid tier 3.

Aristocrat: Tier 54

Ok social and face class.. NPC class with a single good trick as skill monkey or face. Making it a good Tier 5 PRC's etc can help but the class maybe become more versatile adding spellcasting etc and can get it into a lower Tier 4.


Artificer (ECS): Tier 432

Depending on build they can run the gambit..strong versatily and good crafting skills makes them useful to every party. can take on many roles in a group. They have a good power base and can be a high tier class. If built correctly can even possibly break the game with powerful items changing the party ECL. If built base without any optimization is a strong class with versatility. If built pourly can still contribute but will fall behind the power curve.


Barbarian: Tier 3

Strong Melee Class with good defensive abilities and some abilities to help it overcome some weakness in stats. Is a great one trick pony for sure but more versatile then some other one trick classes. Barbarians can be built CHR based, intimidate etc and pull off a decent face role. This is underestimated by most and is my opinion on the subject. They are used in a lot of optimization builds with dips because of Pounce through Lion Totem. Lower Tier 3 but I still believe they are a Tier 3 class.

[Zanos]

You might want to check the definition of the tier system being used in this thread, it's not the same as the one you're using.

[Troacctid]

Artificer (ECS): Tier 432

Depending on build they can run the gambit..strong versatily and good crafting skills makes them useful to every party.can take on many roles in a group.
You can't possibly be serious. :smallconfused:

[Jormengand]

Okay, CaPtMalHammer, I challenge you to a duel. You make the strongest barbarian you can of 10th level. I'll make a 10th-level archivist by preparing spells off my list completely at random. Then we fight in an arena match, duel to the death and may the best character win. Spoiler alert: you're going to lose horribly.

[AnachroNinja]

He's for something of a different viewpoint then most of us, it's best not to think about it to much. He put wizards in tier 3 in his thread after all.

I don't see a monk build that's actually primarily monk levels outperforming a Adept just using alternate source spell/southern magician to qualify for improved familiar shenanigans and using Animate Dead for brute stuff. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't really see it.

[AvatarVecna]

Adept : tier 32
Adepts have a good spell list..Ok Bab and a good will save..spellcasting makes them versatile.

Archivist (HoH):
Tier 43

They have spellcasting which seems to be what everyone else considers the be all end all..archivists to me seem one dimensional..horrible Bab..not great skills..etc..they cast spells and dark magic..

Adept has the same BAB as Archivists, so I don't know why you're saying the Adept has "ok" and Archivist has "horrible". Also, you say the Adept has a good spell list, but the Adept list is mostly just sections of the cleric list, whereas the archivist has the entire cleric list, and probably has even more? But Adept gets more credit for its casting than the Archivist does? What? And as far as skill list goes, you mark the Archivist down for having a terrible skill list, when their skill list is basically identical to the Adept, but the Adept doesn't get marked down for it?

I mean, I didn't expect your opinions to be on point, but I expected at least a modicum of internal consistency, like "casting sucks more than people think" or something.


Ardent (CPs): Tier 3

Good amount of power points..psyonics alone get them above tier 4..ok Bab but horrible skills..a solid 3 tier.

Not super off, but still kinda low, considering the tricks they can access. I'm not even much of a psionics guy, and I still know they can pull off some BS.


Aristocrat: Tier 4

Ok social and face class..great skills ok BAB but overall another on trick pony without much depth.

As near as I can tell, T4/T5/T6, at least in regards to specialists, are "amazing one-trick pony", "decent one-trick pony", and "terrible one-trick pony", and Aristocrat is arguably not the last because of how great Diplomacy can be, but I'm not seeing it as awesome enough to make them worthy of T4.


Artificer (ECS): Tier 432

Depending on build they can run the gambit..strong versatily and good crafting skills makes them useful to every party.can take on many roles in a group.

An artificer with no magic gear and no feats still has access to their ridiculously powerful and borderline-brokenly versatile infusion list, and giving them magic items they find (or worse, craft) makes them rocket up further. I'm not sure that the first case necessarily deserves to be called T1, but it's at least T2, and even the barest touch of optimization makes them far more effective than the "no magic gear" artificer, who's already awesome.


and Barbarian: Tier 32

Strong melee class with good defensive abilities..some minor outside combat thjngs..PRC builds use Barbarian a lot for ounce etc so as a dip may push it to 2 but a solid 3.

Strong melee? Okay, I'll grant you that, and even some decent defensive capabilities in their HD and Improved Uncanny Dodge (not great in high-op, but decent in lower-op). I'm missing what exactly it is they can do outside of combat, unless you mean "solving non-combat problems by hitting it with your axe anyway". EDIT: And even with out-of combat stuff that's effective enough to push them up into T3, I'm not seeing anything that lets them push in T2 (aka: can theoretically specialize to be awesome in any possible role, or is great at all roles simultaneously, but not so amazingly that they automatically make all specialists look terrible by comparison, and has tricks available that actually break the game)

[JBarca]

Okay, CaPtMalHammer, I challenge you to a duel. You make the strongest barbarian you can of 10th level. I'll make a 10th-level archivist by preparing spells off my list completely at random. Then we fight in an arena match, duel to the death and may the best character win. Spoiler alert: you're going to lose horribly.

As amusing as this is, it is not really indicative of Tier rankings. Tiers measure how versatile a class is, mostly. A duel measures either "are spells powerful" (protip: if you actually need this answer, you've lost the duel) or which character has the bigger numbers or most abusive gimmicks, depending on the classes involved.

That being said, CaPtMalHammer, I agree with the others here: take a look at what defines each tier. Without access to very powerful and varied magic (whatever form that takes), you won't break past T3, and will rarely get past T4.

Arguing that a spell caster is one dimensional while a mundane is not is... very illogical and bordeline ludicrous.

[eggynack]

I don't think it is. Monks have stealth, perception, social skills, and a little mobility. Adepts have Spellcraft and some extremely resource-intensive low-level spells usable a limited number of times per day.

A monk's MAD allows few enough skills that they're unlikely to even have all four of the stealth/perception skills, let alone those plus social skills. That in mind, the monk doesn't strike me as all that close to the adept's decent array of options, which at low levels includes stuff like comprehend languages, create water, cure minor wounds, detect alignment, detect magic, invisibility, see invisibility, three +4 stat spells (which seem better on the limited list here than I'd typically assess them), and a couple of others if ya wanna reach a bit. And, of course, I think the adept utterly crushes the monk at higher levels. The end result is that I think the adept is maybe comparable to the monk up to like 2nd level spells, maybe a bit ahead (or a bit behind in a different sort of campaign), and a lot ahead of the monk once you get 3rd level spells at level 8.

Edit: Yeah, that list of assessments is obviously wrong. Not sure it's worth arguing that much, as people are unlikely to be convinced that, for example, an aristocrat falls anywhere above tier six, let alone above tier five. As long as it's just one person making super wonky assessments, things aren't especially troublesome.

[Jormengand]

As amusing as this is, it is not really indicative of Tier rankings. Tiers measure how versatile a class is, mostly. A duel measures either "are spells powerful" (protip: if you actually need this answer, you've lost the duel) or which character has the bigger numbers or most abusive gimmicks, depending on the classes involved.

Well, the question of whether or not spells are powerful seems to be the main point of contention, yes. Of course, a real test of tier would involve setting up multiple varied encounters of the correct CR, but trying to work out what the CR of a noncombat non-trap encounter is headachey.

[Troacctid]

A monk's MAD few enough skills that they're unlikely to even have all four of the stealth/perception skills, let alone those plus social skills. That in mind, the monk doesn't strike me as all that close to the adept's decent array of options, which at low levels includes stuff like comprehend languages, create water, cure minor wounds, detect alignment, detect magic, invisibility, see invisibility, three +4 stat spells (which seem better on the limited list here than I'd typically assess them), and a couple of others if ya wanna reach a bit. And, of course, I think the adept utterly crushes the monk at higher levels. The end result is that I think the adept is maybe comparable to the monk up to like 2nd level spells, maybe a bit ahead (or a bit behind in a different sort of campaign), and a lot ahead of the monk once you get 3rd level spells at level 8.
Monks get at-will invisibility as a class feature, so they can be stealthy without ranks. That frees up their skills for Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Spot/Listen, and maybe a Knowledge or two if you have the Int for it.

I'm not saying Adepts can't do things. I'm just saying that they're not good at any of the things they do. With so few spell slots and a general dearth of resources, they can't really do any of those things well.

[JBarca]

Well, the question of whether or not spells are powerful seems to be the main point of contention, yes. Of course, a real test of tier would involve setting up multiple varied encounters of the correct CR, but trying to work out what the CR of a noncombatant non-trap encounter is headachey.

Entirely fair.

[flare'90]

Adept: 5 4. Lacklustre. The spell list they have has some good spells to work with, but the really limited spells per day really hampers them. No useful class abilities, since their familiar doesn't get the support that sor/wiz familiars get. As for the chassis, it's weak. You one advantage on the wizard is the d6 and a handful of skills. Still the best NPC class, maybe excepted the Magewright.

Archivist (HoH): 1. An extremely powerful class. Really, they get the cleric spell list, plus every divine spell they can get as a scroll AND actual class abilities. This is excellent power and versatility, since you get all the standard cleric tricks and you can get a lot of the wizard tricks via domain spells and other divine lists. The chassis is not that great, being a wizard with d6 and good Fort, but it's acceptable for what you get in return. Honestly, you could play an archivist from 1 to 20 and be perfectly good in any party.

Ardent (CPs): 2 3. A very good class but with sharp limits. The number of powers they get and the selection in very curtailed, since they get both a set number of powers know AND must choose them from a set number of mantles. They have also a lack of class abilities, but the mantles help to give some options in this sense. It's interesting to noteh that they have a larger ability to multiclass than other manifesters, since they chose powers based on caster level, not class level. The chassis is slightly worse than the archivist, with a d6 and only a good Will.

Aristocrat: 6. Garbage. Better than the commoner (I know, chicken-infested commoner, but whatever): they get d8 HD, medium bab, good Will, some good skills and a lump sum to start with. Not that being better than the commoner is a high bar.

Artificer (ECS): 1 X. Extremely powerful and very complex to play. The main gimmick of the artificer is crafting magic items, rolling UMD instead of providing spells. Just this ability alone give you access to every spell in the game. They also get a free xp pool for crafting and almost every item creation feat as a bonus. On top of that they get useful class abilities and a very good list of infusions, many of which mimic spells. The chassis is also not bad, with only a d6 but with good Will and medium bab. The class skill list is small, but they get UMD so they can't complain. The only problem of the class is that in actual play is rather complex to play, since you need to remember a lot of options. They also suffer a lot without downtime, since item crafting takes time.

Barbarian: 4 3. A very direct class. The main role of the barbarian it so smash, pure and simple. They get very few options apart from that, but they're very good at smashing. Being a core class they get a lot of support in splats, in the form of feats, ACF and prestige classes. Some ACF can help in expanding the barbarian role, such as the Trapkiller ACF from Dungeonscape, that gives some amount of trap-handling, but their main role is always combat. The chassis is very good, with a d12 HD, full bab and good Fort. They skill list is sparse but has some useful things. All in all a very good class in combat, particularly in melee, but very limited outside of it.

[eggynack]

As amusing as this is, it is not really indicative of Tier rankings. Tiers measure how versatile a class is, mostly. A duel measures either "are spells powerful" (protip: if you actually need this answer, you've lost the duel) or which character has the bigger numbers or most abusive gimmicks, depending on the classes involved.
I partially disagree in this instance. Arena fights don't tell us much, but they do give us at least some insight into who's better at straightforward combat. That's important here because straightforward combat is basically all a barbarian is good at. If archivists can beat up barbarians in direct combat, then barbarians are obviously blanket worse than archivists, so a tier assessment putting them higher is clearly wrong. Obviously there are issues with the particulars of the builds, and the nature of the match up, but there're gonna be problems in any method of assessment.


Monks get at-will invisibility as a class feature, so they can be stealthy without ranks. That frees up their skills for Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Spot/Listen, and maybe a Knowledge or two if you have the Int for it.
I was figuring without ACFs. Sufficient optimization could probably get monks to 4, at least on that instantiated build. Monks have some decent distance between floor and ceiling. One cool thing about adepts, incidentally, is that all this stuff is baseline. And they're pretty unlikely to have that kinda intelligence, given that wisdom, strength, dexterity, and constitution are all important to boost. If you're not putting some effort into most or all of those, then I find it unlikely the monk would be good enough at fighting to claim equal footing with the adept in general anyway.


I'm not saying Adepts can't do things. I'm just saying that they're not good at any of the things they do. With so few spell slots and a general dearth of resources, they can't really do any of those things well.
I get your position. I just think that the power granted here, especially at later levels, seems sufficient to justify the boost. Tier 5 characters so often seem like they can't do things, in a way which goes beyond the "Can do things but not in a great way", nature of the adept. The thing they're doing badly is better than the thing the monk is doing badly, and that means a lot.

[Vizzerdrix]

Im voting Shapesand as tier 2.

[JBarca]

I partially disagree in this instance. Arena fights don't tell us much, but they do give us at least some insight into who's better at straightforward combat. That's important here because straightforward combat is basically all a barbarian is good at. If archivists can beat up barbarians in direct combat, then barbarians are obviously blanket worse than archivists, so a tier assessment putting them higher is clearly wrong. Obviously there are issues with the particulars of the builds, and the nature of the match up, but there're gonna be problems in any method of assessment.

I suppose that makes sense. Consider my half-hearted objection revoked.

Anyway, I'm adjusting my voting for the Ardent, if that's alright. I've been convinced.

[Mehangel]

Adept: 5 4 3

Archivist: 1

Ardent: 4 3 1

Aristocrat: 6 4

Artificier: 1 3

Barbarian: 4 5 3

[Nifft]

Adept: 456

Archivist: 1

Ardent: 2X3 -- IIRC you can screw yourself over by picking Mantles & Powers poorly, but it's not the default, and even then you're one Psychic Reformation away from fixing the problem.

Aristocrat: 56 -- skill list & starting gold can make this a more effective choice than Fighter at level 1.

Artificier: 1X23 -- if there's no downtime in the 1-20 campaign then they won't craft much; this would be very unusual in my experience, but it is a potential Tier-changer.

Barbarian: 4

[Inevitability]

Im voting Shapesand as tier 2.

We should start a tongue-in-cheek 'tier list for items'. :smalltongue:

Longswords? A natural tier 5. Crowbars? Tier 4. Shapesand and chaos flask are tier 2, and Spell Component Pouches tier 1.

[CaPtMalHammer]

I apologize if I am misunderstanding this thread. I thought the idea was for people to vote on what they think the tier for these classes should be. I gave my vote and my opinion. I understand it might not be what you believe but that is why you have a vote as well. I did not understand that if you don't vote or believe the same way as someone else that you are wrong and need to change your opinions?

[JBarca]

I apologize if I am misunderstanding this thread. I thought the idea was for people to vote on what they think the tier for these classes should be. I gave my vote and my opinion. I understand it might not be what you believe but that is why you have a vote as well. I did not understand that if you don't vote or believe the same way as someone else that you are wrong and need to change your opinions?

As per the post by our OP a while ago, it's also to discuss and debate to make sure we get as accurate a result as possible. And to be honest, your votes were major outliers, so they naturally sparked a lot of discussion.

[CaPtMalHammer]

He's for something of a different viewpoint then most of us, it's best not to think about it to much. He put wizards in tier 3 in his thread after all.



I do have a different opinion and and have no issues with people reading my thoughts and thread but please get the information 100 percent correct when quoting. I have the wizard as tier 3 with a certain situation and vaccum but overall I have them as tier 1.

thank you .

[CaPtMalHammer]

As per the post by our OP a while ago, it's also to discuss and debate to make sure we get as accurate a result as possible. And to be honest, your votes were major outliers, so they naturally sparked a lot of discussion.

I understand that but there are posts here which are less discussions and more personal attacks on my opinions and me and those are what im objecting to. you may disagree with me all you want and make arguments as to why I am wrong. I just ask that you be civil and not personally attack. that may not have been their intention but is the way its coming across. perception is reality.

[Pleh]

As near as I can tell, T4/T5/T6, at least in regards to specialists, are "amazing one-trick pony", "decent one-trick pony", and "terrible one-trick pony", and Aristocrat is arguably not the last because of how great Diplomacy can be, but I'm not seeing it as awesome enough to make them worthy of T4.


As amusing as this is, it is not really indicative of Tier rankings. Tiers measure how versatile a class is, mostly. A duel measures either "are spells powerful" (protip: if you actually need this answer, you've lost the duel) or which character has the bigger numbers or most abusive gimmicks, depending on the classes involved.

My understanding of JaronK's arguments was that we were trying to measure Utility in the average encounter (both combat and noncombat type).

This takes into consideration far more than simply Versatility. It's also weighted against Effectiveness.

Effective and Versatile (Broken the Good Way): T1 does everything. T2 does anything. T3 does everything it needs to do.

Efffective, but not Versatile (aka One Trick Pony): T2 is One Size Fits All, T3 Gets the Job Done, T4 Passes with a C

Ineffective, but Versatile (aka, Jack of All Trades): T3 Knows How to Fill the Party Gaps, T4 Works (Surprisingly), T5 Maybe Should Have Really Planned Ahead More

Ineffective and not Versatile (Broken the Bad Way): T5 Thought It Looked Cool and T6 Was Written for NPCs

Varies wildly on the exact build: TX Break the Game (or Just Your Character) Based on Spell Choice.

Obviously, there are some classes you could say are "somewhat effective" or "somewhat versatile" but they fall into the blurry places between tiers and that's part of why alternative voting is being employed.

---

On a different note, I've noticed some people mentioning PRCs. How much do we want that to come into consideration here?

I mean, there's definitely a good point to be made when the best build you can make with a class is to only dip it and get into another class ASAP, versus having to make compelling reasons not to stick to the standard 20 levels.

What I mean is, I hear people saying things like, "A monk build using primarily monk levels" and "barbarians qualify for really nice prestige classes."

Okay, I don't want to say that tiering should ignore these kinds of builds, since we want a close to accurate picture of how a build is going to actually perform in a standard setting encounter. If the average build for a class uses PrCs, then our tier should probably rank them with that in mind.

But if the best aspect of a base class is how it gets you into better prestige classes while other base classes are more than fine to play the game by themselves, that by itself should be another mark against a class hoping to squeeze into the next tier up.

[Vizzerdrix]

We should start a tongue-in-cheek 'tier list for items'. :smalltongue:

Longswords? A natural tier 5. Crowbars? Tier 4. Shapesand and chaos flask are tier 2, and Spell Component Pouches tier 1.

I have always felt that shapesand is far, far more useful than a lot of class abilities and even some skills and can easily be used to replace them. It is why I always recommend it, and why I hve always said it was a 100gp class freature.

[javcs]

I do have a different opinion and and have no issues with people reading my thoughts and thread but please get the information 100 percent correct when quoting. I have the wizard as tier 3 with a certain situation and vaccum but overall I have them as tier 1.

thank you .

It's also that you seemed to be running off of an entirely different definition for the tiers than the ones laid out in this thread's OP. That's fine for your own thread, but in this thread, use this thread's definitions of the tiers.



--


Adept - Lower end of 4 or very top of 5. One of the best NPC classes (alongside Magewright), but still an NPC class - more suitable for relatively sedentary civilian life than that of an adventurer. Might be practical as a bonus gestalt with other lower-tier classes to augment their versatility some in a higher op game.


Archivist - Indisputably a strong 1. Divine version of the wizard, only with all of the divine lists. Doing an all Archivist party would be entirely doable, although not as easy as doing an all Cleric party. Can pretty much only screw up beyond all hope of recovery on purpose and with DM collusion.


Ardent - Not that familiar with it, but my understanding is that some of the best stuff for it is in a Mind's Eye web enhancement, rather than the sourcebook. Probably around a 2 from what I know about it.


Aristocrat - Low end of 5 or top of 6. It can diplomancer, but not as well as others (with actual class features), and probably has better RP social standing than the typical adventurer, which can be useful for RP/social encounter purposes with the DM allowing for it. IE - most town guardsmen are probably going to be reluctant to pry too deeply into the affairs of aristocrats if they don't have to or there's no overriding reason behind it. Wave a title at commoners and they'll probably go out of their way to not draw negative attention to themselves and give their best efforts to getting you what you want in commercial transactions - of course, you'll probably also need to pay a premium because you're an aristocrat. Might well be worth trying to talk your DM into allowing Quintessential Aristocrat from Mongoose Publishing if you're actually going to try an play one. It's an NPC class for a reason, though. If you really intend to play this concept, I'd suggest talking to your DM into allowing you to use a third party version of the class intended for adventurers - these are usually called "Nobles"


Artificer - Can scale funkily for an X, depending on game and on op level. At moderate or higher op levels with sufficient downtime, the very top of 1. At those op levels without sufficient downtime, probably 2 or 3. With downtime and only lower op ... probably still a weaker 1 or at worst a Tier 2 or strong 3. No downtime and low op probably 3 or 4. At decent or better op levels and sufficient downtime, it's terrifyingly easy to do an all Artificer party.


Barbarian - Typical 4. It kills stuff and doesn't get killed easily. Usually goes down hard against enemies who are more subtle (especially enemies who target Will saves) or require something more subtle than kicking the door down and stabbing everything that moves until it stops resisting. Has a variety of ACFs that make it better at killing things, which can make it a good dip class for those interested in being good at stabbing their enemies to death.

[Zanos]

I understand that but there are posts here which are less discussions and more personal attacks on my opinions and me and those are what im objecting to. you may disagree with me all you want and make arguments as to why I am wrong. I just ask that you be civil and not personally attack. that may not have been their intention but is the way its coming across. perception is reality.
The definition for tiers we're using is in the OP of this thread.

It seems like you're using a different definition entirely. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?510393-Tier-system-for-3-5-and-my-take-on-each-base-class)

[CaPtMalHammer]

The definition for tiers we're using is in the OP of this thread.

It seems like you're using a different definition entirely. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?510393-Tier-system-for-3-5-and-my-take-on-each-base-class)

I did look through the definitions you are using here. Maybe my explanations did not reflect that. That I apologize for. I will go back and add on and reword them so its better understood. My overall rankings were based on my thoughts using this tier system. They are just different.

Thank you,

[Inevitability]

I did look through the definitions you are using here. Maybe my explanations did not reflect that. That I apologize for. I will go back and add on and reword them so its better understood. My overall rankings were based on my thoughts using this tier system. They are just different.

Thank you,

To make this discussion easier for both parties, could you give an example class for each tier, using the way you view the system given in the first post?

[CaPtMalHammer]

updated my voting post with better explanations. And if it helps here is a quick single class for each Tier as I see it based on these criteria.

Tier 1: Druid, Wizard
Tier 2: Some Sorcerers, Clerics
Tier 3: Beguiler, Bard
Tier 4: Fighter
Tier 5: Monk
Tier 6: Ninja

I know my take may be different and I'm not going to apologize for having my own mind and thoughts even if different then the majority. I agree with several things and disagree with others. And before someone says why are they different here then on my thread. My thread uses a different measuring stick then this one so they might be different. That is a personal project I am working on.

[javcs]

updated my voting post with better explanations. And if it helps here is a quick single class for each Tier as I see it based on these criteria.

Tier 1: Druid, Wizard
Tier 2: Some Sorcerers, Clerics
Tier 3: Beguiler, Bard
Tier 4: Fighter
Tier 5: Monk
Tier 6: Ninja

I know my take may be different and I'm not going to apologize for having my own mind and thoughts even if different then the majority. I agree with several things and disagree with others. And before someone says why are they different here then on my thread. My thread uses a different measuring stick then this one so they might be different. That is a personal project I am working on.

Question: What makes Clerics a 2 instead of a 1 in your interpretation here?

[CaPtMalHammer]

I find clerics a very strong class with lots of versatile roles and if built right can have game breaking abilities. with little trying they don't have game breaking abilities like a wizard or druid can possibly have with very little work. It takes more work to get a cleric there in my opinion. Again my opinion. i'm not asking anyone agree with it. and I know there are going to be another 20 posts about how im wrong and im an idiot which I expect. in my opinion based on the OP's set of criteria this is the way I see it. I don't know what else I can say. And yes im sure there are going to be 2 million reasons given as to why im wrong and I will take each civil discussion into account and maybe ill change my mind maybe I wont. These are my ideas and thoughts. Its not a hardcore believe system or anything which is unmovable. I have changed my mind at times and moved numbers around even on my own thread.

[Pleh]

I know my take may be different and I'm not going to apologize for having my own mind and thoughts even if different then the majority. I agree with several things and disagree with others. And before someone says why are they different here then on my thread. My thread uses a different measuring stick then this one so they might be different. That is a personal project I am working on.

No one is asking you to apologize for having your own thoughts or having different ideas. That's why the topic is meant to be an open discussion.

We are asking people participating in the discussion to be prepared to explain and defend their positions, and to do so rigorously if necessary.

[Troacctid]

I was figuring without ACFs. Sufficient optimization could probably get monks to 4, at least on that instantiated build. Monks have some decent distance between floor and ceiling. One cool thing about adepts, incidentally, is that all this stuff is baseline. And they're pretty unlikely to have that kinda intelligence, given that wisdom, strength, dexterity, and constitution are all important to boost. If you're not putting some effort into most or all of those, then I find it unlikely the monk would be good enough at fighting to claim equal footing with the adept in general anyway.

I get your position. I just think that the power granted here, especially at later levels, seems sufficient to justify the boost. Tier 5 characters so often seem like they can't do things, in a way which goes beyond the "Can do things but not in a great way", nature of the adept. The thing they're doing badly is better than the thing the monk is doing badly, and that means a lot.
How about other T4 casters, then? Warmage, Shadowcaster—both significantly more powerful than the Adept in versatility, consistency, and scaling.

[Nifft]

No one is asking you to apologize for having your own thoughts or having different ideas. That's why the topic is meant to be an open discussion.

We are asking people participating in the discussion to be prepared to explain and defend their positions, and to do so rigorously if necessary. Indeed.

A well-reasoned and supported opinion can change my mind.

It has happened before, and I'm probably not the only person on this forum who is capable of such mental adaptation.


How about other T4 casters, then? Warmage, Shadowcaster—both significantly more powerful than the Adept in versatility, consistency, and scaling. This is difficult for me to decide.

On the one hand, an Adept can do several different kinds of things with her spells -- she's got more innate versatility than a Warmage, and more day-to-day versatility than a Shadowcaster.

On the other hand, her spell progression is just so awful.

[javcs]

How about other T4 casters, then? Warmage, Shadowcaster—both significantly more powerful than the Adept in versatility, consistency, and scaling.

I think Tier 4 is kind of broad.

And I wouldn't exactly call a Warmage particularly versatile. Sure, they've got all kinds of blasting, but little else, and blasting isn't exactly that broad a category either.

But, I'd say that both the Warmage and the Shadowcaster would be nearer the top of T4 basis of power in their niches, than the bottom of T4, which is where I see an argument for the Adept, which has more versatility but far more limited power.

Adepts are an edge case, IMO. A 5+ or a 4-.



Editing to avoid doubleposting

I find clerics a very strong class with lots of versatile roles and if built right can have game breaking abilities. with little trying they don't have game breaking abilities like a wizard or druid can possibly have with very little work. It takes more work to get a cleric there in my opinion. Again my opinion. i'm not asking anyone agree with it. and I know there are going to be another 20 posts about how im wrong and im an idiot which I expect. in my opinion based on the OP's set of criteria this is the way I see it. I don't know what else I can say. And yes im sure there are going to be 2 million reasons given as to why im wrong and I will take each civil discussion into account and maybe ill change my mind maybe I wont. These are my ideas and thoughts. Its not a hardcore believe system or anything whlich is unmovable. I have changed my mind at times and moved numbers around even on my own thread.
T2 is for the class can do anything a T1 can do, but any particular build is limited to its handful of main tricks.
T1 is for classes that aren't really limited by build. The heavy weight a T1 caster carries is largely by virtue of being able to near completely switch out their focus (meaning their entire suite of spells) with minimal effort (pick a new set of spells to prepare tomorrow).
Sure, a Cleric might take a little more build effort to be as gamebreaking as it can be, but I don't see how it can take anywhere near enough to drop to T2 from its position in T1. Could you please expand on this point?

[Troacctid]

This is difficult for me to decide.

On the one hand, an Adept can do several different kinds of things with her spells -- she's got more innate versatility than a Warmage, and more day-to-day versatility than a Shadowcaster.

On the other hand, her spell progression is just so awful.
An Adept has so few spell slots that she can realistically only do maybe one, two, or three things. Which is actually fewer things than Warmage, if you look at their list (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20041105a&page=3) more closely. They have a lot of damage, but they also have debuffs, some really great BFC, and a little utility, and even a couple game-changer spells at the top end. And they cast spontaneously from their whole list, so they always have all the options all the time, and they have a bazillion spell slots, so they can do it all all day long no sweat. That's what doing something competently looks like.

I've played Adepts and I've DM'd for Warmages, and honestly there's no comparison. Adept is an NPC class. It's not on the same level. And in play, it doesn't hold up as a functional adventurer. It's trying to be a mage, and it is not good at it.


I think Tier 4 is kind of broad.

And I wouldn't exactly call a Warmage particularly versatile. Sure, they've got all kinds of blasting, but little else, and blasting isn't exactly that broad a category either.

But, I'd say that both the Warmage and the Shadowcaster would be nearer the top of T4 basis of power in their niches, than the bottom of T4, which is where I see an argument for the Adept, which has more versatility but far more limited power.

Adepts are an edge case, IMO. A 5+ or a 4-.
Adepts don't really have more versatility, because they can only realistically do one or two things at a time, and there are only a fairly small number of spells on their list that are even worth preparing anyway.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think Tier 4 is kind of broad.
This is true, and arguably one of the bigger problems with the tier system. The single-axis scale is easier, but it means that Tier 4 in particular covers two very different types of character: the Barbarian/Warmage "good at one thing but crap at everything else," and the Ranger/Warlock "reasonably versatile but lacks a punch." It's easy to get false positives, especially when so many T4 classes can easily slide up a tier with proper builds.

[Muggins]

This is true, and arguably one of the bigger problems with the tier system. The single-axis scale is easier, but it means that Tier 4 in particular covers two very different types of character: the Barbarian/Warmage "good at one thing but crap at everything else," and the Ranger/Warlock "reasonably versatile but lacks a punch." It's easy to get false positives, especially when so many T4 classes can easily slide up a tier with proper builds.
While there's always the option to revise the current tier system with sub-tiers (e.g. a Tier 4a for Strong classes, and a Tier 4b for Versatile classes), I don't know if the distinction is worth the added complexity. It's easy enough to just define a class' place in the tier tree by its best asset and move on.

It wouldn't be a big change, though, if we did add it. Could even tie tier 2 and 3 together in this way, since they boil down to "crushingly powerful" and "crushingly versatile," respectively. So either Tiers 1, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4, 5, or Tiers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

[Jormengand]

Can I also ask people to make sure their votes are written in a way that is easy on the eyes and preferably in Bold Purple to make them easier to see, especially if they're buried in the middle of a block of text. I have to search through your posts to find your votes, and this makes it a lot easier. Also, please do not reiterate your votes in multiple posts unless you have edited out the original votes. The discussion is (largely) great, but I'm going to have to search through several pages (maybe ten per set of classes if we keep up at even a fraction of this rate).

[AmberVael]

Maybe split discussion and voting into two different threads? And if someone wants to change votes, just have them edit their post rather than making a new one (and tally up all votes at the end so you notice all the edits).

[Jormengand]

Maybe split discussion and voting into two different threads? And if someone wants to change votes, just have them edit their post rather than making a new one (and tally up all votes at the end so you notice all the edits).

I like having them as one so that people actually feel the compulsion to defend their position, rather than dropping it into a thread where they know that no-one can criticise them.

[Pleh]

The only good reason (in my mind) to make a separate thread is for discussions that go into overtime. If we come to the point that we have to move on to the next 6 classes and we're really still 50/50 on adept, we can put a bookmark in that class and take that specific debate to a thread where it won't impede progress.

[CaPtMalHammer]

I think Tier 4 is kind of broad.

And I wouldn't exactly call a Warmage particularly versatile. Sure, they've got all kinds of blasting, but little else, and blasting isn't exactly that broad a category either.

But, I'd say that both the Warmage and the Shadowcaster would be nearer the top of T4 basis of power in their niches, than the bottom of T4, which is where I see an argument for the Adept, which has more versatility but far more limited power.

Adepts are an edge case, IMO. A 5+ or a 4-.



Editing to avoid doubleposting

T2 is for the class can do anything a T1 can do, but any particular build is limited to its handful of main tricks.
T1 is for classes that aren't really limited by build. The heavy weight a T1 caster carries is largely by virtue of being able to near completely switch out their focus (meaning their entire suite of spells) with minimal effort (pick a new set of spells to prepare tomorrow).
Sure, a Cleric might take a little more build effort to be as gamebreaking as it can be, but I don't see how it can take anywhere near enough to drop to T2 from its position in T1. Could you please expand on this point?

I tell you what . Ill expand more on cleric when we get there in the next couple of weeks. This is taking away from the current weeks discussion on the classes presented. Is that fair?

[eggynack]

How about other T4 casters, then? Warmage, Shadowcaster—both significantly more powerful than the Adept in versatility, consistency, and scaling.
Warmage is a pretty interesting one. I'm inclined towards two somewhat opposed arguments on it. First, that it's not actually more versatile. There's some good non-blasting on the warmage list, but it's mostly just BFC. Admittedly a great class of spell, but what seems inarguable is that adepts get more variety at most levels. Second, warmage might secretly just be tier three. Adding spells to the warmage list is really powerful, and it's not too difficult, and that's on top of what might be a somewhat underrated baseline potency. I'm already somewhat inclined to upgrade the beguiler when I get there, and this alteration would make sense as an extension of that.

[Nifft]

An Adept has so few spell slots that she can realistically only do maybe one, two, or three things. Which is actually fewer things than Warmage, if you look at their list (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20041105a&page=3) more closely. They have a lot of damage, but they also have debuffs, some really great BFC, and a little utility, and even a couple game-changer spells at the top end. And they cast spontaneously from their whole list, so they always have all the options all the time, and they have a bazillion spell slots, so they can do it all all day long no sweat. That's what doing something competently looks like.

I've played Adepts and I've DM'd for Warmages, and honestly there's no comparison. Adept is an NPC class. It's not on the same level. And in play, it doesn't hold up as a functional adventurer. It's trying to be a mage, and it is not good at it.

Warmage BFC does look pretty decent, yeah. Their debuffs are lacking, though, especially at low levels. Maybe this is remedied via Advanced Learning?

Which ones are their "game-changer" spells?

[Troacctid]

Warmage is a pretty interesting one. I'm inclined towards two somewhat opposed arguments on it. First, that it's not actually more versatile. There's some good non-blasting on the warmage list, but it's mostly just BFC.
You were singing the praises of the Adept's web earlier. Warmage gets much better than that, plus other stuff too.


Second, warmage might secretly just be tier three. Adding spells to the warmage list is really powerful, and it's not too difficult, and that's on top of what might be a somewhat underrated baseline potency. I'm already somewhat inclined to upgrade the beguiler when I get there, and this alteration would make sense as an extension of that.
I can respect that. The lack of skill points is rough, though. You're great in combat, but it's difficult to do much outside it, since you only have a handful of utility spells. I think it's very close to being T3, but not quiiiite there.

The best ways to expand your spell list tend to involve prestige classes, which shouldn't really be taken into account IMO? The feats that do it aren't super impressive in comparison.


Warmage BFC does look pretty decent, yeah. Their debuffs are lacking, though, especially at low levels. Maybe this is remedied via Advanced Learning?

Which ones are their "game-changer" spells?
I was thinking of earthquake for destruction on a mass scale and contingency for action economy breakage. Both pretty low-tier as far as game-changers go, but its better than nothing. You could also grab limited wish or something with Eclectic Learning.

[eggynack]

You were singing the praises of the Adept's web earlier. Warmage gets much better than that, plus other stuff too.
The advantage the adept has here is in that other stuff. The warmage seems clearly advantaged in BFC and blasting, but perhaps behind in arbitrary utility and other effects.


The best ways to expand your spell list tend to involve prestige classes, which shouldn't really be taken into account IMO? The feats that do it aren't super impressive in comparison.
Arcane disciple can be pretty great, and you can pick it up multiple times.

[Troacctid]

The advantage the adept has here is in that other stuff. The warmage seems clearly advantaged in BFC and blasting, but perhaps behind in arbitrary utility and other effects.
The other stuff is also mostly just worse than what a Warmage gets, though. Warmages can get invisibility and they usually don't even pick it. And their 11th level Eclectic Learning gets them polymorph a level before the Adept gets it, with more castings per day.

[javcs]

I tell you what . Ill expand more on cleric when we get there in the next couple of weeks. This is taking away from the current weeks discussion on the classes presented. Is that fair?

As you listed cleric as an example T2 class under this thread's definition of the tiers, expanding on how and why you think clerics are T2 under this thread's definitions would be helpful in understanding your thought processes. But if you prefer to wait until clerics come up for voting, that is your choice.





As for the warmage/adept debate ...
Warmages are at the upper end of T4, as they're not quite good enough at the blasting to merit T3 solely on that basis, and lack the native versatility to get to T3 without expending most or all of your build resources towards that end. Or going Rainbow Warsnake. If you buy them at T3, they're very low in T3. Their spell list got shafted on the battlefield preparation and defensive spells - they're pure offense where anything called a "warmage" ought to be able to help create defensive works and keep his side from getting magically owned.
Adepts, if they are T4, are at the lower end of T4, because they have just enough versatility to boost themselves out of T5. If they're T5, they're at the very top of T5, because they don't have quite enough sustainable power to make it into T4. They're one of the annoying edge cases.


Does the presence of Warmage at the top of T4 mean Adepts can't be at the bottom of T4? I'd say not inherently. The question then is, do Adepts have enough to get out of T5?
I'd say probably, if just barely, and if not, they're real close.

I think it's likely that the most discussion will happen for edge cases and/or screwy classes.

[Nifft]

The other stuff is also mostly just worse than what a Warmage gets, though. Warmages can get invisibility and they usually don't even pick it. And their 11th level Eclectic Learning gets them polymorph a level before the Adept gets it, with more castings per day.

Ah, that's what it is. I'd forgotten about Eclectic Learning.

With only Advanced Learning and their base spell list, a Warmage is very bad at many things.

With Eclectic Learning, a few legit game-changers can be cherry-picked, and that probably makes a huge difference in ratings.

[Lans]

Arcane disciple can be pretty great, and you can pick it up multiple times.

The existence of arcane disciple is why I think the fix list casters are in the top of there tiers. Its not a guaranteed choice, but when it is chosen its basically tier+1 for them.


This is true, and arguably one of the bigger problems with the tier system. The single-axis scale is easier, but it means that Tier 4 in particular covers two very different types of character: the Barbarian/Warmage "good at one thing but crap at everything else," and the Ranger/Warlock "reasonably versatile but lacks a punch." It's easy to get false positives, especially when so many T4 classes can easily slide up a tier with proper builds.


Why don't we drop another tier in? We just need to decide whether versatile but lacks punch should be tier 4 or 5 and we are good.

[Troacctid]

Arcane Disciple's Wisdom requirement and 1/day restriction are really awkward, though. I don't think every Warmage is taking it.

Adding new tiers seems unnecessary. Could we maybe place a class in the fuzzy area between two tiers, or put a class in two tiers depending on conditions?

[eggynack]

Arcane Disciple's Wisdom requirement and 1/day restriction are really awkward, though. I don't think every Warmage is taking it.
It's not a perfectly ideal situation, but it's a whole lot of additional versatility. I could see some warmages not going in for it, because it demands some effort, but it's the kinda thing that'd probably feature in any and every, "Which tier is the warmage in," argument, because it definitely seems to do its job of upping your tier. Kinda a weird spot.


Adding new tiers seems unnecessary. Could we maybe place a class in the fuzzy area between two tiers, or put a class in two tiers depending on conditions?
The old list does have red and blue entries...

[Troacctid]

Bloodline feats are a lot less finicky.

[Lans]

Adept 453
Archivist 1
Ardent (CPs), 321 The brokeness of the mantles seems less than a psion, like the beguiler to where I think its a very high 3
Aristocrat 56 can do a little bit of the social stuff, but will usually be worse than the expert, and maybe even the monk
Artificer 2/1 I think pulling the traditional tier 1 brokeness requires an even higher optimization level than normal, and is askew to how most will play it for most levels.
Barbarian. 4/5/3 With out ACFs =he is little better than a fighter who is high on tier 5. A fighters feats can largely even level the playing field between these 2 in combat which leaves him ahead by fast movement and more skills.


Adding new tiers seems unnecessary. Could we maybe place a class in the fuzzy area between two tiers, or put a class in two tiers depending on conditions?

The problem is't the classes, its that tier 4 has two distinct criteria for entry.

[Pleh]

Why don't we drop another tier in? We just need to decide whether versatile but lacks punch should be tier 4 or 5 and we are good.


While there's always the option to revise the current tier system with sub-tiers (e.g. a Tier 4a for Strong classes, and a Tier 4b for Versatile classes), I don't know if the distinction is worth the added complexity. It's easy enough to just define a class' place in the tier tree by its best asset and move on.

It wouldn't be a big change, though, if we did add it. Could even tie tier 2 and 3 together in this way, since they boil down to "crushingly powerful" and "crushingly versatile," respectively. So either Tiers 1, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4, 5, or Tiers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

From the OP


This thread is also not for arguing about how the tiers should be defined - they are what they are, and having more than one conflicting standard for tiering is only really going to cause confusion.

I think it's important to stick to this. There's enough room for argument just about the classes themselves. Adjusting the tiers merits it's own discussion.

But most importantly, changing the tiers would then require the changes be explained to anyone wanting to use the resource. It can be done, but I don't think it really accomplishes the goal the thread set its premise upon: the community elected tier list. Trying to make the list and adjust the tiers in the same breath is "really going to cause confusion."

[eggynack]

To what extent are we considering various resources? The baseline assumption of the original tier system is supposed to be only the class' book of origin, no magic items, and ACF's aren't generally considered unless you're denoting that as its own class. Prestige classes and multiclassing potential, perhaps rightly so, aren't even close to considered. Is that where we are? We're talking barbarian, for example, but are we to care about pounce and shocktrooper? I just brought up arcane disciple in the context of the warmage, but is that even a considered factor? I ask in part because these are factors we're probably all accounting for in our analysis, and maybe they shouldn't be. Or maybe factors we're not considering should be. Either way. I ask also because one main criticism of the tier system is that it might put classes in too much of a vacuum. Some classes get more or less from items, and some classes get more or less from particular books or books in general, and the tier system assumes that's not the case.

[Pleh]

I don't think the classes need to be in a strict vacuum. I think we want the tiers to inform players and DM’s what to expect a class to really play like.

I would say for classes like barbarian, we should say, "tier #, but plays nice with PrC and ACF options for T(#+1)"

Official tier should probably stick as close as reasonable to pure class so newbies know how much help a class needs, then some footnotes about how much help is actually available.

Then people who are selecting a class by its relative power range, then they know which handbook to look up to see more details on what their chosen class can really do.

Doing it this way doesn't feel like changing how JaronK's tier worked while trying to make a more complete and more faithful rendition.

[GrayDeath]

Adept: 45

Archivist: 1

Ardent: 23X

Aristocrat: 65

Artificer: 12X....4?

Barbarian: 45

Not much to say to the T1`s.

barbarian and Artificer rise and fall with some very specific "Tools", but usually should be in the first mentioned if the Player knows what hes doing.
Adepts....were hard. Originally had them as T5, but their List, while they get access REALLY lamely (^^) is filled with excelent spells. So very very barely T4 before T5.

[Muggins]

I feel that things like ACFs and feats are important to consider. Classes don't exist in a vacuum. Ignoring prestige classes and multiclassing is definitely smart, but I feel like particularly egregrious examples can just go the Erudite route with its optional, but exceedingly strong, Spell-to-Power ACF.

[AnonymousPepper]

Adept: 4

It's a decent half-caster with a good list, essentially a gimped-progression cleric with all of the non-spell goodies stripped out. Seems like a pretty solid fit for T4, as it manages to be a highly versatile class primarily held back by its spells-per-day. It manages to have an answer for every encounter, if not necessarily the best answer, so long as those encounters don't last too long. I fail to see how this is equivalent to, say, the archetypical tier 5 Fighter.

Archivist: 1

The Archivist is a... well, frankly, downright broken class. At its worst, it's more or less identical to a Wizard in terms of power level. Theoretically, it's the most powerful class in the game outside of infinite loops, as it can access every spell in the game and cast the entire list spontaneously (outside of the scope of a tier list, obviously, but in case you were curious, Hathran+Acorn of Far Travel shenanigans). On a more reasonable general play level, it's literally just a spellbook Cleric with some poached goodies outside of the normal cleric list (probably from the Paladin list, also known as the "great spells, just a little late and not enough of them" list, which is less of a problem for the Archivist), and that's textbook tier 1 territory.

Ardent: 2

I mean. It's a Psion with some alternative, generally weaker, mechanics. Full manifester, limited list. Strikes me as fitting about the same power level as a Sorc. Fairly standard tier 2.

Aristocrat: 5

Aristocrat has one very specific niche at which it's okay - social interactions - but not great - that'd be a Beguiler or a Bard - and is utterly useless outside of that without heavy investment, and that should strike you as being suspiciously similar to the way the Fighter is described. Literally, replace "social interactions" with "hitting things" and "Beguiler or Bard" with "Barbarian or ." I feel like that makes it a fairly obvious 5.

[B]Artificer: 1

Hoo boy, favorite class time. Artificers are blatantly at least 1 in all situations, even when deliberately gimped by the GM by removing downtime, and this is specifically due to the Spell-Storing Item infusion. You have spontaneous casting of any fourth-level or lower spell in the game, two levels ahead of their normal casters, with the meagar caveats of casting time (Eberron includes action points, and the class is clearly intended to work with them, so I don't think they can be thrown out, meaning the cast time is less of an issue), a UMD check (fairly trivially overcome because you're an artificer), and low save DCs (which is fine, because the selection of spells is easily large enough to work around that). It's not necessarily the absolute best answer for encounters - given that sometimes the ideal answer is an Avasculate or an Anti-Magic Ray or a Teleport or the like - but you will always have a very good answer for literally any encounter on the fly with zero preparation time, and this is not a high-op trick at all and is not something the GM can deprive you of without banning the class altogether. Again, I reiterate: spontaneous casting of every fourth-and-below spell in the game out of essentially a first-level spell. That alone is tier 1. Get into basic item creation as artificers usually do and are intended to and it puts it at or near the very top of the tier. Solid tier 1.

Barbarian: 4

Does tons of damage (RiotPhreak.gif goes here). Does very little else, but can be made to be passable at another role with some effort. Not much to say. Easy 4.

[Tiri]

Adept: 45
The good spell list makes it fairly versatile and powerful, but it can't make it into Tier 3 with only level 5 spells at 20th level, its chassis, and the spells per day it has. If played poorly it's easily Tier 5.

Archivist: 1
It's a prepared full caster with access to a good list. Not much to say here.

Ardent: 23
Full manifesting, but even with good mantles it has a limited selection and with bad ones it can fall to Tier 3.

Aristocrat: 6
With no class features and an average chassis, this class is solidly Tier 6.

Artificer: 1X
This can be very powerful if built correctly, but if done wrong it can be very weak.

Barbarian: 4
Does damage well, but it's hard to get it to do much else.

[BaronDoctor]

Adept: High 5, low 4.
Smallish list. Minimal spells per day. Delay in increasing spell levels. Can they win an encounter? Sure. Can they contribute to every encounter in an adventuring day? Not likely.

Archivist: 1 or 3.
Cast cleric spells like a wizard. Sure, you don't have the ability to completely wipe your picks and pick new ones like a cleric, but you can find new spells in treasure or ask around town or any number of different things. If you completely flub things up, you still have adequate class features and you'll get decent spells, so you can contribute but maybe not warp the game around yourself.

Ardent: Pass. I don't know it well.

Aristocrat: High 6, low 5.
Swashbuckler does it better with actual class features on top. It does have access to some skills (but not Expert skills), but it's not got the resources to really astound anywhere.

Artificer: 1 to X
With downtime to craft, they're amazing. Without it, they've still got a lot of tricks up their sleeve. Put them in a cave with a box of scraps and there's a ton they can do.

Barbarian: 4
They hit things hard. They're very good at that. They've got a couple other low-hanging fruit tricks that can push them towards the top of T4, but they don't have the degree of versatility necessary for T3 or the struggle to be effective necessary for T5. They pretty much range throughout T4. They own the zone, to a degree of being definitional of T4 in a way Wizards/Clerics are T1, Bards are T3, and Warriors are T6.

[Troacctid]

Adept: 4

It's a decent half-caster with a good list, essentially a gimped-progression cleric with all of the non-spell goodies stripped out. Seems like a pretty solid fit for T4, as it manages to be a highly versatile class primarily held back by its spells-per-day. It manages to have an answer for every encounter, if not necessarily the best answer, so long as those encounters don't last too long. I fail to see how this is equivalent to, say, the archetypical tier 5 Fighter.
How would you set up your spell slots to have an answer for every encounter? Because I've tried a few loadouts and found it to be pretty difficult, especially without spontaneous casting of any kind.

[Aimeryan]

Unfortunately, I haven't had enough experience in D&D with different classes (my group plays infrequently) - so, I likely wont be able to contribute much to the actual tiering of the classes.

Using JaronK's tier list when I was getting started was helpful, but it often didn't actually tell me about the classes themselves; just how relative to each other they were. What I would like to put forward is that we use a tiering system that is more table-like explaining what each class is good/bad at and then maybe an overall tier based on that.

Rough example (could do with more detail, but the idea is there):




Class
Combat Strength
Combat Versatility
OoC Effectiveness
ACF Potential
MC/PrC Potential
Overall Tier


Barbarian
Major: Ubercharger
Minor
Minor
Major: Lion Spiritual Totem for Pounce
Good 1/2 level dip
~4



Overall tier could be +Y, -Y, or ~Y (solid for that tier).

[Pleh]

How would you set up your spell slots to have an answer for every encounter? Because I've tried a few loadouts and found it to be pretty difficult, especially without spontaneous casting of any kind.

Perhaps pepper didn't mean being slotted for every encounter, rather being able to be slotted for any encounter?

[AnonymousPepper]

Perhaps pepper didn't mean being slotted for every encounter, rather being able to be slotted for any encounter?

Yeah. I'm running on pretty low sleep - lots of typos up there - so my wording was bad.

I mean in the sense that you can prep the more generic sorts of spells on the list that could literally be marginally useful in a large array of situations. For example, Aid, though certainly not a great spell, is almost guaranteed to be at least somewhat useful in pretty much *any* combat encounter regardless of the opposition type. You won't be very good, but you can squeeze a surprising amount of versatility out of those limited slots. Polymorph, Animate Dead, and Bestow Curse are other spells that work along this sort of line of thought; namely, you can almost always find a use for them if you try hard enough, much as a specialist illusionist very quickly finds very creative usages for Minor Image.

[eggynack]

Was thinking more about ACF's and feats and such. My thinking is, the main difference between a tier system with that stuff and one without is that the version with would probably upgrade tier five core classes by one tier. The fighter picks up dungeoncrasher and zhentarim soldier, paladin gets to act a whole hell of a lot more like a caster, and monk picks up a bunch of great ACF's like invisible fist and dark moon (with the paladin getting some cool ACF's as well). Ranger gets the wild shape ACF too, and that's an easy tier raiser if you consider it the same class. The underlying reality I'm getting at here is that core classes got a lot of support from other books, where classes from those other books frequently found the vast majority of their support from the books they were introduced in. Barbarian is kinda fourish either way, so it doesn't matter at this point so much, but I figure that if there's a point it's going to start mattering, it's going to be when we get to fighter or so.

[Troacctid]

I think if there's any ACF or feat that shifts the class by a full tier, it should be noted separately. For example, the standard Spellthief is T4, while the Trickster Spellthief is T3, and the Spell-Less Spellthief is prooobably T5?

[Jormengand]

For now, I'm going to ask people not to consider variants. Once we're done, we can nominate variants which we think are different in tier to the original class and vote on them.

[Muggins]

For now, I'm going to ask people not to consider variants. Once we're done, we can nominate variants which we think are different in tier to the original class and vote on them.

Mind elaborating there, champ? What's a "variant" in your definition?

[eggynack]

I think if there's any ACF or feat that shifts the class by a full tier, it should be noted separately. For example, the standard Spellthief is T4, while the Trickster Spellthief is T3, and the Spell-Less Spellthief is prooobably T5?
My thinking was that single tier shifting ACF's are relatively straightforward, if you're instead working with a class where there're a number of ACF's or feats that act as improvements, and if only one of those things would arguably be insufficient for an upgrade, things get more complicated. Wild shape ranger is easy. Monk, which frequently uses several potent ACF's in its optimal state, is harder. Invisible fist monk is unlikely to get its own fancy entry, but it's undeniably a big source of power.

For now, I'm going to ask people not to consider variants. Once we're done, we can nominate variants which we think are different in tier to the original class and vote on them.
The above seems potentially pertinent here too, but more important and up in the air is non-ACF stuff. Y'know, list boosting whatever on a warmage, sword of the arcane order on a paladin or ranger, battle blessing also on a paladin, FoI on a factotutm, and so on.

Mind elaborating there, champ? What's a "variant" in your definition?
I'd assume substitution level, ACF, or really anything that bears a resemblance to most of the stuff on this page (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantClasses.htm) (everything but spontaneous divine casters, prestige character classes, gestalt characters, and generic classes).

[Jormengand]

The above seems potentially pertinent here too, but more important and up in the air is non-ACF stuff. Y'know, list boosting whatever on a warmage, sword of the arcane order on a paladin or ranger, battle blessing also on a paladin, FoI on a factotutm, and so on.

I'd assume substitution level, ACF, or really anything that bears a resemblance to most of the stuff on this page (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantClasses.htm) (everything but spontaneous divine casters, prestige character classes, gestalt characters, and generic classes).

Well, there were separate "Binder (With online vestiges)" and "Binder (No online vestiges)" tiers originally. Paladin (With SotAO and battle blessing) could be higher tier than without, but I'd say that's more a build choice than a class choice.

Well, actually I'd argue that spontaneous divine casters does kinda count as a variant. Certainly, I'm assuming that no optional rules are in place either (say NO to recharge magic, kids!).

[Karl Aegis]

Adept: 5
The Adept can target Will and Reflex Saves, Touch AC and has Handle Animal for offensive capability. Not too easy to become immune to all it's tricks. The familiar with it's Aid Another action gives a bonus to a variety of things. Skill List includes goodies like Knowledges, Spellcraft and Handle Animal. Probably most comparable to a Mystic Ranger with Urban Companion, which blows the class completely out of the water. A good will save is it's only decent advantage, but it's spell list keeps it competing with Paladin for a place in Tier 5.

Archivist : 1
Cleric list alone gives them more goodies than they can handle. Possible access to most spells in the game via shenanigans easily makes them Tier 1.

Ardent: 2
Two good saves and psionic powers is a good start for a class. Mantles didn't get enough splat support and many Mantle Granted Abilities are not as strong as a Domain Granted power, but the Ardent can pick up whatever powers they want via feats. They may have late access to some of the best powers, but they can still accomplish some tricks with Linked Power and Synchronicity. Enough Powers Known and Power Points to put them ahead of the Wilder and Psychic Warrior. Psicrystal, Schism, Share Pain, Vigor, and Metamorphosis don't eat up all their Powers Known and they will still have enough actions in combat for Astral Construct. Can target whatever defenses it wants to. A solid Tier 2.

Aristocrat: 5
They are a Marshal with 4 more skills on their Skill List and no good Fortitude Save. The lack of Skill Focus (Diplomacy) and Minor Aura isn't enough to drop them a Tier. In Core, they are the only class with all martial weapons, all armors, all shields, and a decent enough number of skill points. Great Fortitude, Power Attack and Imperious Command (with Never Outnumbered) puts them on par with a Marshal in combat while having the same skillset out of combat. If they get dominated they aren't a liability to the party. Decent enough all around even if they don't truly excel at anything in particular. While they are not as good as a Marshal overall, I feel they are above a Knight, if only because skills are better than the Knight's class features, in my opinion. A low Tier 5.

Artificer: 1
Dedicated Wright. Bane Weapon.
Long casting time on infusions hinders them if they are surprised more than other classes, but they have access to Eberron's Action Point system. They make their own downtime and get access to enough spells and powers to give them a fighting chance in Tier 1.

Barbarian: 4
Can deal damage while using Intimidate via Instantaneous Rage and Intimidating Rage. Surprisingly high Will save with Steadfast Determination and Indomitable Will. Can be a good archer with Whirling Frenzy and a composite bow. Has enough Rage variants and Extra Rage for everyone. Enough Alternate Class Features and splatbook support to shake a stick at. If they can target your defenses at all, you probably won't last very long versus a Barbarian, but their attack methods aren't difficult to become immune to. A Solid Tier 4.

[Aegis013]

Adept - 4,3,5,6,2,1
Archivist (HoH) - 1,X,2,3,4,5,6
Ardent (CPs) - X,3,2,4,5,6,1
Aristocrat - 5,6,4,3,2,1
Artificer (ECS) - X,1,3,4,2,5,6
Barbarian - 4,5,6,3,2,1

[VisitingDaGulag]

Adept - t4. It's on par with a barb.
Archivist (HoH) - t1 no question.
Ardent (CPs) - t3. It's flexible but not the powerhouse that is psion.
Aristocrat - t6. WBL > starting wealth
Artificer (ECS) - t1 but mainly due to just a few broken infusions
Barbarian - t4 poster child

[Bucky]

Adept: X54

Adepts fall into a hole in your tier system; they're too versatile for tier 5 and not competent enough for tier 4.

[Jormengand]

First round of votes is over, second round is the:

Bard
Battle Dancer (DrC)
Beguiler (PH2)
Binder (ToM)
Cleric
Commoner

Results of the previous round: Adept 4, Archivist 1, Ardent 2, Aristocrat 6, Artificer 1, Barbarian 4.

Place your votes now!

[eggynack]

Bard: 3. Bard is practically the archetypal 3. Some say that the bard picks up a lot of that 3-ness from outside of core, but while a lot of the best bardic build optimization, especially feats, comes from outside of core, I think that core spell use alone is a generally sufficient factor, at the very least in this more limited core environment. Bards simply get great spells, and at every level. Silent image, grease, sleep, and maybe charm person at first, alter self, glitterdust, invisibility, and mirror image at second, and then glibness, dispel magic, haste, slow, and glibness at third, all set the bard up as very powerful in the early to mid-game. I think that the potency of casters relative to martial classes beyond that general point is sufficiently well known, but suffice to say that the higher level spells are good enough to continue justifying the bard's positioning. Bardic advancement isn't all that slow, and while the very early levels are a problematic time for spells/day, I think the overall spell situation is enough to justify this position. And then they just so happen to get bardic music, great skill use, average BAB, and high optimization potential if you ever need to make a non-core comparison, and the bard seems great for this slot.

Battle Dancer: 5. Hadn't looked at this class before just now, but it looks like a monk with less optimization potential to me. The abilities seem sweet, but they also seem bad until you hit level 11, and that's not when you want to start picking up steam as a class that's supposed to be crushing late. It seems like they gave a monk the stuff you're supposed to in order to "fix" it, with full BAB, pounce, and flight, but the latter two come too late to matter, and what you lose in the exchange seems worse than what you gain.

Beguiler: 23: I'm not fully convinced that beguilers are straight up better than sorcerers. They have real and meaningful advantages, but sorcerers get a capacity to pick and choose the best stuff available that represents an advantage of its own. However, the power level comparison between the two classes is one I'd best describe as... complicated. And when that's the case, it's a solid indication that the classes are in the same tier. More importantly, I'm very likely going to end up putting favored soul in tier two, and the advantages a beguiler has against a sorcerer are magnified by a lot when the opposing class is pulling from a significantly less borked list. I haven't seen extensive comparisons between the two, but beguiler might actually be straight up better than favored souls, and that'd be a pretty ironclad argument for tier two. Still, I don't think they come all that close to tier one, for a whole lot of reasons, and beguiler definitely still has some of those tier three elements, so I'd err towards the lower side of two.

Binder: 3. Don't have that much to say about these. I've looked at them a bit, and their abilities seem good enough to justify tier three without coming all that close to two. Zceryll is obviously a big upgrade, but first, that's a really specific piece of optimization, and second, I think I need to see a serious argument that that ability alone gets you to two before I'm convinced of the original system's placement.

Cleric: 1. Seems pretty obvious. I'm not the most knowledgeable about the cleric's exact capabilities, but their baseline list alone is sufficient for tier one, domains get them a really solid spot in that tier, and turn undead optimization (especially DMM, obviously) along with those other things makes clerics capable of holding their own against just about anything power-wise.

Commoner (without chickens): 6. Commoner is obviously the worst class in the game. You can do semi-useful stuff with a commoner, but that's only because a basic chassis can get you surprisingly far if you know what you're doing.

Commoner (with chickens): 32x. Commoner is a pretty great class. Sure, wizards can make a wall of stone, but commoners can make a wall of chickens that can be constantly regenerated and which leaves time to attack or whatever. Druids can launch earthquakes, but if you're trying to take out a town or fortress, what better way than filling that area with chickens? Clerics can use planar ally, but what better ally than a pile of chickens that you've arbitrarily shaped into humanoid form? And all this stuff is doable from level one. Facing traps? Fill the hall with chickens. Need to get your allies across a chasm? Fill the chasm with chickens. Need to slow down enemies in a section of the battlefield? Chickens could do the job just fine. It's an ability that's really difficult to tier, because it's simultaneously incredibly versatile and incredibly one note. You're always somewhat limited by the angle of repose of chicken piles, but you're always somewhat unlimited by the fact that the chickens are unlimited. Three is a decent baseline guess, and I wouldn't want to go lower than that, but the raw power here might be tier two, and the insanity is such that a lack of tier could make sense.

To be clear, for all the amusement value of chickens, my claims here are pretty close to completely serious, so make of that what you will.

[Inevitability]

Do we get to count commoner flaws when determining their tier? :smalltongue:

[Pleh]

Do we get to count commoner flaws when determining their tier? :smalltongue:

Short answer, no.

Long answer:

E) Please don't use this vote for joke votes, protest votes, or discussion of whether or not the tier system is a good idea. If you don't think the tier system is an accurate decription of classes, then what can you possibly hope to gain by posting in a thread for making the tier system? This is meant to be a useful resource for DMs and players, so the tier 1 commoner meme isn't a good idea - even if it's an obvious joke, it will throw doubt on whether or not the rest of this thread is serious. This thread is also not for arguing about how the tiers should be defined - they are what they are, and having more than one conflicting standard for tiering is only really going to cause confusion.

[D.M.Hentchel]

Adept: 5 4
Other people have brought up just about everything there is to this. If possible I would like to modify my vote once we have more tiers established.

Archivist: 1
Not much to say here, doesn't get Turn Undead, but gets pretty much everything else. Class features are not irrelevant either.

Ardent: skip
I'm unclear how much power can actually be attained with this class. Definately tier 2 or 3 though

Aristocrat: 4 5 6 3
The aristicrat gets no class features, but it does get Diplomacy, all synergy skills, Intimidate, Knowledge (religon), and skill points enough for them all. This makes them good enough at being a face to contribute effectively and sacrifices gives them the tools to go even further. Aristocrats can still take Power Attack, Leap Attack, and Shock Trooper. Or Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, Spirited Charge. The Aristocrat proves to be a one and a half trick pony, but that one trick can do A LOT. Really this just demonstates how broken diplomacy and sacrifice are. But if I was making a party of Tier 3 and I had to include a fighter or aristocrat I would pick aristocrat.

Artificer: 1
Access to every spell in the game 2 levels early through scrolls goes a long way. Even newer players can figure out the craft construct can trivialize many encounters.

Barbarian: 4 5 3
Can charge for massive damage and not a whole lot else. Other people have covered this better than I can.

Edit: Oops

[eggynack]

My feeling is that, for all the chicken infested commoner's humorous memetic value, there's something to be said for it as a serious thing to be considered. It reads a lot like that occasional thought experiment of a class with only a single ability at first level that enables it to kill just about anything it wants. Except here, there's a trade of obvious direct combat potential for a more versatile and creativity driven problem solver. What effects can chickens duplicate, and what are their limitations? How do we evaluate something with this degree of non-scaling? It's a non-trivial set of problems, one that makes a proper assessment more approximation than most, but I think 32x captures a lot of the truth of the situation. And if one can capture truth, even chicken truth, then that's a thing I value a whole lot more than being taken seriously.

[Mehangel]

Bard: 3
Battle Dancer: 54
Beguiler: 2X31
Binder: 3
Cleric: 1X2
Commoner: 6

The beguiler is one of those classes that I feel has a higher floor, but in the hands of a wrong player may either be non-game breaking but always contributing or always game breaking. Does that make sense? Meh, whatever, point that I am trying to make is that Beguiler's standard Tier will be 2, but unoptimized may drop into 3, while particularly clever players may boost it up-to Tier 1

The cleric on the other hand will always be Tier 1, except where plot/staying in-character keeps the cleric from performing actions that will break the game (Clerics performing actions that are contrary to their own philosophy or god's beliefs may cause them to momentarily lose their spellcasting, etc). Of course the Cleric will usually know what is and isn't appropriate behavior and wont encounter such hindrances often, but it may mean not being Tier 1 all the time, hence Tier 2 (when appropriate)

[Inevitability]

Bard: 3X4. Casting is as good as it gets without being full, plenty of interesting class features to throw around... I'd say the bard is a typical 3. If anything, their occasional lack of focus makes them a 4, but I don't really back that notion.

Battle Dancer: 564. Monk without the stuff that makes monks usable. At worst it's a MAD warrior with bad class features, at best it's a clunky ubercharger (though it need be said that few classes get Pounce as a class feature). Most of the time, a typical tier 5.

Beguiler: 324. Full caster with additional tricks (going to say that's pretty much a tier 3 poster child), but limited list. Still, I guess that with some very powerful spells available to them (Shadow Evocation, Shadow Conjuration), they are high tier 3s, and perhaps even tier 2s.

Binder: 32X4. Lots of versatility, reasonable raw power, and even ways to swap out vestiges on the fly. Another archetypical tier 3 able to break the game with the right vestiges *cough*Zceryll*cough*.

Cleric: 1X2. Great default magic, the ability to nab some off-list spells, and the capacity to say 'no' to metamagic costs. If this isn't a tier 1, it's because it's too strong to properly list.

Commoner: 6. Its one class feature is proficiency with a simple weapon. I rest my case.

Commoner (with chickens): 34. Sure, I'm willing to jump on the chicken train. A good rule of thumb is that something has no limits, it can be abused, and CI is no exception. I'm not going to say the flaw is sufficient to get commoners to tier 2, but 3 and 4 are definitely attainable.

[Zanos]

Bard: 324
1-6 spell progression from a very solid list including some spells that are higher levels on other lists, good skillpoints, good skill list. A bard can focus on one aspect of it's character and by excellent, and with the right optimization can pretty much shatter the numbers game. Even when it's main tricks aren't relevant, it can be built to contribute meaningfully to nearly any situation.

Battle Dancer (DrC): 56
I'll admit I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually play this class outside of charisma to AC dips, and even then there's better ways to get that. Actually reading it's abilities, it seems to be a worse charisma based monk. You'd think someone would have learned. At least this class can fly(at level 17, really?) and pounce(at level 11), but it takes a standard action to even activate it's magical unarmed strikes, and actions for many of the other dance abilities.

Beguiler (PH2): 32
Spell list and skill list are extremely potent when combined with int SAD, 6+int points, and it's class features. Spell list contains many staple spells, and is very, very strong at low levels, being one of the best lists among the fixed list casters. Their 3rd level list contains twenty spells they can cast any of spontaneously, many of which are top picks for wiz/sorc, like haste, slow, dispel magic, arcane sight, legion of sentinels, and invisibility sphere. But the list weakens at higher levels, not generally getting the spells that allow wizards and sorcerers to obtain infinite cosmic power. Advanced Learning spell choices can make a difference, though, and with stuff like (Greater) Shadow Conjuration and Shades available, the gap becomes much smaller.

Binder (ToM): 342
The binder can do a lot of different stuff, although it's sort of hamstringed by only being able to bind a single vestige until level 8. Still, vestiges are a little weird in that higher level vestiges aren't more powerful as any sort of rule, and low level vestiges tend to scale very well. This gives the binder a lot of viable options even at high levels, and they can be built to succeed at a lot of tasks, and switch to being good at other things the next day. They can't do a bunch of stuff at once like a bard, but they can still do a bunch of stuff with a bit of time. Summon Monster every 5 rounds is not enough to push them into tier 2, although it's pretty clearly the best vestige.

Cleric: 1
No other tier for it, really. Cleric can be built do to pretty much anything, and some can do all of it at the same time. Amazing spell list with every spell on it known automatically, 3/4 BAB, casting in heavy armor from level 1, and domains. Turn undead can fuel a variety of potent feats, but the core of the class is so strong that you don't even need to take that into account for the cleric to be tier 1.

Commoner: 6
It has no class features. It has a d4 hit die with poor BAB, all poor saves, and one simple weapon. I guess it gets spot and listen, at least? The only argument this isn't 6 is the april fools flaws, which are just goofy.

[Pleh]

My feeling is that, for all the chicken infested commoner's humorous memetic value, there's something to be said for it as a serious thing to be considered. It reads a lot like that occasional thought experiment of a class with only a single ability at first level that enables it to kill just about anything it wants. Except here, there's a trade of obvious direct combat potential for a more versatile and creativity driven problem solver. What effects can chickens duplicate, and what are their limitations? How do we evaluate something with this degree of non-scaling? It's a non-trivial set of problems, one that makes a proper assessment more approximation than most, but I think 32x captures a lot of the truth of the situation. And if one can capture truth, even chicken truth, then that's a thing I value a whole lot more than being taken seriously.

I still categorize it as TO, since most tables wouldn't actually allow it. It's a joke feature that is for use in joke games.

[javcs]

Bard: 3 Classic T3.

Battle Dancer: 5 It's a variation on Monk that's not any better.

Beguiler: 3. It's arguably got the potential to contend with specific T2 builds, but it lacks the same degree of scope that T2 classes can pick from for their focus. That is, I'm differentiating between T2 and T3 here because any given Beguiler isn't going to be particularly different from any other Beguiler - there's no significant degree of variation between potential builds, at least to the extent expected of T2 classes. I'm not sure I'm explaining that as well as I'd like.

Binder: 3. Really depends on which vestige(s) are chosen, but it's easy enough to switch them out. Pretty good as a dip or as a primary. Probably the best designed and built base class from Tome of Magic.

Cleric: 1. There's no alternative. Unless you're running one as a pure healbot or something else horrifically anti-optimized, then it's probably still a 3 or 4.

Commoner: 6.

[Troacctid]

Especially against foes immune to mind-affecting stuff, a beguiler can easily become nothing more than a cheap buffer.
That's not fair. Look at their list again—they have plenty of non-mind-affecting offensive spells. They just don't have any that deal damage. But it's not like you were spamming whelm even against enemies that weren't immune to it.

[GrayDeath]

Bard: 3. I`d say the Epitome of what it means to be T3.

Battle Dancer: 5. A Monk with some small improvements and some stuff even worse ... totals at the same tier.

Beguiler: 3X2. Well, its one of those classes that offer little Variety. Yes any given beguiler is quite good. No I dojnt see them hopping into "full" T 2 without serious optimization ... almost always the same ones too. So yeah, ....

Binder: 3. Seems very flexible and quite cool, but not really powerful. Like the Bard very T 3 (attention: only saw it played, never got to play it myself...)

Cleric: 1. Obviously.

Commoner: 6. Also obviously.

[stanprollyright]

Bard: 32. Great class that can do anything, but doesn't have the raw power of 9th level spells (at least without a PrC). Can trivialize encounters with buffs, or break the game with social abilities, or generally be useful 100% of the time with skills and versatile spell choices. My favorite class ever.
Battle Dancer (DrC): no idea what this is.
Beguiler: 23. Better than a focused Sorcerer, albeit more limited - more spells, nice class features, lots of skills, plenty of the best spells in the game, and UMD for the rest. Rides the line between Tiers 2 and 3.
Binder: no experience with this class.
Cleric: 12. Of the prepared 9th level casters, Cleric has the weakest list and fewest class features. Its best spells are often wizard spells it gets from domains, or the ones that make Fighters useless. But still, it's got Wish and Planar Binding and Divine Metamagic and can change its spells every day. This class is the bare minimum for Tier 1.
Commoner: 6X. Can be Tier 1 with enough chickens.

[neriractor]

Bard 3, 4, 2, x
Battle Dancer (DrC) 5, 4, 6 (bolded meanns high italiced means low)
Beguiler (PH2) 2, 3, x
Binder (ToM) 3, 4, 2, x
Cleric 1, x
Commoner 6, 5, x

[Aegis013]

Bard 3,4,2,5,6,1
Battle Dancer (DrC) 5,4,6,3,2,1
Beguiler (PH2) 3,X,4,5,6,2,1
Binder (ToM) X,4,3,5,6,2,1
Cleric 1,2,3,4,5,6
Commoner 6,5,4,3,2,1

[Karl Aegis]

Bard: 34 Core Bards suck. They are worse sorcerers, worse fighters, and worse rogues. They really needed to specialize in something besides being near-omniscient at mid-levels. Throw enough splats at them and they can become better fighters, better rogues, still-not-as-good sorcerers(sorcerer/wizard list is really good) and can get some druid-like class features(nowhere near as good at being a druid as a druid). Can target Fortitude and Will Saves, AC, Touch AC (wraithstrike isn't hard to get). Can get both animal companion and familiar if they didn't like going Snowflake Wardance and Dragonfire Inspiration. Can get enough rider effects on their limited list of martial and exotic weapons to make hitting things viable. Now with healing!

Battle Dancer (DrC): 65 Target AC deal Hit point damage. These are not class features. No Charisma based skills besides Perform. Honestly would prefer hitting things with farm implements than whatever this class does. No, giving someone -2 AC is not a 14th level ability. I would say Dominate Fodder, but the fluff tells me they are not common enough to know that they are dominate fodder. Really bad class.

Beguiler (PH2): 34 They have good skills, Use Magic Device and plenty of ways to Target Will Saves. Can become a worse Cleric if they wanted to, but why not play a Cleric at that point? Cleric chassis can be better if the cleric wanted to. How many ways do you need to target a Will Save anyways? Can take advantage of Dominate Fodder like Battle Dancer if they wished to.

Binder (ToM): 3 Two good saves. Ability to pick up what skills they need. BIRDS. Birds are cool. Can get armor or archery if they want. First level ability to bind Ronove which can replace both Monk and Fighter if they wanted to. Can target Reflex, Fort and Will Saves. Target AC as well. Deals hit point damage. Can get enough natural attacks to not need BAB.

Cleric: 1 Anything that is on both the Wizard and Cleric lists, you want a Cleric casting. Their better chasis and unique spells put them ahead of core Wizard and remain good enough to remain in Tier 1 with splats. They can become invulnerable if they wish, while retaining their ability to turn into Godzilla and smash Tokyo.

Commoner: 6 Dominate fodder that isn't really worth spending the spell slot on. Sure, you can customize commoners to do specific tasks, but you're using things not native to the class. May be tier 5 because of Handle Animal, but not really.

[flare'90]

Bard: 3. They get a decent chassis (d6 HD, Good Ref/Will, 3/4 BAB), a generous amount of skill points drawing from an expansive list (Balance, Tumble, Hide/Move Silently, Concentration, Spellcraft and UMB are all class skills, with plenty of other skills), spells and some good class features. The spells in particular bring a lot to the table, even in Core, with a mix of offense (grease, hideous laughter, glitterdust, slow, etc...), defense (blur, invisibility,...) and utility (identify, magic aura, detect toughts,...). Pretty much the poster child of Tier 3.

Battle Dancer: 5. A good-ish chassis (d8 HD, Good Ref, Full BAB), but lacking in skill points and with a middling list (they get Listen/Spot, Tumble, Balance, Hide/Move Silently and that's basically it). They are basically a Cha-focused, Tumble-centric monk, with almost all the problems that this brings over. At least they get pounce at 11th level. All in all a Tier 5 class, probably below even the fighter.

Beguiler: 3 2. The chassis is basically the wizard one with d6 HD and 6 skill points-level. The skill list, on the other hand, is based heavily on the rogue and so features lots of useful skills for every situation, featuring: Spot/Listen, Hide/Move Silently, Tumble, Spellcraft, Open Lock/Disable Device, Diplomacy/Bluff, Balance, Sense Motive, UMD, with some other oddball skills like Forgery and Appraise. Befitting the rouguish nature of the class, they also get trapfinding. The class features are situationally useful at best (cloacked casting might come in play in the surprise/first round, free Silent/Still Spell is nice I guess?), with one notable exception. What makes beguilers Tier 3 at least, if not Tier 2, is the fact that they are spontaneous full casters with a fixed list. This means that they know their entire list and so can pull out the spell they want without problems. The list itself is focused on enchantments and illusions, but features also some buff (mage armor, haste), debuff (glitterdust, slow)and utility (disguise self, spider climb). In addition to these spells, beguilers can also add some other enchantment/illusion wizard spell to their list via the advance learning feature, so they can cherry-pick from a quite expansive list of versatile spells (the shadow x line, mostly). This combines to make the beguiler at least a solid Tier 3 class, and arguably a Tier 2 one. A very real problem is the aboundance of creatures with immunity to mind-affecting at high level, which neuters many possible strategies.

Binder: 3. This class gets the cleric chassis (d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, good Fort/Will, 2+ s.p./level) with a nearly the same skill list. The class features revolve around bingding vestiges and this gives the binder an excellent versatility, since a binder can perform well in almost any role just by switching around their bound vestiges. The also get some addtional bonuses when they have at least one bound vestige, which is nice. The amount of versatility the class has points to Tier 3, but one vestige (Zceryll, the Star Spawn) can arguably put the binder on Tier 2 by dint of summon monster spam. I'm not completely sold on the whle Tier 2 Binder thing, but it's worth noting.

Cleric: 1. While having a good chassis (d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, good Fort/Will, 2+ s.p./level) and a narrow skill list, the main features that puts the cleric in Tier 1 are the spells and turn undead. Turn undead by itself is not an amazing ability, normally good enough to repel mook, but the true value is using it to power Divine and Devotion feats. Those feats give buffs ranging from simple extra damage (Divine Might) to free movement (Travel Devotion) or free metamagic (Divine Metamagic). The cleric spell list is of the three largest and most inclusive spell lists, with options for everything. The spell list can be expanded with the choice of domains, that also grant extra abilities. These factors combine to make the cleric Tier 1.

Commoner: 6. Let's see, they have the worst chassis (d4 HD, poor saves, 2+ s.p.), weak skills (Spot/Listen, maybe Handle Animals if you really know what you're doing) and no features. Tier 6, no doubt. With chicken-infested I dunno, you can arguably break WBL by selling infinite chickens, and those infinte chickens should be able to resolve a lot of problems with enough creativity. Maybe Tier 4?

[eggynack]

Beguiler (PH2) 3,X,4,5,6,2,1
This strikes me as a very strange rating, gotta say. Would you really consider beguilers as tier four, five, or even six before you'd think them a two? Also not sure how X fits on the beguiler in this or any other rating. Their marginal utility from optimization seems relatively low.

[Zanos]

This strikes me as a very strange rating, gotta say. Would you really consider beguilers as tier four, five, or even six before you'd think them a two? Also not sure how X fits on the beguiler in this or any other rating. Their marginal utility from optimization seems relatively low.
I agree with your general argument, but Advanced Learning and spontaneous casting from your full list are both class features that lend themselves very well to optimization.

[flare'90]

This strikes me as a very strange rating, gotta say. Would you really consider beguilers as tier four, five, or even six before you'd think them a two? Also not sure how X fits on the beguiler in this or any other rating. Their marginal utility from optimization seems relatively low.

He's trolling, even for the other classes before he voted 123456X for everyone.

[eggynack]

I agree with your general argument, but Advanced Learning and spontaneous casting from your full list are both class features that lend themselves very well to optimization.
I'm not saying they lack a gap between floor and ceiling. Mostly just that the gap is somewhat atypically small, due to the high ceiling provided by a decent sized static list that you don't even have to make daily decisions about. The gap is a lot smaller here than for the warmage and dread necro, because your list is already really good.

He's trolling, even for the other classes before he voted 123456X for everyone.
How is using all the numbers trolling? All it does is declare preference in every comparison between two possibilities. I just think this particular preference declaration is really illogical. The rating given for the other classes seems close to fine, even if I'd obviously support the ratings I gave over them.

[Inevitability]

He's trolling, even for the other classes before he voted 123456X for everyone.

They did not, they merely used all numbers. Please do not accuse others of trolling if they aren't.

[GilesTheCleric]

Cleric: 1 Anything that is on both the Wizard and Cleric lists, you want a Cleric casting. Their better chasis and unique spells put them ahead of core Wizard and remain good enough to remain in Tier 1 with splats. They can become invulnerable if they wish, while retaining their ability to turn into Godzilla and smash Tokyo.

What spells in core were you thinking of that put the Cleric list ahead of Wizard? Not to put words in your mouth here, but all I can think of is the divination line, glyphs, and gish buffs. I'm not overly familiar with the Wizard list, though, so maybe I'm missing something.



Cleric: 1 There is almost literally no way to mess up this class. You'd have to intentionally drop your wis below 11, or intentionally mess up your relationship with your deity (and even then, there's some leeway [FRCS 236, ECS 35-36], not to mention Atonement, which in higher op you can always have at the ready, just in case). Outside of those two things, any Cleric build at any level can be restored to T1 within 24 hours.

For folks not as familiar with TO for Clerics, I'd like to assure you that they're not TX -- they do scale to the same NI as Wizards, given that they can create demiplanes and have Miracle, Gate, and Elder Glyph; they also have access to any domain or other spell lists if you prefer Time Stop/ Shapechange/ Planar Binding/ insert other spell here. DCFS DMM means that Clerics don't need to invest levels into a PrC/ other less-efficient feat-based reducers if they want to break caps. Even at lower levels, they can gain access to Shadow spells, the polymorph line, glyphs, and of course the planar binding line as well. There's the notorious Initiate of Mystra, too, if AMF is more your style (I don't think it scales as well into TO, but it's still very good).

Further, with turning op (yes, it can be used for something other than powering feats), Clerics can also outright destroy (or deal copious amounts of actual damage) nearly any type, subtype, or alignment of creature, effectively giving them as many uses of AoE Implosion per day as they have turns. That's not as high OP as the above, but it's nice PO.

You could also give yourself things like contingent True Resurrections; with Dragon material, things get even more out of hand. You can become a pseudo-lich without all the weight of LA, being an undead, or other templates, for example.


I might come back later to add tiers to the other classes for this week, but I've been busy with projects and would have to invest time in learning more about them.

[flare'90]

They did not, they merely used all numbers. Please do not accuse others of trolling if they aren't.

He's voting using all votes for every class and not explaining their reasoning.
Ok, maybe it's not trolling, at worst it's passive-aggressive voting.
I apologise.

[Nifft]

Bard: 3

Battle Dancer (DrC): 5

Beguiler (PH2): 3

Binder (ToM): 3

Cleric: 1

Commoner: 6X

The only X here is for chickens.

[OldTrees1]

He's voting using all votes for every class and not explaining their reasoning.
Ok, maybe it's not trolling, at worst it's passive-aggressive voting.
I apologise.

The use of all votes is a consequence of the voting system this thread is using. The voting system wants you to put "number closest to my guess", "next number closest to my guess", "next number closest to my guess", ... until you have listed all 7 options.

For instance: 1,2,X,3,4,5,6 is an example vote for if you think the class is a Tier 1-2 class but certainly not anything below that. This is in contrast to 1,2,3,4,X,5,6 which is if you think the class is a Tier 1-2 class but certainly not a Tier 5-6 class.

[Jormengand]

To be clear, I'm going to ask people not to consider chicken-infested commoners, as the use of dragon magazine content, let alone april fools material, is unlikely in a normal game.

While technically there is no real difference between 65X4321 and 65X432, and there is unlikely to be much difference between either of those and just plain 6, there is no especial reason not to use all the numbers and nothing wrong with doing so.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Bard: 3, 4, 2, 5. We all know the drill. The basic Bard class is, to be entirely honest, a piece of crap-- even if not for the "useless bard" stereotype, you're probably going to try to fight for your offense, and you'll be useless. You're certainly not expecting to play a cut-rate sorcerer, which is what you are. The spell list improves with work and the SpC, though you never have quite enough spells, but getting Bardic Music to do anything useful requires spending a lot of resources chasing wildly scattered small bonuses. But then there's Dragonfire Inspiration and Sublime Chord, which make you into a full caster with the best, most reliable bonus damage in the game. Sooo...

Battle Dancer: 6. Quite possibly the crappiest PC class ever published. Like a Monk, if you gave up everything that makes the Monk even remotely interesting or useful. For seven levels you get nothing, except for the ability to not wear armor. Then you get a fun bit of fluff. Three useful abilities, and one of them is running on water for a round at a time. Otherwise, you get... pounce, I guess? And fly, long after you picked it up via an item. Warrior is probably better than you; at least they can wear armor and aren't MAD.

Beguiler: 3, 2, 1. Great skills, great spell list that you really can't go wrong with, and plenty of easy ways to expand the list. Going into Shadowcraft Mage probably lifts you all the way up to T1, as does Rainbow Servant fun.

Binder: 4, 3, 2. Very cool class, lots of options, but you kind of either have to choose between focusing on one vestige and being okay (at the cost of versatility), or having build flexibility but being mediocre at everything. Would straight up kill someone for a few floating bonus feats. Gets better above 8th level when you can bind a second vestige. And then there's that one vestige for at-will Summon Monster...

Cleric: 1, 4. Yes, you can switch between the two on a day-to-day basis, but for a lot of people, Cleric is going to be "swing a mace, cast a few healing or buff spells." The floor is a lot higher than most of the PHB casters, but...

Commoner: 6. C'mon, now.

[AvatarVecna]

A well-built Core-only Bard doesn't have enough options to really be a good enough specialist for T4, but they're versatile enough to technically qualify on the "doing many things well enough" angle; outside of Core, Bards get tons of support due to their Jack-of-all-Trades status, and you can make specialist bards that are good enough at everything else they do (regardless of what their specialty is) to push them into being a solid T3. Itgoes without saying, though, that a Bard not so well-built is pretty terrible.

A few useful tumbling-based movement abilities do not make up for the fact that this is a chaos/Cha monk that gave up a bunch of things. If you're really pushing it, you might be able to make them a solid enough meleer to contend with a monk (based solely on BAB and Cha to AC with good feat choices) but enough unarmed options are too dependent on Monk bonus feats/class features to come online very early for the Battle Dancer, making it an uphill battle to make this class solid enough to be worth using outside of maybe a dip for a Cha-based Sacred/Enlightened Fist build.

Class features are mostly pretty meh (a couple fairly situational metamagic feats, casting in armor, casting while hidden, yawn), but a super-solid skill list and 6+Int skill points on an Int caster is great, and the Beguiler's casting is one of the most difficult to mess up in the game: you have a wide, versatile spell list, and you can cast from your entire list spontaneously, making you almost entirely immune to poor spells known choices. Unfortunately, the list on its own doesn't really have a ton of game-breakers in the higher levels, but a well-built straight Beguiler could potentially be broken enough between their existing game-breakers, Diplomancy, and Abuse Magic Device to be a solid T2. They can also break into T1 with the right PrC, but that's not really a product of the Beguiler class as much as the class/PrC combo, so I'm not giving credit for it to the Beguiler.

I am abstaining from placing a Binder vote, due to being completely unfamiliar with it.

One of the best spell lists in the game, spontaneous casting of cure/inflict spells, a couple divine domains granting access to useful abilities and spells outside the cleric spell list, and an additional customizable sub-system in the form of Turn Undead and the various Divine feats it can fuel. Combine that with an ACF that grants you a solid bonus doman and a pile of extra skill points, and you've got one of the most powerful and versatile classes in the game

They get...nothing. No class features, no chassis upgrades at all, a crap skill list...literally the only thing they get outside of April Fools BS is a single simple weapon they're proficient in...which means that even a commoner can be a more competent unarmed combatant at lvl 1 than a Monk.

[Cosi]

I think people are making a bunch of variously bad arguments about the Beguiler. It's almost certainly better than the Sorcerer, and I would not feel at all bad about playing one alongside a Wizard.


Beguiler: 23: I'm not fully convinced that beguilers are straight up better than sorcerers. They have real and meaningful advantages, but sorcerers get a capacity to pick and choose the best stuff available that represents an advantage of its own. However, the power level comparison between the two classes is one I'd best describe as... complicated. And when that's the case, it's a solid indication that the classes are in the same tier.

In general, the Beguiler is probably slightly better than the Sorcerer. He gets a bigger native list, and has an easier time expanding his spell list. Yes, the Sorcerer gets to pick specific spells, but he's going to be picking some Beguiler spells anyway (color spray). If both expand their spell lists, the Beguiler pulls ahead for two reasons. First, his class's synergy with Prestige Domains makes it easier to expand his spell list. Second, once both characters have four or five good options at each level, the Beguiler's whole bunch of marginal options pulls ahead of the Sorcerer's additional good option.


More importantly, I'm very likely going to end up putting favored soul in tier two, and the advantages a beguiler has against a sorcerer are magnified by a lot when the opposing class is pulling from a significantly less borked list.

The Favored Soul is super bad. You lose the valuable Cleric abilities of Turning and Domains, getting in exchange "Deity's Weapon Focus". Also, you have a sharply limited number of spell slots, some of which you are expected to burn on restoration/ and friends to keep the rest of the party on their feet. Then when you get to picking offensive spells, you work like a Sorcerer whose list doesn't include color spray, glitterdust, or stinking cloud. That's a terrible deal on basically every level.


Especially against foes immune to mind-affecting stuff, a beguiler can easily become nothing more than a cheap buffer.

Not really. First of all, you've got any minions you might have recruited previously with charm, dominate, or Diplomacy. But even ignoring that, the majority of enemies that are immune to mind-affecting abilities are mindless types, which lose hard to silent image. What's more, the absolute first thing you're going to do with Advanced Learning, Runestaves, Arcane Disciple, or Prestige Domains is grab some kind of direct attack option for use against stuff immune to your primary trick.


But the list weakens at higher levels, not generally getting the spells that allow wizards and sorcerers to obtain infinite cosmic power. Advanced Learning spell choices can make a difference, though, and with stuff like (Greater) Shadow Conjuration and Shades available, the gap becomes much smaller.

It's certainly true that the Beguiler's direct offense options fall off around 6th level spells, but at that point you already have dominate person and charm monster. Also, you can have Shadow Illusion from Shadowcraft Mage or a couple of Prestige Domains, and whatever you grabbed from Runestaves or Arcane Disciple. Plus, you get at least one offensive option at every level, several key utility spells (mind blank, true seeing, and more), then you get time stop.


Beguiler: 3. It's arguably got the potential to contend with specific T2 builds, but it lacks the same degree of scope that T2 classes can pick from for their focus. That is, I'm differentiating between T2 and T3 here because any given Beguiler isn't going to be particularly different from any other Beguiler - there's no significant degree of variation between potential builds, at least to the extent expected of T2 classes. I'm not sure I'm explaining that as well as I'd like.

This is a fallacy. An option you don't have is an option you don't have, regardless of whether you don't have it by virtue of not taking it as one of your class options, or by virtue of not taking the class that offers it. The mindset that gives the Sorcerer for all the spells he could have (but didn't) take is the same one that looks at the Fighter and say "this must be great, it has so many options!."


Beguiler (PH2): 34 They have good skills, Use Magic Device and plenty of ways to Target Will Saves. Can become a worse Cleric if they wanted to, but why not play a Cleric at that point? Cleric chassis can be better if the cleric wanted to. How many ways do you need to target a Will Save anyways? Can take advantage of Dominate Fodder like Battle Dancer if they wished to.

It seems odd to call Rainbow Servant a "worse Cleric".


[spoiler=Beguiler: 3/X/2]Class features are mostly pretty meh (a couple fairly situational metamagic feats, casting in armor, casting while hidden, yawn),

Yet, strictly better than the Sorcerer and Cleric's "literally nothing". Criticizing a caster class for bad class features is odd. The only one that has any is the Druid.


They can also break into T1 with the right PrC, but that's not really a product of the Beguiler class as much as the class/PrC combo, so I'm not giving credit for it to the Beguiler.

The reason the Rainbow Warsnake (or Beguilersnake or Dreadsnake) is good is the spellcasting mechanic the Warmage (and Beguiler and Dread Necromancer) has a unique and absurd synergy with it. That's as much a power of the class(es) as having the turning you need to power Divine Metamagic is a power of the Cleric.

[eggynack]

It's certainly true that the Beguiler's direct offense options fall off around 6th level spells, but at that point you already have dominate person and charm monster. Also, you can have Shadow Illusion from Shadowcraft Mage or a couple of Prestige Domains, and whatever you grabbed from Runestaves or Arcane Disciple. Plus, you get at least one offensive option at every level, several key utility spells (mind blank, true seeing, and more), then you get time stop.

This really gets back to that old problem of how much non-class elements should factor into a class' rating. Cause dominate person and charm monster are alright, but if that's essentially the maximum for the class at that level, then they seem significantly worse than a sorcerer within that range. That they at various earlier points are possibly significantly better than a sorcerer may well balance that out, and my favored soul argument could expand that advantage, but the mediocre late argument seems decent on that basis. My current thinking is that baseline beguiler is at least pretty close to tier two, if not necessarily all the way there, and then you can take the baseline weighted average of that state and the additional spells beguiler state, which might rank reasonably high in tier two, and you get an overall rating of tier two. But different evaluation methods could go in different directions.

[Grod_The_Giant]

This really gets back to that old problem of how much non-class elements should factor into a class' rating. Cause dominate person and charm monster are alright, but if that's essentially the maximum for the class at that level, then they seem significantly worse than a sorcerer within that range. That they at various earlier points are possibly significantly better than a sorcerer may well balance that out, and my favored soul argument could expand that advantage, but the mediocre late argument seems decent on that basis. My current thinking is that baseline beguiler is at least pretty close to tier two, if not necessarily all the way there, and then you can take the baseline weighted average of that state and the additional spells beguiler state, which might rank reasonably high in tier two, and you get an overall rating of tier two. But different evaluation methods could go in different directions.
And, I mean... if you're going to factor Arcane Disciple/Runestaffs/PrCs that heavily into the discussion, you have to extend all that to the Dread Necro and Warmage, who have all of the same advantages and merely start with inferior lists.

[JBarca]

Rounds 2? Great!

Bard - Spells that can do most things, a ton of splatbook support to allow the Bard to function as anything from a frontliner to the party's primary caster, and a great skill list. Bards are famously the epitome of T3 for a reason. They can't really break anything as far as I know (lacking many of the best spells, and 6ths-9ths altogether), but their versatility is phenomenal. Poor spell selection traps you, though, as they have little in the way of in-house rectification. I legitimately do not see them moving into T2, and it would take actual effort to drop to T5, I think. 3, 4.

Battle Dancer (DrC) - Can my vote here just be "lol?" Seriously though, let's look at the positives. Full BAB (take that, Monk!), Cha to AC (Though this just makes them more MAD), some bonus damage, some neat (but rarely useful) abilities like water "dancing" and the infamous 11-level-dip-for-Pounce, flight at 17th, annnnddd... A captstone that grants +2d6 damage sometimes. Simply wonderful. I just checked the Tier descriptions, and they seem squarely T6, with some wiggle room to get to T5 with some hefty work on the Player's (and DM's) part. 6, 5. Sorry Battle Dancer. It's not your fault that WotC hates you.

Beguiler (PH2) - Tough one. I see a lot of T2 discussion here, and I find that difficult to accept, but I'm willing to walk through this. Class features (other than the big one) are solid. Several minor bonuses, some really neat stuff ("neat" is obviously not a consideration for Tiers, but still), and the much-loved Cloaked Casting and Advanced Learning. Great.

Now spells. We'll start from the top. Notable 9ths are Foresight and Time Stop. One is decent, but better with access to, say, Celerity or other powerful Immediates, and the other is fantastic, naturally. 8ths and 7ths are a pile of Illusions that are really nice, a few buffs (including the necessary Mind Blank and the lovely Spell Turning), and even a great Divination. Going down the line, I see debuffs, BFC, buffs, and divinations, across the board. Add in AL and you have quite the list. Their only major downside is the Mind-Affecting tag.

In all, I see a very strong (the strongest, situationally, I think) T3, but see nothing indicating "the class itself is capable of anything," or "potentially campaign smasher." The only selling point for T2 is the sidenote that T2 tends to be less flexible than T3. But that border between 3 and 2 is very sharp in my mind. It's the difference between "Really fun and strong" and "You have to be careful not to ruin the game." Beguiler just doesn't cross that threshold, right? Has to be T3, nothing else describes them in my book. Fixed list-casters tend to be in one spot exactly.3.

Binder (ToM) - A very strong T3 that is very flexible owing to the nature of Vestiges. In theory, at least. I've never played, or seen played, a Binder that functions as well as people seem to think. I see, theoretically, their strengths, I do. And I want to love the class, but can't. Fortunately, though, my opinion barely matters. Is the class capable of extreme flexibility, a decent amount of raw power? Yep. Can it do one thing very well while still contributing elsewhere? You bet. Can it be pretty solid at everything? Over time, I suppose so. With Zceryll, you get some pretty powerful stuff going on. At-will Summon Monster? Thank you. It's an odd place to be, though, Tier-wise. It's potentially campaign smashing (the SM list is huge), and it's very flexible, but it's exactly one trick.

T1 is just beyond them. They don't have 9ths (outside of the few 9ths they get through SM, I guess, and SMIX itself). They barely qualify for T2, maybe. A clear T3, with maybe T4 with specialized builds. Hard to mess up a Binder too much, though, which is really nice. 3, 4, 2.

Cleric - There can be no real argument here, right? Full casting, prepared, casting off a huge list that can do anything and everything, Domains to cover missing staples or niche necessities, and can change spells every 24 hours. Add in things like DMM and a spell that varies in power from #3 to #1 most powerful in the game (Miracle) depending on your DM, and you have a T1. I don't happen to like the Cleric's list much, and I think it's objectively weaker in most capacities than the Wizard's or Druid's, but when it comes to knowing things and buffing people (a major part of a prepared caster and a major part of not outshining the party), the Cleric is almost unmatched. Plus, you really can't mess these guys up. Take Toughness seven times and fill every slot with Light, I don't care. You'll still outshine anyone but another T1 in every capacity starting tomorrow morning. 1.

Commoner - 6.


First round of votes is over, second round is the:



Results of the previous round: Adept 4, Archivist 1, Ardent 2, Aristocrat 6, Artificer 1, Barbarian 4.

Place your votes now!

Neat. Completely fine with every one of those, personally. The Adept and Ardent suffered from a lot of debate, and it's weird to have an NPC class at 4, but I like it.

Thanks for putting this together, Jormengand. Very interesting, very useful (even if the Tiers aren't super important, it forces us to legitimately consider the strengths of every single Base Class, which can only benefit players and DMs both).

[Cosi]

This really gets back to that old problem of how much non-class elements should factor into a class' rating.

My personal view is that if you don't account for non-class options, you don't get a useful ranking. If the class on its own is Fighter Tier, but the class with the right feats is Wizard Tier, in practice it's Wizard Tier, or at least two different rankings. Saying it's Fighter Tier just results in people being sad when they try to play it next to a Fighter. You can tell that people do believe that, because people talk about DMM: Persist in the context of the Cleric, despite the fact that it requires three feats (and some items to do it more than once or twice a day).


Cause dominate person and charm monster are alright, but if that's essentially the maximum for the class at that level, then they seem significantly worse than a sorcerer within that range.

The charm and dominate lines are, for most practical purposes, pocket planar binding. That's "worse than a Sorcerer" in that the Sorcerer could just have actual planar binding, but a broken game is a broken game, and by that logic the Archivist has to push out the Cleric and the Wizard.


And, I mean... if you're going to factor Arcane Disciple/Runestaffs/PrCs that heavily into the discussion, you have to extend all that to the Dread Necro and Warmage, who have all of the same advantages and merely start with inferior lists.

I don't disagree. The Dread Necromancer and Beguiler are both about on par with the Sorcerer, having a single campaign smashing option (charm/dominate/Diplomacy for the Beguiler, planar binding for the Dread Necromancer), a wide list from good schools, and the ability to expand that list trivially. The Warmage is worse, but that's mostly because Evocation is super terrible and it doesn't have any particularly impressive tricks to back it up with.

[Troacctid]

Remember that Beguiler also gets ice assassin, one of the most broken spells in the entire game. So you can't possibly say its high-level spells aren't game-breaking.

[Tiri]

Remember that Beguiler also gets ice assassin, one of the most broken spells in the entire game. So you can't possibly say its high-level spells aren't game-breaking.

That's only if you stick around for 19 levels, and Beguiler doesn't really have class features interesting enough for that.

[Troacctid]

We're evaluating the classes in their single-class versions. Prestige classes aren't included. That means you get ice assassin.

[Zanos]

Does that mean truenamers are also tier 1 since they get conjunctive gate at 20? Is the healer because they get gate at 17?

And you don't automatically get Ice Assassin, it's an advanced learning option. You're acting like it's automatically a part of their list. I could just as easily say "oh, every [insert X arcane caster] takes arcane disciple for [insert overpowered spell]" and call it tier 1.

[Tiri]

To be fair, it's more a part of the class if you get it with with Advanced Learning than if you take Arcane Disciple.

Although since you do have to wait until level 19, it doesn't really affect the Beguiler's tier for most of the game.

[eggynack]

My personal view is that if you don't account for non-class options, you don't get a useful ranking. If the class on its own is Fighter Tier, but the class with the right feats is Wizard Tier, in practice it's Wizard Tier, or at least two different rankings. Saying it's Fighter Tier just results in people being sad when they try to play it next to a Fighter. You can tell that people do believe that, because people talk about DMM: Persist in the context of the Cleric, despite the fact that it requires three feats (and some items to do it more than once or twice a day).
Yeah, but the question of where to draw the lines is obviously a non-trivial one, and the wrong lines can definitely disadvantage the beguiler here.


The charm and dominate lines are, for most practical purposes, pocket planar binding. That's "worse than a Sorcerer" in that the Sorcerer could just have actual planar binding, but a broken game is a broken game, and by that logic the Archivist has to push out the Cleric and the Wizard.
It's planar binding except you have to specifically seek out the creatures you want to control, said creatures could rather easily have either outright immunity (of the non-type variety), or make a save, and in either case could follow up your failure with either an attack or straight up leaving. Meanwhile, charm is way more limited in what you can actually get the creatures to do, and dominate person is obviously limited to people, which means that anything you'd wanna control is likely specifically generated and thus even more likely to have these defenses if they're worth controlling.


Remember that Beguiler also gets ice assassin, one of the most broken spells in the entire game. So you can't possibly say its high-level spells aren't game-breaking.
Yeah, probably sufficient to access the singularity and such, if a bit later than is typical. Personally though, I've never put all that much stock in the whole 9th level spell comparison thing. Yeah, breaking the game at some point between 17 and 20 is kinda useful, but it's always struck me as a really minor metric in the grand scheme of things.

[Troacctid]

And you don't automatically get Ice Assassin, it's an advanced learning option. You're acting like it's automatically a part of their list. I could just as easily say "oh, every [insert X arcane caster] takes arcane disciple for [insert overpowered spell]" and call it tier 1.
If you don't want to give credit for powerful spells because you don't have to choose them as spells known, that's valid, but you do realize it's going to push the Sorcerer down to T3.

[Doctor Despair]

Bard

As Barca said, they're commonly referred to as the epitome of T3. The only "busted" thing I've seen bards be able to do is cheese early access to Music of the Gods at level 21 and various combinations of feats and prestige classes to abuse that feature. Granted that feature can be an auto-answer to any given encounter that doesn't know better than to come in range of fascinate. Still, at that level contingent magic is online, so that ability is pretty obsolete without equal contingent magic to counter it out or sub-optimal enemy play.

Pre-epic, they can theurge pretty well using Sublime Chord and Ur Priest or something like that with Fochulan Lyrist to get double 9ths as well as bardic goodies, but then you suffer from the classic "lack of spellcasting class features-itis" that plagues theurges. They have a lot of options for spells once they dip into the casting PrCs, but it takes them until mid-game to get access to those in the first place. Early game, they offer a lot of utility with social skills and class-feature buffing to the party before wizards and sorcerers get a large spell list to draw on; mid-game I'd say they take a back seat to the more advanced casters, although they can compensate for that by theurging, as I said; late-game their advanced casting PrCs catch up, they get Music of the Gods and, if they left room for Craft Contingent Spell in their build, they can function as a spontaneous-casting budget wizard with less metamagic feats and a useful way to overcome immunities.

Based on this tier system, I think I'd give them a 3, 2. Without native fullcasting, the base class would be hardpressed to be a solid 2, especially since its redeeming epic feat comes so late. The PrCs make it a lot more powerful, however, but that's another discussion for a later date.


Battle Dancer

A lot of options for combat, and a lot of options for mobility (native flight is neat), but not a lot else. Also requires unarmed damage for a lot of the class features, which is hard enough to build as it is. Not a lot of skillpoints either, at 4+int and with most of those being eaten by maxing out perform and tumble. I'd give this class a pretty certain 5,6.

Beguiler

I don't know a lot about the class, but from what tangential knowledge I have (and a quick refresher on the basics), I understand it has a lot of powerful options available to it, full-casting, but a limited spell list. Surely there are ways to break the class, but it seems like the limited spell selection would stop it short of ever reaching tier 1. I'm not sure that is measures up to a sorcerer, but a 3,2 seems appropriate given what I know about it and based on this tier system.

Binder

I've played a Binder in a low-OP campaign before and at every step I felt there was a definite ceiling on the power available to this class at any given point, with very significant powerspikes at certain levels. The sheer variety of powers and abilities available even at just level 1 is huge, but the strength of the abilities often comes just a little too late and falls off hard. The argument to that is the same argument folks try to support fighters with: the binder can, more or less, go all day and do his thing. I think I could place him at a 3,4 and not feel poorly about it. While you seldom have the best tool for the job, playing as a binder you will often find you have a tool for the job that can suffice or come close to it.

Cleric

I'm sure the only debate here is whether or not to list them 12 or 1,2. Fullcasting, easy progression, early-game utility with cures and what-not, and the Anyspell line lends itself to even unoptimized vanilla Cleric 20s for variety. This is all to say nothing of persisted, extended buffs as of Clericzilla. 1

Commoner

In all seriousness, I think we all know these belong in T6 without high ranks in Craft: Cheese Sculpture. Just not enough options to do much of anything.

[Zanos]

If you don't want to give credit for powerful spells because you don't have to choose them as spells known, that's valid, but you do realize it's going to push the Sorcerer down to T3.
If you don't want to give credit to warmage and dread necromancer and healer and truenamer as also being tier 1, that's valid if you like to be internally inconsistent.

[Cosi]

That's only if you stick around for 19 levels, and Beguiler doesn't really have class features interesting enough for that.

Yeah, but it's that or "all Cleric spells".


And you don't automatically get Ice Assassin, it's an advanced learning option. You're acting like it's automatically a part of their list. I could just as easily say "oh, every [insert X arcane caster] takes arcane disciple for [insert overpowered spell]" and call it tier 1.

Are you somehow guaranteed to learn ice assassin as a Wizard?


It's planar binding except you have to specifically seek out the creatures you want to control, said creatures could rather easily have either outright immunity (of the non-type variety), or make a save, and in either case could follow up your failure with either an attack or straight up leaving.

Or you could just slap the creatures you fight with it. Possibly after capturing them with nonlethal damage. IIRC, the only things in the MM with non-type immunity are high level celestials with magic circle auras. Having charm and dominate basically turns you into a pokemon master. You weaken your enemies, then you toss a bunch of capture attempts at them.

Frankly, "you can never ever encounter anything that isn't immune to charm and dominate" seems like a pretty sharp constraint to be putting on the DM, and almost certainly counts as warping the campaign.


Yeah, breaking the game at some point between 17 and 20 is kinda useful, but it's always struck me as a really minor metric in the grand scheme of things.

Breaking the game at any point is not really a useful metric. You either don't do it, in which case it doesn't matter, or you do it with non-class options and it doesn't effect class balance. You can get infinite wishes with an item you can afford before you can cast 4th level spells, so who exactly is running around with planar binding or simulacrum or dominate person or polymorph and how broken those things are is basically not important.

[javcs]

I'd say that we can't take into account PRCs, non-bonus feats, items, etc. for the baseline ranking. Beguiler might well be the first base class that has multiple distinct entries - one for the baseline Beguiler (a strong T3, but not enough potential build variety for T2), and Beguiler(with Rainbow Servant) for a strong T1.


A Rainbow Beguiler is unquestionably a T1 ... but that's the only way to get there with Beguiler.
Without Rainbow, the Beguiler doesn't have the kind of potential variety required for T2. How many ways can the Beguiler break the game relying solely on his class-granted abilities? Advanced Learning for Ice Assassin and abusing it. Anything else? That's plenty for the top of T3, but not enough potential variety for T2.


T2 is where you have options in what method you use to break the game. You can use any single method that your T1 counterpart can, but where the T1 can freely use multiple methods, the T2 has to pick which one he's going for.


Any given Beguiler build is going to be fairly similar to any other Beguiler, irregardless of the degree of optimization. That's T3. The mark of T2 is a variety of potential builds for any given amount of optimization. Oh, sure, T2 generally has a much lower optimization floor than the Beguiler, but it also has a higher and broader ceiling.




TL;DR - Rainbow Servant makes a Beguiler a T1, as Rainbow does for any of the other fixed list full casters. Without Rainbow, Beguiler is a strong T3.

[Zanos]

Ice Assassin can be used to generate copies of Tier 1 characters and creatures that are under your complete control with "limitations" that don't technically exist(because of component pouches), so any character that can cast it is tier 1 by extension.

[eggynack]

Or you could just slap the creatures you fight with it. Possibly after capturing them with nonlethal damage. IIRC, the only things in the MM with non-type immunity are high level celestials with magic circle auras. Having charm and dominate basically turns you into a pokemon master. You weaken your enemies, then you toss a bunch of capture attempts at them.
If you're only hitting the creatures that you arbitrarily happen to fight, and only with charm when said creatures are non-humanoid, then you are in no way getting anywhere close to planar binding. At all. As to the non-type immunities, the most interesting monsters to charm/dominate are inevitably those with casting, and those have a pretty decent shot of just having the normal spell version of immunity up, especially if this monster is a DM generated humanoid.


Frankly, "you can never ever encounter anything that isn't immune to charm and dominate" seems like a pretty sharp constraint to be putting on the DM, and almost certainly counts as warping the campaign.
Not really what I'm implying at all. You drew a between these spells and planar binding, and while they're solid spells for what they are, they're nowhere even close to planar binding for a whole pile of reasons, ones not only limited to immunities.


Breaking the game at any point is not really a useful metric. You either don't do it, in which case it doesn't matter, or you do it with non-class options and it doesn't effect class balance. You can get infinite wishes with an item you can afford before you can cast 4th level spells, so who exactly is running around with planar binding or simulacrum or dominate person or polymorph and how broken those things are is basically not important.
The way the game works, if you hit a particular level of power, you can usually hit a lower level of power without too much in the way of issues. Like, you can cast a billion amazing ice assassins from a fast time demiplane, and crush the world beneath your heel, or you can make one or two only somewhat awesome ice assassins and "just" become way more powerful than classes of your level that don't have crazy power. It's all just additional ways to push the potential power level at various optimization levels outwards.

[Cosi]

Any given Beguiler build is going to be fairly similar to any other Beguiler, irregardless of the degree of optimization. That's T3. The mark of T2 is a variety of potential builds for any given amount of optimization. Oh, sure, T2 generally has a much lower optimization floor than the Beguiler, but it also has a higher and broader ceiling.

Again, this is a fallacy. The Sorcerer is not somehow more versatile because he could have picked a fixed list of spells that was different from the actual fixed list of spells he picked. He still has a fixed list of spells, which is or is not sufficient to reach whatever level of power. If your choices put you at some level of power, you are at that level of power regardless of what other choices you could have made.


If you're only hitting the creatures that you arbitrarily happen to fight, and only with charm when said creatures are non-humanoid, then you are in no way getting anywhere close to planar binding. At all.

I mean, it depends on exactly what use case you're referring to for both. Charming something every level is about equivalent to running around with a single bound monster, and requires a comparable number of slots. If you're talking about armies, you can use Diplomacy to turn charmed monsters permanently helpful, which gives you are larger army because you don't need to sink extra spell slots into maintenance.


As to the non-type immunities, the most interesting monsters to charm/dominate are inevitably those with casting, and those have a pretty decent shot of just having the normal spell version of immunity up, especially if this monster is a DM generated humanoid.

So have the rest of your goons beat them unconscious and slap dispel magic on them until they don't.


It's all just additional ways to push the potential power level at various optimization levels outwards.

The thing is though, nothing is stopping you from doing that exact kind of sandbagging with Candles of Invocation as a Commoner.

[javcs]

Again, this is a fallacy. The Sorcerer is not somehow more versatile because he could have picked a fixed list of spells that was different from the actual fixed list of spells he picked. He still has a fixed list of spells, which is or is not sufficient to reach whatever level of power. If your choices put you at some level of power, you are at that level of power regardless of what other choices you could have made.

You seem to be missing my point.
Any individual Sorcerer 20 build may not be more versatile than a Beguiler 20 build. But in creating a build, the Sorcerer 20 has more options to pick from.

[Cosi]

You seem to be missing my point.
Any individual Sorcerer 20 build may not be more versatile than a Beguiler 20 build. But in creating a build, the Sorcerer 20 has more options to pick from.

No, I get that, and it's a bad point. When you're creating a build, you always have "all the options". You could choose to build Sorcerer A, or Sorcerer B, or Sorcerer C. But you could also chose to build Wizards P, R, and Q. Once you've actually made the choice to play Sorcerer E, all those choices are exactly as unavailable to you, regardless of the fact that some of them are in your class and some are not. Options you didn't take don't get you anywhere, because by definition, you don't have those options.

[eggynack]

I mean, it depends on exactly what use case you're referring to for both. Charming something every level is about equivalent to running around with a single bound monster, and requires a comparable number of slots. If you're talking about armies, you can use Diplomacy to turn charmed monsters permanently helpful, which gives you are larger army because you don't need to sink extra spell slots into maintenance.
It's about quality, not quantity. A lot of the utility of planar binding is that you get to pick up all these neat SLA's that are sometimes overleveled, and a lot of the other utility is that you can just generally get a pretty high end caster with all the caster-action doubling that implies. If you're only getting beef, or lower end casting, then that's significantly less interesting.


So have the rest of your goons beat them unconscious and slap dispel magic on them until they don't.
I suppose that element is accurate, though the fact that you specifically need to win the fight against this opponent and in this specific way is definitely a downside.



The thing is though, nothing is stopping you from doing that exact kind of sandbagging with Candles of Invocation as a Commoner.
I'm not really talking about wish looping though, or looping in general. Just that these high quality spells are, y'know, high quality. Shapechange is still great even with zodars as non-existent. Ice assassin, beyond its game breaking power, is also just a really good spell.

Edit:
No, I get that, and it's a bad point. When you're creating a build, you always have "all the options". You could choose to build Sorcerer A, or Sorcerer B, or Sorcerer C. But you could also chose to build Wizards P, R, and Q. Once you've actually made the choice to play Sorcerer E, all those choices are exactly as unavailable to you, regardless of the fact that some of them are in your class and some are not. Options you didn't take don't get you anywhere, because by definition, you don't have those options.
Yeah, sorcerers can tailor their list somewhat to match a particular style of campaign, and their access to this broader list means that their fewer spells known could be better, but this sort of sorcerer swapping versatility is rather meaningless. The underlying issue with this logical line is one of the main problems I had with the niche ranking system.

[javcs]

No, I get that, and it's a bad point. When you're creating a build, you always have "all the options". You could choose to build Sorcerer A, or Sorcerer B, or Sorcerer C. But you could also chose to build Wizards P, R, and Q. Once you've actually made the choice to play Sorcerer E, all those choices are exactly as unavailable to you, regardless of the fact that some of them are in your class and some are not. Options you didn't take don't get you anywhere, because by definition, you don't have those options.

That's why Sorcerer is T2, and not T1. And the lack of that is why Beguiler (and the other entire focused list full casters) are T3, not T2.

The entire focused list full casters like Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are indeed better in their area of specific focus than a Sorcerer who has focused exclusively on doing the same thing. But the Sorcerer doesn't have to focus on doing that one thing. Admittedly, the Sorcerer's limited spells known is a rather painful limitation, and requires careful consideration when selecting spells known, but the ability to select any spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard list is a useful one. But the Sorcerer can take the Planar Binding line, Shapechange, Wish, etc, without expending list-expansion resources.

I'll concede that the Sorcerer is trickier to build for a given optimization level. But Sorcerer 20 has a ceiling that is both broader and higher than that of Beguiler 20, along with a lower floor.

[eggynack]

I'll concede that the Sorcerer is trickier to build for a given optimization level. But Sorcerer 20 has a ceiling that is both broader and higher than that of Beguiler 20, along with a lower floor.
Sorcerer 20 I would contend has a really really similar ceiling to the beguiler, because one crazy 9th acts a whole lot like a pile of them. A sorcerer 16, if we assume no list expansion, yeah, probably quite a bit better than a beguiler 16. A sorcerer 6, however, is probably quite a bit worse than a beguiler 6, even in the ceiling sense. After all, is there truly a single 3rd level spell that will match up to even just the top five spells off of the beguiler list of 3rd's, let alone the whole list? The sorcerer's two spells known a level after that still almost certainly fails to measure up to a list that has dispel magic, glibness, haste, slow, suggestion, major image, arcane sight, and so on. This argument also definitely holds up at lower levels, and at at least a few higher levels. The result seems to me the beguiler dominating through about the first half of the game, and the sorcerer dominating in the second half, with the main questions being how we weight each of those things, the degree of truth each thing has (because beguilers could be a bit better early and a lot worse late, or vice versa), and the value we should place on the fact that beguilers are better at list expansion.

Again though, I have to wonder, are favored souls even doing this well in the comparison? A core claim to beguiler opposition is that they really fade around, say, level nine, maybe holding up through eleven, definitely not winning out once they hit that 7th level spell slump. They're definitely worse at these levels than is typical, taking on a worse subset of sorcerer spells than is typical and thus performing worse in the comparison, but if the opposition is taking on a worse set of best spells, is the beguiler even losing? With that in mind what do favored soul lists look like at those levels, and how do they compare to the beguiler lists? I'm not super knowledgeable about favored soul optimization, or cleric spell selection in general, but I strongly suspect that the beguiler will do better in this comparison than in the more obvious sorcerer comparison.

[noce]

Bard: 4,3
While on paper a bard could be a T3 stereotype, in gameplay my experience didn't reflect that.
I played with several bards, built differently by differently skilled players, and the bard always looked to me as a master of none more than a jack of all trades.
Not a melee toon, not a healer, lowish DCs and inspire courage doesn't really make a great difference.
"T4: Capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter."

Battle Dancer: 5,4
They somewhat fixed Monk bab, with an embedded pounce. The only thing he can do is punching, but lacks bonus feats and has a hard time qualifying for unarmed monk-based feats.
"T5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well."

Beguiler: 2,3
I played one from 1st level to 18th, with a single level dip in Shadow Adept for bonus feats and delayed advanced learning.
I was impressed by this class.
Lots of spell slots, huge useful always-known spell list, lots of useful class skills with 6+INT on an INT-based spellcaster.
Its spell list has a hard time against mindless and high SR enemies, but the class has advanced learning to work on these weaknesses. Notably, Freezing Glance and the (Greater) Shadow Conjuration/Evocation spells can greatly improve your performance.
In all honesty, SR was never a problem. There are so many feats and items that increase your caster level that you can feel confident about overcoming spell resistance (Shadow Adept can be a boon helping in this department, although this is not beguiler-related).
Having to focus on just two spell schools, (Greater) Spell Focus feats are more valuable to you than to other casters, so chances are your DCs are higher than other casters. Mine were.
"T2: Potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job."

Binder: 3,4
Never played one, but always wanted to.
It provides choices, and not bad choices.

Cleric: 1
Nothing to say on this.

Commoner: 6
Nothing to say on this.

[D.M.Hentchel]

Bard: 3
Strong and versitile class, very front loaded but falls off at the later levels. Not enough to push it to tier 2, but rather a high tier 3.

Battle Dancer: 5
A very obscure class, it has a pile of terrible class features but gets pounce at 11 and flight at 17. D8 HD, Full BaB, 4 skill off a mediocre list. Solid in a low tier game, but no real support in any books (for obvious reasons). Makes an okay chasis for an ubercharger, certainly won't outshine a fighter.
Aside: You can jump at the end of your move so you end your turn in mid-air, allowing you to continue running across water with D.o.t. Floating Step

Beguiler: 2 3
A class that is really strong and easy to play. Has a small amount of game breaking potential on its own, but enough in my mind to justify its spot next to the Ardent

Binder: 3
A solid class with non-trivial amounts of flexibility. Can't keep up with any tier 2 in terms of power, but does its speciality very well, while not being useless when the specialty doesn't apply.

Cleric: 1
Divine Metamagic counts for a lot, and is not remotely an obscure feat. Spell list is surprisingly limited for how large it is, but there are more than enough tricks on it to work around that.

Commoner: 6
This is the floor of classes. But still there is power here. Commoner goes a long to demonstrate Player > Build > Class

[Jormengand]

Bard: 324
It's hard to find a situation where the bard can't do something useful, and when it's in its niche, it's amazingly good.

Battle Dancer: 546
I would rather believe that someone with a native pounce ability and otherwise monk-equivalent abilities was T4 than T6. The ability to flat-out ignore attacks of opportunity is also nice. Charging across lava is also awesome and I love it.

Beguiler: 342
I don't see that a spell that you get outside of the level 6-16 range that the Tier System mainly considers is enough to save you from ultimately being a one-trick pony, and a lot is immune to your one trick.

Binder: X32
I don't think binder in a single tier is okay. Source access and optimisation level is too big a game-changer.

Cleric: 1X
Cleric, of course, is one of the T1 posterboys, with a good set of reasons behind that. The fact that they have spontaneous conversion means that the player is never tempted to prepare healing spells (unless they're an evil cleric, of course) and instead chooses spells which actually do something.

Commoner: 6
With no applications outside of a specific TO trick (which anyone can do, but it produces spiders and good-aligned artifacts instead of chickens), the commoner is absolutely terrible. The only thing that prevents it being strictly worse than most classes is that it has a few class skills that some other classes don't have. None of them is enough to save it. Early entry to survivor is amusing, but terrible in reality.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Again though, I have to wonder, are favored souls even doing this well in the comparison?
Probably; they get more spells known than the sorcerer and the Cleric list is more than capable of breaking a campaign wide open all by itself. Losing Turn Undead natively stinks but it isn't hard to access.

[eggynack]

Beguiler: 342
I don't see that a spell that you get outside of the level 6-16 range that the Tier System mainly considers is enough to save you from ultimately being a one-trick pony, and a lot is immune to your one trick.

This doesn't seem all that accurate, as a claim. The beguiler has a bunch of levels within that 6-16 range where they have a massive number of tricks that are difficult to impossible to defend against. Again, I point to one of their prime levels, six. You get dispel magic, glibness, haste, major image, and slow, as five tricks that are more or less completely different and difficult to stop in any meaningful way. And that's five spells out of a total of 20. Yes, a few of the remaining spells are a bit samey and/or offer immunity, but there's obviously no downside to getting stuff like deep slumber, suggestion, and hold person on your list, and meanwhile you're also getting stuff like arcane sight, clairaudience/clairvoyance, displacement, invisibility sphere, non-detection, and I feel like I'm gonna wind up writing down every spell at some point so it seems prudent to stop.

Level eight, while clearly worse than six, strikes me as arguably pretty beguiler favorable too. Solid fog is one of the better spells of that level, after all. Then you add on greater invisibility, locate creature, and greater mirror image, along with maybe phantom battle, and you get a pretty solid range of spells that don't fall into the assumed "one-trick" of the beguiler. But, of course, you again do get that one trick, and having access to it is pretty useful, here mostly meaning charm monster and confusion.

So, that's about half of the level range where the beguiler probably has more tricks than most tier 2's. And this is especially true because the really long lists from first and second level spells, ones that offer a clear advantage over a sorcerer within that pre-6 level range, obviously don't vanish when they're not the top of your curve. As do the list of thirds, which is relevant at the likely sorcerer advantage section of the curve. After all, even if the sorcerer's one fifth level spell is better than all the beguiler's fifth level spells put together, the beguiler might still have the edge from the combination of all those earlier advantages still being present. Beguilers also get a better floor, which is really nice, and might extend the advantage into even later levels.

All in all, I just don't think this common characterization of beguilers as this class that fails to transcend a single powerful trick is an accurate one. Their list isn't the height of diversity, but it's not a house of cards waiting to fall at the first opponent that happens to have the right abilities either. Ice assassin is great, particularly because it means that sorcerers don't just automatically win the end-game against them, but removing it entirely wouldn't kill their shot at tier two either.

[Gnaeus]

[COLOR="#800080"][B]First round of votes is over, second round is the:

Bard
Battle Dancer (DrC)
Beguiler (PH2)
Binder (ToM)
Cleric
Commoner

Place your votes now!

Bard T342 Always useful, but require significant optimization to get broken

Battle Dancer no rank

Beguiler T2. Low op. Beats sorcs and favored souls hands down. Mid op. Expands his spell list and still beats Sorcerers. Unless the game is the kind with kobold sorcerers at +2 caster levels who know every spell, Id always rather have a beguiler on my team.

Binder T32. Because mid-high op access to online vestiges.

Cleric T1.

Commoner T6

[Gnaeus]

And, I mean... if you're going to factor Arcane Disciple/Runestaffs/PrCs that heavily into the discussion, you have to extend all that to the Dread Necro and Warmage, who have all of the same advantages and merely start with inferior lists.

I think Dread Necro is very likely T2. Warmage is more likely T3. You can't do everything with arcane Disciple or runestaffs. It doesn't make up for having a 1 dimensional list. But DN and Beguiler have very strong base lists.

[Cosi]

It's about quality, not quantity. A lot of the utility of planar binding is that you get to pick up all these neat SLA's that are sometimes overleveled, and a lot of the other utility is that you can just generally get a pretty high end caster with all the caster-action doubling that implies. If you're only getting beef, or lower end casting, then that's significantly less interesting.

Using planar binding to get downtime utility casting is just not all that impressive. You can buy spells for money. Caster minions are certainly better than non-casters, but you can get a lot more minions off of charm and dominate shenanigans (particularly in concert with Diplomacy).


I suppose that element is accurate, though the fact that you specifically need to win the fight against this opponent and in this specific way is definitely a downside.

You kind of need to win all your fights against all your opponents, so I don't know that "you need to win" is a downside. Needing to do non-lethal damage is a little annoying, but it can be done after the fight is functionally ended by glitterdust or something.


I'm not really talking about wish looping though, or looping in general. Just that these high quality spells are, y'know, high quality. Shapechange is still great even with zodars as non-existent. Ice assassin, beyond its game breaking power, is also just a really good spell.

It's one of those "where do you draw the line" things. Ranking wish cheese is absurd. But ignoring planar binding is also kind of stupid. Best solution is probably to decide on a list of broken powers, and ignore those for the purposes of ranking to avoid having to figure out exactly how much power it's fair to squeeze out of simulacrum.


The entire focused list full casters like Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are indeed better in their area of specific focus than a Sorcerer who has focused exclusively on doing the same thing. But the Sorcerer doesn't have to focus on doing that one thing. Admittedly, the Sorcerer's limited spells known is a rather painful limitation, and requires careful consideration when selecting spells known, but the ability to select any spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard list is a useful one. But the Sorcerer can take the Planar Binding line, Shapechange, Wish, etc, without expending list-expansion resources.

That's a different argument. It's true that Sorcerers can have more versatility, but Beguilers catch up very easily and once they do, having more baseline spells is a better deal than having a marginal extra free choice or two. greater planar binding, polymorph any object, and eight other spells is probably better than greater planar binding, polymorph any object, and the third coolest eighth level spell.


Cleric: 1
Divine Metamagic counts for a lot, and is not remotely an obscure feat. Spell list is surprisingly limited for how large it is, but there are more than enough tricks on it to work around that.

If we are counting Divine Metamagic for the Cleric, we should also be counting Arcane Disciple for the Beguiler, at which point any question of versatility goes out the window. You can get anything from animate dead to wall of stone to teleport, and that's just in core.


Beguiler: 342
I don't see that a spell that you get outside of the level 6-16 range that the Tier System mainly considers is enough to save you from ultimately being a one-trick pony, and a lot is immune to your one trick.

The things that are immune to your trick are mindless creatures (which lose to silent image), high level Celestials with magic circle against evil auras (which you are probably not fighting), and non-mindless Undead (for which you have minions). Plus, it's trivially easy to expand your spell list for almost nothing.

[Pleh]

My personal view is that if you don't account for non-class options, you don't get a useful ranking. If the class on its own is Fighter Tier, but the class with the right feats is Wizard Tier, in practice it's Wizard Tier, or at least two different rankings. Saying it's Fighter Tier just results in people being sad when they try to play it next to a Fighter. You can tell that people do believe that, because people talk about DMM: Persist in the context of the Cleric, despite the fact that it requires three feats (and some items to do it more than once or twice a day).

Okay, but assuming non class options can produce a misleading list as well. People could see a class that is rated high because of its access to prcs and acfs, but without knowing why it was rated high, they play it straight out of the book and wonder why it doesn't live up to its tier.

We do need a line somewhere.

[Cosi]

Okay, but assuming non class options can produce a misleading list as well. People could see a class that is rated high because of its access to prcs and acfs, but without knowing why it was rated high, they play it straight out of the book and wonder why it doesn't live up to its tier.

Isn't that exactly what "Why Each Class Is In Its Tier" is supposed to do? If you just present a set of rankings, people are going to be able to misread it regardless of what went into it. If you don't include PrCs and ACFs, people might assume those don't have an effect. If you don't specify which options put a class in its tier, you'll end up with people assuming blaster Wizards are as good as battlefield controllers.

[AnachroNinja]

Okay, but assuming non class options can produce a misleading list as well. People could see a class that is rated high because of its access to prcs and acfs, but without knowing why it was rated high, they play it straight out of the book and wonder why it doesn't live up to its tier.

We do need a line somewhere.

Something worth noting is that Arcane Disciple is a feat, not an ACF or PRC. A single feat is very much so within the possible standard build options for Beguiler20. And has been noted, that single feat opens up a huge variety of options to the point where most Beguilers should end up picking it up, even if the domain chosen is likely to vary. It's very close to the no brainer status of druids taking Natural Spell, which somehow is fair to always assume in this kind of debate.

More to the point, I don't remember any arbitrary distinction for Tier2 that required you have a variety of game breakers at every level. Tier2 is the "Your build can be designed so that it breaks the game, but it will be in narrow or predictable areas." The reality is, if one Beguiler20 build breaks the game, even if that's the ONLY Beguiler build that breaks the game, or even the only one that exists, it is Tier2. That is because Tier2 is primarily a function of power. And honestly, if anyone thinks that a Beguiler who spends his 1-20 career charming, dominating, diploma congratulations, and similar, is not going to break the game in fundamentally the same way as a planar binding sorcerer... Well you haven't tried to run a game with an enthusiastic Beguiler lately.

An argument can be made that their ceiling is not quite as high as a Sorcerer, and I'd probably agree with that, in a directly competitive sense. But if we aren't counting any PRCs, ACFs, or similar, then no, the sorcerer is not going to pull any huge distance ahead. And if we are counting that stuff, the Beguiler wrecks the sorcerer. And you have to acknowledge that is because the base chassis of the Beguiler is pretty good.

Bard - 3
Battle Dancer - 5
Beguiler - 2
Binder - 3
Cleric - 1
Commoner - 6

[eggynack]

Using planar binding to get downtime utility casting is just not all that impressive. You can buy spells for money. Caster minions are certainly better than non-casters, but you can get a lot more minions off of charm and dominate shenanigans (particularly in concert with Diplomacy).
But money costs money and whatnot. Planar binding can pretty easily be free. And you can be gaining access to a lot of money here. After all, potential uses for planar binding include a nightmare for astral projection or a mirror mephit for simulacrum. There're a lot of other uses too, ones that are really strong without going over the obviously borked wish loop line. Also, haven't noted this yet, but this overall strategy is weak to dispelling in a way that bound minions are not.



You kind of need to win all your fights against all your opponents, so I don't know that "you need to win" is a downside. Needing to do non-lethal damage is a little annoying, but it can be done after the fight is functionally ended by glitterdust or something.
My point here is mostly just that you're increasing the difficulty of fights somewhat by pursuing this, and generally expending more daily resources. Binding has no such issue. A lot of its power is in how low cost a maneuver it is.



It's one of those "where do you draw the line" things. Ranking wish cheese is absurd. But ignoring planar binding is also kind of stupid. Best solution is probably to decide on a list of broken powers, and ignore those for the purposes of ranking to avoid having to figure out exactly how much power it's fair to squeeze out of simulacrum.

My argument is basically that if you assume some theoretical variable positioned line that exists in each game, then ice assassin can get you to that line, wherever it is, without going over. The value associated with that line approximation capacity is obviously table dependent, but I certainly don't think it's a non-object.

Edit:
It's very close to the no brainer status of druids taking Natural Spell, which somehow is fair to always assume in this kind of debate.
To be fair, while natural spell and DMM frequently see mention when discussing the tier of these classes, because they're amazing, neither class really needs these feats to be in their tier.

[Muggins]

Bard: Tier 3/4.
The bard's versatility means that whatever the situation, they always have something to contribute. Not because they're particularly potent on their own - although they definitely, unabashedly are - but because they simply make everyone around them better. Poor decision-making with spells and ACFs can lower their overall power, but it's difficult to conjure a situation in which they're entirely useless.

Battle Dancer: Tier 5.
An unarmed fighter who benefits from charisma, similar to a monk and wisdom. Except that, unlike the monk, they have no splatbook support and little versatility in their core chassis, making damage their only function. And, unfortunately, they end up at the bottom of the martially-inclined, damage-dealing totem pole. At least you're better than the NPC Warrior, right?

Beguiler: Tier 2/3/1.
The definition of Tier 2 is incredible power with low versatility, and I think the Beguiler fits this definition perfectly. They're a fixed-list caster with a bevy of illusion magic, enchantment magic, and old standbys like Haste, Dispel Magic, Freedom of Movement, True Seeing, Mind Blank, and Time Stop filling their list. They compare better to a sorcerer than a bard, and they become even stronger when they add to their lists via methods like rainbow servant, sand shaper, and domain access. Any concerns about mind-affecting immunity can be worked around by a canny player that knows what their doing. Meanwhile, a badly-played beguiler falls to the floor of Tier 3; held back not by the nature of the class, but by bad decision-making and low competence.

Binder: Tier 3/4.
The binder's versatility means that they're always the best - or, otherwise, very good - at whatever they're trying to do that day. Their baseline level of power and competence is pretty average, with a good chassis and some reasonable class features (notably pact augmentation and soul guardian), but it's the vestiges that make them truly shine. If the bard is the jack-of-all-trades, then the binder is a master-of-one; from combat, to skills, to rogueplay, to spells, to summoning. A player can choose bad vestiges and neglect to use his granted abilities, but they're only ever a few bindings away from doing better.

Cleric: Tier 1/X.
The cleric gets no class features, but that's fine; they get spells instead. They also get domains, but those are just extra spells with a passive or daily ability tacked on. Their solid chassis (medium BAB, good Fort and Will saves, a half-decent skill list, d8 HD) makes up for any perceived inferior choices between the cleric and wizard spell lists, both of which have spells capable of dominating any social or combat encounter. Select ACFs and feat choices (looking at you, Divine Metamagic) offer ways to either break the game further or weaken the class only slightly, since you're never locked into your spell choices for more than a day. I'd daresay that the only limit to this class' power is the competence of the player driving it.

Commoner: Tier 6.
Completely unnoteworthy, uninteresting, and worthless. No skills, no class features, and a bad chassis. Only receives recognition because of a poorly-worded Flaw from an esoteric splatbook which has the potential to break the game.

[Doctor Despair]

Isn't that exactly what "Why Each Class Is In Its Tier" is supposed to do? If you just present a set of rankings, people are going to be able to misread it regardless of what went into it. If you don't include PrCs and ACFs, people might assume those don't have an effect. If you don't specify which options put a class in its tier, you'll end up with people assuming blaster Wizards are as good as battlefield controllers.

Aren't we supposed to be ranking these classes on their own merit and not on the merit of PrCs? We are ranking base classes, after all.

[eggynack]

Aren't we supposed to be ranking these classes on their own merit and not on the merit of PrCs? We are ranking base classes, after all.
ACF's are still clear factors of power, especially the lower key ones that aren't essentially whole new classes, and while I agree that PrC's are probably outside the bounds of this, there's definitely an argument to be made that some classes get more out of PrC's than others. For example, barbarian, which has access to stuff like runescarred berserker and champion of Gwynharwyf, is going to do better in a PrC inclusive environment than a fighter which... doesn't have those things.

[Pleh]

Isn't that exactly what "Why Each Class Is In Its Tier" is supposed to do? If you just present a set of rankings, people are going to be able to misread it regardless of what went into it. If you don't include PrCs and ACFs, people might assume those don't have an effect. If you don't specify which options put a class in its tier, you'll end up with people assuming blaster Wizards are as good as battlefield controllers.

Yes and no. The "Why..." thread can explain the tier either way. If we assume vanilla base classes, the why thread would say that prcs can affect tier greatly. If we assume non class features, the why thread should explain where such things have been assumed.

But I think we want the tier list to best represent the average 20 level single class build with consideration for floors and ceilings. The tier list is supposed to tell you what the class itself has to offer so that you know how much help it needs.

Because most anything can be optimized if you allow multiclassing. Barbarian is probably a higher tier if you only consider it a 1 level dip for building other classes.

[Cosi]

But money costs money and whatnot. Planar binding can pretty easily be free. And you can be gaining access to a lot of money here. After all, potential uses for planar binding include a nightmare for astral projection or a mirror mephit for simulacrum. There're a lot of other uses too, ones that are really strong without going over the obviously borked wish loop line. Also, haven't noted this yet, but this overall strategy is weak to dispelling in a way that bound minions are not.

Back of the envelop calculation says wall of iron produces enough iron to afford a 9th level spell with change left over. That's less casts than binding an Efreet, but with money left over and free choice of spell.


My argument is basically that if you assume some theoretical variable positioned line that exists in each game, then ice assassin can get you to that line, wherever it is, without going over. The value associated with that line approximation capacity is obviously table dependent, but I certainly don't think it's a non-object.

But if we're talking about loops (even chained ones) the best aren't class based.


Aren't we supposed to be ranking these classes on their own merit and not on the merit of PrCs? We are ranking base classes, after all.

If you rank things in a way they are not used, you don't get good rankings. No one actually takes 20 levels of a base class with no feats, items, PrCs, dips, or ACFs. You could try to do what the old tier system did, and have a separate ranking for PrCs, but that causes immediate problems when you try to rank things like the Rainbow Servant that are heavily dependent on the class chassis. Rainbow Servant is nuts if you cast like a Warmage, decent (but outclassed) if you cast like a Wizard, and awful if you cast like a Sorcerer. If that information isn't baked into base class rankings, it's really hard to represent effectively.

[eggynack]

Back of the envelop calculation says wall of iron produces enough iron to afford a 9th level spell with change left over. That's less casts than binding an Efreet, but with money left over and free choice of spell.
It seems kinda hypocritical to be fully opposed to things that can loop infinitely but then be fine with exploding WBL to such an extent that can rather trivially get to any quantity of money you could plausibly desire. The parallel between wizard wish loops as compared to commoner wish loops, and wizard WBL breaking as opposed to commoner WBL breaking, seems like a clear one to me.



But if we're talking about loops (even chained ones) the best aren't class based.

I'm not really talking about loops though. I'm talking about just, y'know, casting ice assassin. For value. You get what's still a sort of caster singularity, just because you can approximate any other spell effect, just as they can approximate any spell effect of yours.

[BaronDoctor]

Bard: 342

Bards are Tier 3. Water is wet. They can contribute almost anywhere in a meaningful fashion (Inspire Courage, Skills, Spells), but they don't distort the game due to their ability in any one area. Usually. Words of Creation DFI (Sonic) bards start throwing around reliable bonus damage. Jack of All Trades + Bardic Knack lets you do literally any skill halfway decently (at least enough to properly Aid Another on literally any skill check). They're not massively busted all by themselves, but they're an outstanding force multiplier that could contort the game.

Battle Dancer: 56

It's a monk. Without the monk benefits, but with full BAB and a single good save. Ick.

Beguiler: 23

9th level casting. Sorcerers are pretty widely accepted to be T2 (Phenomenal Cosmic Power in one significant dimension that can alter the shape of a campaign). So how do Beguilers compare? Better HD, more skills (and good skills), Int casting, ability to use light armor. They've got my personal favorite casting mechanic (spontaneous casting off a limited, but all known, list; "which button do I push?") which also enables the best use of list-expanders like Arcane Disciple, bonus domains from prestiges, and the already-discussed Rainbow Servant (which would push them into T1). They keep pace with sorcerers on the magic front and they can do more without magic than sorcerers can. If you were to make a bard undeniably T2, it would end up looking a lot like a beguiler.

And as far as mind-affecting immunity? Silent image wins against mindless things, dispel can crack spell immunity. Bringing a lot of those in, though? That's the game being distorted by the capabilities of the class/character. Which is a clear mark of T2.

Binder: 34

A bunch of tricks you can do all day (but generally not more than twice a minute for the best ones). Plenty of neat effects here, nothing game-distorting.

Cleric: 1

Remember that bit I mentioned about casting off a list where you know all of it? The cleric list is one of the biggest in the game; anything you can't solve today you can probably solve tomorrow by picking the right spell. They also have a bunch of "you can probably solve today" buttons for general preparation, along with turning and an entirely adequate chassis which means you're probably going to make your fort saves and will saves.

Commoner: 6

Fat, drunk, and stupid is about this class's only way to go through life. It's also no way to go through life, at least according to Animal House. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK-Dqj4fHmM)

[Tiri]

Fat, drunk, and stupid is about this class's only way to go through life.

Well, that's certainly a bit insensitive. Most of us here would probably be commoners if built with D&D rules.

[JBarca]

Well, that's certainly a bit insensitive. Most of us here would probably be commoners if built with D&D rules.

Sure, but we don't live in a world that prizes combat ability above literally everything else.

[Jormengand]

Well, that's certainly a bit insensitive. Most of us here would probably be commoners if built with D&D rules.

Most of us would be experts. Too many skills too high to be a realistic commoner.

[Pleh]

If you rank things in a way they are not used, you don't get good rankings. No one actually takes 20 levels of a base class with no feats, items, PrCs, dips, or ACFs. You could try to do what the old tier system did, and have a separate ranking for PrCs, but that causes immediate problems when you try to rank things like the Rainbow Servant that are heavily dependent on the class chassis. Rainbow Servant is nuts if you cast like a Warmage, decent (but outclassed) if you cast like a Wizard, and awful if you cast like a Sorcerer. If that information isn't baked into base class rankings, it's really hard to represent effectively.

Feats and items (wbl) are part of a base class, in my mind. You haven't built a complete character without those things.

Multiclassing is where I draw the line. Dips and prcs are ways to optimize your build, not your class. Feats and items can easily optimize your class without just taking some other class.

Acfs are the fuzzy line.

[eggynack]

Just noticed, the class list is definitely missing magewright (ECS, 256), and it's my opinion that urban druid (DrC, 57) is sufficiently an entirely new class, as opposed to an ACF (no matter how I have it listed in the handbook), to merit inclusion. That's how it seems to be listed, anyway.

[Doctor Despair]

Jormengand, what's your take on the PrC situation? Should we allow them in consideration for classes? Personally, I'd rank bard 23 if you could consider PrCs, but 32 if you can't. Small difference, since I'm certain they'll end up a resounding 3 regardless of how I rank them, but still, for accuracy's sake. :p

[Karl Aegis]

What spells in core were you thinking of that put the Cleric list ahead of Wizard? Not to put words in your mouth here, but all I can think of is the divination line, glyphs, and gish buffs. I'm not overly familiar with the Wizard list, though, so maybe I'm missing something.

Clerics get some cool things that Wizards don't. Evocations like Spiritual Weapon, Invisibility Purge (when the enemy is too close to Glitterdust), Blade Barrier Hallow/Unhallow and Consecrate/Desecrate. Travel options like Water Walk, Air Walk, Wind Walk. Protections like Hide From Undead, Aid, Spell Immunity, Meld into Stone, and Death Ward. Even things like Heal/Harm, the Restoration line, the Holy Word line, Raise Dead and Resurrection shouldn't be underestimated. Sure, they don't get Shrink Item, but overall some very good effects.

[Troacctid]

We're just ranking the base classes here. Prestige classes are a different beast.

Bard: 3
This shouldn't be controversial—high versatility and medium spellcasting make for a strong class. Poor spell selection or tactics can bring you down a little, and inspire courage optimization or ACFs like the animal companion can bring you up, but it's all still comfortably within the bounds of T3.

Battle Dancer: 5
Class is very bad—worse than Monk—but at least it's still better than NPC classes.

Beguiler: 2
Putting the Beguiler in a different tier from the Sorcerer and Favored Soul is madness. Anyone who thinks those classes are T2 but Beguiler is T3, I challenge you to craft a list of known spells for them at various levels that is clearly better than the Beguiler's. You can't do it. Beguilers have game-breaking spells at low, medium, and high levels even if you don't consider what you can get with feats, and they also have incredible skill access on top of it. They're extremely powerful—overpowered, even—and if Sorcerer is your benchmark for T2, then Beguiler has to land there as well.

Binder: 32
I don't think this is controversial either. Binders have decent skills combined with a nice suite of abilities and pretty solid scaling for the high levels. We can talk about whether Zceryll makes them T2—which IMO rests solely on whether you rate it with or without the "permanent duration" dysfunction—but I can't see an argument for any lower than T3.

Cleric: 1
One of the most powerful and versatile classes in the game.

Commoner: 6
Literally the #1 worst class in the game.

[Doctor Despair]

Binder: 32
I don't think this is controversial either. Binders have decent skills combined with a nice suite of abilities and pretty solid scaling for the high levels. We can talk about whether Zceryll makes them T2—which IMO rests solely on whether you rate it with or without the "permanent duration" dysfunction—but I can't see an argument for any lower than T3.

What "permanent duration" dysfunction are you referring to? My Google-fu is weak this time and I've not heard of it before.

[Troacctid]

What "permanent duration" dysfunction are you referring to? My Google-fu is weak this time and I've not heard of it before.
There is no duration on Zceryll's summons ability, so you get to keep your summoned aliens indefinitely unless they are dispelled. There's also no limit on the number of summons you can have at once, so you can just summon more, and more, and more, and more, until you've amassed an infinite army. This is probably not the intent.

[Jormengand]

Magewright will be added to the list.

I don't think we should assume people are taking prestige classes or variants. Variants with a significantly different tier can certainly be nominated to be handled at the end. I may add a few things which aren't strictly base classes (hit dice, for example - I'm genuinely not sure where outsider and dragon go) at the end as well.

Prestige classes aren't a helpful metric when determining class tier, because almost any class can go into Ur Priest. You need to stand on your own feet, not the shoulders of prestige classes.

[Troacctid]

Urban Druid needs to be separate too. It's at least as different from Druid as Jester is from Bard. And it's presented as an entirely different class.

[Jormengand]

Urban Druid needs to be separate too. It's at least as different from Druid as Jester is from Bard. And it's presented as an entirely different class.

Fair point on that one.

[Pleh]

Prestige classes aren't a helpful metric when determining class tier, because almost any class can go into Ur Priest. You need to stand on your own feet, not the shoulders of prestige classes.

I agree with one caveat.

Prcs are a useful metric in determining the flexibility of a base class. A base class can qualify for lots of good quality prcs easily, but not need to take any of them to shine alongside prcs. This is the mark of a strong base class.

Some base classes require prcs to function and don't easily access many good prcs (often because of stringent requirements for useless feats).

A prc can be evaluated on its own merits, but it can also measure a base class by its need and access to prcs.

It's a bit of a nebulous measurement, but then so is feat and spell selection.

[Nifft]

There is no duration on Zceryll's summons ability, so you get to keep your summoned aliens indefinitely unless they are dispelled. There's also no limit on the number of summons you can have at once, so you can just summon more, and more, and more, and more, until you've amassed an infinite army. This is probably not the intent.

As an aside...


- You can summon one monster.
- The monster sticks around until it dies or until you dismiss it.
- After the monster dies or is dismissed, you must wait 5 rounds, and then you can summon another one.

[Zanos]

I would just call it summon monster [x] where caster level = binder class level. Seems fair.

[Tiri]

Most of us would be experts. Too many skills too high to be a realistic commoner.

Well, by 'here' I meant 'in the world' not 'on GiantitP'.

[Lans]

I would just call it summon monster [x] where caster level = binder class level. Seems fair.

Thats still pretty good.

[Hurnn]

Bard: 3,4
Insanely versatile but slow starters.

Battle Dancer: 6/5
Super MAD, I am honestly not sure they are better than warriors, or experts.

Beguiler: 2,3
Changed my mind spell list is super solid even with out the mind effecting stuff.

Binder: 3,2,1
Very versatile and with planing can usually have the right tools for the job. Only 1 vestige gets them close to game breaking though and I don't think it does enough for tier 2.

Cleric: 1
CoDzilla. I don't think there is discussion needed here.

Commoner: 6
I don't think there is discussion needed here either.


I know I'm late on theses but here goes.

Adept: 4,5

Archivist: 1

Ardent: cant vote never used 3.x psionics

Aristocrat: 6,5
Better than warrior or commoner but not as good as fighter. I think its a bubble class, almost makes 5 but falls short.

Artificer: 1

Barbarian: 4
They do their thing and do it really well.

[noce]

The alternative vote system is resolved by the following method:


Look at the first tier in each person's list. For each tier which got the fewest first-place votes, discount that tier.
Look at the first tier in each person's list again, removing all the tiers which you discounted in the first round.
Keep discounting tiers and looking at lists until only one tier is left.
If at any point you try to discount tiers, but then there would be none left, instead check which one got the most first-place votes. If each one got the most, check which one got the most second-place votes, and so on.
If there's still a tie, choose randomly.


I would like to point out that this voting system is not fair, and I will give examples to show this.

Suppose Alice and Bob are voting for choosing Cleric tier.
A thinks Cleric is low T1, while B thinks it's high T2.
Thus, A votes 123 and B votes 213.
As a consequence, the first preference is a tie between 1 and 2, and so is the second preference.
This voting system assigns Cleric to T3, while neither A nor B really wanted this outcome.

Suppose Alice, Bob, Carl and Daisy are voting for choosing Cleric tier.
A and B now both agree Cleric being in T1, while C and D think Cleric is T2.
If A and B both vote 123, and C and D vote 213, Cleric is again assigned to T3.

Now suppose D is clever, and tries to exploit the voting system, so she instead votes 231.
She thinks 213 is the right choice, but votes 231 in order to win.
Votes are: (123) (123) (213) (231).
As a result, the first preference results in a tie between T1 and T2, while the second preference is not a tie anymore and T2 wins, although unfairly.

However, as for Arrow's impossibility theorem, a fair rank-based voting system does not exist. :smalltongue:

[Jormengand]

Well, by 'here' I meant 'in the world' not 'on GiantitP'.

I imagine that most people even in the developing world still have too many skills to be an int 10 commoner. Spot, listen, knowledge local, survival, boom, too many to be a human commoner (given that they're almost certainly maxed out to have a decent chance of making the checks they rely on to survive). Add in profession and craft, one of which most people will have at least, plus a few other skills that people have because they're humans and they go and learn things just naturally in life...


I would like to point out that this voting system is not fair, and I will give examples to show this.

Suppose Alice and Bob are voting for choosing Cleric tier.
A thinks Cleric is low T1, while B thinks it's high T2.
Thus, A votes 123 and B votes 213.
As a consequence, the first preference is a tie between 1 and 2, and so is the second preference.
This voting system assigns Cleric to T3, while neither A nor B really wanted this outcome.

Suppose Alice, Bob, Carl and Daisy are voting for choosing Cleric tier.
A and B now both agree Cleric being in T1, while C and D think Cleric is T2.
If A and B both vote 123, and C and D vote 213, Cleric is again assigned to T3.

Now suppose D is clever, and tries to exploit the voting system, so she instead votes 231.
She thinks 213 is the right choice, but votes 231 in order to win.
Votes are: (123) (123) (213) (231).
As a result, the first preference results in a tie between T1 and T2, while the second preference is not a tie anymore and T2 wins, although unfairly.

However, as for Arrow's impossibility theorem, a fair rank-based voting system does not exist. :smalltongue:

In example 1, Tier 3 has already been eliminated. The cleric cannot be tier 3 if no-one voted for it in the first round. Nominations would be re-opened for a tie.

In the second case, if you don't want 1 to win, don't vote 1. You can just vote 2 and nothing else. I'm also banking on some combination of good will and sheer numbers making that kind of chicanery impossible anyway.

[Tiri]

I imagine that most people even in the developing world still have too many skills to be an int 10 commoner. Spot, listen, knowledge local, survival, boom, too many to be a human commoner (given that they're almost certainly maxed out to have a decent chance of making the checks they rely on to survive). Add in profession and craft, one of which most people will have at least, plus a few other skills that people have because they're humans and they go and learn things just naturally in life...

Well, I'm not saying that people only have commoner levels, but it's likely that that's how they start out. Even a baby has to have a level of something, and it's probably not Expert or Warrior.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Bard : 3,4,2

Battle Dancer: 6,5,4

Beguiler: 3,2,4

Binder: 3,4,2

Cleric: 1

Commoner: 6

[Cosi]

It seems kinda hypocritical to be fully opposed to things that can loop infinitely but then be fine with exploding WBL to such an extent that can rather trivially get to any quantity of money you could plausibly desire. The parallel between wizard wish loops as compared to commoner wish loops, and wizard WBL breaking as opposed to commoner WBL breaking, seems like a clear one to me.

Uh, that's kind of my point? If you allow the game to break one way, why not allow an exactly equivalent way?


I'm not really talking about loops though. I'm talking about just, y'know, casting ice assassin. For value. You get what's still a sort of caster singularity, just because you can approximate any other spell effect, just as they can approximate any spell effect of yours.

And so can a dude using wish or planar binding abuse.


Feats and items (wbl) are part of a base class, in my mind. You haven't built a complete character without those things.

Multiclassing is where I draw the line. Dips and prcs are ways to optimize your build, not your class. Feats and items can easily optimize your class without just taking some other class.

Acfs are the fuzzy line.

Prestige classes aren't a helpful metric when determining class tier, because almost any class can go into Ur Priest. You need to stand on your own feet, not the shoulders of prestige classes.

Yeah, but people don't play a class. They play a build. So if you rank classes without considering PrCs, you get rankings that don't correspond to the playspace. How many 20th level Wizards (or Fighters, or pretty much any class other than Druid) do you think there are?


Well, I'm not saying that people only have commoner levels, but it's likely that that's how they start out. Even a baby has to have a level of something, and it's probably not Expert or Warrior.

Babies start out with humanoid HD, which is replaced with whatever class they end up, which is probably Expert given the improved education system in the post-industrial-revolution world.

[eggynack]

Uh, that's kind of my point? If you allow the game to break one way, why not allow an exactly equivalent way?
But I don't think we are allowing the game to break one way, is my problem with that. Ice assassin is obviously amazing, but the intent here is to use it in a relatively "normal" manner.



And so can a dude using wish or planar binding abuse.
Planar binding only really does so if you use it for wishes and such, and I was assuming we were specifically discounting that use. Wish more obviously does.

[Pleh]

Yeah, but people don't play a class. They play a build. So if you rank classes without considering PrCs, you get rankings that don't correspond to the playspace. How many 20th level Wizards (or Fighters, or pretty much any class other than Druid) do you think there are?

Yeah, but we're ranking classes, not Builds. There's really no good way to rank the classes based on their related Builds since any one class could have several Builds that are too different to compare to each other.

The information could be more accurate, but less useful due to being overly technical. Class ranking is, by its nature, a generalization and people referencing the list should be aware of its limitations.

What class rankings measures is the theoretical power of a class so as to inform the player/dm as to how to expect a class to perform on its own so they can plan and prepare whatever extra assistance it needs to succeed (or have a fair chance at succeeding).

It's not meant to say, "class x is y tier no matter how you use it in your build." It says, "a build with strong dependency on class x will typically reach tier y."

[LordOfCain]

Bard : 3
Battle Dancer: 5
Beguiler: 2
Binder: 3
Cleric: 1
Commoner: 6,1

[Tiri]

Babies start out with humanoid HD, which is replaced with whatever class they end up, which is probably Expert given the improved education system in the post-industrial-revolution world.

Not human babies. Humans are a creature with only 1 HD, which means that they will never actually have a type-based HD. At any point in a human's life, including the baby stage, they will possess at least one class level in either a PC or NPC class.

[Karl Aegis]

Not human babies. Humans are a creature with only 1 HD, which means that they will never actually have a type-based HD. At any point in a human's life, including the baby stage, they will possess at least one class level in either a PC or NPC class.

I feel like if Baby were a printed class it would be made by Paizo, which isn't allowed in this discussion.

[Troacctid]

Baby humans do not actually have any listed stats at all, so we don't know how they work.

[Pleh]

It wouldn't be hard to homebrew some reasonable stats.

Infant humans are by nature helpless, so they rely on their parents to protect them. They have a tiny size category and all the associated modifiers.

Their attributes likely start around 1 or 2 and grow rapidly towards 10 as they mature. They shouldn't have 0 in any stat unless they've been attacked by something. They are just so weak and confused as to be continuously helpless.

They have a special ability to scream when disturbed. It's actually real science that infants are natural diaphragmatic breathers, which allows them to scream all day without developing laryngitis (children learn to breathe with their chest around the age of 4 when their sense of fear begins to develop).

This scream ability is sonic, does not deal damage (not even nonlethal), but can disrupt concentration and make creatures with sensitive ears uncomfortable. Humans gain a massive racial bonus to listen checks to hear a baby crying and the infant's parent has the EX ability to sense the baby's distress even when they fail their listen check to hear the cry. The parent must still pass a wisdom check to sense the baby's cry without hearing it.

[AvatarVecna]

Nice try guys, but some dude already made the only baby stats you'll ever need! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16153403&postcount=28)

[Pleh]

Nice try guys, but some dude already made the only baby stats you'll ever need! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16153403&postcount=28)

To be fair, that's about the same as I said.

Except I added, "EX ability: Summon Angry Parent."

[VisitingDaGulag]

Bard : 3 poster child
Battle Dancer: 5 think monk
Beguiler: 3 no 3000 spells to chose from but still good.
Binder: 3 excluding that infinite summon monster ACF
Cleric: 1 duh
Commoner: 6 duh

[Lans]

Bard : 3
Battle Dancer: 5 I really wanted to put this at 6, but getting pounce, flight and water walking put it over the edge to me making it a low 5. A warrior is probably going to be better for half the levels, but the dancer has maneuverability going for it.
Beguiler: 3
Binder: 4 While the binder appears to be very versatile, his versatility very limited based on stats, equipment and the general weakness of Pacts outside of a few select choices. With Pact magic being so weak that a feat that lets him bind a higher level vestige at many levels not being mentioned as OP or broken.

Edit- The Binder might be an example of a class that changes tier as it levels up, because I do think when it gets the summoning vestige it jumps to tier 2. It may even jump to tier 3 when it gets the second vestige. I think Shadow casters, and Incarnates are in a similar boat.

Cleric: 1
Commoner: 6

Divine Mind Tier 4/5 compare it to the barbarian and he doesn't get overshadowed. Lets compare damage. At first level he is ahead of the barbarian by 1 point of damage except for when the barbarian is in rage, then he is behind 1 to hit and 2 on damage. Except if he takes the physical power mantle, then he can get +2 to strength for 1 round each combat, meaning he's behind by 1 point of damage. At 5th he can take adrenaline boost and get another +2 to strength meaning he is now 2 pts ahead on damage for the first round of combat against the barbarians rage, and is up on damage out side of rage by 2 points, and is only behind 1 point on the to hit vs the raging barbarian.

A few levels later the Divine Mind can get psionic lion's charge for multiple attacks on a charge making him a better charger than the barbarian. Now you might want to say what about lion's spirit ACF? Well, We agreed to not use ACFs in the tier discussions, and that the barbarian as stated in the players handbook is what we have to compare it to.

[Jormengand]

Okay, round's over folks. Let's hear it for the:

Crusader (ToB)
Death Master (DrC)
Divine Mind (CPs)
Dragon Shaman (PH2)
Dragonfire Adept (DrM)
Dread Necromancer (HoH)

Results of the previous round: Bard 3 Battle Dancer 5 Beguiler 3 Binder 3 Cleric 1 Commoner 6

[Doctor Despair]

I have little experience with these classes, but I look forward to seeing some debate over the first ToB class to come up :) Though Dragon Shaman will probly end up predictably low if I'm remembering the right class

[AvatarVecna]

Why is it Low? I thought dragons are powerful?

Dragons are powerful, yeah. Dragon Shaman is a class that's fairly...terrible. It's not the worst, it can be fairly solid, but it's not very good.

[Novolin]

But then why

[eggynack]

But then why
Because the abilities are mostly bad? The power of the class has almost nothing to do with the power of dragons.

[Inevitability]

But then why

Dragon shamans just aren't very versatile or powerful. They lack the BAB or weapons to be good melee characters, their breath weapon is very limited and honestly not that powerful, and the bonuses they give are somewhat useful at low levels, then get less and less interesting as other classes begin getting powers that far exceed it all.

[Novolin]

Because the abilities are mostly bad? The power of the class has almost nothing to do with the power of dragons.

What about wings and fire breath

[AvatarVecna]

What about wings and fire breath

The wings can be restricted, and come online 4 14 levels later than magic flight. The fire breath has decent damage, but fire is commonly resisted, you don't get the breath weapon often enough for it to be super-useful, and it can't really be changed after lvl 4. Compare it to Dragonfire Adept, which focuses on the breath weapon, and lets you choose between different breath weapon shapes, different damage types, lets you choose non-damaging effects, and gets other class features besides. Dragon Shaman moves in a bunch of different directions and ends up being mediocre at a bunch of things, rather than good or even decent at anything.

EDIT: Misread the class.

[Pleh]

Wings and fire breath are awesome.

But when you get these powers is important. Dragon Shaman gets access okay, but there's a number of other ways to get breath weapon. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php) Some are definitively better ways to get that feature (or are just as good and get better stuff along with).

Getting the ability to fly at level 17 is kinda laughable.

[Pleh]

The wings can be restricted, and come online 14 levels later than magic flight.

Novolin, because a human wizard is flying without wings by level 6

[AvatarVecna]

really, why?

Dragon Shaman gets all-day, Ex) flight 60ft at lvl 19. Wizards could cast fly for the same fly speed 14 levels ago. Heck, if you're really optimizing, Artificers can be crafting magic items of Continuous Swift Flight from lvl 3 onward. Meanwhile, the kind of mobility boosts people are getting at lvl 19 are things like the "wish to be wherever you want" use of the Wish spell, or travelling between planes using the Gate spell, or using Shapechange to turn into a dragon that can fly faster than a Dragon Adept.

[eggynack]

really, why?
Why not? It doesn't matter at all whether a class' abilities are pulled from some strong monster or not. It doesn't matter whether those abilities have the surface level appearance of goodness. All that matters is what the abilities actually do, and, when you get those abilities. So, for example, flight. Flight is generally a pretty strong ability. It's taken from dragons, and when dragons do it they do pretty well with it. When you get flight at level 19 though, many many levels after you're expected to have it, and in a form that isn't even all that great, it's not even really having a measurable impact on the power level of a class. Similarly, a breath weapon. Breath weapons can be pretty strong, but the damage progression associated with the dragon shaman in particular means you're often going to prefer just stabbing your opponents in the face. Or you would, if you had any particular ability to do that. Ignore how dragony these abilities look. Consider the class features in a vacuum. Would you rather have the stuff this class is offering than the stuff classes of higher tiers are offering?

Anyways, I also don't have much opinion on any of these. Except dread necro, which seems like a clear 3. Honestly, the fact that beguilers are getting the same rank as before in this thread is starting to diminish my interest in the whole thing. I mean, what's even the point if there's gonna be this flood of 3's largely premised on the old tier system, ones that don't even significantly engage with the argument on that topic taking place. I feel like healer is gonna come around, and I'm going to be like, "This class is probably a tier three, tier four at worst," and I'm going to put together a really convincing argument about that, and it'll all be rendered pointless by a bunch of people calling it a five because they haven't thought overmuch about that tiering since it showed up in the original thread. Same kinda thing happened with the adept, actually. I was on the winning side of that one, but I wasn't necessarily winning the argument. Tier momentum simply accounts for a lot of the number this thread arrives at.

[Troacctid]

Honestly, the fact that beguilers are getting the same rank as before in this thread is starting to diminish my interest in the whole thing. I mean, what's even the point if there's gonna be this flood of 3's largely premised on the old tier system, ones that don't even significantly engage with the argument on that topic taking place. I feel like healer is gonna come around, and I'm going to be like, "This class is probably a tier three, tier four at worst," and I'm going to put together a really convincing argument about that, and it'll all be rendered pointless by a bunch of people calling it a five because they haven't thought overmuch about that tiering since it showed up in the original thread. Same kinda thing happened with the adept, actually. I was on the winning side of that one, but I wasn't necessarily winning the argument. Tier momentum simply accounts for a lot of the number this thread arrives at.
I'm feeling the same way. So far the rankings in this thread are even less accurate than JaronK's.

[Aegis013]

Crusader (ToB) 4,3,5,6,2,1
Death Master (DrC) Unfamiliar with this class.
Divine Mind (CPs) 4,3,5,6,2,1
Dragon Shaman (PH2) 5,4,3,6,2,1
Dragonfire Adept (DrM) 3,X,2,4,5,6,1
Dread Necromancer (HoH) 3,X,2,4,5,6,1

[AvatarVecna]

I'm feeling the same way. So far the rankings in this thread are even less accurate than JaronK's.

The problem is clearly that you're not arguing hard enough to convince everybody that you're right. At least people who come through the thread will see that therecs controversy, and will see the arguments being made, so that should give them enough understanding.

[LordOfCain]

Crusader (ToB) 2
Death Master (DrC) 2
Divine Mind (CPs) 3
Dragon Shaman (PH2) 4
Dragonfire Adept (DrM) 3
Dread Necromancer (HoH) 3,2

[ComaVision]

@LordOfCain

How about some explanation of your reasoning there?

[eggynack]

The problem is clearly that you're not arguing hard enough to convince everybody that you're right. At least people who come through the thread will see that therecs controversy, and will see the arguments being made, so that should give them enough understanding.
My problem is that I'm not convinced that any amount of arguing would have influence on a significant portion of this thread's voting base. Look at the several posts that happened right before voting closed, for an arbitrary example. They had practically no justification for their beguiler ratings. And, critically, those posts that do have justification rarely have that justification in the context of this opposing argument.


Crusader (ToB) 2
What? How? I didn't post a crusader rating because I wasn't confident of my position in the debate between tier three and tier four...

[Troacctid]

The problem is clearly that you're not arguing hard enough to convince everybody that you're right. At least people who come through the thread will see that therecs controversy, and will see the arguments being made, so that should give them enough understanding.
Yeah I don't think that's the problem.

[Cosi]

Anyways, I also don't have much opinion on any of these. Except dread necro, which seems like a clear 3.

Wasn't your reasoning for the Beguiler maybe being in 3 that it didn't have planar binding? The Dread Necromancer literally has planar binding. Also magic jar.


Same kinda thing happened with the adept, actually. I was on the winning side of that one, but I wasn't necessarily winning the argument. Tier momentum simply accounts for a lot of the number this thread arrives at.

I don't think it's really possible to change the minds of the Char Op community about basically anything at this point. Everyone has had the better part of a decade to decide whatever potions they think are correct, and that is not going to change until another edition creates a new set of touchstones. The Tippyverse will remain the canonical high-op setting, Pun-Pun will remain the canonical high-op build, and JaronK's tiers will remain the canonical way to evaluate class power. None of that is changing, regardless of how you feel about any of those examples.


The problem is clearly that you're not arguing hard enough to convince everybody that you're right. At least people who come through the thread will see that therecs controversy, and will see the arguments being made, so that should give them enough understanding.

No, the problem is that there's no objective criteria for what "being right" looks like. Troacctid proposed a test (make a Sorcerer list that is sufficient to reach Tier 2, see how much effort is required to replicate that as a Beguiler), which I don't think anyone took her up on. Most people don't even have an explanation for their votes.

Here's a question: what's people's over/under on total tiers moved by the end of this exercise? So far, it's zero (one if you count "with Web Vestiges" as the comparison point for the Binder). I think under five seems like an optimistic estimate.

[rrwoods]

My problem is that I'm not convinced that any amount of arguing would have influence on a significant portion of this thread's voting base. Look at the several posts that happened right before voting closed, for an arbitrary example. They had practically no justification for their beguiler ratings. And, critically, those posts that do have justification rarely have that justification in the context of this opposing argument.
FWIW, I would love to see everyone that has an opinion they can defend keep posting here. For my own purposes, I'll be compiling a tier list separate from the one this thread ends up with, by taking the rankings from the well-reasoned votes only. In general I think that this discussion is a decent reference for people unfamiliar with some of the classes, regardless of where the tries actually end up.

[Cosi]

FWIW, I would love to see everyone that has an opinion they can defend keep posting here. For my own purposes, I'll be compiling a tier list separate from the one this thread ends up with, by taking the rankings from the well-reasoned votes only. In general I think that this discussion is a decent reference for people unfamiliar with some of the classes, regardless of where the tries actually end up.

IMHO, there should be a minimum argument standard for getting your vote counted. If you just post "Wizard 5" or "Fighter 3" without explanation, that should not be counted.