Retiering the Classes: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage

[eggynack]

Ah, the three fixed list casters. So many spells, all accessible at once. Are these classes as weak as the original tier system indicated, or is there more strength here than is immediately apparent? Let us tier them, here and now, and let their position be set in the minds of all. I will give my own vote later, to allow room for discussion, but here I will provide some class summaries.

Beguiler (PHB II, 6): The master of illusions and enchantment, this class boasts a ton of spells to screw with your enemy's mind, and a ton of spells that do nothing of the kind. Perhaps their greatest native asset is their ridiculous array of low level spells, and their list maintains its potency into pretty deep into the game. Moreover, like all of these fixed list casters, the casting mechanic at work here makes adding spells really powerful. Arcane disciple, bloodline feats, and some other resources grant you the ability to cast these spells, and then you can just toss them out spontaneously without much in the way for care.

Dread Necromancer (HoH, 84): Emperor of necromancy, the dread necromancer is akin to the beguiler in a number of ways. The list here is arguably somewhat weaker than that of the beguiler, but it is still very strong and offers a ton of variety, including a bunch of effects you wouldn't necessarily expect Some effort can make your access to planar binding actually useful, and necromantic trickery can offer some real value at higher optimization. And, as with the beguiler, adding spells is great. Better, even, because the base is weaker.

Warmage (CArc, 10): Expert at evocation, this class is the weakest of the three by a decent margin. You obviously have a wide array of blasting spells, but you less obviously have some battlefield control as well as some occasional utility. Here, spell addition is at its very best, adding a ton of utility that you weren't even getting close to before. Not the best class, but it too likely deserves an upgrade tier-wise.


What are the tiers?

The simple answer here is that tier one is the best, the home of things on the approximate problem solving scale of wizards, and tier six is the worst, land of commoners. And problem solving capacity is what's being measured here. Considering the massive range of challenges a character is liable to be presented with across the levels, how much and how often does that character's class contribute to the defeat of those challenges? This value should be considered as a rough averaging across all levels, the center of the level range somewhat more than really low and really high level characters, and across all optimization levels (considering DM restrictiveness as a plausible downward acting factor on how optimized a character is), prioritizing moderate optimization somewhat more than low or high.

A big issue with the original tier system is that, if anything, it was too specific, generating inflexible definitions for allowance into a tier which did not cover the broad spectrum of ways a class can operate. When an increase in versatility would seem to represent a decrease in tier, because tier two is supposed to be low versatility, it's obvious that we've become mired in something that'd be pointless to anyone trying to glean information from the tier system. Thus, I will be uncharacteristically word light here. The original tier system's tier descriptions (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0) are still good guidelines here, but they shouldn't be assumed to be the end all and be all for how classes get ranked.

Consistent throughout these tiers is the notion of problems and the solving thereof. For the purposes of this tier system, the problem space can be said to be inclusive of combat, social interaction, and exploration, with the heaviest emphasis placed on combat. A problem could theoretically fall outside of that space, but things inside that space are definitely problems. Another way to view the idea of problem solving is through the lens of the niche ranking system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System). A niche filled tends to imply the capacity to solve a type of problem, whether it's a status condition in the case of healing, or an enemy that just has too many hit points in the case of melee combat. It's not a perfect measure, both because some niches have a lot of overlap in the kinds of problems they can solve and because, again, the niches aren't necessarily all inclusive, but they can act as a good tool for class evaluation.

Tier one: Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems. This is the realm of clerics, druids, and wizards, classes that open up with strong combat spells backed up by utility, and then get massively stronger from there. If you're not keeping up with that core trio of tier one casters, then you probably don't belong here.

Tier two: We're just a step below tier one here, in the land of classes around the sorcerer level of power. Generally speaking, this means relaxing one of the two tier one assumptions, either getting us to very good at solving nearly all problems, or incredibly good at solving most problems. But, as will continue to be the case as these tiers go on, there aren't necessarily these two simple categories for this tier. You gotta lose something compared to the tier one casters, but what you lose doesn't have to be in some really specific proportions.

Tier three: Again, we gotta sacrifice something compared to tier two, here taking us to around the level of a swordsage. The usual outcome is that you are very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more. Of course, there are other possibilities, for example that you might instead be competent at solving nearly all problems.

Tier four: Here we're in ranger/barbarian territory (though the ranger should be considered largely absent of ACF's and stuff to hit this tier, as will be talked about later). Starting from that standard tier three position, the usual sweet spots here are very good at solving a few problems, or alright at solving many problems.

Tier five: We're heading close to the dregs here. Tier five is the tier of monks, classes that are as bad as you can be without being an aristocrat or a commoner. Classes here are sometimes very good at solving nearly no problems, or alright at solving a few, or some other function thereof. It's weak, is the point.

Tier six: And here we have commoner tier. Or, the bottom is commoner. The top is approximately aristocrat. You don't necessarily have nothing in this tier, but you have close enough to it.



The Threads

Tier System Home Base (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?515845-Retiering-the-Classes-Home-Base&p=21722272#post21722272)


The Fixed List Casters: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?515849-Retiering-the-Classes-Beguiler-Dread-Necromancer-and-Warmage&p=21722395#post21722395)


The Obvious Tier One Classes: Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Sha'ir, and Wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516137-Retiering-the-Classes-Archivist-Artificer-Cleric-Druid-Sha-ir-and-Wizard&p=21731809#post21731809)


The Mundane Beat Sticks (part one): Barbarian, Fighter, Samurai (CW), and Samurai (OA) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516602-Retiering-the-Classes-Barbarian-Fighter-Samurai-(CW)-and-Samurai-(OA)&p=21747927#post21747927)


The Roguelikes: Ninja, Rogue, and Scout (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517091-Retiering-the-Classes-Ninja-Rogue-and-Scout)


The Pseudo-Druids: Spirit Shaman, Spontaneous Druid, Urban Druid, and Wild Shape Ranger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517370-Retiering-the-Classes-Spirit-Shaman-Spontaneous-Druid-Urban-Druid-and-WS-Ranger&p=21774657#post21774657)


The Jacks of All Trades: Bard, Factotum, Jester, and Savant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517967-Retiering-the-Classes-Bard-Factotum-and-Jester&p=21794327#post21794327)


The Tome of Battlers: Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518495-Retiering-the-Classes-Crusader-Swordsage-and-Warblade&p=21815193#post21815193)


The NPCs: Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Magewright, and Warrior (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?519155-Retiering-the-Classes-Adept-Aristocrat-Commoner-Expert-Magewright-and-Warrior&p=21838412)


The Vaguely Supernatural Melee Folk: Battle Dancer, Monk, Mountebank, and Soulknife (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?519701-Retiering-the-Classes-Battle-Dancer-Monk-Mountebank-and-Soulknife)


The Miscellaneous Full Casters: Death Master, Shaman, Shugenja, Sorcerer, and Wu Jen (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?520291-Retiering-the-Classes-Death-Master-Shugenja-Sorcerer-Wu-Jen&p=21878654#post21878654)


The Wacky Magicists: Binder, Dragonfire Adept, Shadowcaster, Truenamer, and Warlock (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?520903-Retiering-the-Classes-Binder-Dragonfire-Adept-Shadowcaster-Truenamer-Warlock&p=21898782#post21898782)


The Rankings
Beguiler: Tier two.

Dread necromancer: Tier two.

Warmage: Tier three.

And here's a link to the spreadsheet. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hj9_9PQg6tXACUWZY_Egm2R9Gtvg9nXRTPfGYnAfh9w/edit)

[BaronDoctor]

Beguiler: Well, start from the top. d6 HD is in the middle for casters who get 9ths, not a cleric's d8 or a wizard's d4. 6+Int skills is great, and your skill list is huge. Int being your casting stat also helps you with the skills thing, because there's a fair number of problems you can solve with just your skills, even if 4 of them are spoken for in your class features. Traps, social, casting, stealth, perception, the skills world is your oyster. 1/2 BAB stings, but if you're relying on your BAB as a beguiler you're doing it wrong. Poor/poor/good saves also stings, but everybody and their cousin takes decent Con, so you're not in terrible shape there. Some class features towards the sneaky casting role are likely situational, but a situational advantage is better than no advantage. Free metamagic feats that help with the sneaky casting are nice.

Casting-wise, the Beguiler gets a nice list and can cast anything on it. Anything they add to the list can be used all the time. It's got win spells and solution tools at every level. They get plenty of spell slots per day, too. It's incredibly good at solving a huge bucket of problems. I have no problems with placing the beguiler in Tier 2.

Dread Necromancer: Again, start from the top. d6 HD. 2+Int skills with Cha as your casting stat. You're not a skill monkey. Charnel Touch provides an infinite source of healing to undead like Necropolitans or characters with Tomb-Tainted Soul (both of which come up so often in discussion of the Dread Necromancer that they might as well be class features like Natural Spell for Druid). 1/2 BAB kinda stings, even with your Touch Attack shenanigans.

Casting-wise, there's a focus on fear, on undead, and on negative energy. It's not a bad list, but I wouldn't call it amazing. Personally, I'd put the Dread Necromancer in Tier 3 but I'm open to discussion on it.

Warmage: d6 HD, 2+Int skills, Cha casting stat, a chunk of metamagic feats. Warmage edge helps you do more damage with your spells, but you're still on the same poor BAB, poor/poor/good saves setup as the others. Adding to your spell list can get you some great things.

Casting-wise, you do combat things. Not just damage, either. You can get into the battlefield shaping game as soon as 3rd level spells, or 2nd if you have a source of fire. I have no problem putting Warmage in Tier 3, but I could see arguments made for Tier 4 also.

[Deophaun]

I think Dread Necro is actually much closer to Tier 2 than the others as its Advanced Learning offers more opportunity to break the campaign. You've got undead eyes, which ups the utility of mindless undead into the stratosphere, and then you have door of decay, which makes it the only fixed-list caster with built-in access to long-distance teleportation. Also, planar binding isn't that bad without the circle, because you just kill whatever you call, then turn it into a bone or corpse creature and command it, much to the dismay of the DM that thought you done goofed.

Edit: And to go a little... that guy... on the DN, the Cha focus really does make UMD viable even if it isn't a class skill and even with your paltry skill points.

Also, who doesn't want to be immune to mind-affecting at level 7 and have a gaze attack with a scaling DC that paralyzes anyone unfortunate enough to fail?

[GilesTheCleric]

I'd also like to point out that Dread Necro gets rebuke undead as a class feature (plus is cha-focused anyway), which natively opens it up for a whole host of great [divine] feats, many of which greatly expand utility (devotion feats) or power (basically most of the rest of them).



Name Lvl Book Other Class
Disrupt Ectoplasm 0 Ghostwalk
Inflict Minor Wounds 0 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Preserve Organ 0 Book of Vile Darkness
Angry Ache 1 Book of Vile Darkness
Blade of Blood 1 Player's Handbook II
Cause Fear 1 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Curse Water 1 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Deathwatch 1 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Doom 1 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Ease of Breath 1 Frostburn
Hemorrhage 1 http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20030504x -
Inflict Light Wounds 1 Player's Handbook v.3.5 Destruction 1
Necrotic Awareness 1 Libris Mortis: The Book of the Dead
Painless Death 1 Ghostwalk
Reaving Aura 1 Complete Mage
Shivering Touch, Lesser 1 Frostburn
Slow Consumption 1 Book of Vile Darkness
Black Lungs 2 Ghostwalk
Blood Snow 2 Frostburn
Boneblast 2 Book of Vile Darkness
Curse of the Gypsies 2 Drag348 Brd 2, Drd 2, Wiz 3
Dance of Ruin 2 Book of Vile Darkness
Death Knell 2 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Dessicate 2 Sandstorm
Execration 2 Complete Champion
Frostburn, Lesser 2 Frostburn
Gentle Repose 2 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Horror of the Spoken Name 2 Tome of Magic
Inflict Moderate Wounds 2 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Living Undeath 2 Spell Compendium
Mark of Judgment 2 Player's Handbook II
Mark of the Outcast 2 Spell Compendium
Necrotic Cyst 2 Libris Mortis: The Book of the Dead
Necrotic Scrying 2 Libris Mortis: The Book of the Dead
Rigor Mortis 2 Heroes of Horror
Shroud of Undeath 2 Spell Compendium
Spawn Screen 2 Spell Compendium
Thin Air 2 Frostburn
Vestigewrack 2 Tome of Magic
Affliction 3 Book of Exalted Deeds
Animate Dead 3 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Bestow Curse 3 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Black Sand 3 Sandstorm
Blindness/Deafness 3 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Boneblade 3 Book of Vile Darkness
Clutch of Orcus 3 Spell Compendium
Contagion 3 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Crown of the Grave 3 Player's Handbook II
Curse of Petty Failing 3 Miniatures Handbook
Cursed Dragonmark 3 Dragonmarked
Death Lock 3 Ghostwalk
Inflict Serious Wounds 3 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Mark of Doom 3 Player's Handbook II
Necrotic Bloat 3 Libris Mortis: The Book of the Dead
Plague Carrier 3 Races of Faerûn
Rain of Terror 3 Drag348 Drd 3, Wiz 3
Rejuvenative Corpse 3 Spell Compendium
Shivering Touch 3 Frostburn
Shriveling 3 Book of Vile Darkness
Skeletal Hand 3 Drag348 Wiz 3
Skull Watch 3 Spell Compendium
Soul Boon 3 Magic of Incarnum
Soul Charge 3 http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20040818a Wiz 3
Spark of Life 3 Spell Compendium
Speak With Dead 3 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Sticks and Stones 3 Shining South
Unliving Weapon 3 Book of Vile Darkness
Animate Legion 4 Heroes of Battle
Blood Drinker 4 Drag304 Wiz 4
Blood of the Martyr 4 Book of Exalted Deeds
Consumptive Field 4 Spell Compendium
Death Ward 4 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Delay Death 4 Spell Compendium
Frostburn 4 Frostburn
Inflict Critical Wounds 4 Player's Handbook v.3.5 Destruction 4
Mortal Wound 4 Lords of Darkness
Necrotic Domination 4 Libris Mortis: The Book of the Dead
Negative Energy Aura 4 Spell Compendium
Poison 4 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Pronouncement of Fate 4 Heroes of Horror
Proper State 4 Ghostwalk
Seed of Undeath 4 Complete Mage
Stop Heart 4 Book of Vile Darkness
Wall of Pain 4 Shining South
Wrack 4 Spell Compendium
Bleed 5 Complete Champion
Breath of Contagion 5 Drag304 Drd 5, Wiz 6
Channel the Void 5 Drag304 Wiz 5
Charnel Fire 5 Book of Vile Darkness
Choking Sands 5 Sandstorm
Contagion, Mass 5 Spell Compendium
Curse of Ill Fortune, Mass 5 Spell Compendium
Curse of Petty Failing, Legion's 5 Miniatures Handbook
Death Throes 5 Spell Compendium
Disanimate 5 Drag304 Wiz 5
Extract Gift 5 Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss
Fallen Soul 5 Drag312 -
Ghost Storm 5 http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20041022a Wiz 5
Haunt Shift 5 Libris Mortis: The Book of the Dead
Hibernate 5 Frostburn
Incorporeal Nova 5 Spell Compendium
Inflict Light Wounds, Mass 5 Player's Handbook v.3.5 Destruction 5
Kelemvor's Grace 5 http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20040421a -
Manifest Death 5 The Forge of War
Manifest Life 5 The Forge of War
Mark of Justice 5 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Necrotic Burst 5 Libris Mortis: The Book of the Dead
Necrotic Skull Bomb 5 Champions of Ruin
Oath of Blood 5 Heroes of Horror
Orb of Dancing Death 5 Magic of Eberron
Slay Living 5 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Soul Scour 5 Unapproachable East
Spit Poison 5 Drag304 Drd 4
Summon Blood Elemental 5 http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20030504x -
Symbol of Pain 5 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Touch of the Pharaoh 5 Drag331 -
Barghest's Feast 6 Spell Compendium
Corpsebond 6 Drag300 Wiz 5
Create Undead 6 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Desiccate, Mass 6 Sandstorm
Frostburn, Mass 6 Frostburn
Harm 6 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Inflict Moderate Wounds, Mass 6 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Mummify 6 Sandstorm Drd 6, Wiz 6
Necrotic Eruption 6 Libris Mortis: The Book of the Dead
Opalescent Glare 6 Spell Compendium
Secure Corpse 6 Book of Exalted Deeds
Semblance of Life 6 Magic of Eberron
Symbol of Fear 6 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Undeath to Death 6 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Bestow Curse, Greater 7 Spell Compendium
Blood to Water 7 Spell Compendium
Consumptive Field, Greater 7 Spell Compendium
Death Dragon 7 Spell Compendium
Destruction 7 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Energy Ebb 7 Spell Compendium
Evil Glare 7 Spell Compendium
Harm, Greater 7 Heroes of Horror
Inflict Serious Wounds, Mass 7 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Leech Undeath 7 Magic of Eberron
Necrotic Curse 7 Complete Mage
Necrotic Tumor 7 Libris Mortis: The Book of the Dead
Pact of Return 7 Heroes of Horror
Plague 7 Player's Handbook II
Pulse of Hate 7 Player's Handbook II
Ravage 7 Champions of Ruin
Ravenous Darkness 7 Complete Champion
Righteous Glare 7 Book of Exalted Deeds
Seed of Undeath, Greater 7 Complete Mage
Symbol of Weakness 7 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Undead Mask 7 Savage Species
Withering Palm 7 Spell Compendium
Bodak's Glare 8 Spell Compendium
Create Greater Undead 8 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Death Pact 8 Spell Compendium
Death Ward, Mass 8 Spell Compendium
General of Undeath 8 Spell Compendium
Heat Drain 8 Spell Compendium
Heat Leech 8 Drag312 -
Inflict Critical Wounds, Mass 8 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Last Judgment 8 Book of Exalted Deeds
Necrotic Empowerment 8 Libris Mortis: The Book of the Dead
Pestilence 8 Book of Vile Darkness
Symbol of Death 8 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Veil of Undeath 8 Spell Compendium
Astral Projection 9 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Energy Drain 9 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Imprison Soul 9 Heroes of Horror
Laeral's Crowning Touch 9 City of Splendors: Waterdeep
Necrotic Termination 9 Libris Mortis: The Book of the Dead
Plague of Undead 9 Spell Compendium
Soul Bind 9 Player's Handbook v.3.5
Absorb Strength * Book of Vile Deeds Corrupt 4
Aching Dread * Drag330 Cerebrant 1
Animate Undead Legion * Drag309 War 4
Befoul Water * Drag285 Water 2
Black Talon * Player's Guide to Faerûn Initiate of Cyric 2
Blight Fire * Drag285 Fire 2
Cause Fear, Greater * Drag342 Initiate of Erythnul 2
Cause Fear, Greater * Drag342 Initiate of Nerull 2
Circle of Death * Player's Handbook v.3.5 Initiate of Wee Jas 6
Consume Likeness * Book of Vile Deeds Corrupt 6
Consume the Parasite * Drag343 Kyuss 3
Dread Blast * Player's Guide to Faerûn Initiate of Cyric 4
Eyebite * Player's Handbook v.3.5 Initiate of Vecna 6
Far Realm Visitation * Drag330 Cerebrant 3
Favor of Ilmater * Player's Guide to Faerûn Inititate of Ilmater 4
Lingering Raver * Drag330 Cerebrant 4
Magic Jar * Player's Handbook v.3.5 Initiate of Wee Jas 5
Mark of Justice, Lesser * Drag342 Initiate of Heironeous 2
Mark of Justice, Lesser * Drag342 Initiate of St. Cuthbert 2
Necrotic Awareness * Libris Mortis Mother Cyst 1
Necrotic Bloat * Libris Mortis Mother Cyst 3
Necrotic Burst * Libris Mortis Mother Cyst 5
Necrotic Cyst * Libris Mortis Mother Cyst 2
Necrotic Domination * Libris Mortis Mother Cyst 4
Necrotic Empowerment * Libris Mortis Mother Cyst 8
Necrotic Eruption * Libris Mortis Mother Cyst 6
Necrotic Scrying * Libris Mortis Mother Cyst 2
Necrotic Termination * Libris Mortis Mother Cyst 9
Necrotic Tumor * Libris Mortis Mother Cyst 7
Pact of Martyrdom * Player's Guide to Faerûn Inititate of Ilmater 4
Plague Cloud * Drag309 War 4
Possess Animal * Player's Guide to Faerûn Initiate of Malar 3
Power Leech * Book of Vile Deeds Corrupt 5
Putrefaction * Drag300 Corrupt 9
Red Fester * Book of Vile Deeds Corrupt 3
Reveille * Spell Compendium Initiate of Milil 3
Rot Earth * Drag285 Earth 2
Scare * Player's Handbook v.3.5 Initiate of Hextor 2
Servant of the Green Corruption * Drag343 Kyuss 5
Soul Blasting Dread * Drag330 Cerebrant 5
Soul Boon * Magic of Incarnum Incarnum 3
Torture Air * Drag285 Air 2
Undeath After Death * Player's Guide to Faerûn Initiate of Bane 7
Wail of the Banshee * Player's Handbook v.3.5 Initiate of Nerull 9
Worm Within, The * Drag343 Kyuss 3
Phoenix Fire * Book of Exalted Deeds Sanctified 7
Sanctify the Wicked * Book of Exalted Deeds Sanctified 9
Sicken Evil * Book of Exalted Deeds Sanctified 5




I don't have a complete list of Wiz spells, sorry. Maybe Pippin's list can be easily converted to CSV if someone can wrangle the LaTeX.

[eggynack]

I'ma give some tiers now. Though if you've seen my talk in the other thread, should be pretty obvious.

Beguiler: 2. Honestly, at this point, it's really hard for me to see this ranking as anything else. You're doing better than a sorcerer at what might actually be a straight up majority of levels, and that's assuming the sorcerer is picking spells really well. If the sorcerer picks just alright, or if the beguiler uses feats, it's no contest. Otherwise, it is a contest, but it's a close enough contest that the two classes just kinda belong in the same tier.

Dread Necromancer: 2. As I noted above, I think this list is weaker, but still good enough. That argument from advanced learning is really interesting though. I should really look at that (though it obviously won't impact my vote overmuch). I think my last analysis gave the dread necromancer the advantage over the sorcerer at about 8-10 levels, and that was before considering learning, spell addition, or only solid spell picks on the sorcerer side. That seems like, again, more than enough for tier two.

Warmage: 3. Not the best out of combat, but you're pulling a really wide variety of things in combat. This is where advanced learning and spell adding in general strike me as really relevant. They push you from this kinda narrow class to a class with some real variety. And, critically, looking at what we expect to populate tier four, I think it's really hard to argue that what the warmage is doing belongs there.



Casting-wise, there's a focus on fear, on undead, and on negative energy. It's not a bad list, but I wouldn't call it amazing. Personally, I'd put the Dread Necromancer in Tier 3 but I'm open to discussion on it.

I can only really ask what I'd been asking in the old thread. That being, at which levels do you think the sorcerer can pick spells to out-good a dread necromancer, and what does the list look like at those levels? My analysis has indicated that the quantity of levels is pretty close to half. Maybe more once you account for advanced learning stuff. Even more than that with something like arcane disciple.


I think Dread Necro is actually much closer to Tier 2 than the others as its Advanced Learning offers more opportunity to break the campaign. You've got undead eyes, which ups the utility of mindless undead into the stratosphere, and then you have door of decay, which makes it the only fixed-list caster with built-in access to long-distance teleportation.
As I noted above, this is quite interesting. Door is a bit limited for a teleportation spell, but it's still undoubtedly one of those, and that's pretty great. And eyes seems really interesting too. I dunno if I'd put them above the beguiler, but it's an interesting position.


Also, planar binding isn't that bad without the circle, because you just kill whatever you call, then turn it into a bone or corpse creature and command it, much to the dismay of the DM that thought you done goofed.
I don't think this is a thing. Binding repeatedly specifies that it's putting a creature into a circle, and that said circle must exist. Without a circle, I think binding just fizzles.

[Hurnn]

Beguiler (PHB II, 6):

Tier 2
I'm not going to be short here god knows it wasn't the last time it was debated. Great skill list and being 6+ and SAD INT based meens you will have a lot of points, probably more than anyone really. Spell list is surprisingly strong outside of the Illusion and Enchantment schools. Advanced learning is oversold a little bit but still helps, and is still free spells. As an arcane caster it has the easiest and most ways to cheat more spells onto it's list. Armored mage is never mentioned in the discussions but is really a nice thing to have. Bracers of armor are cool and all, but a +5 mithril BP is just better.

Dread Necromancer (HoH, 84):

Tier 3/2
Skill list is really short and not amazing. Minionmancy is pretty good in theory but not in practice, more on that later. Definitely a weaker list than a Beguiler, and does not compete with a sorcerer past 5th level maybe 6th level spells. Advanced learning and spell adding tricks are more useful to the "DN" than the Beguiler. I just notice that their advanced learning does have one pretty nice feature in that if the spell is both cleric and wizard you use the lower level which could get something on the list early at the expense of 1 point of save DC. Of the 3 classes here DN has probably the best class features, and I fall on the you get the lich template side of the argument, but that's at level 20 so pretty much moot anyway.

Minionmancy, you get A LOT of minions and loads of ways to add more, so many in fact it bogs a game down real fast unless you just have them back home digging in the salt mines. Also while you have alot of them they aren't exactly spectacular for the most part. Undead Leadership (because let's be honest this is the class they wrote it for) will get you a 14th level lich in the end and a mountain of lesser undead. You can add more to how many you can rebuke with feats but those ones tend to be fodder anyway. Control undead in theory can get you really good ones but there is a mountain of caveats built into the wording of the spell, and what kind of scrub caster undead wont make them selves immune to a second level spell..... Even assuming your DM lets you get a good one that way you are now looking at 1 PC 2 1/2 PCs (or more) and a bajillion scrubs. In practice I think you can really only abuse Minionmancy to its fullest is in maybe a PBP game or a single player campaign.

Over all I don't think that except for the highest levels of optimization a "DN" breaks the T2 barrier without abusing the minionmancy which just isn't practical in most games.

Warmage (CArc, 10):

Tier 3
Weakest spell list of the group by quite a bit, if you don't want to BFC, or blow something up you have to go off list. As with Beguiler and "DN" they are arcane casters so it's pretty easy to do. Skill list is really lacking, but at least you are INT based and cross class skills are a thing. Class features you have them and they aren't bad. The "Sudden" feats are pretty useful and armored mage is great for you, because +5 mithril breastplates are for chumps, hello +5 mithril full plate. Back to the spells unless you skip out on grabbing utility options when you add spells you probably won't be able to get very many sexy spells, and you really, really should load up on the utility stuff. On the plus side if you really want to reduce somethings HP to 0 before they reduce yours to 0 Warmage is a very good option.

[GilesTheCleric]

Minionmancy, you get A LOT of minions and loads of ways to add more, so many in fact it bogs a game down real fast unless you just have them back home digging in the salt mines. Also while you have alot of them they aren't exactly spectacular for the most part. Undead Leadership (because let's be honest this is the class they wrote it for) will get you a 14th level lich in the end and a mountain of lesser undead. You can add more to how many you can rebuke with feats but those ones tend to be fodder anyway. Control undead in theory can get you really good ones but there is a mountain of caveats built into the wording of the spell, and what kind of scrub caster undead wont make them selves immune to a second level spell..... Even assuming your DM lets you get a good one that way you are now looking at 1 PC 2 1/2 PCs (or more) and a bajillion scrubs. In practice I think you can really only abuse Minionmancy to its fullest is in maybe a PBP game or a single player campaign.

Over all I don't think that except for the highest levels of optimization a "DN" breaks the T2 barrier without abusing the minionmancy which just isn't practical in most games.

What if you considered minionmancy just in terms of BFC? Bog-standard skeletons aren't super great for most creatures, but they do an excellent job of stopping up charge lanes, providing volley fire/ hitting on a 20, and generally just being a nuisance for your foes and a benefit to your party. They're like a permanent, mobile, shapeable Wall of Stone Blades, that with the right creatures can even fly. I think that being able to fairly well control the battlefield in almost every situation (in the cold, in the water, in negative energy/ AoEs, even in the sky) makes for a huge benefit in combat. You can make a wall of them around your camp at night. Send them to hunt. Use them as bait. Send them into traps. Disguise them as body doubles. Use them as mobile Scrying sensors. Have them Aid Other.

All of these uses are pretty simple and don't really require any fancy bodies, just bodies, and don't have to slow down the game.

[Dagroth]

Have them Aid Other.

I like this... "Skeletons 1-4 have been ordered to follow the Rogue around and use 'Aid Another'. It's great in combat, but he gets annoyed when they try to aid his Move Silently. It's even worse when they try to aid his Listen check..."

[eggynack]

Definitely a weaker list than a Beguiler, and does not compete with a sorcerer past 5th level maybe 6th level spells.
Does it compete with the sorcerer before that point? If so, then the dread necromancer is competing for between eight and twelve levels, likely exceeding the sorcerer for a lot of that time, depending on whether "past 5th level" is 5th level spells inclusive. If you're ahead of the sorcerer for half the time, and behind them the other half, I'm not really sure how that fails to add up to tier two. And that's just a baseline consideration. If you add a domain with arcane disciple that specifically has a great 7th or 8th level spell, does the dread necromancer not then win at that level? Like, say you picked up the alteration domain, thus adding perhaps the best 8th level spell, polymorph any object, to your list. Aren't you then better at 16th and probably close to equal at 17th? What if we consider the favored soul instead, which is likely weaker than the sorcerer? What of the mystic, which is even weaker than that? What if spell selection on these spontaneous casters is suboptimal? I could very likely find a single sorcerer 7th better than every 7th that the dread necromancer has, but I could far easier find a massive pile of sorcerer spells worse than every 7th the dread necromancer has.

So, far from your eventual assertion that sorcerers are better in all but the highest optimization games, it strikes me as highly likely that dread necromancers only have a small chance of landing in three, and then only when you place an enormous number of stipulations on the situation. Also, consider a really simple argument. Does it make more sense to stick the dread necromancer in tier two, with the favored soul, or to stick them in tier three, with the bard and warmage? It is my thinking that the tier two classes are way way closer.

[Deophaun]

I don't think this is a thing. Binding repeatedly specifies that it's putting a creature into a circle, and that said circle must exist. Without a circle, I think binding just fizzles.
I'm sorry. The problem isn't the lack of magic circle; there are eternal wands or wondrous architecture for that if we aren't talking UMD. It's the lack of dimensional anchor, which would under normal circumstances limit you to dealing with things like elementals that can't just teleport or plane shift away. But if you're going to just kill them anyway, it's then only a matter of killing them before they kill you.

Of course, the first thing you call is a bar-lgua so that you can have your own personal greater teleport monkey to visit every major city in the world before breakfast.

[AnachroNinja]

Beguilers Tier 2: Most of this has been covered already but I'll still weigh in. They got solid spells and a good chassis. While there is overlap between their skills and spells, that really just lets you conserve spell slots when you can get by on skills. Beguilers can actually be a bit problematic in campaigns if they follow their natural urge to charm, diplomacize, and dominate everyone they meet simply in the name of making friends. It's a very powerful set of abilities when you can stop in a town for few days of roleplay and convert must of your spell slots into converts. They have a pretty impressive ability to shore up their gaps with items and feats. Probably the most well rounded of the fixed lister's.

Dread Necromancer Tier 2(low): I had to wrestle with this one a bit. I can sometimes appreciate the arguments that they are pretty limited in some respects, but I do think they still eke out a spot in tier 2. They are a solid example of the "when all you've got is a hammer..." Philosophy, but that hammer is a pretty big one.

No other class has the native ability to put large amounts of undead HD on the battlefield. Yes, undead aren't the best, but let's look at things for a second. At low optimization, you're just making skeletons and zombies of the dire bears and giants and such that you fight. Against standard MM enemies, you're going to overwhelm most level appropriate encounters outright. A couple steps up the ladder and your focusing on the good bodies and you've still got a hell of a tank that helps shield the squishiest and flank with the melee. They are about as effective as having a low to mid op fighter on the field, and they are trap springers, door busters, mobile walls, night guards, and a million other uses.

At mid to high op, things start going crazy. If you weren't already using UMD or arcane disciple to access Magic Circle and items or AD for dimensional anchor, you are now and planar binding fills pretty much all your gaps. You're using awaken undead on your best minions to get feats back. You're using Draconomicon to get your zombie dragon mount and cackling wildly.

And through all these possible levels of optimization, you're still sponging debuffs and fears and negative levels around, and just generally being a full caster. To me they are the druid of tier 2. They have the weakest spell list, but they just have so many other big hammers in the bag to bash their way thru problems that their spells are unable to handle due to the thematic limits put on their list. Biggest difference is they have a much better ability to add the spells they need.

Warmage Tier 3/4: Honestly these guys have been underwhelming every time I've seen them in play. They have the same strong casting mechanism, but their list just doesn't back it up and they don't get enough in the way of class features. With bonus metamagic feats or something they would have at least made good blasters. I'd say that their ability to add spells to the list still let's them edge into T3, but it's a near thing.

[Grim Reader]

Beguiler: Tier 3. Can do a lot of things well, can sometimes solve encounters with class abilities. Too limited access to campaign-breaking abilities for tier 2, although it is better than the Sorcerer for about the first 1/3 of levels.

Warmage: Tier 4. Can do one thing, combat, and can do it well.

Both have very high ceilings, and the second-best spell knowledge mechanism in the game. It is very easy to raise them a tier with a good build.

Dread Necromancer: Haven't seen it in play enough to judge.

[Blu]

No one mentioning Rainbow servant shenanigans?

[Deophaun]

To burst the beguiler's bubble a bit, I think it starts to drop out of Tier 2 in the late-mid levels, and the main problem is that it still has the exact same weakness at level 20 that it did at level 1: immunity to mind-affecting. Now, you can say that you get around this by dominating non-immune creatures to do your work for you, but the problem with that is a first level cleric or wizard or bard can undo that with a single casting of protection from evil. A real in-game example:

I was playing an adventure at level six where we had to deal with this group of bandits that had managed to dominate an adult gold dragon. Of course, we weren't supposed to know it was dominated, but there's that pesky DC 20 Sense Motive check to clue you in on that fact. We also weren't supposed to charge head in to attack their front door, because they would send the adult gold dragon out to barbeque us in a fly-by. But we also weren't supposed to summon a celestial eagle, cast magic circle on it, then have it ready an action to fly to the dragon when it got in range before it could roast us with its breath weapon. After that, the dragon landed and we cast protection from evil on it and had a friendly chat in full view of the bandits. Now we had the adult gold dragon, and our suicidal frontal assault turned into a panicked evacuation of the bandit fortress.

And that's the beguiler's problem; your biggest assets can be turned against you real quick. And it's not just protection from evil, but dispel magic will do it, too, and you start running into creatures that can spam the heck out of it. As you get higher in levels, it becomes real difficult to explain why few adversaries are using these things against you as standard procedure, because that's what you do and that's what you're known for. Of course, you also have the problem of true seeing now becoming increasingly common, nerfing your other shtick. You pretty much have to prestige into shadowcraft mage or something to stay effective.

The dread necromancer, meanwhile, is hitting his stride because of all these wonderful monsters the DM's throwing at him. And what does he care if someone tosses greater dispel magic his way? His command undeads are boosted by consumptive field.

In short: dread necromancer 20 is more effective than a beguiler 20. Sure, you can throw UMD onto both of these to fix their problems, but with the dread necromancer you have the option of using UMD to make you more necromancer-y and still play like a lord of the dead, while with the beguiler you're using UMD to not be a beguiler anymore.

[Lans]

Dread Necromancer- Tier 3, for reasons Hurn stated in post 6, as well as their list falls behind color spray for the first 3 levels, and being comparable for 2 more levels after that.

[Grim Reader]

No one mentioning Rainbow servant shenanigans?

There are many builds and PrCs that can take a class up a tier. Or down. 10 levels of Kensai on a Wizard isn't tier 1 any more. That doesn't change the tier of the Wizard class.

[Fizban]

Tier 2 for all of them. Yes, even the Warmage: it can take all the same metamagic stuff a sorcerer blaster would want, and gets some for free. Dread Necro and Warmage are lower than the Beguiler, because Beguilers really do have basically every mind-affecting spell of note while the other two have a lot more spells they might be lacking, but in the end each has plenty enough to be at the top of the heap.

When dialing it up to 11, Beguiler and Dread Necro get worse due to the problems with mind control and potentially self-replicating minions, but the campaign devastation of a Warmage is essentially limited to their line of effect. However, Warmages do get the Eclectic Learning option which can grab them a wildcard spell of 2nd, 4th and 7th level. While there aren't many 2nd or 4th level spells that could rock the world, 7th level spells include Limited Wish, Simulacrum, Greater Shadow Conjuration, Vision, Energy Transformation Field, Spell Matrix, and Arcane Spellsurge, which if exploited can give the Warmage a significant boost to their versatility or raw power and go a ways towards closing that gap. Before that, even just Knock or Invisibility and normal Shadow Conjuration are a strong expansion.

[Aimeryan]

Beguiler: Tier 3. Can do a lot of things well, can sometimes solve encounters with class abilities. Too limited access to campaign-breaking abilities for tier 2, although it is better than the Sorcerer for about the first 1/3 of levels.

Beguiler gets Ice Assassin. I'm also personally not fond of requiring game breaking abilities to go up a tier - if you are using them the game is over, what is the point?

[Lans]

Beguiler gets Ice Assassin. I'm also personally not fond of requiring game breaking abilities to go up a tier - if you are using them the game is over, what is the point?

I've had a problem with that description, which is why I've been using it to mean spells that are op for their level ie alterself and power word pain and spells that could ruin a dms adventure plans like speak with dead and teleport. At least for tier discussions

[Cosi]

Casting-wise, there's a focus on fear, on undead, and on negative energy. It's not a bad list, but I wouldn't call it amazing. Personally, I'd put the Dread Necromancer in Tier 3 but I'm open to discussion on it.

Taking Arcane Disciple or the first level of Rainbow Servant gives you access to magic circle for planar binding. Putting that on the same level as the Bard seems really loose to me. Look at the rest of the classes in Tier Three (on the original list, not counting Beguiler). Is there anything they bring to the table, even with a feat or a one level dip, that's as good as planar binding?


[B][COLOR="#800080"]Definitely a weaker list than a Beguiler, and does not compete with a sorcerer past 5th level maybe 6th level spells.

The Dread Necromancer gets planar binding at 6th. I think any game where you are playing a Dread Necromancer, and where planar binding is allowed/necessary, you will cotton to the fact that taking the right feat gets it for you. That's as good as a Sorcerer all on its own, and you totally get other stuff. You get a decent save-or-die at 7th, which is as much as the Sorcerer is getting at first. It falls off eventually, but there are so many ways to get extra spells its hard to imagine being stuck with your base list at even 10th level.


Over all I don't think that except for the highest levels of optimization a "DN" breaks the T2 barrier without abusing the minionmancy which just isn't practical in most games.

What do you mean by "not practical in most games"?


To burst the beguiler's bubble a bit, I think it starts to drop out of Tier 2 in the late-mid levels, and the main problem is that it still has the exact same weakness at level 20 that it did at level 1: immunity to mind-affecting. Now, you can say that you get around this by dominating non-immune creatures to do your work for you, but the problem with that is a first level cleric or wizard or bard can undo that with a single casting of protection from evil.

Couple of problems here:

First, in any game where the Beguiler's base list isn't sufficient, it's going to be able to expand that list with Prestige Domains, Arcane Disciple, or UMD + Runestaves/Knowstones. If a 20th level Beguiler is still relying on his 1st level tricks, it's because he doesn't need anything else.

Second, enemies that have protection from evil prepared aren't exactly common. It's not an amazing spell if you aren't expecting mind control, and if NPCs are, that represents a level of game warping that should count for something.

Third, you shouldn't keep your enemies mind controlled. Use charm monster, then make the DC 20 Diplomacy check to make them permanently Helpful.


In short: dread necromancer 20 is more effective than a beguiler 20. Sure, you can throw UMD onto both of these to fix their problems, but with the dread necromancer you have the option of using UMD to make you more necromancer-y and still play like a lord of the dead, while with the beguiler you're using UMD to not be a beguiler anymore.

UMD is on the Beguiler's skill list. Anything it uses UMD to do is by definition Beguiler like.


There are many builds and PrCs that can take a class up a tier. Or down. 10 levels of Kensai on a Wizard isn't tier 1 any more. That doesn't change the tier of the Wizard class.

Rainbow Servant is definitely a special case. It's pretty crap for anything but a fixed list caster, but pretty sweet on a fixed list caster. It's also notable that the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are still advantaged from a one level dip. The Dread Necromancer gets the magic circle he needs to use planar binding, and the Beguiler can UMD a wand of substitute domain to shuffle around for a good selection of spells (Mystra seems nice for that).

[Grim Reader]

Beguiler gets Ice Assassin. I'm also personally not fond of requiring game breaking abilities to go up a tier - if you are using them the game is over, what is the point?

Game breaking abilities generally gets houseruled away in actual play but we have to use the classes and rules as written as the basis for discussions.

The tier 2 definition includes "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"

While Tier 3 "Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so."

To me, the Beguiler just fits the second better than the first. The Sorcerer can do most tricks a wizard can. It is a tier below because a single build can't do nearly as many tricks. The Beguiler can't do a lot of the tricks, onl some.

[Cosi]

I've had a problem with that description, which is why I've been using it to mean spells that are op for their level ie alterself and power word pain and spells that could ruin a dms adventure plans like speak with dead and teleport. At least for tier discussions

power word pain is not OP in the hands of PCs. It kills your target over the course of several rounds. That's not better than just attacking them a bunch of times. power word pain is dangerous because there's no way to stop it, so a NPC casting it means a (near) 100% chance of PC death at low levels.

I would really prefer that we not conflate the ability to use planar binding to destroy any possible opponent with the ability to use teleport to skip encounters your DM didn't make seem interesting.

[Deophaun]

Here's my breakdown via levels. Please tear apart:

Levels 1-3
The Beguiler is solidly Tier 2. Between color spray, hypnotism, and sleep, you end encounters before they being, and mage armor actually lets you survive if everyone manages to save. Charm person is perfect for making those surly first-contacts go smoothly, although here it should be noted that the spell’s effectiveness is going to be largely DM-dependant. Are you at my table? Then a charmed guard is going to either escort you out of the building and give you a break by not telling his superiors, or he’s going to use subdual damage. He’s not going to take you on an all-access tour of the royal vault.

The Dread Necromancer is a solid Tier 3. He doesn’t end encounters, but he does debuff nicely. If need be, he can summon an undead minion to spring a trap, he can get proficiency with an honest-to-goodness bow if he wants to conserve spells and plink at range, and Intimidate is a nice skill to have on and off the battlefield; he grabs a kusari-gama for the reach and stacks those fear effects. There are also some important feat selection choices at this level. Tomb tainted soul is a natural, but so are domain feats; law devotion is great for making sure those rays hit, and he has the Turn attempts to fuel it.

Levels 4-6

The Beguiler is still Tier 2. Now he’s got glitterdust to play with, as well as invisibility, glibness, and silence. At six he picks up haste and glibness. It’s a shame that his Advanced Learning kicked in at level 3, or he could have grabbed ray of stupidity to render encounters with animals or dumb magic beasts irrelevant. Well, maybe if he used some Versatile Spellcaster shenanigans, he pulled it off.

These are the sad levels for the Dread Necromancer. Level 2 DN spells aren’t that great. Spectral hand is useful, false life is useful, but that’s the best that can be said about the spells here: useful. Not powerful, and they aren’t synergizing with what he already has. He does get his fear aura, so that’s something that builds. At level 6 he gets death ward because of an editing mistake, which is a warning of things to come, though greater dispel magic will work around that. There is an Advanced Learning option here, which will probably be Kilgore’s gavemist. Yes, I rave about undead eyes, but that’s what retraining rules are for.

Levels 7-9

The Beguiler is losing his mojo here. He can grab shadow conjuration, but unfortunately some of the best tricks like using it to mimic greater mage armor don’t actually work on him, because he has proof that it’s an illusion by having cast it so there’s no save for him to voluntarily fail. He gets greater invisibility, so that’s fun, and charm monster, but all in all this is treading water.

The Dread Necromancer, meanwhile, moves up to Tier 2. You know how the Beguiler was stomping all over combats at level 1? Well, The Dread Necromancer’s level 7 familiar can do that, too, starting from this level all the way to 20th. It can also make the DN immune to the Beguiler’s best tricks. Or he can be boring and grab an Imp or a Quasit. Invisible scouts, really, as they need ranks in UMD to really shine and, despite the Dread Necro's high Charisma, that’s not a class skill for him.

The real prize is animate dead. Now is the time to put childish things behind and retrain gravemist to undead eyes. The Beguiler may have friends in nearby cities, but The Dread Necromancer has the Embassy of Ravens. What’s that? Why, they’re zombie birds that he’s cast undead eyes on and gifted with a pearl of speech (common). They are his eyes, ears, and voice in every major point of interest within a six-day radius of where he is, as the undead crow flies (which needs neither rest nor sleep, so it’s further than you think). Who wants to coordinate the movement of five different armies in real time?

Also, he has zombie bears. The fighter can retire.

Levels 10-12

The Beguiler is so excited! He gets dominate person and repulsion and… true seeing. Oh dear. Yes, these are the levels when that is definitely a thing. And all that charming that he’s been doing catches up to him--at 11th level you are a valid subject of legend lore--as protection from evil and magic circle proliferate. Not to mention he just had that adventure. You know the one: with all the intelligent undead? He had no fun. He gets all these wonderful toys, but drops to Tier 3 because the world is moving on. But hey, at least he doesn’t have to move to cast any of them.

Meanwhile the Dread Necro is cackling with maniacal glee: (lesser) planar binding, magic jar, create undead. Oh, please do that voodoo that you do so well! This is where campaigns come to die in agony and have their corpses profaned at the DN’s hands. Light fortification and enervating touch are the whip cream and cherry on top of this dread sundae.

And it progresses more or less like that, with the Beguiler dropping in tier depending on the campaign setting (can even go down to Tier 5) unless we open up to UMD, at which point, again, all bets are off and every fixed-list caster moves into Tier 2 or even Tier 1. But at that point the classes become indistinguishable, so you can't really say you're playing a Beguiler or a Dread Necromancer or a War Mage: you're playing a Sorcerer regardless. The only respite from the decline is ice assassin at 19th level, but even the Truenamer gets gate.

[Aimeryan]

Game breaking abilities generally gets houseruled away in actual play but we have to use the classes and rules as written as the basis for discussions.

The tier 2 definition includes "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"

While Tier 3 "Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so."

To me, the Beguiler just fits the second better than the first. The Sorcerer can do most tricks a wizard can. It is a tier below because a single build can't do nearly as many tricks. The Beguiler can't do a lot of the tricks, onl some.

We aren't using JaronK's tier descriptions; read the Home Base thread.

[Dagroth]

Why do you care about Mage Armor or Greater Mage Armor when a Beguiler has Armored Mage (light)?

A chain shirt gives you the same AC bonus as Mage Armor & a +1 Mithril BP matches your Greater Mage Armor.

[Deophaun]

Why do you care about Mage Armor or Greater Mage Armor when a Beguiler has Armored Mage (light)?
Probably since I stopped caring about physical armor forever ago; armor proficiency, let alone armored mage, doesn't exist for me when I read class entries.

But you're right. Not all that useful for people still fixated on draping metal over their shoulders for some imitation of real protection.

[AnachroNinja]

Probably since I stopped caring about physical armor forever ago; armor proficiency, let alone armored mage, doesn't exist for me when I read class entries.

But you're right. Not all that useful for people still fixated on draping metal over their shoulders for some imitation of real protection.

Real armor is worthwhile if only as a base for the many very useful armor enchantments.

[Deophaun]

Real armor is worthwhile if only as a base for the many very useful armor enchantments.
That's what clothing is for.

[Dagroth]

Probably since I stopped caring about physical armor forever ago; armor proficiency, let alone armored mage, doesn't exist for me when I read class entries.

But you're right. Not all that useful for people still fixated on draping metal over their shoulders for some imitation of real protection.

Since Mage Armor doesn't protect against touch attacks any better than physical armor... and physical armor saves you a spell slot.

The only reasons to not wear physical armor would be a dip into Monk (or using a feat for Improved Unarmed Strike) so you can get Aesthetic Mage, or just having such a ridiculously high Dex that armor would slow you down. (By ridiculously high, I mean over a +8 bonus, since Celestial Armor is a thing.)

Especially given some of the nice armor enchantments you can get at higher levels.


Real armor is worthwhile if only as a base for the many very useful armor enchantments.

What game are you playing where a +3 Mithril Breastplate doesn't beat Greater Mage Armor?

Heck, get some +1 Defending Armor Spikes and have the Cleric cast Greater Magic Weapon on them for even more AC that you can't get with magical clothing.

[Deophaun]

The only reasons to not wear physical armor would be a dip into Monk (or using a feat for Improved Unarmed Strike) so you can get Aesthetic Mage, or just having such a ridiculously high Dex that armor would slow you down. (By ridiculously high, I mean over a +8 bonus, since Celestial Armor is a thing.)
I like how you think "ridiculously high" is "over a +8 bonus." It's cute, really.

But this isn't about AC, it's about the Beguiler not being good much past 11th.

[Lans]

We aren't using JaronK's tier descriptions; read the Home Base thread.

Maybe it should of been linked at the top of the thread to avoid confusion

[Dagroth]

I like how you think "ridiculously high" is "over a +8 bonus." It's cute, really.

But this isn't about AC, it's about the Beguiler not being good much past 11th.

Sure, at Level 16+ it's not super hard.

But at level 6 (when Greater Mage Armor comes on-line for Sorcerer) having a Dex of over 26 is pretty rare. And if you're using a ton of your Magic Item resources for that, why aren't you raising your Casting Stat & Con by a little less and investing in some nice Magic Armor? A +1 Mithril BP works fine with a Dex up to 20. Unless you're stupid-lucky with dice rolls, only your Cha & Con are going to be above 16 when you start.

And if you're worried about Rust Monsters or Xorn... there's Leafweave & Darkwood options out there.

Edit: and it is about AC since you cited the Beguiler not having access to Greater Mage Armor as a point against them...

Yet you didn't cite a DN not having access to either spell as a mark against them.

[Grim Reader]

The Home Base definitions are incredibly vague, and not really very useful, I think.

[Deophaun]

Edit: and it is about AC since you cited the Beguiler not having access to Greater Mage Armor as a point against them...
No, I stated not being able to take advantage of ignorance of the origin of an effect from shadow conjuration as a point against shadow conjuration.

Yet you didn't cite a DN not having access to either spell as a mark against them.
Because the DN does not have access to shadow conjuration. Because the point was about shadow conjuration. Which is shadow conjuration, not mage armor.

Edit: And I did state that the Beguiler having access to mage armor was a point in its favor, which therefore means its absence was a mark against the DN.

[Bucky]

I think that a Dread Necromancer with unrestricted access to any undead he wants hits tier 1 by level 12 even if we ignore his in-combat casting. The trick is to prepare minions like a Wizard prepares spells.

The bread and butter is a level appropriate Bone Creature sorcerer or favored soul. The necromancer travels with a portable hole full of well-restrained undead casters with different spell lists. At the start of each day, he opens it, restrains his minions from the day before, then chooses the one he wants that day and takes control of them via rebuke. This functionally means he can cast off all the spell lists at once.

But he also has the ability to replace most of the tier 4- members of the party at once on top of that. He has access to disposable meatshields in the field that can out-Fighter the Barbarian. Aid Another armies can out-skill the skillmonkey. Specialized undead can out-scout the scout. The only exception I can think of is Diplomacy.

Finally, he breaks the CR system directly. If he has truly unrestrained corpse access, he can match any level-appropriate encounter with an undead version of the same encounter.

[Dagroth]

Finally, he breaks the CR system directly. If he has truly unrestrained corpse access, he can match any level-appropriate encounter with an undead version of the same encounter.

A Live Dragon beats a Zombie Dragon every time.

[Troacctid]

Dread Necromancers have no native way of generating custom creatures to raise as undead.

[eggynack]

No one mentioning Rainbow servant shenanigans?
You have to go ten levels deep in a prestige class to use that, eating half your levels. That it's a plan limited to these particular classes makes it closer to relevant, but we're still talking about something that is very much coming from a different class.

I'm sorry. The problem isn't the lack of magic circle; there are eternal wands or wondrous architecture for that if we aren't talking UMD. It's the lack of dimensional anchor, which would under normal circumstances limit you to dealing with things like elementals that can't just teleport or plane shift away. But if you're going to just kill them anyway, it's then only a matter of killing them before they kill you.
Ah. Fair enough.

Maybe it should of been linked at the top of the thread to avoid confusion
Perhaps, yeah. Still figuring that kinda junk out.

The Home Base definitions are incredibly vague, and not really very useful, I think.
The goal isn't necessarily to be that useful. The primary guiding principle in tiering should always be comparison to what we know. Because that's what tiers are, a comparison. When you get overly specific in how a tier should operate, you get wonky stuff like people arguing the spirit shaman can fall anywhere from tier one to tier three, or that the beguiler is better than most tier two classes but should still fall a tier below. If you think there's something useful I should add, that might be worth mentioning in the other thread, but I don't want something overly prescriptive here. I think that the system should be able to adapt both to existing classes that don't perfectly fit the mold and to theoretical new classes that are kinda odd. One big advantage of coming after the main tier system is that we have some really good benchmarks that are commonly agreed upon.

[RedMage125]

I just want to point out that while class variants can alter a class' tier standing, you can't alter a tier standing on the basis of feats. No mater how good those feats are for a class (such as Arcane Disciple for all of the fixed-list casters) or how much of a Feat Tax it is for a class (Tomb Tainted Soul for Dread Necromancer). Feats exist only within specific builds, and the tier system measures the power and versatility of a CLASS, not any specific build. Someone can make a specific Fighter build that meets the definition of Tier 4, doesn't make Fighter not a Tier 5 Class.

So any re-tiering of these classes predicated on feats is null. Only an examination of CLASS FEATURES, not feats, not items, can be a valid criteria for Tier standing. And while each of the classes has a class feature to add to their spell list, those spells have to be chosen from specific schools of magic, thus limiting their usefulness.

Beguiler and Dread Necro are already Tier 3. Tier 3 is defined as "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."

Tier 2 is defined as "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."

I'm sorry, but Beguiler's and Dread Necros can NEVER, through class abilities, match the versatility nor power of a Wizard, Cleric or Druid.

Warmage could, with sufficient feats and items, meet the criteria for Tier 3, but at that point you are discussing a BUILD, not the class as a whole.

Beguilers and Dread Necros are Tier 3 BECAUSE they are so versatile. Their versatility has limits, however. But they each excel in their specialty. When it comes to a Beguiler's specialty, they do it as well as a Wizard could, which is saying a lot. Dread Necromancers do undead minion-mancy BETTER than the Tier 1 classes, due to their class features. Both of those classes can still contribute to scenarios that don't cater to their specialty, Beguilers especially.

Warmages, on the other hand, do little well other than combat. I have yet to see any arguments for the Warmage, that are not single-build dependant that can show how it can "still be useful when their one thing is not appropriate", and they certainly are not "capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area". Don't get me wrong, in combat scenarios where blasting (and, okay SOME battlefield control) is the order of the day, Warmages are great. They do what they were intended to very well. They are poor at stealth and infiltration, have no spells or class features to resolve social conflicts, and can do nothing for traps, not even summon monsters to set them off.

No, Warmages are stuck in Tier 4. Dread Necros are a solid Tier 3, and Beguilers are a high Tier 3, but with no chance of making Tier 2 without feats and items.

TL;DR-
The effectiveness of any one build of a class, no matter how common said build choices may be, have NO bearing on Tier standing.

[Esprit15]

Having played a dread necromancer in a game this year, I retired them due to it too casually stomping on the balance of the game. Anything we fought became a friend by the end of the day. We got attacked by some mercenaries, and their frenzied berserker orc became my frenzied berserker bone creature orc, with a Will save too low to ever resist command undead. Heck, even a dead party member before revival was affordable wasn't truly gone as long as there was a body available. Sure, they aged and lost combat effectiveness against level appropriate encounters, but that's why you have them do things in the background for you, like digging up graves at night for more materials. And if the DM sent something really scary at us, once it died, it was my really scary pet. Buy an adamantine chain and tie it down when you make it, cast command undead until it fails a Will save, or acid fog if you don't mind damaging it a little bit. DM decided a Geriviar (MMIII) would be a tough fight, and we had a party mount by nightfall, because why teleport when you can travel in style? Remember that it's only zombies and skeletons that have you recalculate saves; everything else uses the base save of the creature, only changing as the stat for the save changes, so unless it already had a high will save to start, it won't be hard to command, or dominate, then command.

[Cosi]

The Beguiler is losing his mojo here. He can grab shadow conjuration, but unfortunately some of the best tricks like using it to mimic greater mage armor don’t actually work on him, because he has proof that it’s an illusion by having cast it so there’s no save for him to voluntarily fail. He gets greater invisibility, so that’s fun, and charm monster, but all in all this is treading water.

charm monster isn't "treading water". charm monster says "any enemy that fails a will save is your ally forever". That's breaking the game right there.


The Beguiler is so excited! He gets dominate person and repulsion and… true seeing. Oh dear. Yes, these are the levels when that is definitely a thing.

It shows up in the hands of classed NPCs, but it doesn't look like especially many monsters have it. And if you're fighting a bunch of classed NPCs, the Beguiler is winning because they get turned into allies when the party beats them.


Not to mention he just had that adventure. You know the one: with all the intelligent undead? He had no fun. He gets all these wonderful toys, but drops to Tier 3 because the world is moving on. But hey, at least he doesn’t have to move to cast any of them.

Again, the Beguiler has an army of whatever things he's beaten already to destroy intelligent undead.


Maybe it should of been linked at the top of the thread to avoid confusion

It has been the whole time.


The Home Base definitions are incredibly vague, and not really very useful, I think.

They're better than JaronK's tiers for two reasons:

1. They acknowledge that people want the tiers to be power rankings, and will use them as such.
2. They don't have JaronK's idiot rant about how Tier One and Tier Two are defined by breaking the game. If you define tiers by breaking the game, but don't tell people what abilities break the game, all you've done is cause people to ban blaster Wizards and allow infinite Beguiler armies. That's stupid.

They could be better (I would prefer more objective criteria, rather than "good at stuff"), but they are clearly much better than JaronK's.


You have to go ten levels deep in a prestige class to use that, eating half your levels. That it's a plan limited to these particular classes makes it closer to relevant, but we're still talking about something that is very much coming from a different class.

You have to go ten levels in to get the capstone, but both the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer get very relevant goodies from the first level.


So any re-tiering of these classes predicated on feats is null. Only an examination of CLASS FEATURES, not feats, not items, can be a valid criteria for Tier standing. And while each of the classes has a class feature to add to their spell list, those spells have to be chosen from specific schools of magic, thus limiting their usefulness.

Eggynack should have included the changes he's making to the system in the OP of this thread. Also, this should have happened after ranking the Cleric and Druid so I can quote people mentioning Natural Spell and DMM and laugh at them.


Tier 2 is defined as "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."

I haven't mentioned this yet, but this is deeply stupid. Abilities you don't have are abilities you don't have regardless of whether you don't have them by virtue of being the wrong class, or spending your class specific allotment of abilities on something else. A Beguiler and a Sorcerer who learned haste, stinking cloud, shrink object, and lightning bolt have exactly the same (in)ability to cast fireball. Saying the Sorcerer is better than the Beguiler because you could build your character to have fireball as a Sorcerer is stupid. You could build the Beguiler to have fireball too, by taking Sorcerer levels instead.

Now, I assume the response to this is that "the tiers rank versatility", but that's not what people expect the tiers to do. People think that the tiers have the property that (ceteris paribus) a game where a smaller range of tiers is allowed will be more balanced. That's obviously not true if you put the Beguiler in Tier Three, despite the fact that any actual Beguiler build will perform as well as a Sorcerer in play.

[RedMage125]

I haven't mentioned this yet, but this is deeply stupid. Abilities you don't have are abilities you don't have regardless of whether you don't have them by virtue of being the wrong class, or spending your class specific allotment of abilities on something else. A Beguiler and a Sorcerer who learned haste, stinking cloud, shrink object, and lightning bolt have exactly the same (in)ability to cast fireball.
Oh? Can a Beguiler use a spell-trigger item, such as a wand, to cast fireball with no chance of failure?

No, he needs to make a UMD check.

Ergo, a Sorcerer who does not have fireball on his spells does NOT have the same (in)ability to cast fireball as a beguiler.


Saying the Sorcerer is better than the Beguiler because you could build your character to have fireball as a Sorcerer is stupid. You could build the Beguiler to have fireball too, by taking Sorcerer levels instead.
That's moving the goalposts, and you know it.


Now, I assume the response to this is that "the tiers rank versatility", but that's not what people expect the tiers to do. People think that the tiers have the property that (ceteris paribus) a game where a smaller range of tiers is allowed will be more balanced. That's obviously not true if you put the Beguiler in Tier Three, despite the fact that any actual Beguiler build will perform as well as a Sorcerer in play.

If what you say is true, then those people need to re-read what the Tier System is, and what it's for. Someone else's failure to comprehend what's written clearly in print does not weaken MY points.

[Cosi]

Oh? Can a Beguiler use a spell-trigger item, such as a wand, to cast fireball with no chance of failure?

No, he needs to make a UMD check.

Ergo, a Sorcerer who does not have fireball on his spells does NOT have the same (in)ability to cast fireball as a beguiler.

Did I say "use" fireball? No, I did not. I said "cast" fireball. "cast" is, perhaps surprisingly, a specific word with a specific meaning. You are, I daresay, shifting the goalposts.


That's moving the goalposts, and you know it.

No, it isn't (well, I guess you could say it is, but it's part of a rant about how your goalposts are stupid). Abilities you don't have are abilities you don't have. A Fighter does not get any bonus to initiative for being able to take Improved Initiative. He only receives that bonus if he takes Improved Initiative. Similarly, the Sorcerer is not any stronger than the Beguiler for being able to take planar binding. He is stronger only if he takes planar binding.


If what you say is true, then those people need to re-read what the Tier System is, and what it's for. Someone else's failure to comprehend what's written clearly in print does not weaken MY points.

If you make an ordinal ranking of classes, people are going to expect it to be a ranking of class power, not a ranking of class versatility. Particularly if you call it a "tier list". "Versatility" is not the first, second, or even fifth thing people expect Tiers to rank. Bad branding is on you. If you made a lawnmower, and called it Frosted Oat Flakes, people's expectation that it was an oat-based breakfast cereal would be on you.

[Troacctid]

Tier 3 is defined as "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."

Tier 2 is defined as "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."
No they aren't. They're defined as:

Tier one: Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems. This is, as was noted, the realm of wizards, a class that opens up with strong combat spells backed up by utility, and then gets massively stronger from there. If you're not keeping up with the core trio of wizard, cleric, and druid, then you probably don't belong here.

Tier two: We're just a step below tier one here, in the land of classes around the sorcerer level of power. Generally speaking, this means relaxing one of the two tier one assumptions, either getting us to very good at solving nearly all problems, or incredibly good at solving a most problems. But, as will continue to be the case as these tiers go on, there aren't necessarily these two simple categories for this tier. You gotta lose something compared to the tier one casters, but what you lose doesn't have to be in some really specific proportions.

[Lans]

charm monster isn't "treading water". charm monster says "any enemy that fails a will save is your ally forever". That's breaking the game right there.


There are arguments against how effective charm monster is at getting allies, even if you get them to be helpful with diplomacy.




It has been the whole time.


Its been at the bottom of a texty post, it should be at the top of the texty post.

[Grim Reader]

If you are going to re-tier classes based on tier definitions sufficiently different to produce different outcomes... that is going to end up very confusing. You'll get classes that are tier B according to the most used understanding of tier, but tier G according to this one.

You should call the ranking system produced something else than tiers, if it produces significantly different results.

[thoroughlyS]

I haven't mentioned this yet, but this is deeply stupid. Abilities you don't have are abilities you don't have regardless of whether you don't have them by virtue of being the wrong class, or spending your class specific allotment of abilities on something else. A Beguiler and a Sorcerer who learned haste, stinking cloud, shrink object, and lightning bolt have exactly the same (in)ability to cast fireball. Saying the Sorcerer is better than the Beguiler because you could build your character to have fireball as a Sorcerer is stupid. You could build the Beguiler to have fireball too, by taking Sorcerer levels instead.

Now, I assume the response to this is that "the tiers rank versatility", but that's not what people expect the tiers to do. People think that the tiers have the property that (ceteris paribus) a game where a smaller range of tiers is allowed will be more balanced. That's obviously not true if you put the Beguiler in Tier Three, despite the fact that any actual Beguiler build will perform as well as a Sorcerer in play.
But the Beguiler can never have Fireball. By virtue of only it's class features, a Beguiler can never have Fireball as a spell known. All a Sorcerer needs to do is choose it as a spell known the next time it levels up (or wait until an even level to replace a spell). And I'm saying "class features only" because otherwise we aren't really having a discussion about the classes' tier any more.

[RedMage125]

Did I say "use" fireball? No, I did not. I said "cast" fireball. "cast" is, perhaps surprisingly, a specific word with a specific meaning. You are, I daresay, shifting the goalposts.
Once again, the Tier system ranks the class a whole, and NOT an individual build.

Sorcerer has fireball on its class list, Beguiler does not.



No, it isn't (well, I guess you could say it is, but it's part of a rant about how your goalposts are stupid). Abilities you don't have are abilities you don't have. A Fighter does not get any bonus to initiative for being able to take Improved Initiative. He only receives that bonus if he takes Improved Initiative. Similarly, the Sorcerer is not any stronger than the Beguiler for being able to take planar binding. He is stronger only if he takes planar binding.
See again what I said in my first post about "Tier System does not measure individual builds, but the class as a whole".




If you make an ordinal ranking of classes, people are going to expect it to be a ranking of class power, not a ranking of class versatility. Particularly if you call it a "tier list". "Versatility" is not the first, second, or even fifth thing people expect Tiers to rank. Bad branding is on you. If you made a lawnmower, and called it Frosted Oat Flakes, people's expectation that it was an oat-based breakfast cereal would be on you.
It's power AND versatility.

No they aren't. They're defined as:
Wasn't aware there was a different ranking system being used. I missed that. Lans and Grim Reader summed it up:


Its been at the bottom of a texty post, it should be at the top of the texty post.


If you are going to re-tier classes based on tier definitions sufficiently different to produce different outcomes... that is going to end up very confusing. You'll get classes that are tier B according to the most used understanding of tier, but tier G according to this one.

You should call the ranking system produced something else than tiers, if it produces significantly different results.

So much this.

[Cosi]

There are arguments against how effective charm monster is at getting allies, even if you get them to be helpful with diplomacy.

If you think those arguments are significant, you should make them rather than alluding to them.


If you are going to re-tier classes based on tier definitions sufficiently different to produce different outcomes... that is going to end up very confusing. You'll get classes that are tier B according to the most used understanding of tier, but tier G according to this one.

You should call the ranking system produced something else than tiers, if it produces significantly different results.

No, because the Tier System's results are bad. When we learned that sticking leeches on people did not make them healthy, we did not pick a different word than "medicine" for things that worked. We just stopped calling leeches "medicine".


But the Beguiler can never have Fireball. By virtue of only it's class features, a Beguiler can never have Fireball as a spell known. All a Sorcerer needs to do is choose it as a spell known the next time it levels up (or wait until an even level to replace a spell). And I'm saying "class features only" because otherwise we aren't really having a discussion about the classes' tier any more.

So what? Imagine, after all is accounted (the Sorcerer learned or swapped all his spells), you have a Sorcerer that doesn't know fireball and a Beguiler. Is the Sorcerer (the actual Sorcerer someone is actually playing that is in any way relevant to the game, not the platonic Ur-Sorcerer the Tier System gets off to) any more powerful because he could have, but didn't, learn fireball? Does he have any abilities he would not have otherwise had? If not, why does it matter?


Once again, the Tier system ranks the class a whole, and NOT an individual build.

And I care why? People play builds. Games are broken or not broken by builds. If the Tier System ranks something that does not correspond to actual play, it is a bad system.


It's power AND versatility.

After being told that a character whose stats had been pumped to infinity gained versatility rather than power, I don't think the people on this forum refer to different things when they say "versatility" and "power".

[Hurnn]

This degenerated fast.

As to the Beguilers don't hold up past 11, are you reading a different spell list than I am? They don't have many stand outs but the ones they have are amazing. At 6th they have 2 must haves in greater dispel, and true seeing, 7th ok sure it's a little bland, 8th is mind blank and moment of prescience, and 9th is just crazy good the only bummer there is mass hold monster. It just crushes the DN list in terms of quality at the same levels.

[Grim Reader]

No, because the Tier System's results are bad. When we learned that sticking leeches on people did not make them healthy, we did not pick a different word than "medicine" for things that worked. We just stopped calling leeches "medicine".

Actually, using leeches, cupping or otherwise bleeding someone was part of the "Four Humors" theory of biology. Which was abandoned entirely.

The Tier system is referred here, on Brilliant Gameologists, I think RPG.net and a lot of other boards. You are not going to manage to hijack it. If you want a different system based on different criteria, thats not a bad idea and could be very interesting.

But a system based on different definitions with different rankings should have its own name.

[Troacctid]

The whole point is to update the tiers to be more accurate.

[thoroughlyS]

So what? Imagine, after all is accounted (the Sorcerer learned or swapped all his spells), you have a Sorcerer that doesn't know fireball and a Beguiler. Is the Sorcerer (the actual Sorcerer someone is actually playing that is in any way relevant to the game, not the platonic Ur-Sorcerer the Tier System gets off to) any more powerful because he could have, but didn't, learn fireball? Does he have any abilities he would not have otherwise had? If not, why does it matter?
Let us then also take the reverse. What if the sorcerer (the actual Sorcerer someone is playing) finds a need for Fireball* on his spell list. The Sorcerer can take Fireball at some point in he future. The Beguiler can't. Not without falling back on something other than its class abilities.
The Beguiler is Tier 3 because it is a known quantity. We know exactly what the Beguiler is capable of, and it happens to be "capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0)". Even Advanced Learning doesn't really change the capabilities of the Beguiler enough, because there simply isn't any single spell that changes how the class is played (that the Beguiler has access to**). By comparison, the actual Sorcerer someone is playing can practically redefine the scope of their abilities as the game progresses. If the game suddenly puts emphasis on Undead, the Sorcerer can make decisions based on that. The ability to adapt is powerful, and the Sorcerer's status as Tier 2 reflects that.

*Or any non-enchantment/illusion spell.
**Polymorph would be a game changer, but they can't nab that.

[Deophaun]

As to the Beguilers don't hold up past 11, are you reading a different spell list than I am? They don't have many stand outs but the ones they have are amazing. At 6th they have 2 must haves in greater dispel, and true seeing, 7th ok sure it's a little bland, 8th is mind blank and moment of prescience, and 9th is just crazy good the only bummer there is mass hold monster. It just crushes the DN list in terms of quality at the same levels.
Not knocking greater dispel, but that is basically just dispel magic with a higher cap for the reason of obsoleting dispel magic. It does nothing new.

True seeing is actually a problem for the beguiler because it means it's readily available at this level. Useful, yes, although I've found its duration woefully inadequate, which means you often only cast it when you know you need it, which--if the illusion or transmutation is done right--you shouldn't. Mainly, it's a flag that beyond this point, there are monsters that have this all the time. The Dread Necro has probably already called one, killed it, and made it a pet. Point DN.

Mind blank is similarly a warning; the level where you become immune to yourself is not a good level, because it means there are other things immune to you. Unless you're doing some crazy build where you had to jump through a dozen hoops to become immune to yourself, because then it's a fair bet that you're the only one. In this case, however, it's just done by adding a spell to a list. Meanwhile, the Dread Necro's been able to do the most important part of mind blank since level 7, and at this late in the game it's affordable on a magic item if you feel the need to upgrade to the deluxe package.

Moment of prescience... isn't that great... I know, I know, it's a possible +25 to attack rolls or skill or ability checks or saving throws... or even AC. But the bard's been doing the first three better since level 1 with improvisation, and you don't get to wiff on your saving throw and then decide to use it. Nope. You have to use it and then watch as you roll a natural 20. And you can only have one active. And let's not get into AC again. For an eighth-level spell I'm not impressed.

Foresight is great. On a class that can take advantage of it. Like something with celerity, which is not on the Beguiler's list and not accessible through Advanced Learning. Great spell, wrong class. This is where you need to look outside the class to UMD, at which point I gladly admit it's tier 2 or even 1.

Time stop. Again: great spell, but what's the Beguiler going to do? Use it to run away? Maybe he can refresh his moment of prescience.

Power Word: Kill. No. Just no. That's a 9th level fly swatter, which is what something with 100 HP is at level 20.

Dominate monster is again defeated by a first level spell and could be turned on you in a heartbeat if it wanders into a magic circle.

Etherealness is meh. It's okay. Has its uses. But it's not doing any stomping on anything. And if I had a dime for every time I saw "and if a PC makes the mistake of going ethereal" in an adventure module, I'd probably have $0.40. :smallbiggrin:

Are the Dread Necro's higher level spells any better? No, and they are worse given UMD. But the DN doesn't need them to be because he's already been given the tools to crack the game in half. What he gets beyond that is gravy.

[AnachroNinja]

Let us then also take the reverse. What if the sorcerer (the actual Sorcerer someone is playing) finds a need for Fireball* on his spell list. The Sorcerer can take Fireball at some point in he future. The Beguiler can't. Not without falling back on something other than its class abilities.
The Beguiler is Tier 3 because it is a known quantity. We know exactly what the Beguiler is capable of, and it happens to be "capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0)". Even Advanced Learning doesn't really change the capabilities of the Beguiler enough, because there simply isn't any single spell that changes how the class is played (that the Beguiler has access to**). By comparison, the actual Sorcerer someone is playing can practically redefine the scope of their abilities as the game progresses. If the game suddenly puts emphasis on Undead, the Sorcerer can make decisions based on that. The ability to adapt is powerful, and the Sorcerer's status as Tier 2 reflects that.

*Or any non-enchantment/illusion spell.
**Polymorph would be a game changer, but they can't nab that.

Two things come to mind...

1. At what point did UMD, dominated allies, diplomacy, and an easily expandable spell list cease to be part of the beguilers class features?

2. You seriously used adaptability to justify a sorcerers place in T2 vs T3? Their lack of adaptability is literally the reason they are in T2 versus T1. I don't know what game you play where you find out the games going to switch to undead heavy 3 levels in advance so you can start replacing spells, and then you're going to have plenty of time to switch them back out when they become dead weight?

[Cosi]

Actually, using leeches, cupping or otherwise bleeding someone was part of the "Four Humors" theory of biology. Which was abandoned entirely.

The theory behind JaronK's tiers is "how much does JaronK let this class get away with". Skills don't count, unless you're a Factotum, in which case JaronK will let you use setting specific 3.0 skills because he thinks Factotums are cool. Feats don't count, unless you're a Factotum, in which case JaronK will let you use web enhancement feats because he thinks Factotums are cool.


Let us then also take the reverse. What if the sorcerer (the actual Sorcerer someone is playing) finds a need for Fireball* on his spell list. The Sorcerer can take Fireball at some point in he future. The Beguiler can't. Not without falling back on something other than its class abilities.

Yes, the Sorcerer could choose different abilities. But once it chooses abilities, it does not benefit from having other abilities it could have chosen. If you think being able to take fireball makes the Sorcerer better than the Beguiler, show me a Sorcerer spell list with fireball that is better than the Beguiler.


True seeing is actually a problem for the beguiler because it means it's readily available at this level.

Which CR 12 monsters have true seeing?


Mind blank is similarly a warning; the level where you become immune to yourself is not a good level, because it means there are other things immune to you.

mind blank makes you immune to being bludgeoned to death by a group of angry giants?


This is where you need to look outside the class to UMD, at which point I gladly admit it's tier 2 or even 1.

Apparently, my copy of the PHB II is misprinted, because it lists "Use Magic Device" as one of the Beguiler's skills, right after "Tumble". Could someone direct me to a corrected copy?


Time stop. Again: great spell, but what's the Beguiler going to do? Use it to run away? Maybe he can refresh his moment of prescience.

Delay Spell.


1. At what point did UMD, dominated allies, diplomacy, and an easily expandable spell list cease to be part of the beguilers class features?

Well see, the Beguiler having the easiest possible spell knowledge mechanic to expand doesn't count, because anything you would use to expand it isn't part of the Beguiler class. So clearly Rainbow Servant is of equal value to Sorcerers and Beguilers.

[thoroughlyS]

1. At what point did UMD, dominated allies, diplomacy, and an easily expandable spell list cease to be part of the beguilers class features?

2. You seriously used adaptability to justify a sorcerers place in T2 vs T3? Their lack of adaptability is literally the reason they are in T2 versus T1. I don't know what game you play where you find out the games going to switch to undead heavy 3 levels in advance so you can start replacing spells, and then you're going to have plenty of time to switch them back out when they become dead weight?1. I will agree that UMD and Diplomacy can both go a long way, but the spell list is expanded to include a grand total of 5 enchantment/illusion spells. That isn't necessarily going to make your character useful in more situations. And dominating someone does not mean that their abilities are now your own, you're falling back on something other than your own class features.

2. Adaptability was the wrong word, versatility is better. Although a Sorcerer is still certainly more adaptable than a Beguiler, by numbers alone.

The difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer is that while a Sorcerer can do anything, a Wizard can do everything. The Sorcerer had to give up a spell to get Fireball* on their list. The Wizard can pay money to buy a scroll of Fireball*, and add it to their spellbook. From that point on, Fireball is now a class feature for them.
Similarly, a Sorcerer can do anything, while a Beguiler can do a specific thing. I can build a necromancer Sorcerer. I can't build a necromancer Beguiler. And if necromancy becomes a necessary design goal, my Sorcerer can become a necromancer, while my Beguiler can't.

Yes, the Sorcerer could choose different abilities. But once it chooses abilities, it does not benefit from having other abilities it could have chosen. If you think being able to take fireball makes the Sorcerer better than the Beguiler, show me a Sorcerer spell list with fireball that is better than the Beguiler.If the game that someone is actually playing calls for Fireball*, the Sorcerer is better than the Beguiler.


1. At what point did UMD, dominated allies, diplomacy, and an easily expandable spell list cease to be part of the beguilers class features?Well see, the Beguiler having the easiest possible spell knowledge mechanic to expand doesn't count, because anything you would use to expand it isn't part of the Beguiler class. So clearly Rainbow Servant is of equal value to Sorcerers and Beguilers.In the first place, I argue that the Wizard's spell knowledge expansion mechanic is the easiest. In the second, as described above, the Beguiler's mechanic is small. And slow, at 1 spell every 4 levels.

[Gullintanni]

2. You seriously used adaptability to justify a sorcerers place in T2 vs T3? Their lack of adaptability is literally the reason they are in T2 versus T1. I don't know what game you play where you find out the games going to switch to undead heavy 3 levels in advance so you can start replacing spells, and then you're going to have plenty of time to switch them back out when they become dead weight?

Quite right. Sorcerer's have the privilege of easy access to all of a Wizard's best tricks...but once they've selected their bag of tricks, they're stuck with it. I tend to think of Sorcerer's as swiss army knives, they get to choose a handful of tools, and hope that they remain relevant as the campaign progresses. Wizard's on the other hand, carry a tool-box with them, and if they find that they don't have the tools they need to get the job done, they head back to the workshop, swap out their tools for a whole new set, and confront the problem again later.

IMO, a tier list that doesn't measure versatility is fatally flawed. On that note, JaronK's definitions are pretty spot on. Power is irrelevant if you can't bring it to bear when you're challenged.

...as to Beguilers? I think they'll always be a hard class to place. Where their tricks are appropriate, they can easily turn an encounter inside out. But if I'm a DM trying to challenge a player using a Beguiler, it would be trivially easy to design encounters that would render useless nearly all of the Beguiler's spell list. A Beguiler simply lacks the tools to dominate certain kinds of scenarios.

That said...under this system, they're probably Tier 2, alongside Sorcerers.

[AnachroNinja]

1. I will agree that UMD and Diplomacy can both go a long way, but the spell list is expanded to include a grand total of 5 enchantment/illusion spells. That isn't necessarily goind to make your character useful in more situations. And dominating someone does not mean that their abilities are now your own, you're falling back on something other than your own class features.

I can build a necromancer Sorcerer. I can't build a necromancer Beguiler. And if necromancy becomes a necessary design goal, my Sorcerer can become a necromancer, while my Beguiler can't.

Arcane Disciple: Death domain says I can build a necromancer Beguiler just fine. Oh, but we don't count that because people want to pretend feats don't matter? Never mind then.

[Cosi]

Similarly, a Sorcerer can do anything, while a Beguiler can do a specific thing. I can build a necromancer Sorcerer. I can't build a necromancer Beguiler. And if necromancy becomes a necessary design goal, my Sorcerer can become a necromancer, while my Beguiler can't.

Only if it becomes a necessary goal when you get to select abilities. Once you've selected your abilities, the Beguiler and the Sorcerer have exactly the same ability to change them during play (that is, without leveling up).


If the game that someone is actually playing calls for Fireball*, the Sorcerer is beter than the Beguiler.

Only if he learned fireball. Show me a Sorcerer list that is better than what a Beguiler could be doing with the same resources.


In the first place, I argue that the Wizard's spell knowledge expansion mechanic is the easiest. In the second, as described above, the Beguiler's mechanic is small. And slow, at 1 spell every 4 levels.

The Beguiler has the best possible spell knowledge mechanic, relative to its spell list. It knows all the spells on its spell list, while the Wizard has to pay for spells. That list happens to be smaller to start with, but Rainbow Servant is out there existing.


IMO, a tier list that doesn't measure versatility is fatally flawed. On that note, JaronK's definitions are pretty spot on. Power is irrelevant if you can't bring it to bear when you're challenged.

I agree that a wider variety of abilities you can use is valuable. Why is a wider variety of abilities you can (but didn't) select valuable?


...as to Beguilers? I think they'll always be a hard class to place. Where their tricks are appropriate, they can easily turn an encounter inside out. But if I'm a DM trying to challenge a player using a Beguiler, it would be trivially easy to design encounters that would render useless nearly all of the Beguiler's spell list. A Beguiler simply lacks the tools to dominate certain kinds of scenarios.

Put up a Sorcerer spell list. Put up a list of encounters. Show that the Beguiler does worse against them.

[thoroughlyS]

Arcane Disciple: Death domain says I can build a necromancer Beguiler just fine. Oh, but we don't count that because people want to pretend feats don't matter? Never mind then.It also says "you must have a Wisdom score equal to 10 + the spell's level in order to prepare or cast a spell gained from this feat.". So you can be a necromancer at the cost of having to buff your wisdom to 16 for create undead. You are spending resources on your Wisdom when you didn't have to. In addition, while your Beguiler had to take Arcane Disciple, my Sorcerer got to take Corpsecrafter. So my zombies are stronger than your zombies, just like my Sorcerer is stronger than your Beguiler. It like I'm on a whole other tier.

And I am of the camp that feats (except those gain by progressing the class) shouldn't count when discussing a class's tier because they don't reflect the power of the class itself. Alternate class features do, because they are a part of the class itself. But this isn't really my call, so I'll just continue to argue about feat selections as well.

[Cosi]

You are spending resources on your Wisdom when you didn't have to. In addition, while your Beguiler had to take Arcane Disciple, my Sorcerer got to take Corpsecrafter. So my zombies are stronger than your zombies, just like my Sorcerer is stronger than your Beguiler. It like I'm on a whole other tier.

Well, except that Corpsecrafter effectively came at the cost of having to spend your spell slots on things the Beguiler got from Arcane Disciple, which means that you have even less spells to stack up against its list. It's almost like opportunity cost is a real thing.


And I am of the camp that feats (except those gain by progressing the class) shouldn't count when discussing a class's tier because they don't reflect the power of the class itself. Alternate class features do, because they are a part of the class itself. But this isn't really my call, so I'll just continue to argue about feat selections as well.

Remind me the last time you played a character with no feats?

[Deophaun]

And I am of the camp that feats (except those gain by progressing the class) shouldn't count when discussing a class's tier because they don't reflect the power of the class itself.
It's tricky, because being able to make better use of more resources is a kind of class feature. But where you draw the line is a judgement call.

[Lans]

If you think those arguments are significant, you should make them rather than alluding to them.

.

Nothing about charm person or diplomacy checks below fanatic give you an army that follows you around to clobber things for you. Not to mention endangering, neglecting or abandoning their friends, family and previous obligations.

The description is that they will take risks to help you

Not act as your goons or body guards or hit squad

[AnachroNinja]

It also says "you must have a Wisdom score equal to 10 + the spell's level in order to prepare or cast a spell gained from this feat.". So you can be a necromancer at the cost of having to buff your wisdom to 16 for create undead. You are spending resources on your Wisdom when you didn't have to. In addition, while your Beguiler had to take Arcane Disciple, my Sorcerer got to take Corpsecrafter. So my zombies are stronger than your zombies, just like my Sorcerer is stronger than your Beguiler. It like I'm on a whole other tier.

And I am of the camp that feats (except those gain by progressing the class) shouldn't count when discussing a class's tier because they don't reflect the power of the class itself. Alternate class features do, because they are a part of the class itself. But this isn't really my call, so I'll just continue to argue about feat selections as well.

Hope none of those crap mummies you create resist your command undead spell (that cost you another spell known). Me? I'll probably stick to animate dead, the spell I get two levels before you. If I went really crazy and used the undeath domain and I can desecrate as well. You got that spell? Nope, how sad. Guess I'm a better Necromancer, and sooner, then your sorcerer. And I have 5 times as many other spells as you? And skills? And class features? Man, I'm awesome.

[Cosi]

Nothing about charm person or diplomacy checks below fanatic give you an army that follows you around to clobber things for you. Not to mention endangering, neglecting or abandoning their friends, family and previous obligations.

The description is that they will take risks to help you

Not act as your goons or body guards or hit squad

How is adventuring with you not taking a risk to help you? Those two seem a pretty exact match to me. You're not asking them to give their lives for you, just tag along with the rest of the troops.

[thoroughlyS]

Only if he learned fireball. Show me a Sorcerer list that is better than what a Beguiler could be doing with the same resources.Alter Self, Polymorph, Gate, etc.
Now show me a Beguiler list that is better than what a Sorcerer could be doing with the same resources.

The Beguiler has the best possible spell knowledge mechanic, relative to its spell list. It knows all the spells on its spell list, while the Wizard has to pay for spells. That list happens to be smaller to start with, but Rainbow Servant is out there existing.
I thought you were talking about the mechanics each class has to expand its spells that it has access to (I.e. the spells on a Beguiler's list versus the spells in a Wizard's spellbook). If we're talking about best access to spells in regards to its list, a Cleric is best, because it knows all the spells on its class spell list just like a Beguiler. In addition, the Arcane Disciple variant class (Dragon 311) gets to add a spell from the bard or wizard spell list to its own at each level. That's just not fair.

Also, Rainbow Servant is its own entity. It has no bearing on what tier Beguiler or Sorcerer is in.

Well, except that Corpsecrafter effectively came at the cost of having to spend your spell slots on things the Beguiler got from Arcane Disciple, which means that you have even less spells to stack up against its list. It's almost like opportunity cost is a real thing.Yes, opportunity cost is a very real thing. As I said, the Beguiler with Arcane Disciple had to raise their wisdom, when those points/items could've been allocated to Con or Cha for the Sorcerer. And if raw spells known count is what you're really after, I can take a Bloodline feat from Dragon Compendium if you'd like.

Remind me the last time you played a character with no feats?Remind me why I'd take a class that precludes spending feat to make my character concept viable, as opposed to taking a class where my feat selections can go towards strengthening my class features.

[Cosi]

Alter Self, Polymorph, Gate, etc.

gate is a 9th level spell. The Beguiler can just have ice assassin.

alter self and polymorph let you break the game, but so do charm person and charm monster. Also, polymorph et al are 99% to get de facto nerfs because it is all but impossible to know what they actually do. It's six or seven layers of rules for each layer of inheritance, then you get to have debates about ambiguities. The chance that you get what you're looking for after all that is basically 0. They're good, but in practice they're not quite as dangerous as in theory.


I thought you were talking about the mechanics each class has to expand its spells that it has access to (I.e. the spells on a Beguiler's list versus the spells in a Wizard's spellbook).

Is "knows all the spells on its list" not a part of the Beguiler class?


Also, Rainbow Servant is its own entity. It has no bearing on what tier Beguiler or Sorcerer is in.

No, Rainbow Servant is a class that provides a dramatic power boost if you know all the spells on your list. Claiming that it has no bearing on Beguiler (knows all the spells on their list) v Sorcerer (doesn't know all the spells on their list) is stupid. The reason the Wizard is better than Sorcerer is that spell preparation (really, more spells known) lets it mitigate the cost of knowing situationally powerful spells like planar binding. Similarly, the reason the Beguiler is good is the plethora of ways to expand its list.


Yes, opportunity cost is a very real thing. As I said, the Beguiler with Arcane Disciple had to raise their wisdom, when those points/items could've been allocated to Con or Cha for the Sorcerer. And if raw spells known count is what you're really after, I can take a Bloodline feat from Dragon Compendium if you'd like.

As far as I can tell, anyone who can spontaneously cast arcane spells can take a Bloodline feat. Interestingly, Beguilers can spontaneously cast arcane spells.


Remind me why I'd take a class that precludes spending feat to make my character concept viable, as opposed to taking a class where my feat selections can go towards strengthening my class features.

You have a total pool of resources. You spend various parts of that on various things. The Sorcerer is spending a feat on "better zombies" and spells known on "zombies at all". The Beguiler is spending feats on both. Those costs are pretty comparable, as is the overall power level.

[Lans]

How is adventuring with you not taking a risk to help you? Those two seem a pretty exact match to me. You're not asking them to give their lives for you, just tag along with the rest of the troops.

I am arguing that tagging along is not part of what being helpful gives you, and that taking some risks is not taking all risks, and definitely not taking putting others at risk.

edit- I am not saying a creature won't do those things, I am saying that those things can't be taken for granted, and charm may not be as game breaking as some people are making it out to be.

[Efrate]

Beguiler: Tier 3. Can be 2 based on DM. Once undead and/or things immune to illusions/enchantments start being common (most high level classed NPCS, various outsiders with magic circle and true seeing, undead, oozes, constructs, etc) you enter into a very bad place. If your Dm doesn't throw those at you yeah you might even be t1 but overall I think you are VERY high tier 3. I am also discounting prestige classes because in the interest of everything I think its better to look at the class as is not count prestiges.

Dread Necro: Tier 2. Your spell methods of fear and debuffs are widely resisted by undead, which you just control. Most bodies are perfectly fine for you to use, and can get a lot of mileage. You suffer a bit out of combat, but NI disposable minions even just aiding another in skill checks or springing traps with things under your total control fixes a lot of that. Not great in social situations, but you can snag something with planar binding or a lich with decent spell selection to work those. Its less DM dependent than beguiler, but unless you are constantly fighting summoned creatures you have enough bodies to get by and clog the battlefield or solve most issues for you. Its low tier 2 but I think it squeeks in. Negative energy protection is also less common than mind effecting/true seeing, especially outside of undead which you already deal with well. Constructs hurt but you got that fire giant barbarian bone creature or whatever, or even just a bunch of junky zombies and skeletons to keep it busy while you go around.

Warmage: Tier 4. You blast good. But you lack a lot of versatility. Outside combat you cannot do much. You can shine in combat, have decent damage, a bit of BFC, but your place is in the fight. You are the "wizard " encounters were designed for. But that isn't saying much.

[eggynack]

I just want to point out that while class variants can alter a class' tier standing, you can't alter a tier standing on the basis of feats. No mater how good those feats are for a class (such as Arcane Disciple for all of the fixed-list casters) or how much of a Feat Tax it is for a class (Tomb Tainted Soul for Dread Necromancer). Feats exist only within specific builds, and the tier system measures the power and versatility of a CLASS, not any specific build. Someone can make a specific Fighter build that meets the definition of Tier 4, doesn't make Fighter not a Tier 5 Class.

So any re-tiering of these classes predicated on feats is null. Only an examination of CLASS FEATURES, not feats, not items, can be a valid criteria for Tier standing. And while each of the classes has a class feature to add to their spell list, those spells have to be chosen from specific schools of magic, thus limiting their usefulness.
This wasn't even really true under the old system. It's definitely not true here. Considering feats as an element isn't about talking about specific builds. It's about talking about the relative value each class derives from various game granted abilities. If beguilers have better feats than a sorcerer does, then beguilers in a general sense, rather than beguilers of a specific build, are going to reap some advantage. Should we consider arcane disciple or bloodline feats as a 100% definite pick up, that should always be accounted for? No. But it's an important upward lifting force that averages into overall consideration. Certain class features open up different things. That's important. Ignoring it is to ignore the reality of the game. And, as I noted above, this is probably even the case for the original system. After all, that system talked of "equivalent optimization." That arcane disciple or things like it could be consistently considered to pop up at higher optimization levels means that it's a thing we should talk about either way.


Beguiler and Dread Necro are already Tier 3. Tier 3 is defined as "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."

Tier 2 is defined as "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."

I'm sorry, but Beguiler's and Dread Necros can NEVER, through class abilities, match the versatility nor power of a Wizard, Cleric or Druid.

See, this is the weird specific definition stuff I'm trying to avoid. I don't give too much of a crap about what weird specific stuff JaronK said defined a particular tier years ago. It matters as a guideline, but when you're considering these definitions over the very purpose of the tier system, to put better things above worse things and at the same level as similar things, things have gone horribly horribly awry. Is the beguiler as good as a sorcerer? I'd say yes. If all these other questions, of what a game breaker is, of how we define power, are distracting you from the core purpose, then ya gotta get yourself back on track. Because as much as you're straying from the goal of this tier system, I think you're also straying from the goal of the tier system in general.



Beguilers and Dread Necros are Tier 3 BECAUSE they are so versatile.
This too. What? How? I don't think the actual tier system does this because I read it in a more descriptive than prescriptive way. If you're giving a class a lower position because of an advantage, again, things have gone horribly wrong. We're trying to make things not horribly wrong here. Above any specific calling to tier, I think that the greatest calling you should have is to not do anything that's this insanely wrong.




If what you say is true, then those people need to re-read what the Tier System is, and what it's for. Someone else's failure to comprehend what's written clearly in print does not weaken MY points.
Leaving aside that you've failed to read what was written associated with this thread, I think you've also failed to read an essential piece of the original tier system. "It's ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in any given situation." Your metric, which devalues versatility for its very existence, goes against that essential truth.


Its been at the bottom of a texty post, it should be at the top of the texty post.
Been away today, but I'ma add the modified tier system to these things. Probably clean up the original post too. A big goal here was to allow some degree of input, so getting too burdened with the specific operations of things seemed counterproductive.

If you are going to re-tier classes based on tier definitions sufficiently different to produce different outcomes... that is going to end up very confusing. You'll get classes that are tier B according to the most used understanding of tier, but tier G according to this one.

You should call the ranking system produced something else than tiers, if it produces significantly different results.
The results actually shouldn't wind up that different. The essential nature, structure, and goal of the tiers have been largely maintained. I've just tossed a lot of the weird specific definitions. The original system was producing the result that the spirit shaman might be tier one, two, or three depending on how you read it. That shouldn't happen. What I've essentially done is generalize it a bit. Reducing versatility and maintaining power drops you to tier two, but if you get the same rough effectiveness cross section by dropping some power and maintaining versatility, then you're still tier two. We don't have to go around arguing about whether charm person and silent image is a game breaker, or whether that mode of evaluation puts emphasis on 9th's.

Realistically, the tiers should wind up pretty similar, and where they don't the original system was probably doing it wrong, as it were. After all, if the tier system gives a lower tier to a better class, your tier system is in a bad place.

Once again, the Tier system ranks the class a whole, and NOT an individual build.
It actually does neither, in either situation. Again, equivalent optimization. We shouldn't consider individual builds. We should consider a rough average of all builds at all levels at all optimization scales. How would we even rank a class as a whole? What would that have us do for sorcerers, the big comparison class here? They're all about spells known, after all. It's inarguably a thing from class, but it is equally inarguably an individual build consideration. Should we consider the fact that polymorph is a spell that sorcerers can pick? That's an individual build element, isn't it? It's really wonky.


This degenerated fast.
Eh, I think it's going alright. This is tier debate. There's always gonna be something off topic.


As to the Beguilers don't hold up past 11, are you reading a different spell list than I am? They don't have many stand outs but the ones they have are amazing. At 6th they have 2 must haves in greater dispel, and true seeing, 7th ok sure it's a little bland, 8th is mind blank and moment of prescience, and 9th is just crazy good the only bummer there is mass hold monster. It just crushes the DN list in terms of quality at the same levels.
It's still a good list. It's just probably not as good of a list as a sorcerer can pull off.



The Tier system is referred here, on Brilliant Gameologists, I think RPG.net and a lot of other boards. You are not going to manage to hijack it. If you want a different system based on different criteria, thats not a bad idea and could be very interesting.

But a system based on different definitions with different rankings should have its own name.
I'm not hijacking anything. I'm just trying to clean out some of the really stupid and wonky stuff. I'm not really adding criteria here. Only subtracting it, making it so that things can more cleanly orient towards a tier without producing a lot of definitionally oriented outliers. I brought up the spirit shaman thing before, but how about the weird tier three and tier four divide? Three asks in its first category that you have one area of great specialization and have universally decent contribution otherwise. Four asks that you have that area of specialization and very little decent contribution otherwise. Well, what if you have that one area of specialization, but then you can apply yourself to a bunch of things otherwise, but not all things? This is a thing we've been struggling with constantly in tier analysis. Some things just don't fit. Some things will still not fit, probably, but I think we're getting closer. If you have specific suggestions, I think you should check out the home base thread. I'm going to be responding to stuff there once I'm done here.

Let us then also take the reverse. What if the sorcerer (the actual Sorcerer someone is playing) finds a need for Fireball* on his spell list. The Sorcerer can take Fireball at some point in he future. The Beguiler can't. Not without falling back on something other than its class abilities.
I don't think this is worth zero. The ability to adjust to specific in-game circumstances by picking particularly applicable spells is an advantage. But it's not worth everything. It's not even worth that much. The campaign isn't typically gonna up the value of a specific spell by a ton. It might by some, but the additional value is pretty unlikely to overcome the generic power of the beguiler.


The Beguiler is Tier 3 because it is a known quantity. We know exactly what the Beguiler is capable of, and it happens to be "capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0)".
I don't think this definition actually fits the beguiler, is the problem. The beguiler doesn't just do one thing quite well and still have usefulness otherwise. It has an absolutely amazing spell list that near universally outstrips the capabilities of any generic sorcerer list, as well as most specific sorcerer lists, at most levels. Because, again, the beguiler is better than the sorcerer at, say, 6th level. If the beguiler is only "Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate," at 6th level, then the sorcerer must not actually meet that criteria. Or they must meet that criteria at best. They certainly don't belong to a higher tier. This is the kinda bizarre inconsistency I'm trying to correct here.



The difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer is that while a Sorcerer can do anything, a Wizard can do everything. The Sorcerer had to give up a spell to get Fireball* on their list. The Wizard can pay money to buy a scroll of Fireball*, and add it to their spellbook. From that point on, Fireball is now a class feature for them.
Similarly, a Sorcerer can do anything, while a Beguiler can do a specific thing. I can build a necromancer Sorcerer. I can't build a necromancer Beguiler. And if necromancy becomes a necessary design goal, my Sorcerer can become a necromancer, while my Beguiler can't.
If the game that someone is actually playing calls for Fireball*, the Sorcerer is better than the Beguiler.
This just doesn't strike me as a meaningful advantage. We're necessarily talking about a specific sorcerer here. That other sorcerers can do other things is mostly irrelevant. A sorcerer can not do anything. A sorcerer can do a specific set of things defined by their spells known. If that list of specific things is generally better than what the beguiler brings to the table, then that's one thing, but even accounting for the ability to take fireball or whatever, I don't think the list is gonna be superior.


In the first place, I argue that the Wizard's spell knowledge expansion mechanic is the easiest. In the second, as described above, the Beguiler's mechanic is small. And slow, at 1 spell every 4 levels.
Actually, I think folks were talking about stuff like arcane disciple. Y'know, pick up a domain, now you can cast that domain spontaneously.



They could be better (I would prefer more objective criteria, rather than "good at stuff"), but they are clearly much better than JaronK's.
Maybe. I kinda like that they're loose, though they could arguably stand more structure.



You have to go ten levels in to get the capstone, but both the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer get very relevant goodies from the first level.
Still not convinced that these classes can actually get value from this domain. Really weird result, but I think it's true.



Eggynack should have included the changes he's making to the system in the OP of this thread.
Yeah, I'll do that right after this post.


Also, this should have happened after ranking the Cleric and Druid so I can quote people mentioning Natural Spell and DMM and laugh at them.
Was already planning to do those classes (along with wizard, archivist, artificer, and maybe StP erudite) next. This is yet more reason.

Edit: And the basic tier stuff is moved. Now to fix the main thread.

[Fizban]

How is adventuring with you not taking a risk to help you? Those two seem a pretty exact match to me. You're not asking them to give their lives for you, just tag along with the rest of the troops.
I'd say this falls under the same shadow as "how much does JaronK let this class get away with." Most DMs won't actually let their players get away with diplomancing NPCs into doing their job for them, weather or not they allow diplomacy under duress to stand after the spell wears off. The Beguiler is powerful because they have the spells, not because of sketchy diplomacy loopholes, though the skills are obviously a bonus- no need to complicate things.

[Cosi]

Beguiler: Tier 3. Can be 2 based on DM. Once undead and/or things immune to illusions/enchantments start being common (most high level classed NPCS, various outsiders with magic circle and true seeing, undead, oozes, constructs, etc) you enter into a very bad place. If your Dm doesn't throw those at you yeah you might even be t1 but overall I think you are VERY high tier 3. I am also discounting prestige classes because in the interest of everything I think its better to look at the class as is not count prestiges.

At low levels, most of the stuff that is immune to mind effecting is mindless, and therefore loses to a silent image of a box around it. At mid or high levels, the Beguiler has managed to figure out some combination of minions, Shadow Illusion, UMD, Arcane Disciple, Prestige Domains, Advanced Learning, or Bloodline Feats that gives it something to do in these encounters.


Actually, I think folks were talking about stuff like arcane disciple. Y'know, pick up a domain, now you can cast that domain spontaneously.

Also, as it turns out, the Dragon Compendium Bloodline Feats. No idea if they're any good, but them seem to work fine for a Beguiler.


Maybe. I kinda like that they're loose, though they could arguably stand more structure.

Having them be loose makes it very hard to make any definitive case about where things belong, or about what qualifies as favoritism.


Still not convinced that these classes can actually get value from this domain. Really weird result, but I think it's true.

The Dread Necromancer gets obvious value. magic circle against evil allows it to use planar binding to summon all manner of demon minions. Also I guess holy word is nice? The Beguiler doesn't particularly care what the Good domain is doing, it's just glad to have a domain at all so it can carry around an Eternal Wand of substitute domain and shuffle through whichever domains seem good today.


I'd say this falls under the same shadow as "how much does JaronK let this class get away with." Most DMs won't actually let their players get away with diplomancing NPCs into doing their job for them, weather or not they allow diplomacy under duress to stand after the spell wears off. The Beguiler is powerful because they have the spells, not because of sketchy diplomacy loopholes, though the skills are obviously a bonus- no need to complicate things.

Sure, charm monster into Diplomacy is a cheesy trick that most DMs will shut down. But the definition of Tier Two is access to cheesy tricks the DM will shut down. Is the DM any more likely to smack down the Beguiler's charm monster infinite army than the Sorcerer's planar binding infinite army?

If you're discounting charm monster, I think you also have to discount stuff like polymorph cheese or simulacrum cheese, and once everyone is "playing fair", the Beguiler pulls pretty clearly ahead.

[eggynack]

The Dread Necromancer gets obvious value. magic circle against evil allows it to use planar binding to summon all manner of demon minions. Also I guess holy word is nice? The Beguiler doesn't particularly care what the Good domain is doing, it's just glad to have a domain at all so it can carry around an Eternal Wand of substitute domain and shuffle through whichever domains seem good today.

Nah, I mean I don't know if fixed list casters get these spells at all, based on the rules for domain addition. Arcane disciple kinda operates on separate rules, so it works, but the rules from complete divine are weirdly fixed list excluding. It's good if you do get the domain, but you might not really get the domain.

[Dagroth]

Also, as it turns out, the Dragon Compendium Bloodline Feats. No idea if they're any good, but them seem to work fine for a Beguiler.

Going through said feats... it seems most of them would be better for a DN, since they contain illusion & mind-affecting spells. The Illithid bloodline specifically.

Edit: On further perusal, they are even better for a Warmage.

[Troacctid]

If it helps, I found the bloodline feats difficult to sort through in the book, so I put them in a spreadsheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TJoueslFgEtMIqw_k5KU4D1v1UlQq2VWgbNXvYNL4KQ/edit?usp=sharing

[GilesTheCleric]

It's tricky, because being able to make better use of more resources is a kind of class feature. But where you draw the line is a judgement call.

I agree. There's a whole lot of feats that are basically extensions of classes, whether by virtue of being selectable only by a small set of classes (eg [divine] or [wild] feats), or because they synergize so well with a particular class's features (eg. Corpsecrafter. What is a fighter supposed to do with that feat?).

[RedMage125]

No, because the Tier System's results are bad. When we learned that sticking leeches on people did not make them healthy, we did not pick a different word than "medicine" for things that worked. We just stopped calling leeches "medicine".
How can you make the argument that "the Tier System's results are bad", when your argument also includes the caveat "I don't understand the purpose of the Tier System"?

The purpose of the Tier System is a relative gauge of power and versatility of each class for balance purposes, so that DMs and players will understand potential capabilities to the extent that a player who wants to play a monk in a party of all Tier 1/2 classes will A) Have the understanding that they may be shown up by other members of the party and/or B) Maybe should be permitted to have a few extra options (more powerful race, for example) to shore them up.

All of this assumes a level playing field of optimizing, and again, I was using JaronK's system, not some kind of "new tier system".

If the OP is trying for a "new ranking system" that is going to use different criteria, maybe he should call it something other than "tiers"


So what? Imagine, after all is accounted (the Sorcerer learned or swapped all his spells), you have a Sorcerer that doesn't know fireball and a Beguiler. Is the Sorcerer (the actual Sorcerer someone is actually playing that is in any way relevant to the game, not the platonic Ur-Sorcerer the Tier System gets off to) any more powerful because he could have, but didn't, learn fireball? Does he have any abilities he would not have otherwise had? If not, why does it matter?

Have you ever actually read the Tier System? Tier 2 almost doesn't deserve to be it's own Tier, because Tier 2 can basically be summed up as "the spontaneous caster versions of Tier 1 classes...and Psion".

It's only designated as a distinct Tier because the class as a whole could be capable of anything that a Tier 1 class can do, but no individual build will be able to do ALL of it. The definition even says that Tier 2 classes "may be less flexible than Tier 3 classes, but that their incredible potential power overwhelms the lack in flexibility".



And I care why? People play builds. Games are broken or not broken by builds. If the Tier System ranks something that does not correspond to actual play, it is a bad system.
Just because YOU want the Tier system to be some kind of concrete ranking of "this class is going to be better than that class" fails to mesh with the purpose the Tier System was created for, does NOT reflect a failing in the Tier System.

How about instead of complaining that the results don't match your expectations and seeing failure, you alter your expectations to be in line with the results and show growth?


After being told that a character whose stats had been pumped to infinity gained versatility rather than power, I don't think the people on this forum refer to different things when they say "versatility" and "power".
And I don't care.

Someone else's failure to read the Tier System for themselves and divine the clearly stated purpose of it does not reflect a failure on my part when I speak of it.


Is "knows all the spells on its list" not a part of the Beguiler class?

He was referring to the Advanced Knowledge class feature restricting the Beguiler's choices to specific schools, thus making his spell knowledge expansion VASTLY limited compared to what a Wizard (even a specialist) can add to their spellbook.


No, Rainbow Servant is a class that provides a dramatic power boost if you know all the spells on your list. Claiming that it has no bearing on Beguiler (knows all the spells on their list) v Sorcerer (doesn't know all the spells on their list) is stupid. The reason the Wizard is better than Sorcerer is that spell preparation (really, more spells known) lets it mitigate the cost of knowing situationally powerful spells like planar binding. Similarly, the reason the Beguiler is good is the plethora of ways to expand its list.

You don't make any sense. The existence of a (admittedly very powerful, spell-list-enhancing) prestige class available to both Beguilers and Sorcs has ZERO RELEVANCE to the Tier standing of Beguiler or Sorc, because those extra features are due to the class features of Rainbow Servant, NOT Beguiler or Sorc, and therefore the Tier standing cannot be attributed to either of those classes.


Remind me the last time you played a character with no feats?
This makes me think you are so wrapped up in the idea of "I'm right and these guys are wrong" that you just don't try and understand what we are saying to you.

Jsketchy and I have been pointing out that since each build of a given class (like Beguiler) could have ANY NUMBER of combinations of the LITERALLY HUNDREDS of feats out there, and since those feats are not baked into the class features of the class, they are not (and should not be) reflected in the class' Tier standing.

That Every 3.5e character played will HAVE feats is irrelevant. Only class features matter.

Can a Warmage be built with the right feat/item/prestige class selection to meet the definition of Tier 3? Absolutely. So what? If a DM allows Dragon Magazine content, a Sorcerer can have enough knowstones to have as many or more spells known than a Wizard. Does that make them Tier 1? No, because not all sorcerers will have that. Similarly, not all Beguilers will have those feats.




This wasn't even really true under the old system. It's definitely not true here. Considering feats as an element isn't about talking about specific builds. It's about talking about the relative value each class derives from various game granted abilities. If beguilers have better feats than a sorcerer does, then beguilers in a general sense, rather than beguilers of a specific build, are going to reap some advantage. Should we consider arcane disciple or bloodline feats as a 100% definite pick up, that should always be accounted for? No. But it's an important upward lifting force that averages into overall consideration. Certain class features open up different things. That's important. Ignoring it is to ignore the reality of the game. And, as I noted above, this is probably even the case for the original system. After all, that system talked of "equivalent optimization." That arcane disciple or things like it could be consistently considered to pop up at higher optimization levels means that it's a thing we should talk about either way.
Grossly incorrect. It absolutely was true in JaronK's Tier System that feats were not accounted for. He even speaks to how a more highly optimized build in the hands of an experienced player could make an individual member of a given class perform well above Tier expectations. And also how a poorly optimized build, or PC in the hands of an inexperienced player could perform below Tier expectations.

I fully admit that I did not read your "new tier system", but I stand by what I said about maybe picking a different name for it. After all, why reinvent the wheel?


See, this is the weird specific definition stuff I'm trying to avoid. I don't give too much of a crap about what weird specific stuff JaronK said defined a particular tier years ago. It matters as a guideline, but when you're considering these definitions over the very purpose of the tier system, to put better things above worse things and at the same level as similar things, things have gone horribly horribly awry. Is the beguiler as good as a sorcerer? I'd say yes. If all these other questions, of what a game breaker is, of how we define power, are distracting you from the core purpose, then ya gotta get yourself back on track. Because as much as you're straying from the goal of this tier system, I think you're also straying from the goal of the tier system in general.
The goal of the Tier System in general is "measure of power and versatility for balance purposes". Tier 2 only stands as a distinct Tier because the class as a whole can do anything their Tier 1 counterpart can do (Wiz-Sorc or Cleric-FavSoul), but that no individual build can do all of it. When you get down to a specific build, the Beguiler probably CAN do as well as a Sorcerer, especially if the sorcerer only chose spells that also appear on the Beguiler's spell list, then the Beguiler starts to actually outperform the Sorc, because he has actual class features and more spells known.

But that strays away from the goal of the Tier System entirely. At least JaronK's. And I think there is some kind of miscommunication with something I said, because NOTHING I've said strays from that system. So if you think I have, mayhaps I gave the wrong impression or you misinterpreted.



This too. What? How? I don't think the actual tier system does this because I read it in a more descriptive than prescriptive way. If you're giving a class a lower position because of an advantage, again, things have gone horribly wrong. We're trying to make things not horribly wrong here. Above any specific calling to tier, I think that the greatest calling you should have is to not do anything that's this insanely wrong.
*re-reads JaronK's system, notes quote about how Tier 2 classes are, in many cases, MORE versatile than Tier 2 classes, but that the potential power of a Tier 2 class is SO overwhelming that they remain in distinct Tiers*

Nope...I'm right.

Also, you seem to be misconstruing me calling a class Tier 3 as a "lower position". Given that Tier 2 is barely a distinct Tier, separate only because no single build can do EVERYTHING a Tier 1 can (but can still do ANYTHING a Tier 1 can), I think Tier 3 is a pretty damn good Tier. Tier 3 is a GREAT Tier to be in without being unbalancing. It's literally the tier that is "more powerful and versatile than anything else except wizards and clerics". And if CoDzilla and God/Batman (Wizards) are the only thing really standing above you, how is that a "bad" ranking?

Beguilers and Dread Necros, unlike Warmages, are incredibly versatile. And that's a Good Thing. Tier 3 is High Praise, not a "low ranking". It literally requires one of the classes capable of re-writing reality to score higher on the ranking scale.



Leaving aside that you've failed to read what was written associated with this thread, I think you've also failed to read an essential piece of the original tier system. "It's ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in any given situation." Your metric, which devalues versatility for its very existence, goes against that essential truth.
You are responding here to something I said to Cosi, in response to his claim about what he thought the Tier System should do. And all I was saying that just because someone else fails to understand what the Tier System is actually for does not make my argument weaker.

You are also projecting onto me something that I think was meant for another poster. I never said anything about "ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in a given situation". So don't project some asinine strawman metric onto me in order to devalue my points. You're not usually this rude, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that you accidentally attributed someone else's metric to me, instead of assuming that you were intentionally creating a strawman.

Anyway, I apologize for not noticing that you were trying to have an "oranges" discussion about something and I came in talking about "apples". Using the title "tier system" is very misleading, in my defense.

[eggynack]

The purpose of the Tier System is a relative gauge of power and versatility of each class for balance purposes, so that DMs and players will understand potential capabilities to the extent that a player who wants to play a monk in a party of all Tier 1/2 classes will A) Have the understanding that they may be shown up by other members of the party and/or B) Maybe should be permitted to have a few extra options (more powerful race, for example) to shore them up.
If that's the purpose, then how is ranking worse classes higher on the basis of weird definitions helping us? It seems very counterproductive.



If the OP is trying for a "new ranking system" that is going to use different criteria, maybe he should call it something other than "tiers"
I mean, I'm obviously trying to do something at least somewhat new here. Otherwise I'd just be pointing at the original tier system and saying, "Okay, retype all those tiers exactly everyone, and those count as your votes." My criteria aren't actually that different. They just don't include a whole bunch of wonky stuff that's easy to misinterpret. A tier system is a hierarchical ranking of a game object's power level. If the original tier system isn't even supposed to do that, maybe JaronK should rename the thing. Except I don't think that should happen, because his tier system was absolutely trying to do that.


Have you ever actually read the Tier System? Tier 2 almost doesn't deserve to be it's own Tier, because Tier 2 can basically be summed up as "the spontaneous caster versions of Tier 1 classes...and Psion".

It's only designated as a distinct Tier because the class as a whole could be capable of anything that a Tier 1 class can do, but no individual build will be able to do ALL of it. The definition even says that Tier 2 classes "may be less flexible than Tier 3 classes, but that their incredible potential power overwhelms the lack in flexibility".
The tier is important because there's a whole lot of room between wizard and bard. This whole thing about the class as a whole is more or less completely meaningless. It has no impact on how the class plays, or whether the DM should let characters using the class into the party, or how many cool items the DM should give them. You stated a purpose for the tier system above. This definition does not suit that purpose at all.


Just because YOU want the Tier system to be some kind of concrete ranking of "this class is going to be better than that class" fails to mesh with the purpose the Tier System was created for, does NOT reflect a failing in the Tier System.

How about instead of complaining that the results don't match your expectations and seeing failure, you alter your expectations to be in line with the results and show growth?

Again, the explicit stated purpose of the tier system is to put better classes above worse ones. This is all taken from JaronK's own writing.


You don't make any sense. The existence of a (admittedly very powerful, spell-list-enhancing) prestige class available to both Beguilers and Sorcs has ZERO RELEVANCE to the Tier standing of Beguiler or Sorc, because those extra features are due to the class features of Rainbow Servant, NOT Beguiler or Sorc, and therefore the Tier standing cannot be attributed to either of those classes.
The feature is better for beguiler than it is for sorcerer, by a lot. Y'know, if it works, which I contend it doesn't. I don't know if I'd generally go as far as prestige classes (as I explicitly said in the main thread), but feats are things characters get automatically, and beguilers have some better uses for them than sorcerers do.



Jsketchy and I have been pointing out that since each build of a given class (like Beguiler) could have ANY NUMBER of combinations of the LITERALLY HUNDREDS of feats out there, and since those feats are not baked into the class features of the class, they are not (and should not be) reflected in the class' Tier standing.

That Every 3.5e character played will HAVE feats is irrelevant. Only class features matter.

Can a Warmage be built with the right feat/item/prestige class selection to meet the definition of Tier 3? Absolutely. So what? If a DM allows Dragon Magazine content, a Sorcerer can have enough knowstones to have as many or more spells known than a Wizard. Does that make them Tier 1? No, because not all sorcerers will have that. Similarly, not all Beguilers will have those feats.

Most of your points here have nothing to do with whether the game object is a class feature or not. They're mostly about how you consider features that aren't locked in, which applies near equivalently to a sorcerer's spells known. After all, could they not have any number of combinations of the thousands of spells out there? I agree that not every beguiler has arcane disciple, just like not every sorcerer picks polymorph. The answer, put simply, is that you consider a rough average of all the combinations associated with the class. Some percentage of beguilers take arcane disciple for the alteration domain, gaining polymorph, some percentage of sorcerers take polymorph normal style. And some sorcerers, indeed, pick up knowstones. We don't assume that all iterations of these classes use these things, but we assume that some will, because some definitely do, and those higher power combinations get averaged in to the tier calculation.


Grossly incorrect. It absolutely was true in JaronK's Tier System that feats were not accounted for. He even speaks to how a more highly optimized build in the hands of an experienced player could make an individual member of a given class perform well above Tier expectations. And also how a poorly optimized build, or PC in the hands of an inexperienced player could perform below Tier expectations.
He also said that the tier system was not considering one particular optimization level, but rather equivalent optimization. That implies that higher optimization situations, games where all characters are reasonably optimized, are factored in. And, critically, this rough averaging is something we absolutely must do, whether we consider standard feats and wealth use or not. Classes have choices built in. We have to assess that somehow.

That we can each read a different part of the tier system and come to completely opposite conclusions about some element of it is one of the issues I'm trying to address here. The tier system has contradictions like that all over the place.


I fully admit that I did not read your "new tier system", but I stand by what I said about maybe picking a different name for it. After all, why reinvent the wheel?
Because the wheel had problems, obviously. You should probably actually read the information associated with the thread you're responding to.


The goal of the Tier System in general is "measure of power and versatility for balance purposes". Tier 2 only stands as a distinct Tier because the class as a whole can do anything their Tier 1 counterpart can do (Wiz-Sorc or Cleric-FavSoul), but that no individual build can do all of it. When you get down to a specific build, the Beguiler probably CAN do as well as a Sorcerer, especially if the sorcerer only chose spells that also appear on the Beguiler's spell list, then the Beguiler starts to actually outperform the Sorc, because he has actual class features and more spells known.
Right. But figuring out what the murky theory sorcerer can do doesn't help at all when measuring power and versatility for balance purposes. Saying that 100 different sorcerers can have 100 different spell lists tells a DM absolutely nothing about how a sorcerer plays. If, when you assess specific sorcerer builds, they come out worse than the beguiler, then you have measured the beguiler to be better than the sorcerer on power and versatility metrics. If the tier system doesn't identify that, then it's failed.


But that strays away from the goal of the Tier System entirely. At least JaronK's. And I think there is some kind of miscommunication with something I said, because NOTHING I've said strays from that system. So if you think I have, mayhaps I gave the wrong impression or you misinterpreted.

"1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group." Plain as day. If your reading of the tier system doesn't lead to that outcome, then either you're wrong or the tier system is.


*re-reads JaronK's system, notes quote about how Tier 2 classes are, in many cases, MORE versatile than Tier 2 classes, but that the potential power of a Tier 2 class is SO overwhelming that they remain in distinct Tiers*

Nope...I'm right.

Also, you seem to be misconstruing me calling a class Tier 3 as a "lower position". Given that Tier 2 is barely a distinct Tier, separate only because no single build can do EVERYTHING a Tier 1 can (but can still do ANYTHING a Tier 1 can), I think Tier 3 is a pretty damn good Tier. Tier 3 is a GREAT Tier to be in without being unbalancing. It's literally the tier that is "more powerful and versatile than anything else except wizards and clerics". And if CoDzilla and God/Batman (Wizards) are the only thing really standing above you, how is that a "bad" ranking?

Beguilers and Dread Necros, unlike Warmages, are incredibly versatile. And that's a Good Thing. Tier 3 is High Praise, not a "low ranking". It literally requires one of the classes capable of re-writing reality to score higher on the ranking scale.
Tier three isn't bad. It's just worse than tier two. That's how a tier system works. Tier three classes can theoretically have some advantages, but they must be outweighed by tier two class advantages, or the tier system is failing. That there are these weird cases where the tier system definitions tell you that a tier three class is sometimes flat out better than a tier two class, not in an instantiated character sense but in a broad class sense, goes against the precise stated purpose of the tier system (in multiple places), is one of the things in the original that really needs correcting.


You are also projecting onto me something that I think was meant for another poster. I never said anything about "ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in a given situation". So don't project some asinine strawman metric onto me in order to devalue my points. You're not usually this rude, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that you accidentally attributed someone else's metric to me, instead of assuming that you were intentionally creating a strawman.

I wasn't saying you said that. I was saying JaronK said that. In his tier system. It's in the FAQ part, 6th question.

[Grim Reader]

Eggynack, this may be my background in research speaking, but I am not sure if you've thought through this.


The results actually shouldn't wind up that different.

If the results are not intended to vary from the previous ones, what is the point of this again?


The whole point is to update the tiers to be more accurate.

If this is the point of it, you are going to need more accurate and exact tier definitions than the original ones. No way around it. That is how "accurate" works.


The essential nature, structure, and goal of the tiers have been largely maintained. I've just tossed a lot of the weird specific definitions. The original system was producing the result that the spirit shaman might be tier one, two, or three depending on how you read it. That shouldn't happen.

Reducing the specificity and accuracy of the definitions do not produce more accurate rankings. It will not lead to less confusion about placements.

Look at this:

Tier two: We're just a step below tier one here, in the land of classes around the sorcerer level of power. Generally speaking, this means relaxing one of the two tier one assumptions, either getting us to very good at solving nearly all problems, or incredibly good at solving a most problems. But, as will continue to be the case as these tiers go on, there aren't necessarily these two simple categories for this tier. You gotta lose something compared to the tier one casters, but what you lose doesn't have to be in some really specific proportions.

So... kind of like the Sorcerer power level, and like tier 1s except less, only not really. You are losing something compared to tier ones, but no idea what or how much.

The most useful criteria in there is "around the Sorcerer level of power"

If this is intended to re-tier anything, its never going to compete with JaronKs tier definitions for recognition, so its mostly useful for sneaking favourite classes up a tier by changing the goalposts. If its not intended to re-tier anything I struggle to see what the point is.

I'd suggest finishing the thread to see what kind of definitions people think should be used, then give the resulting system a new name. Rank maybe. then re-rank all the classes according to the new system.

[eggynack]

Eggynack, this may be my background in research speaking, but I am not sure if you've thought through this.
The exact specific tiers I wound up constructing? No, not really. I put that together in a way that made reasonable sense, and thought it'd get hammered out a bit over time, though I think I got pretty close to true. The underlying philosophy of tiering, how it does and should operate, what problems existed in the base system, what drives people astray? Tons and tons of thought. Even if I hadn't spent weeks and weeks confronting this stuff firsthand in the community tiering thread, I've been talking tiers for years at this point, and thought about it while talking about it, cause that's how I roll.




If the results are not intended to vary from the previous ones, what is the point of this again?

They're intended to vary. Just not massively. Most classes we can expect will land in the same tier. If you check the community tiering thread, you'll find a lot of entries I agree with which are identical to that of the original, a lot of entries I also agree with which weren't even tiered originally, a really small number that changed position in what I consider a correct way (the healer might be the only one), and a few that were the same that I think were tiered incorrectly, or that I could expect would be tiered incorrectly, in accordance with the original system. In a day or so I'm going to throw up a bunch of obviously tier one classes (because I want to switch up high controversy threads with low controversy ones), and they're almost definitely going to get the same exact tier they did before. And that's fine. They belonged where they were. I started with the fixed list casters because they have a decent probability of changing given the definitions I've provided, along with the general state of game understanding. That they might move based on a tier system that basically just says, "If you're as good as a class, you belong in the same tier," implies to me that said tier system is a pretty good idea.


If this is the point of it, you are going to need more accurate and exact tier definitions than the original ones. No way around it. That is how "accurate" works.

Reducing the specificity and accuracy of the definitions do not produce more accurate rankings. It will not lead to less confusion about placements.
Not necessarily. Accurate, sure. Exact, no, not if it comes at the expense of accuracy. It's the problem of induction, y'know? You're presented with a bunch of numbers, and the odd ones are pretty close to zero, with the even ones up in the hundreds or thousands. From that observation, you can define two tiers, one for high numbers and one for low. One tier system, a more exact one, might say that tier one is the tier for even numbers, and tier two the tier for odd numbers, and that the former tier is liable to have numbers with more digits. A less exact tier system might say only the latter thing, about more digits. Assuming all the numbers are positive (a possibly incorrect assumption, though this is just an example), the latter system will work better at handling that one weird three digit odd number. The former system, given that input, will just bug out and result in arguments. The less exact system here is significantly more accurate, because it left out the descriptive definition that proves false when generalized. You could also make a more accurate system than either by adding exactness, noting that the reverse of the second tier system is called for with negative numbers, and you'd probably want more tiers, but the fact remains that there exist cases where the less exact case produces more accurate results.

That's what was happening with the old tier system. You had these really rigid and exact definitions for what fit in each tier, but those exact definitions failed to account for a lot of things. The spirit shaman, for example, fails to cleanly fit in any one tier. The beguiler, too, doesn't precisely fit either the, "Wizard but limited," tier two, or the, "Really good at one thing, alright at everything else," tier three. Moreover, it was failing to account for the fact that classes that don't necessarily fit that tier two definition might well be better than tier two classes. And, as I keep saying, if your tier system is putting worse classes above better ones, it's not working. It's certainly not more accurate. I mean, just look at some stuff from this thread, and from the community tiering thread. People were insisting, based on these exact definitions, that the beguiler was tier three despite the fact that they themselves considered it the superior class. That indicates to me a ton of confusion about placements.




Look at this:

Tier two: We're just a step below tier one here, in the land of classes around the sorcerer level of power. Generally speaking, this means relaxing one of the two tier one assumptions, either getting us to very good at solving nearly all problems, or incredibly good at solving a most problems. But, as will continue to be the case as these tiers go on, there aren't necessarily these two simple categories for this tier. You gotta lose something compared to the tier one casters, but what you lose doesn't have to be in some really specific proportions.

So... kind of like the Sorcerer power level, and like tier 1s except less, only not really. You are losing something compared to tier ones, but no idea what or how much.


The most useful criteria in there is "around the Sorcerer level of power"
I agree that that's the most useful criteria, along with the fact that tier one is better and tier three is worse. That's the basic essence of what I'm trying to convey here. However, an important other thing I was trying to explain was that you can be as good as a sorcerer without being a sorcerer copy. The sorcerer itself falls into the category of incredibly good at solving most problems, but you can sacrifice the fact that your power is wizard level for the fact that your versatility is wizard level. Or, you can get power and versatility alike in the center of both those ranges. Dialing one quality down requires dialing the other up, and the result is an infinite quantity of possibilities. The exact amount you've lost is enough to get you from wizard quality to sorcerer quality. As I note below, if I didn't express all that perfectly, the base thread is open to suggestions.


If this is intended to re-tier anything, its never going to compete with JaronKs tier definitions for recognition, so its mostly useful for sneaking favourite classes up a tier by changing the goalposts. If its not intended to re-tier anything I struggle to see what the point is.
A major goal here is to create a system where no one says that thing I noted above, that a better class should be tiered below a worse one. If people think the beguiler, to use the example we're working with, is genuinely worse than a sorcerer, and tiers accordingly, I'll disagree with them, but it's a fine and normal thing. Maybe the results will reflect that outlook. If people think it's better though, I think the system should have each and every one of those people put it in at least the same tier. The better class should always, 100%, be ranked at least equal. That's what accuracy means to me, for tiers, and I'm adjusting the system such that that's liable to happen.

What recognition this thread gets is obviously up in the air, but I think what we'll get will be more accurate, something we can point to and say, "If you want to know how good a given class is, you can look over here." Also, when we're done, we should wind up with a bunch of threads filled with conversation about the utility of various classes, and we can either point people to these threads as a discussion entity unto itself, or make new threads talking about why we tiered stuff in a particular way.


I'd suggest starting a thread to see what kind of definitions people think should be used.
This basically exists already. I've gotten tons of suggestions in the main thread. If you have a form for them you think is better, go right ahead. Preferably over there though. Cause again, that's what that thread is for.


then give the resulting system a new name. Rank maybe. then re-rank all the classes according to the new system.
Prolly not gonna do that though. We're modifying the tier system here. Tiers are what we're working with.

[AnachroNinja]

Just because I think people contradicting themselves are fun...

So the original tier system is very clear that it assumes a general and even level of optimization across the classes to figure out where things fall in the tiers. IE not comparing super optimized fighters with low optimization wizards.

A few people feel like considering feats and ACFs while tiering the classes is wrong and doesn't reflect on the class itself.

What exact "optimization" is being done for most of these classes then? What baseline optimization is the fighter comparison using since you can't use feats or his class features (more feats) as part of the consideration of his effectiveness? Sounds like your version of general level of optimization is "choosing spells, as long as the wizards and sorcerers automatically choose game breaking spells and no one else gets to play"....


What a bunch of rocket scientists....

[Gnaeus]

I've discussed this at length, so maybe not my best analysis here.

Beguiler and Dread Necro Tier 2. Both to me have spell lists that are extremely comparable in power across the level range to any given low-mid op sorc, with class features that improve their versatility further (better at some levels, worse at others). Either one looks very solid next to a favored soul.

Warmage Tier 3. Their list provides very little out of combat utility, so all they get other than being a combat specialist is whatever they can derive from Arcane Disciple, PRCing out, or just being a caster with full caster levels. But they are good at a wide range of combat, and can easily be good at any one or two other areas of focus.

[Cosi]

Nah, I mean I don't know if fixed list casters get these spells at all, based on the rules for domain addition. Arcane disciple kinda operates on separate rules, so it works, but the rules from complete divine are weirdly fixed list excluding. It's good if you do get the domain, but you might not really get the domain.

As far as I can tell, Prestige Domains and the Rainbow Servant's Cleric Spell Access are worded the same way, and Cleric Spell Access is explicitly stated to work by the FAQ. Normally I wouldn't cite the FAQ, but this is a case where it clarifies something ambiguous, rather than overruling something.


The purpose of the Tier System is a relative gauge of power and versatility of each class for balance purposes, so that DMs and players will understand potential capabilities to the extent that a player who wants to play a monk in a party of all Tier 1/2 classes will A) Have the understanding that they may be shown up by other members of the party and/or B) Maybe should be permitted to have a few extra options (more powerful race, for example) to shore them up.

So a couple of questions here:

1. If it's supposed to be done "for balance purposes", why are classes in Tier One or Tier Two for their ability to break the game? That doesn't help a DM balance anything, because the problem with Wizards or Sorcerers breaking the game isn't the class, it's abilities. Clearly you can make a Sorcerer that doesn't break the game (trivial, select only Warmage spells, take only Warmage bonus feats, and don't summon a familiar, making you a worse Warmage), so why is the delineation at the class level?
2. If the goal is to balance the game, why is Beguiler in the same tier as Crusader? Surely the gap between "spontaneously casts from a huge list of good Wizard spells" and "does damage in melee" is bigger than the gap between "spontaneously casts from a huge list of good Wizard spells" and "spontaneously casts from a short list of selected Wizard spells"?


If the OP is trying for a "new ranking system" that is going to use different criteria, maybe he should call it something other than "tiers"

Tiers is what you call a ranking of a group of things by power. If a ranking of things by power is different from JaronK's, then he messed up.


Just because YOU want the Tier system to be some kind of concrete ranking of "this class is going to be better than that class" fails to mesh with the purpose the Tier System was created for, does NOT reflect a failing in the Tier System.

Yes it does, because that's what people expect the tiers to be. For the record, I don't think power tiering is all that important. The majority of people who see any tier system at this point already know more than it's going to convey. I think the interesting question now is finding some rankings that people can use to design new classes.


How about instead of complaining that the results don't match your expectations and seeing failure, you alter your expectations to be in line with the results and show growth?

"Shut up and admit I'm right because I'm right!"


You don't make any sense. The existence of a (admittedly very powerful, spell-list-enhancing) prestige class available to both Beguilers and Sorcs has ZERO RELEVANCE to the Tier standing of Beguiler or Sorc, because those extra features are due to the class features of Rainbow Servant, NOT Beguiler or Sorc, and therefore the Tier standing cannot be attributed to either of those classes.

So to be clear, you believe that Rainbow Servant has exactly the same effect when taken by a Beguiler or a Sorcerer?


Anyway, I apologize for not noticing that you were trying to have an "oranges" discussion about something and I came in talking about "apples". Using the title "tier system" is very misleading, in my defense.

Yes, because people definitely expect a tier system to rank "this one guys incoherent babble" and not "power". Your expectations are terminally misaligned with how words are used, and you are trying to blame people who use words correctly for JaronK's failure.

[rrwoods]

We should move the discussion about definitions to the Home Base thread.

[Gullintanni]

Yes, because people definitely expect a tier system to rank "this one guys incoherent babble" and not "power". Your expectations are terminally misaligned with how words are used, and you are trying to blame people who use words correctly for JaronK's failure.

I appreciate that you don't like JaronK's tier system, but I find it pretty disrespectful to label something as a failure strictly because you don't find it useful.

JaronK's tier system works pretty well to define class balance if you understand and apply his assumptions - accordingly, many of the members of the playground have applied JaronK's tiering to their games with effective results.

It isn't a perfect system (hence my general support of Eggynack's update) and could use some tweaks in terms of usability and clarity. If you want a TLDR friendly tier system, as it is, JaronK's tiers are not for you, and that IS a legitimate criticism. Simplicity matters.

I think the biggest weakness of JaronK's system is that it steers away from the conversation of optimization. As such it rates strictly potential, rather than applied power.

Tier 1, 2 and 3 are relatively high potential classes, 4, 5, and 6 much less. Availability of weak or strong builds within each Tier are telling of power floors and ceilings for each class. That is, IMHO, a conversation worth having.

But...probably not in this thread :P

EDIT: Under Eggynack's proposed tiers, I see Warmage as Tier 3, Beguilers and Dread Necromancers as Tier 2.

[Cosi]

JaronK's tier system works pretty well to define class balance if you understand and apply his assumptions - accordingly, many of the members of the playground have applied JaronK's tiering to their games with effective results.

That doesn't follow. The single largest gain to game balance in 3e (or any game) is trying not to break the game. Using the tiers is a signal that you don't want to break the game. This is completely separate from any effectiveness they might have in causing the game to become more balanced. If you wanted to show that the tiers themselves were having an effect, you'd have to run tests. At minimum:

1. Have people create a party of Rogue/Warblade/Favored Soul/Wizard where each character tries not to step on the others toes or break the game. Have people create a party of Crusader/Factotum/Beguiler/Dread Necromancer where each character tries not to step on the others toes or break the game. Is game balance notably better in one than the other?
2. Have people create a party of Duskblade/Bard/Swordsage. Have someone create a Beguiler that tries as hard as possible to break the game. Have someone create a Wizard that tries as hard as possible to break the game. Is one notably more effective at doing so?

People are consistently confusing the gains from "trying not to break the game" with the gains from "listening to JaronK babble about 'versatility' and Factotums". They should try empirical testing to see if the facts support their intuitions.

[Gullintanni]

That doesn't follow. The single largest gain to game balance in 3e (or any game) is trying not to break the game. Using the tiers is a signal that you don't want to break the game. This is completely separate from any effectiveness they might have in causing the game to become more balanced. If you wanted to show that the tiers themselves were having an effect, you'd have to run tests. At minimum:

1. Have people create a party of Rogue/Warblade/Favored Soul/Wizard where each character tries not to step on the others toes or break the game. Have people create a party of Crusader/Factotum/Beguiler/Dread Necromancer where each character tries not to step on the others toes or break the game. Is game balance notably better in one than the other?
2. Have people create a party of Duskblade/Bard/Swordsage. Have someone create a Beguiler that tries as hard as possible to break the game. Have someone create a Wizard that tries as hard as possible to break the game. Is one notably more effective at doing so?

People are consistently confusing the gains from "trying not to break the game" with the gains from "listening to JaronK babble about 'versatility' and Factotums". They should try empirical testing to see if the facts support their intuitions.

This is the issue you seem to be disregarding.

I, and a host of other players in the playground, have DM'd games and had with their players something akin to this scenario:

"Hey, Dave and Jane want to play a Wizard and Cleric. They are high tier, powerful classes. Kira, Ryan, your choices of Rogue, and Fighter will therefore make it difficult to balance encounters around the party that will challenge the Wizard and the Cleric without obviating your characters.

We can either agree to limit the amount of optimization and options available to the Tier One classes, or, I can recommend that Kira and Ryan play higher Tier martials and skillmonkeys. Alternately, Dave and Jane can opt to player lower tier acrane and divine casters".

In this scenario, the Tier system was a useful tool in illustrating, and communicating some of the challenges involved with the potentially wide power disparity between classes, and allowed me to engage my players in a conversation about game balance and how we might better craft a party dynamic where everyone can participate equally.

And that is ALL that JaronK's system aims to be. A tool that helps players and DMs create homogeny of POTENTIAL power throughout the party. It doesn't attempt to be prescriptive, or argue that if your players all choose classes in the same Tier, that your party composition will be inherently balanced.

All it's saying is that if you all play in the same Tier, you're much less likely, optimization notwithstanding, to encounter a situation where players feel consistently overshadowed throughout the campaign.

This doesn't mean that violation of the Gentleman's Agreement won't still ruin game balance.

[Cosi]

"Hey, Dave and Jane want to play a Wizard and Cleric. They are high tier, powerful classes. Kira, Ryan, your choices of Rogue, and Fighter will therefore make it difficult to balance encounters around the party that will challenge the Wizard and the Cleric without obviating your characters.

We can either agree to limit the amount of optimization and options available to the Tier One classes, or, I can recommend that Kira and Ryan play higher Tier martials and skillmonkeys. Alternately, Dave and Jane can opt to player lower tier acrane and divine casters".

You are missing the point. Imagine that you had not used the tiers at all, and had instead simply asked people to try not to overshadow other characters. How much worse would game balance have been?

[Gullintanni]

You are missing the point. Imagine that you had not used the tiers at all, and had instead simply asked people to try not to overshadow other characters. How much worse would game balance have been?

I think you're ignoring MY point - My players, being relatively new to 3.5, didn't realize that they would ALMOST CERTAINLY overshadow other members of the party simply as a byproduct of their choice of class.

Introducing them to the Tier system helped crystallize in their minds the significant disparity in class potential.

I make the recommendation to my party to try not to overshadow each other one way or another. Introduction to the Tier system simply provided context to my players that allowed them to reconcile not playing to their classes full potential, or, for the min-maxers in my group, allowed them to select classes that they could tune-up to the nines without overshadowing the rest of the party.

You may not see value in that information, or in a system of classification that provides context for inexperienced players, and that is a likely byproduct of your experience around the table. But plenty of other tables HAVE gotten value out of JaronK's writing. There IS an actual benefit to this sort of theory craft for some groups.

If you'd like to continue this conversation, would you be open to starting a new thread? Because ultimately we're now debating the merits of a system of Tier classification in the first place.

[Troacctid]

This is the issue you seem to be disregarding.

I, and a host of other players in the playground, have DM'd games and had with their players something akin to this scenario:

"Hey, Dave and Jane want to play a Wizard and Cleric. They are high tier, powerful classes. Kira, Ryan, your choices of Rogue, and Fighter will therefore make it difficult to balance encounters around the party that will challenge the Wizard and the Cleric without obviating your characters.

We can either agree to limit the amount of optimization and options available to the Tier One classes, or, I can recommend that Kira and Ryan play higher Tier martials and skillmonkeys. Alternately, Dave and Jane can opt to player lower tier acrane and divine casters".

In this scenario, the Tier system was a useful tool in illustrating, and communicating some of the challenges involved with the potentially wide power disparity between classes, and allowed me to engage my players in a conversation about game balance and how we might better craft a party dynamic where everyone can participate equally.
And that only works when tiers reflect relative power level rather than being shoehorned into JaronK's overly specific descriptions of each tier.

Even then it doesn't really work very well. Try putting a Warblade and a Psychic Warrior in the same party. Ostensibly the same tier, but I guarantee the Psychic Warrior is gonna feel overshadowed the vast majority of the time.

[Cosi]

I think you're ignoring MY point - My players, being relatively new to 3.5, didn't realize that they would ALMOST CERTAINLY overshadow other members of the party simply as a byproduct of their choice of class.

Introducing them to the Tier system helped crystallize in their minds the significant disparity in class potential.

How? The Tier System does not provide any insight as to what Wizard abilities might overshadow people. It just says Wizards might overshadow people. How is that going to produce different results than "try not to overshadow people" would?

[RedMage125]

Eggynack, I was fine leaving off at my last post, but since you want to re-engage...

If that's the purpose, then how does ranking worse classes higher on the basis of weird definitions helping us? It seems very counterproductive.
The fact that you're talking about "worse classes ranked higher", only shows me that you're not letting go of the opinions YOU consider facts, and, like Cosi, are perplexed because results don't fit into your preconceived notions, rather than altering your expectations when evidence doesn't fit them?



I mean, I'm obviously trying to do something at least somewhat new here. Otherwise I'd just be pointing at the original tier system and saying, "Okay, retype all those tiers exactly everyone, and those count as your votes." My criteria aren't actually that different. They just don't include a whole bunch of wonky stuff that's easy to misinterpret. A tier system is a hierarchical ranking of a game object's power level. If the original tier system isn't even supposed to do that, maybe JaronK should rename the thing. Except I don't think that should happen, because his tier system was absolutely trying to do that.

The tier is important because there's a whole lot of room between wizard and bard. This whole thing about the class as a whole is more or less completely meaningless. It has no impact on how the class plays, or whether the DM should let characters using the class into the party, or how many cool items the DM should give them. You stated a purpose for the tier system above. This definition does not suit that purpose at all.

Again, the explicit stated purpose of the tier system is to put better classes above worse ones. This is all taken from JaronK's own writing.

So....no.

Here's a few quotes from the original


"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."

Further along...
"In the end, the best Tier is the Tier that matches the rest of your party and appeals to you. "

"Also, the purpose of this system isn't to say "X class is the best!" It's to allow players and DMs to maintain intraparty balance."


Multiple times it is stated-BY JaronK- that it is not a strict "this class is better" ranking system. So as far as what you the "explicit stated purpose" of the Tier system is explicitly WRONG.

They're in tiers because it was preferable to a strict ranking system of all classes. Just because one is in a higher Tier does NOT mean "this class is better". It means "this class has power and versatility that can make a character of a class 4 tiers lower feel useless". There's even a section explaining how and when each Tier is the best. Which means yes, there IS a section where he says "Tier 5 is the best for...". Which means that his system IS exactly what I've been saying, and all your claims about how JaronK's system somehow is a "strict ranking of better to worse" is 100% inaccurate.


The feature is better for beguiler than it is for sorcerer, by a lot. Y'know, if it works, which I contend it doesn't. I don't know if I'd generally go as far as prestige classes (as I explicitly said in the main thread), but feats are things characters get automatically, and beguilers have some better uses for them than sorcerers do.
And if feats "should" be accounted for, how can you compare a Beguiler who DOESN'T take those feats to a Sorc who DOES? Is that Beguiler still as good as or better than the Sorc?

THAT is why feats need to not be accounted for.


Most of your points here have nothing to do with whether the game object is a class feature or not. They're mostly about how you consider features that aren't locked in, which applies near equivalently to a sorcerer's spells known. After all, could they not have any number of combinations of the thousands of spells out there? I agree that not every beguiler has arcane disciple, just like not every sorcerer picks polymorph. The answer, put simply, is that you consider a rough average of all the combinations associated with the class. Some percentage of beguilers take arcane disciple for the alteration domain, gaining polymorph, some percentage of sorcerers take polymorph normal style. And some sorcerers, indeed, pick up knowstones. We don't assume that all iterations of these classes use these things, but we assume that some will, because some definitely do, and those higher power combinations get averaged in to the tier calculation.
Spellcasting ability is considered, and the class' spell list is definitely taken into account. Both the spell list and the ability to cast spells (and the WAY they cast spells, such as prepared, spontaneous, and fixed-list spontaneous) are a part of the Tier standing.

Tier 2 in JaronK's system has some specific qualifiers. In that any one ability that a Tier 1 class can do, a Tier 2 class can also do, but can't do ALL of them. He even says a lot of the Tier 3 classes may end up being MORE versatile (in a system where power and versatility end up being the primary deciding factors of Tier standing). Tier 2 is special because the SHEER POTENTIAL for power inherent in the class' spell list. Because it's the same spell list as a Tier 1 class. Tier 1 classes are so overwhelmingly powerful and versatile, that even the POTENTIAL inherent in just their SPELL LIST is enough to warrant a class with access to it its own Tier.


He also said that the tier system was not considering one particular optimization level, but rather equivalent optimization. That implies that higher optimization situations, games where all characters are reasonably optimized, are factored in. And, critically, this rough averaging is something we absolutely must do, whether we consider standard feats and wealth use or not. Classes have choices built in. We have to assess that somehow.
And yet, he says the Tier system exists independent of optimization level, for the EXACT REASON that a higher-tier class in the hands of a less-optimizing player will not be as game breaking in a party with classes of much lower Tiers.

Almost like that's what I've been saying about how an individual build can move up or down in Tier Standing from where the class as a whole stands.



That we can each read a different part of the tier system and come to completely opposite conclusions about some element of it is one of the issues I'm trying to address here. The tier system has contradictions like that all over the place.
Or it reflects a problem with the reading on one person's part.

You have cherry picked a line or two out of context. Like your quote from the FAQ, using one sentence by itself to imply that the entire post is self-contradictory in order to formulate a "need" for a different system, one that you then fill. But a comprehensive reading of the ENTIRE Tier System as a whole, without plucking a line or two out of context, does not lead any reasonable person to opposite conclusions.

You have a different conclusion because you (and Cosi) made your conclusion before you read the Tier System, and found the actual text to be contradictory to YOUR presuppositions. That's not the same thing as saying that there's somehow an ACTUAL contradiction.


Because the wheel had problems, obviously. You should probably actually read the information associated with the thread you're responding to.

I already admitted I didn't read it, I only came back to this thread because your responses were all geared toward saying that I don't understand the original Tier System, justified by your blatantly incorrect assumptions and statements about said system.



Right. But figuring out what the murky theory sorcerer can do doesn't help at all when measuring power and versatility for balance purposes. Saying that 100 different sorcerers can have 100 different spell lists tells a DM absolutely nothing about how a sorcerer plays. If, when you assess specific sorcerer builds, they come out worse than the beguiler, then you have measured the beguiler to be better than the sorcerer on power and versatility metrics. If the tier system doesn't identify that, then it's failed.
Thank you for highlighting perfectly my point about how it is YOUR failure to divine the purpose of the Tier System.

It was never about assessing specific builds, and even explicitly says as much.

Just like I said to Cosi, the fact that the Tier System does not do what YOU WANTED IT TO ACCOMPLISH doesn't make it a failure.

You are, essentially, complaining that toasters fail to operate as intended because they don't make ice cream.



"1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group." Plain as day. If your reading of the tier system doesn't lead to that outcome, then either you're wrong or the tier system is.

See here? Where you then IGNORE the remaining numbered purposes, and the VERY NEXT STATEMENT of "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."

But you think that because you can take one out of 5 parts of a whole, completely ignore the text that contradicts what you claim, and insist that you're right? That's full of so many fallacies, I don't even know where to begin.



Tier three isn't bad. It's just worse than tier two. That's how a tier system works. Tier three classes can theoretically have some advantages, but they must be outweighed by tier two class advantages, or the tier system is failing. That there are these weird cases where the tier system definitions tell you that a tier three class is sometimes flat out better than a tier two class, not in an instantiated character sense but in a broad class sense, goes against the precise stated purpose of the tier system (in multiple places), is one of the things in the original that really needs correcting.
The entire Tier System has only EVER been about a broad class sense. That you missed that does not mean the system "needs correcting", it means your understanding of the system needs correcting. Toasters are not bad because they don't make ice cream.

The bit about classes being "better" than higher Tier classes is only true when looking at Tier 3 and Tier 2, and ONLY is "better" equals "more versatile", because anything else is imposing your own presuppositions, and not going off what the Tier System actually says.

Tier 2 is an odd duck. It can do any one thing that Tier 1 can do, but individual builds will ALWAYS be much less versatile than actual Tier 1 classes, thus a separate Tier. But Tier 1 classes are SO powerful, that even the POTENTIAL to do the same things they can (i.e. Tier 2 classes) warrants being held in a higher Tier than the next most powerful group of classes (Tier 3).

When you keep in mind that the Tier System is only comparing the power and versatility of the class as a whole when compared to other members of the party to determine potential game-breaking balance issues, and was never intended to judge "X build of Class A" against "Y build of Class B", you don't have any kind of perceived "failure" of the system. Unless you actually think toasters "fail" because they don't make ice cream.


Just because I think people contradicting themselves are fun...

So the original tier system is very clear that it assumes a general and even level of optimization across the classes to figure out where things fall in the tiers. IE not comparing super optimized fighters with low optimization wizards.

A few people feel like considering feats and ACFs while tiering the classes is wrong and doesn't reflect on the class itself.

Actually, ACFs that drastically alter a class' capabilities ARE reflected in the Original Tier standing. Wild Shape Ranger, and Zhentarim Fighter come to mind as examples.


What exact "optimization" is being done for most of these classes then? What baseline optimization is the fighter comparison using since you can't use feats or his class features (more feats) as part of the consideration of his effectiveness? Sounds like your version of general level of optimization is "choosing spells, as long as the wizards and sorcerers automatically choose game breaking spells and no one else gets to play"....
The point is that the Tier System is NOT comparing super-optimized Fighters with low-optimized wizards, but rather that the classes will be played with a similar (moderate) level of optimization among all classes played.

Fighters barely have any class features to speak of. Every class has (in varying degrees of versatility and power) BAB, Proficiencies, Saving Throws (1,2,or 3 good ones), Skill Points and Class Skill List. Fighters get Good BAB, All armor and weapons (and the only class that gets tower shields), 1 Good Save, Low Skill Points and Poor Class Skill List. They're only real "class features" are a glut of bonus feats. This makes them a class that is "unfocused". But they have SO MANY feats that the potential exists for them to do well in their chosen field (combat). Fighters are a High Tier 5 because of this. But without actual defined class features with mechanical weight, or a defined role and purpose, it's difficult to say what the Fighter's role IS (except the general heading of "combat", since their bonus feats are all combat feats). A Fighter can be an exceptional archer, a heavy armor wearing "tank" using a shield, a wielder of 2-handed weapons going for high damage output, someone who uses maneuvers like tripping, bull rush, grappling, and so on. Or any combination of those, all with varying degrees of effectiveness, and all based on feat selection.

Fighters highlight exactly WHY feats cannot be taken into account. However, because feats cannot be taken into account when judging the class as a whole, Fighters are Tier 5 (or 4 with Zhent variant). So individual feats cannot be accounted for, but the fact that the Fighter gets so many to choose from IS taken into account.

Spell selection for casters is similar. The power and versatility that are ON a class' list are taken into account. Given the way Tier 1 classes are delineated, taking at least SOME of the "game breaking" spells is being taken into account, but Tippy-level of optimization is also not being considered "standard".

Potential power is always a factor, even when the specifics of that power have too many options to account for which ones can/will be chosen.

[Troacctid]

Here's a few quotes from the original


"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."

Further along...
"In the end, the best Tier is the Tier that matches the rest of your party and appeals to you. "

"Also, the purpose of this system isn't to say "X class is the best!" It's to allow players and DMs to maintain intraparty balance."


Multiple times it is stated-BY JaronK- that it is not a strict "this class is better" ranking system. So as far as what you the "explicit stated purpose" of the Tier system is explicitly WRONG.
Did you miss that immediately after your first quote, he elaborates by saying it is to measure the power and versatility of classes? His point is that more powerful is not the same as better, not that higher tiers are not more powerful than lower tiers.

Also, you realize JaronK didn't invent tiers, right? He wrote the first well-known tier list for 3.5, but tiers have been around for a long time in many gaming communities. JaronK doesn't have a patent on them. In competitive gaming, tiers are used to describe the relative power level of different player options. That's what tiers are.

[Deophaun]

Toasters are not bad because they don't make ice cream.
But now I want one that does!

[Beheld]

"You can't co-opt the word 'Democracy' for the name of your governmental system. Democrat has always only ever meant 'member of the Democrat Party' and not this voting ****!" Said RedMage about other countries calling themselves Democracies.

[Gullintanni]

And that only works when tiers reflect relative power level rather than being shoehorned into JaronK's overly specific descriptions of each tier.

Even then it doesn't really work very well. Try putting a Warblade and a Psychic Warrior in the same party. Ostensibly the same tier, but I guarantee the Psychic Warrior is gonna feel overshadowed the vast majority of the time.

There is variation within the Tiers, yes. I do believe part of Eggynack's desire to reform the aforementioned system aims to resolve some of those issues. Regardless, Warblades and PsyWars are close enough, Tier wise, that while a Warblade may do it better, the PsyWar will never be irrelevant next to the Warblade.

Not that I'm arguing that they're in the same Tier necessarily, or that a Tier 3.5 wouldn't be appropriate, or that some level of reform wouldn't be helpful.


How? The Tier System does not provide any insight as to what Wizard abilities might overshadow people. It just says Wizards might overshadow people. How is that going to produce different results than "try not to overshadow people" would?

It doesn't say Wizards "might" overshadow people. It says Wizards are almost certain to overshadow classes of a sufficiently lower tier, and due to the extreme disparity between class power levels, is likely to do so accidentally. The advice offered to players by the tier system is:

"This is the level that these groups of classes generally play at. Some of the inter-party balance problems you see will be resolved (or a lot easier to resolve) if you keep the spread of Tiers across the party tight".

So, your advice of "don't try to overshadow each other" is bettered by being presented as follows:

"Don't try to overshadow each other, and here's a list of classes that are likely to do exactly that without even trying."

Your question, "what exactly does a Tier 1 do to overshadow everyone else" is exactly what the conversation becomes if the party I'm running ultimately settles on mixing high and low Tier classes.

[RedMage125]

Did you miss that immediately after your first quote, he elaborates by saying it is to measure the power and versatility of classes? His point is that more powerful is not the same as better, not that higher tiers are not more powerful than lower tiers.

I did not miss that. That's been MY point this whole time. I have never said "higher tier does not equal more powerful". I said "higher tier does not equal 'better'", which is what others have been saying.


But now I want one that does!
So do we all.

"You can't co-opt the word 'Democracy' for the name of your governmental system. Democrat has always only ever meant 'member of the Democrat Party' and not this voting ****!" Said RedMage about other countries calling themselves Democracies.

Strawman Fallacy and Argumentum Ad Absurdum only reflect the user, not the target.

But hey, whatever helps you feel witty.

[eggynack]

As far as I can tell, Prestige Domains and the Rainbow Servant's Cleric Spell Access are worded the same way, and Cleric Spell Access is explicitly stated to work by the FAQ. Normally I wouldn't cite the FAQ, but this is a case where it clarifies something ambiguous, rather than overruling something.

I don't think it's necessarily all that unambiguous. Page 20 of complete divine lays out the specific functioning of extra domains in a number of situations. None of this functioning allows for workable interaction with these classes.


Eggynack, I was fine leaving off at my last post, but since you want to re-engage...
I mean, you're kinda arguing that the thread I'm making is fundamentally improperly constructed. Not reengaging would probably mean not doing the thread, or maybe dismissing you in some fashion.


The fact that you're talking about "worse classes ranked higher", only shows me that you're not letting go of the opinions YOU consider facts, and, like Cosi, are perplexed because results don't fit into your preconceived notions, rather than altering your expectations when evidence doesn't fit them?
This isn't at all what I was talking about. Yes, I think that the beguiler is either equal to or better than the sorcerer, but that's not the point. The point is that the people who were and are putting the class in tier three think that it's better, but think these specific definitions keep the class down. Other people are ranking worse classes higher, using only their own metrics for worse.




So....no.

Here's a few quotes from the original

Multiple times it is stated-BY JaronK- that it is not a strict "this class is better" ranking system. So as far as what you the "explicit stated purpose" of the Tier system is explicitly WRONG.


They're in tiers because it was preferable to a strict ranking system of all classes. Just because one is in a higher Tier does NOT mean "this class is better". It means "this class has power and versatility that can make a character of a class 4 tiers lower feel useless". There's even a section explaining how and when each Tier is the best. Which means yes, there IS a section where he says "Tier 5 is the best for...". Which means that his system IS exactly what I've been saying, and all your claims about how JaronK's system somehow is a "strict ranking of better to worse" is 100% inaccurate.
That's not the definition of "better" I was talking about. When I say "better", it's as a shortening of that whole power/versatility/problem solving thing that JaronK and I alike talked about when defining tiers. I don't think a higher tier class is necessarily more fun to play, or universally better liked, or best for every campaign. I can't just call this higher power, because that doesn't convey the total meaning I'm trying to convey.


And if feats "should" be accounted for, how can you compare a Beguiler who DOESN'T take those feats to a Sorc who DOES? Is that Beguiler still as good as or better than the Sorc?

THAT is why feats need to not be accounted for.
Beguiler might do better than usual, actually. Arcane disciple really sucks on a sorcerer. But, assuming that the feat is good on a sorcerer, then that'd be a scenario where the sorcerer arguably picks up an advantage, but, as I've asserted, a lesser one than the beguiler gets. If you wanna analyze this in technical fashion, we have four cases to work with. Both classes get the feat, in which case the beguiler is ahead (compared to the normal state of things), just the beguiler gets it, in which case the beguiler is way ahead, just the sorcerer gets it, in which case the sorcerer is ahead, but not by as much as the beguiler was (not at all, really, but again, we're assuming this is a good sorcerer feat), or neither class takes it, in which case the classes stay at their original positions.

So, the net impact of the feat is positive for the beguiler. Simple as that, really. We can consider both the situations where the beguiler doesn't get it and situations where the sorcerer does as factors pulling the feat's value in sorcerer comparisons downwards, but that overall impact is clearly there. A bit hard to measure, perhaps, because determining how often various classes use various things is in largely hypothetical space, but that's a universal truth to tiering. In spite of the situation you posited, the feat is still beguiler positive in this specific comparison. If we applied the same test as compared to the warmage, the feat would actually be warmage positive, because the warmage gets more value from it. Not nearly positive enough to get the warmage to the same tier, but positive.


Spellcasting ability is considered, and the class' spell list is definitely taken into account. Both the spell list and the ability to cast spells (and the WAY they cast spells, such as prepared, spontaneous, and fixed-list spontaneous) are a part of the Tier standing.
It is considered, but, if we draw direct from your arguments, it shouldn't necessarily be. You basically have two arguments you're proposing for why feats shouldn't be considered. First, they are external to class. This does not extend outward into the other argument. Second, they come in near infinite combinations and to consider individual layouts would be to consider individual builds. This absolutely does extend into the spells known list. I agree that spells known should be considered. Both things should be.

Tier 2 in JaronK's system has some specific qualifiers. In that any one ability that a Tier 1 class can do, a Tier 2 class can also do, but can't do ALL of them. He even says a lot of the Tier 3 classes may end up being MORE versatile (in a system where power and versatility end up being the primary deciding factors of Tier standing). Tier 2 is special because the SHEER POTENTIAL for power inherent in the class' spell list. Because it's the same spell list as a Tier 1 class. Tier 1 classes are so overwhelmingly powerful and versatile, that even the POTENTIAL inherent in just their SPELL LIST is enough to warrant a class with access to it its own Tier.
But that potential has nothing to do with how versatile or powerful a character is in play, how capable an individual sorcerer is of dealing with a dragon in its trap filled cavern system. Potential is meaningless.


And yet, he says the Tier system exists independent of optimization level, for the EXACT REASON that a higher-tier class in the hands of a less-optimizing player will not be as game breaking in a party with classes of much lower Tiers.

Almost like that's what I've been saying about how an individual build can move up or down in Tier Standing from where the class as a whole stands.
The problem is that this idea that we're just supposed to ignore optimization makes absolutely no sense. It is physically impossible to consider most classes independent of optimization. Optimization level, after all, determines what bonus feats a fighter selects, or what the sorcerer's spells known list looks like, or even something small like how well a ranger's favored enemy matches up with the game's enemy array. We can't put much in the way of meaningful value on these abilities without considering either some optimization level or some averaging.

The answer is simple, and comes from elsewhere in the tier system. We don't fully remove optimization level, but we don't consider situations where one character is pushing their class way more either. We use equivalent optimization. If the sorcerer optimizes, so does the beguiler, and if the sorcerer doesn't optimize, then neither does the beguiler. We average those situations together (along with all the other equivalent optimization scenarios), and we have a tier system. In a sense, we are independent of optimization level here, but only because we consider nearly all optimization levels simultaneously. It's an independent variable.


Or it reflects a problem with the reading on one person's part.

You have cherry picked a line or two out of context. Like your quote from the FAQ, using one sentence by itself to imply that the entire post is self-contradictory in order to formulate a "need" for a different system, one that you then fill. But a comprehensive reading of the ENTIRE Tier System as a whole, without plucking a line or two out of context, does not lead any reasonable person to opposite conclusions.
One or two lines out of context? One of those lines shows up near the very beginning of the tier system, before any of these tier definitions show up. It's stated as the explicit primary purpose of the tier system. I just use the somewhat deeper down FAQ quote because it's longer and deeper. You're ignoring basic foundational concepts of the tier system in favor of these specific tier definitions. That such a thing can occur at all is, well, bad.


You have a different conclusion because you (and Cosi) made your conclusion before you read the Tier System, and found the actual text to be contradictory to YOUR presuppositions. That's not the same thing as saying that there's somehow an ACTUAL contradiction.
Not really, no. I read the tier system years before I ever thought it could be wrong in places. You seem to think that classes should be ranked lower, even if they have higher power and versatility in-game. If that's a correct reading, it's clearly one that contradicts parts of the tier system.



I already admitted I didn't read it, I only came back to this thread because your responses were all geared toward saying that I don't understand the original Tier System, justified by your blatantly incorrect assumptions and statements about said system.
Fair enough. I mean, you're still wrong about the original. But fair enough. I think you should read what I have though. As we have this argument about the original tier system, you probably continue to contend that I've constructed things poorly. Might as well read what you're opposing. Ain't that long.


Thank you for highlighting perfectly my point about how it is YOUR failure to divine the purpose of the Tier System.

It was never about assessing specific builds, and even explicitly says as much.

Just like I said to Cosi, the fact that the Tier System does not do what YOU WANTED IT TO ACCOMPLISH doesn't make it a failure.

You are, essentially, complaining that toasters fail to operate as intended because they don't make ice cream.
I'm not talking about assessing specific builds. That would mean taking that list of 100 sorcerers, pulling one out, and saying, "Nah, this sorcerer sucks." Neither do I think we should do what you think the tier system demands we do, which is weirdly combine all 100 sorcerers into one super sorcerer that's capable of everything, and consider that game object with the note that the need for this combination requires a tier reduction. I'm talking about pulling the first sorcerer out of the pile, saying, "This sorcerer is about this good," pulling the second sorcerer out, doing the same, and continuing until you've run out of sorcerers. At that point, you average all the values you got. End result is a fair calculation of the power and versatility of a sorcerer in-game.



See here? Where you then IGNORE the remaining numbered purposes, and the VERY NEXT STATEMENT of "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."

But you think that because you can take one out of 5 parts of a whole, completely ignore the text that contradicts what you claim, and insist that you're right? That's full of so many fallacies, I don't even know where to begin.

Again, the definition of "best" I'm using is distinct from the one JaronK was using. Could be confusing, but it's what's happening here. If you think the beguiler is just a more fun and interesting class to play, but also that the sorcerer, in play, is more capable of defeating a variety of challenges, and thus has more power and versatility, then use the second value for your tier ranking. I wouldn't expect anything else.


The entire Tier System has only EVER been about a broad class sense. That you missed that does not mean the system "needs correcting", it means your understanding of the system needs correcting. Toasters are not bad because they don't make ice cream.

The bit about classes being "better" than higher Tier classes is only true when looking at Tier 3 and Tier 2, and ONLY is "better" equals "more versatile", because anything else is imposing your own presuppositions, and not going off what the Tier System actually says.

Tier 2 is an odd duck. It can do any one thing that Tier 1 can do, but individual builds will ALWAYS be much less versatile than actual Tier 1 classes, thus a separate Tier. But Tier 1 classes are SO powerful, that even the POTENTIAL to do the same things they can (i.e. Tier 2 classes) warrants being held in a higher Tier than the next most powerful group of classes (Tier 3).

When you keep in mind that the Tier System is only comparing the power and versatility of the class as a whole when compared to other members of the party to determine potential game-breaking balance issues, and was never intended to judge "X build of Class A" against "Y build of Class B", you don't have any kind of perceived "failure" of the system. Unless you actually think toasters "fail" because they don't make ice cream.

Again, no one plays "the class as a whole." It's a meaningless statistic when it comes to trying to balance things. This potential to do tier one things is completely empty if no instantiated sorcerer is generally better than a beguiler. Cause, seriously, that's the conclusion we were coming to before. Even with the sorcerer picking their super awesome tier one spells, the beguiler was still coming across better across over half of the level-space, and that was before looking at arcane disciple. You can think I'm wrong about that, but, y'know, that's kinda the point of the thread. But you must admit, if that's the case, then beguilers deserve to be in the same tier. Because that potential isn't really expressible in any meaningful way.

I mean, consider, what if the sorcerer was locked at like one spell known per spell level. Would the class still be above a beguiler? You still seem to fit that definition you're citing.



Potential power is always a factor, even when the specifics of that power have too many options to account for which ones can/will be chosen.
Why wouldn't this logic apply to normal feats equally?


I did not miss that. That's been MY point this whole time. I have never said "higher tier does not equal more powerful". I said "higher tier does not equal 'better'", which is what others have been saying.

If by "more powerful", you mean, "a greater cross section of power and versatility that enables you to participate in the destruction of a wider variety of challenges to a greater extent," then I agree with you. But the thing is, it is possible, even if maybe hypothetically, to acquire that greater cross section by increasing versatility while reducing power. Maybe the beguiler has greater problem solving capability, maybe it has worse, maybe it has equal. But that's the value it's important to look at. If the tier system's definitions are getting you further from the analysis of that value, instead of closer, then said definitions are failing.

Edit: As was requested elsewhere here, could you move this to the other thread? This kinda tier system discussion chicanery is what it's for.

[RedMage125]

I mean, you're kinda arguing that the thread I'm making is fundamentally improperly constructed. Not reengaging would probably mean not doing the thread, or maybe dismissing you in some fashion.
No, I'm arguing the -GROSSLY INCORRECT- claims you've made about the original Tier System. I've not said word one about YOUR project, save that calling it a "re-tiering" of classes-when you in fact are completely throwing out the commonly recognized Tier System that resonates with most of us when we hear that term, and creating wholecloth a new system that doesn't even gauge the same thing as the old one-was confusing. Especially when there are other "Re-tiering" projects aimed at using the JaronK Tier system, either examining classes he left out, or applying the System to Pathfinder. So yes...calling your thread "re-tiering" is confusing. Perhaps "New Tier Ranking System:Beguiler, Dread Necro, Warmage".


*snip*

One or two lines out of context? One of those lines shows up near the very beginning of the tier system, before any of these tier definitions show up. It's stated as the explicit primary purpose of the tier system. I just use the somewhat deeper down FAQ quote because it's longer and deeper. You're ignoring basic foundational concepts of the tier system in favor of these specific tier definitions. That such a thing can occur at all is, well, bad.
One of those lines was ONE-FIFTH of the purpose of the Tier System, not the whole shebang.

And the "deeper down FAQ quote" is absolutely out of context, because you twisted what JaronK meant by that in order to attempt to "highlight" that his system claimed to do something that it explicitly said a number of times it was not attempting to do.



Fair enough. I mean, you're still wrong about the original.
I have proven on a number of points that YOU are incorrect on the original.

Which is because it doesn't do what you WANTED it to do.

Again, saying toasters suck because they don't make ice cream.


But fair enough. I think you should read what I have though. As we have this argument about the original tier system, you probably continue to contend that I've constructed things poorly. Might as well read what you're opposing. Ain't that long.
Haven't been "opposing" yours. Not one bit.



Again, no one plays "the class as a whole." It's a meaningless statistic when it comes to trying to balance things. This potential to do tier one things is completely empty of no instantiated sorcerer is generally better than a beguiler.
This...this sentence right here...highlights that YOU do not understand the actual PURPOSE of the Original Tier system.

[eggynack]

Snip
Just moved the conversation over to the home base thread. If ya wanna continue talking about the possible differences between the systems, and how to reconcile that, that's the place to do it. This is the land of fixed list caster talk.

Edit: Currently working on the vote-sheet. The thread'll stay open to votes after I'm done, but I'm likely to start up the tier one classes thread tonight or tomorrow. I'm thinking that it makes some sense to start up some initial talk threads with some speed, maybe three or so, and then, with four threads in various states of movement, we can see how we feel about tossing in new ones. I don't expect the tier one thread to do much, so it shouldn't be a too much to follow situation.

[eggynack]

I just finished the voting sheet. Things wound up with beguilers in two, dread necro in two, and warmage in three. I have the mean, median, and mode at the bottom of the sheet, and the classes have those exact numbers by median and mode, and round there by way of mean. Now for some notes. I got two votes for X/Y, which I'm interpreting as X.5. Doesn't impact the mode, but it factors into the median and mean well enough. I figure that if there's a mode tie, I'd probably interpret the first number listed as the way it'd swing, but it might make sense to disregard it. If you want me to interpret things in a certain way, you can indicate as much. Stuff like 2/3 or low 2 is interesting, but the former could get you somewhere you don't want, and the latter has the adjective currently considered meaningless. I have a number of people casting votes on one class, but leaving the rest either unstated, which I'd assume is intentional, or implied, which might not be. Cosi, I'd assume, fully intended to not vote, but checking Deophaun for example found only one vote where three could have been intended.

Main point is, check out the sheet, and if you see yourself doing something you didn't think you did, or not doing something when you thought you did it, feel free to mention as much. We're doing this malleable style. The tier one caster thread should go up tomorrow. If you have any notes about the structure or format of the sheet, other thread is probably the place to talk about that kinda thing.

[GilesTheCleric]

Okay, I think I'm actually going to vote. I hadn't planned on it, but I know that I as a GM would appreciate the use of the most practically accurate tier list possible. So here's my contribution to making that happen.

Beguiler: T2, 3, 1 I have two primary reasons for this tiering. First, I think that Beguiler does absolutely get at least one game-breaking trick: minionmancy. Is it cheesy? Yes, just like every other means of breaking the game. It's a straightforward use of this class to use it to nab minions -- I think any player with a good grip on the basic rules of the game could end up doing so, intentionally or not. I personally think that mind-affecting effects are very powerful, at many optimisation levels. Mind Blank isn't on spell lists until level 15, which in my mind is just about the end of the game. Yes, Protection/ Circle are common spells, and I do expect foes to have and use those. However, not all foes will have access to these spells, and if they're using them in combat, hey, I'll take the action economy.

The second reason was shown to me in Jormengand's tier thread, in which I and a few others discussed a specific level-by-level spell comparison between Favoured Soul and Beguiler. I was impressed to see that my "powerful generic" FS's list wasn't strongly favoured over the Beguiler's list -- the two lists ended up roughly equal in the number of levels where one pulled ahead, but they both remained competitive through most levels. To me, this indicates that a Beguiler has the mojo to keep up in situations where their main schtick isn't applicable, thus satisfying both the entire T3 as well as the other half of T2's stipulations.

I do think Beguiler can hit T1 with enough optimisation, much like the Sorcerer can. Is it easier to hit T1 than it is T3 with this class? That's a bit of a judgment call that relies on how much op any one person considers "a lot" or "a little". As someone with little experience with arcanists but having spent a fair bit of time itP and being aware of the existence of handbooks, I don't think it's too complicated to hit T1. Anyone who has gone so far as to find a tier list and share it with their players probably is similar, but the same can't necessarily be said of those players. Personally, I'm inclined to say that T3 is easier to reach than T1, because it requires less effort, and the set of players who don't optimise is probably larger than the set of those who do.

My list of FS spells (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?510408-Community-Tiering-for-all-3-5-Base-Classes&p=21627547#post21627547)
Cosi's reply to my FS list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21627828)
My response to Cosi (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21628094&postcount=613)
Cosi's reply (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21628140&postcount=0)
Eggynack's reply to my FS list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21628591&postcount=627)
My response to Eggynack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21628661&postcount=635)

Dread Necromancer: T2, 1, 3 Incidentally, this class is quite similar to Beguiler (it's almost as if Eggynack did that on purpose or something). Just like Beguiler, I think DN hits T2 on the back of minionmancy/ necromancy being an incredibly potent tool. Even more so than the Beguiler, creating and controlling minions is the express purpose of this class; the most fresh-eyed player can see this. Even if a player does nothing but create skeletons out of everything they run across and keep their HD pools capped, this will probably break the game. I think it takes more effort to not break the game with this class. I would also argue that undead minions are more powerful than living ones, in the majority of situations, for these reasons:

First, you don't need to capture/ surprise/ nonlethal something (or spend 5k in diamond dust) in order to add it to your army. That's huge, both in terms of functioning better within a muderhobo party, as well as in terms of finding "free" minions by raiding graveyards, dungeons, catacombs, etc.

Second. Corpses don't get a save to resist becoming minions.

Third, there's more support for undead minions than for living ones. There's spells that supplement only undead, Corpsecrafting, and a whole lot of other Cleric- and Necromancer- related things. It's a popular, well-supported archetype in this game. Almost all generic buffs can be used on undead as well.

Fourth, you don't even have to go anywhere to get minions. You can just create them, no GM requirement to populate the world with anything that's not a construct/ ooze/ swarm/ etc needed. The DN can also summon them, which is another well-supported playstyle that enables the DN to still function without a willing GM/ in a situation where they have lost everything.

Fifth, at lower op, boosting Rebuke is far easier than boosting CL, which makes it more difficult for foes to take control of your minions. We could argue about at what point CL becomes easier to boost, but I don't think that point is before you start (ab)using Circle Magic or Consumptive Field. This is simply because boosting rebuke costs about 1/10 what it does to boost CL from items, not to mention that there's more, more powerful, and lower-level spells that buff turning than do CL.

Sixth, and best of all, undead are self-propagating. When your minions dispatch foes for you, you suddenly have more minions. In order for a charm/ dominate-based army to have such a chain reaction, you would have to dominate only those that also have domination abilities, and then send them after more foes with the same. You can even get free minions without any effort on your part -- there's at least four or five types of undead that are created simply through the act of creatures dying.

These six points serve to illustrate half of why I think T1 is more easily reached by DN than by Beguiler -- the trick is more resilient. In addition to this, once a player is using the same amount of somewhat higher-op as the Beguiler, they benefit from the same unique capabilities from the minions. However, they get the added benefit of having their own capabilities expanded at the same time -- Door of Decay and Eyes of the Zombie were already mentioned in this thread, which allow for a new self-contained means of breaking the game (scry'n'die), but other means are also opened up, such as stacking a whole bunch of death throes for copious amounts of damage, starting a wightocalypse, using Undead Lieutenant for leadership-style minionmancy, or probably a whole bunch of other means I haven't thought of (I don't play Evil very often, so I don't know every trick offhand, sorry).

Does the DN having access to a small number of different gamebreaking tricks qualify it for T1? I think so. Once you get to actual list expansion via means other than Advanced Learning, I propose that the DN has a better base from which to use these spells than does the Beguiler, and just like the Beguiler becomes an indisputable T1.

What about T3? Is it easier to reach T3 than it is T1? For the DN, I think between both T1 being more easily reached in combination with the overtly obvious power and intent of the class, T1 is more likely for even novice players to reach than is T3. This class has a fairly high floor, I think, higher than that of the Beguiler.

My apologies if I don't construct a DN list; if someone else would like to engage with my aforementioned list of FS spells (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?510408-Community-Tiering-for-all-3-5-Base-Classes&p=21627547#post21627547) so that we can see how powerful in terms of T3 this class is, then I'm ready for that.

Warmage: Abstain I'm really not one for arcanists, so this is even further from my comfort zone than Beguiler and DN. I have seen or played both of the former two, but I have neither seen, played, nor fiddled with Warmage, so I can't provide an informed opinion on this class. If someone can make a compelling argument that teaches me enough about the class that I feel comfortable agreeing with them, perhaps I'll vote, but I haven't learned enough from the thread yet for that to be true.

Edit: Oh no! Am I too late? I started this about two hours ago, so I didn't see your next post until after I posted. Also, the spreadsheet needs to have sharing enabled.

[Fizban]

This is why I don't like the "problem solving metric." For everyone saying Warnage is tier 3 (so basically everyone but me), I'd like you to show me another blaster that can compete with a Warmage, that's not a tier 1 or Sorcerer (in the other thread if you actually have an example). The Warmage is a specialist without par in anything other than the other tier 2 classes, putting it at tier 3 is pretty explicitly saying that combat is not even remotely as valuable a specialization as something else in a game where most of the rules are about combat. How is that a useful comparison?

Edit: er, meant that for the main thread but it's probably more applicable here anyway.

[eggynack]

Edit: Oh no! Am I too late? I started this about two hours ago, so I didn't see your next post until after I posted.
Never. Or, y'know, probably never. This thread'll be open for voting as long as it wants to, or at least until I get super bored of maintaining it (which is liable to take awhile, and I figure we'd at least hit all the other classes first). Big part of why I started the thread in the first place. Be pretty weird to be all like, "You fools with your lack of re-voting. I'll start a counter-thread," and then stop all voting in even less time than the old thread, without even any explicit warning.

Edit:
This is why I don't like the "problem solving metric." For everyone saying Warnage is tier 3 (so basically everyone but me), I'd like you to show me another blaster that can compete with a Warmage, that's not a tier 1 or Sorcerer (in the other thread if you actually have an example). The Warmage is a specialist without par in anything other than the other tier 2 classes, putting it at tier 3 is pretty explicitly saying that combat is not even remotely as valuable a specialization as something else in a game where most of the rules are about combat. How is that a useful comparison?

Edit: er, meant that for the main thread but it's probably more applicable here anyway.
They might be unequaled at blasting, but that doesn't even necessarily make them unequaled at combat, let alone unequaled to the extent that I'd consider them tier two. One cool thing about wizardly types is that they can do stuff like impact combat without significant interaction with defenses, defend against things from a variety of angles, control and deal with wide swaths of the battlefield at once, have a combat plan that begins before they're anywhere close to the opponent, and so on. Facing an army or a dragon, I'd go with the wizard, even if we're starting with the army or dragon pretty close at hand. Not saying wizard is the point of comparison here, but there's more to combat than direct blasty damage. And warmage sucks at non-combat, which is a pretty critical part of being great. The sorcerer can likely equal or better the warmage at combat while being much better out of combat. Putting the warmage in the same tier seems really wrong given that.

Double-edit: I'm not really doing anything with the numbers after the first one, however. Rank choice voting strikes me as completely illogical in a tier system.

[ryu]

This is why I don't like the "problem solving metric." For everyone saying Warnage is tier 3 (so basically everyone but me), I'd like you to show me another blaster that can compete with a Warmage, that's not a tier 1 or Sorcerer (in the other thread if you actually have an example). The Warmage is a specialist without par in anything other than the other tier 2 classes, putting it at tier 3 is pretty explicitly saying that combat is not even remotely as valuable a specialization as something else in a game where most of the rules are about combat. How is that a useful comparison?

Edit: er, meant that for the main thread but it's probably more applicable here anyway.

I mean... It's not? Literally any class willing to put effort in can be highly effective in combat. It's not hard.

[Troacctid]

This is why I don't like the "problem solving metric." For everyone saying Warnage is tier 3 (so basically everyone but me), I'd like you to show me another blaster that can compete with a Warmage, that's not a tier 1 or Sorcerer (in the other thread if you actually have an example). The Warmage is a specialist without par in anything other than the other tier 2 classes, putting it at tier 3 is pretty explicitly saying that combat is not even remotely as valuable a specialization as something else in a game where most of the rules are about combat. How is that a useful comparison?

Edit: er, meant that for the main thread but it's probably more applicable here anyway.
Honestly, the more I've worked with Warmage, the more it's overperformed for me. People around here like to say that blasting is suboptimal, but it deeefinitely doesn't deserve the floccinaucinihilipilification. It's actually an extremely efficient way to solve encounters, and the Warmage is legitimately very good at it, with a huge variety of combat spells for all different situations. It also comes with great options for BFC, and Advanced Learning can get you some good stuff, and you can even grab any Sor/Wiz spell with Eclectic Learning if you really want, so, hey, you like polymorph or animate dead or some other overpowered spell? They're yours.

I don't actually think the Warmage is T2 though. Maybe you get there with optimized Eclectic Learning spells, but realistically, your power level is more likely to be closer to the Warblade and Crusader than the Sorcerer and Beguiler. I put it in T3.

Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are T2, of course.

EDIT: With fractions, I put warmage at 2.5, beguiler at 1.6, dread necromancer at 1.7.

[Fizban]

I don't think of the Warmage as a top-of-the-curve damage-dealer. I think of it as more of a benchmark.
Why? What does a Sorcerer have that Warmage doesn't that lets them deal more damage?

Arcane Fusion.

Warmage can get Arcane Spellsurge and Assay Resistance both, if desired, via their one ACF, Eclectic Learning. A Sorcerer can better use the Spellsurge with their Metamagic Specialist ACF, but a Warmage can use Arcane Preparation, same book no penalty. If we're using familiars and Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability instead, the Warmage can still Eclectic Learning it and get a familiar with Obtain Familiar, same book no penalty. If we're using both, the optimization level has passed moderate and moved to the edge.

The Warmage has far more spells known. As was pointed out above (possibly by yourself?), there is no level where the Sorcerer actually knows the full range of blasting and battlefield control that the Warmage (or any of the fixed list casters) does at the same level. Increasing the Sorcerer's spells known significantly requires either PrCs or dragon mag Bloodline Feats, which are so far removed they still seem to be considered unavailable by default by most people and certainly aren't part of the central balance of the class.

So Sorcerers have Arcane Fusion (a spell some would call cheese on sight, even if I don't), and if the Warmage is forced to spend their Learning on Assay/Spellsurge they lose the chance to grab a couple spells with more efficient damage dice. That puts Sorcerers at #1 blaster by letting them spec even harder, and Warmages at #2 as the ironically more broad version of the blaster. Is tier 2 only allowed to have one blaster? If you're limiting each tier to only one of each role, and some roles don't even count for some tiers, then you're gonna need a lot more tiers. Both classes are effectively the best at blasting, close enough that the difference does not matter unless you demand separation for separation's sake.

[ryu]

Why? What does a Sorcerer have that Warmage doesn't that lets them deal more damage?

Arcane Fusion.

Warmage can get Arcane Spellsurge and Assay Resistance both, if desired, via their one ACF, Eclectic Learning. A Sorcerer can better use the Spellsurge with their Metamagic Specialist ACF, but a Warmage can use Arcane Preparation, same book no penalty. If we're using familiars and Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability instead, the Warmage can still Eclectic Learning it and get a familiar with Obtain Familiar, same book no penalty. If we're using both, the optimization level has passed moderate and moved to the edge.

The Warmage has far more spells known. As was pointed out above (possibly by yourself?), there is no level where the Sorcerer actually knows the full range of blasting and battlefield control that the Warmage (or any of the fixed list casters) does at the same level. Increasing the Sorcerer's spells known significantly requires either PrCs or dragon mag Bloodline Feats, which are so far removed they still seem to be considered unavailable by default by most people and certainly aren't part of the central balance of the class.

So Sorcerers have Arcane Fusion (a spell some would call cheese on sight, even if I don't), and if the Warmage is forced to spend their Learning on Assay/Spellsurge they lose the chance to grab a couple spells with more efficient damage dice. That puts Sorcerers at #1 blaster by letting them spec even harder, and Warmages at #2 as the ironically more broad version of the blaster. Is tier 2 only allowed to have one blaster? If you're limiting each tier to only one of each role, and some roles don't even count for some tiers, then you're gonna need a lot more tiers. Both classes are effectively the best at blasting, close enough that the difference does not matter unless you demand separation for separation's sake.

You want baseline available damage? Okay. Do warmages get the planar binding line? Or the undead creation/control line(s)? Or most battlefield control to enable easier damage dealing? Or any of a dozen other things sorcerers can just have without jumping through feat whoops? Like a familiar to get using your favorite activation item with shared UMD ranks?

[Efrate]

A specific sorcerer can outblast a warmage sure. But blasting doesn't get you into tier 2. What do you do outside of combat? Sorcerer gets a lot more options to do a lot more than just blast. Having a few AoE blasts is enough the vast majority of the time, and combat can be solved in many ways more than throw damage at it. You can optimize a blaster to silly levels mailman style, but if that is all you do its not enough for tier 2. You can be amazing at that, but what do you do when blasting is not a reasonable answer to a solution?

[ryu]

A specific sorcerer can outblast a warmage sure. But blasting doesn't get you into tier 2. What do you do outside of combat? Sorcerer gets a lot more options to do a lot more than just blast. Having a few AoE blasts is enough the vast majority of the time, and combat can be solved in many ways more than throw damage at it. You can optimize a blaster to silly levels mailman style, but if that is all you do its not enough for tier 2. You can be amazing at that, but what do you do when blasting is not a reasonable answer to a solution?

I'd just like to point out that I wasn't even using feats there. Just naming small clusters of spells known I don't think warmage gets without significant feat usage, and even then isn't getting the main benefits of being a warmage on any of it if they go that way.

[eggynack]

Honestly, minus learning and the ability to move up with feats and such, I was almost inclined to put them in four myself. You can't do anything but combat, and in combat you can do almost nothing but damage. That the BFC is there helps, but it's nothing crazy. Stop even considering sorcerer for a second. How does this class compare to a crusader or warblade? Yeah, the warmage has some advantage from being able to operate at range, but I wouldn't say that the warmage is anywhere close to strictly advantaged in combat situations compared to them. And people have argued that these less non-combat ToB classes are tier four. Use learning wisely, maybe pick up spell adding feat, and you're very likely outshining those classes, but that addition only really pushes the warmage from tier four to three, if you think warblade is four, or from lowish three to highish three, if you think warblade is a three. Two strikes me as crazy out of range.

[Deophaun]

but checking Deophaun for example found only one vote where three could have been intended.
Sorry, I came into this thread without the context, so no formal vote.

Beguiler without UMD: 3/4/2, depending on DM's interpretation of Diplomacy rules
Beguiler with UMD: 2/1

Dread Necromancer without UMD: 2/3
Dread Necromancer with UMD: 2/1

Warmage without UMD: 4/3
Warmage with UMD: 3/2

Use whichever value best fits your conception of what the tier measures.

[eggynack]

Sorry, I came into this thread without the context, so no formal vote.

Beguiler without UMD: 3/4/2, depending on DM's interpretation of Diplomacy rules
Beguiler with UMD: 2/1

Dread Necromancer without UMD: 2/3
Dread Necromancer with UMD: 2/1

Warmage without UMD: 4/3
Warmage with UMD: 3/2

Use whichever value best fits your conception of what the tier measures.
I mean, UMD is a factor, but we're certainly not assuming it's universally heavily used. Also, we're skipping on the rank choice voting for this one. So, I guess I'll just put it down as 3, 2, and 4 for now.

[Fizban]

Stop even considering sorcerer for a second. How does this class compare to a crusader or warblade? Yeah, the warmage has some advantage from being able to operate at range, but I wouldn't say that the warmage is anywhere close to strictly advantaged in combat situations compared to them.
I think this is the first time I've ever seen anyone argue that a full caster could possibly not be at an advantage compared to a non-caster. Baseline, the Warmage drops gobs of damage at range and has what, like 2/3 of the best BC spells in the PHB? Optimize the melee character and for the same amount of effort the Warmage becomes no-save-just die. But once you say the D word people stop paying attention to anything other than damage, and the degree to which people ignore hitting things from hundreds of feet away is astonishing.

And people have argued that these less non-combat ToB classes are tier four. Use learning wisely, maybe pick up spell adding feat, and you're very likely outshining those classes, but that addition only really pushes the warmage from tier four to three, if you think warblade is four, or from lowish three to highish three, if you think warblade is a three. Two strikes me as crazy out of range.
That's because their tiers are wrong, and as we go I'm better pinning down why: I'm talking about comparing the classes to each other, and everyone else is talking about Potential Campaign ImpactTM. Being able to kill things isn't valued because it's just not flashy enough, even though it's the only challenge the rules explicitly and thoroughly endorse, and the more optimized the gamer the less they value it when they know all the other things they could try getting away with.

I don't care that mind control is OP because it can take over the government, or that undead have X different types of cheese, or basically anything about Planar Binding (no one cares about Planar Binding). All of those depend entirely on the campaign, and anyone who can understand the concept of mind control already knows that if you let someone run loose with it they can do more than a fireball. That doesn't need a tier, it's freaking obvious. What needs a tier is how effective each class is at doing mind control, the same as you need to know how effective each class it as doing damage or any other wheelhouse.

So, yeah, that's what it looks like. Why are we arguing about something so obvious as weather or not mind control has broader applications than blasting? Why are people so gung-ho about a tier system that's wasting its time telling people things they already know?

Edit: I've been crossposting the meta-discussion in the main thread.

[ryu]

I think this is the first time I've ever seen anyone argue that a full caster could possibly not be at an advantage compared to a non-caster. Baseline, the Warmage drops gobs of damage at range and has what, like 2/3 of the best BC spells in the PHB? Optimize the melee character and for the same amount of effort the Warmage becomes no-save-just die. But once you say the D word people stop paying attention to anything other than damage, and the degree to which people ignore hitting things from hundreds of feet away is astonishing.

That's because their tiers are wrong, and as we go I'm better pinning down why: I'm talking about comparing the classes to each other, and everyone else is talking about Potential Campaign ImpactTM. Being able to kill things isn't valued because it's just not flashy enough, even though it's the only challenge the rules explicitly and thoroughly endorse, and the more optimized the gamer the less they value it when they know all the other things they could try getting away with.

I don't care that mind control is OP because it can take over the government, or that undead have X different types of cheese, or basically anything about Planar Binding (no one cares about Planar Binding). All of those depend entirely on the campaign, and anyone who can understand the concept of mind control already knows that if you let someone run loose with it they can do more than a fireball. That doesn't need a tier, it's freaking obvious. What needs a tier is how effective each class is at doing mind control, the same as you need to know how effective each class it as doing damage or any other wheelhouse.

So, yeah, that's what it looks like. Why are we arguing about something so obvious as weather or not mind control has broader applications than blasting? Why are people so gung-ho about a tier system that's wasting its time telling people things they already know?

Because the alternative is a tier system that says objectively false things, like classes lacking some of the best tools being equal rank to those that have them. Two plus two doesn't equal five just because four is unoriginal.

[eggynack]

I think this is the first time I've ever seen anyone argue that a full caster could possibly not be at an advantage compared to a non-caster. Baseline, the Warmage drops gobs of damage at range and has what, like 2/3 of the best BC spells in the PHB? Optimize the melee character and for the same amount of effort the Warmage becomes no-save-just die. But once you say the D word people stop paying attention to anything other than damage, and the degree to which people ignore hitting things from hundreds of feet away is astonishing.
But you're a full caster that's fully casting almost nothing but damage. I'm not saying that damage is bad, but a warblade can absolutely deal damage. A crusader can absolutely deal damage. Enough damage to absolutely kill enemies they can get close enough to. Both are pretty solid at locking down the battlefield too, actually. I do think the warmage is better, perhaps even significantly so, but not nearly enough to merit a tier two.


That's because their tiers are wrong
Wrong in that you think warblades are secretly tier two? Not entirely sure what this was referring to.


And as we go I'm better pinning down why: I'm talking about comparing the classes to each other, and everyone else is talking about Potential Campaign ImpactTM. Being able to kill things isn't valued because it's just not flashy enough, even though it's the only challenge the rules explicitly and thoroughly endorse, and the more optimized the gamer the less they value it when they know all the other things they could try getting away with.

I don't care that mind control is OP because it can take over the government, or that undead have X different types of cheese, or basically anything about Planar Binding (no one cares about Planar Binding). All of those depend entirely on the campaign, and anyone who can understand the concept of mind control already knows that if you let someone run loose with it they can do more than a fireball. That doesn't need a tier, it's freaking obvious. What needs a tier is how effective each class is at doing mind control, the same as you need to know how effective each class it as doing damage or any other wheelhouse.

Killing stuff in a straightforward manner is valuable. It counts. But it doesn't really count for more than tier three on its own when things in tier two can absolutely kill stuff and also do the government takeover, or the planar binding thing, or undead shenanigans. Or, and here's something a bit less flashy, teleport. Or fly. Or handle a large quantity of social situations (glibness style). Or handle opposing magic. Or find things. Or defend against grappling (kinda trying to pull random stuff from the beguiler list starting with the glibness mention). Or locate invisible foes. These things are all damn useful. That the beguiler can mind control, and that the dread necromancer can make undead, and that the sorcerer can blast real good, these are just skimming the surface. These classes have endless utility that lets you apply yourself to non-combat situations, sure, but they also let you apply yourself in differently angled fashions to combat. This is what tier two is.



So, yeah, that's what it looks like. Why are we arguing about something so obvious as weather or not mind control has broader applications than blasting? Why are people so gung-ho about a tier system that's wasting its time telling people things they already know?
You can probably drop every charm and dominate spell from the beguiler list and still have something stronger than the warmage list. It's an incredibly potent list. That the beguiler was so often considered just a one note charm and image machine is a big part of why JaronK stuck it in tier three, and why people are putting it there now. Same for the dread necromancer. People have this vague impression that that class just sprouts into being at 8th level with animate dead. But you're blinding enemies and shooting rays and summoning undead before that, and even once you get animate dead it's standing alongside gems like dispel magic, black tentacles, and enervation. That people seem to be unaware of this stuff is a really strong indicator to me that I'm not just telling people what they already know. Whether you were knowledgeable about those elements or not, not everyone was or is. And they're gonna be a lot less knowledgeable when we return to the mountebank. Frigging weird class.

[Fizban]

Because the alternative is a tier system that says objectively false things, like classes lacking some of the best tools being equal rank to those that have them. Two plus two doesn't equal five just because four is unoriginal.
You'll have a difficult time proving X+Y=4 when X and Y are unknown. That is, trying to claim that your favorite niche is more powerful is also objectively false, because it's entirely DM dependent. There's nothing to prove. (In any case I'm not arguing further with you, since I know you can't lower your optimization/leniency expectations below your own standards).

See also the main thread, where I've been calling into question the tier definitions since the beginning. I'll point out that none of this niche worship is is in the definitions, and the fact that eggynack was mystified should have clued me in that we were in disagreement the whole time.

[ryu]

You'll have a difficult time proving X+Y=4 when X and Y are unknown. That is, trying to claim that your favorite niche is more powerful is also objectively false, because it's entirely DM dependent. There's nothing to prove. (In any case I'm not arguing further with you, since I know you can't lower your optimization/leniency expectations below your own standards).

See also the main thread, where I've been calling into question the tier definitions since the beginning. I'll point out that none of this niche worship is is in the definitions, and the fact that eggynack was mystified should have clued me in that we were in disagreement the whole time.

You don't get to argue your own position is objectively wrong, to the point where everyone including you knows, and then pretend you won. You literally admitted yourself damage is a lot less powerful than other niches, then backpedaled when I pointed it out.

[eggynack]

You'll have a difficult time proving X+Y=4 when X and Y are unknown. That is, trying to claim that your favorite niche is more powerful is also objectively false, because it's entirely DM dependent. There's nothing to prove. (In any case I'm not arguing further with you, since I know you can't lower your optimization/leniency expectations below your own standards).

See also the main thread, where I've been calling into question the tier definitions since the beginning. I'll point out that none of this niche worship is is in the definitions, and the fact that eggynack was mystified should have clued me in that we were in disagreement the whole time.
I think we might have a fundamental miscommunication here. As I noted in my above post, it's not that I think mind control is super awesome compared to blasting. Beguilers cover a ton of niches, and not just by dominating foes that cover a ton of niches. Just straight through the spell list. Dread necromancers do too, but to a perhaps lesser extent (though I like the argument from weird advanced learning use). The difference between the beguiler and the warmage is that when the warmage isn't blasting, they're casting like two BFC spells. When the beguiler isn't controlling minds and doing whatever crazy image stuff you're doing (which is already two things), they're covering a frankly ridiculous number of niches.

The essential argument for the beguiler in tier two is that you're trading some of the sorcerer's power (represented by their picking a few of the absolute best spells) for versatility (covering each of those best spells with three or more good or great ones). The warmage doesn't have that versatility. Obviously. They also don't particularly have the power, because most of the spells on their list aren't among the sorcerer's best. So, they're losing on both metrics, and cause those are more or less the only metrics, they're not gaining anywhere. Maybe mind control is better than blasting, or maybe it's worse. It matters, but it doesn't matter that much here. What matters is that the warmage covers two niches, at best, while the beguiler is covering way more, and doing so quite effectively.

[Fizban]

The difference between the beguiler and the warmage is that when the warmage isn't blasting, they're casting like two BFC spells. When the beguiler isn't controlling minds and doing whatever crazy image stuff you're doing (which is already two things), they're covering a frankly ridiculous number of niches.
Yeah, the Beguiler's pretty freakin sweet. It's far better than a Sorcerer of similar bent. So is the Beguiler now the standard of tier 2? Because I thought that was the Sorcerer. And just like the Beguiler, the Warmage trades access to some of the better spells for versatility. Yes, multiple damage types and a spread of BC (Pyrotechnics, Sleet Storm, Stinking Cloud, Black Tentacles, Acid Fog, Prismatic Wall, Prismatic Sphere) are versatility that a Sorcerer has trouble matching. The Sorcerer can spend resources to try to match it, and the Warmage can do the same to reclaim some of the abilities they gave up. The opportunity costs for either are not so huge as to make a whole tier of difference.

They also don't particularly have the power, because most of the spells on their list aren't among the sorcerer's best.
You seem to be implying I don't know what's on the Beguiler's list, maybe you should take another look at the Warmage's. The Warmage has as nearly as many of the best spells as the Sorcerer has spells known to begin with, until you start optimizing with splatbooks.

The miscommunication, as I've been working towards in the main thread, is that your definition of tier 2 requires that a class do a lot of different things. Though that is legible in the definitions you gave, I think that makes it too small of a step down from tier 1 to be considered an actual step.

[Gnaeus]

This is how I think of combat as a Tier power.
Potentially sucking at combat without trying to (monk, fighter split specced in bows and TWF) is a Tier 5 indicator.
Being good at basic combat is a Tier 4 indicator. (Barbarian)
Being good at combat while including a bunch of innate tricks to help specific challenges (able to do/resist energy damage, ranged and melee, bypass dr or incorporeals, evade grapples, etc) is a Tier 3 hallmark.
Tier 2s can do that, but also have tricks to win non combat encounters and/or win combat encounters without combat. You say that combat encounters are the only kinds that the game supports, but that's not true. How do you deal with a hallway full of traps? No, I don't think gamebreaking loops or planar binding abuse or conquering kingdoms is necessary, but I do think that they need a range of divinations, counter divinations, strategic movement tricks, tactical movement tricks, healing, trapfinding, stealth, action economy tricks, abilities to cover multiple party roles etc are involved. If you hit most or all of those, it looks T2. If not, it looks T3.
Tier 1s are just the same, but always know the best tricks. Shadow walk is a good spell for strategic movement, but the T1 can use shadow walk or teleport or wind walk or phantom steed whichever meets his needs best.

[Grim Reader]

Ah, eggynack, eggynack, do you see where the road paved with loose definitions leads you? It leads you to a place where people say the Warmage is Tier 2 because it has "as nearly as many of the best spells as the Sorcerer has spells known"

You are trying to pin down two-dimensional qualities on a one-dimensional scale. Classes vary a lot with builds, and the variation means different classes can overlap a lot. The fixed lists of the three casters means they have a higher floor than the Sorcerer who can be totally ruined by poor spell selection. But their ceiling is also less movable.

[Fizban]

You say that combat encounters are the only kinds that the game supports, but that's not true. How do you deal with a hallway full of traps?
That's why I included the "thoroughly" qualifier. Traps are supported, but not as a major element. Traps/rogues have some of the chicken/egg problem, some tables completely eschew them and even some printed campaigns will have only a couple. Being able to deal with traps is nice, but it's also one of the lower cost things to find alternative solutions for.

Doesn't mean handling them isn't a bonus, but I don't think they're significant enough to warrant a whole tier step. The game only asks specialist characters to be able to handle non-combat encounters: you're supposed to have a rogue for traps, and you're not required to have anyone for social. You're only prevented from joining in those encounters if your DM forces you to keep your mouth shut when you have ideas that don't match your character's skills.

Ah, eggynack, eggynack, do you see where the road paved with loose definitions leads you? It leads you to a place where people say the Warmage is Tier 2 because it has "as nearly as many of the best spells as the Sorcerer has spells known"
Plus as many of the second best spells as the Sorcerer has spells known, plus some bonus feats and enough expansion to match what I'd call a moderate level of optimization. And it's not so much the looseness of the definition as my rejection of it.

[Aimeryan]

Guys, if you want to talk about how the tiers should work and what the definitions are please use the Home Base thread. A bunch of us do have some good material we have posted there and I wouldn't mind you interacting with that. Spreading the conversation just results in us all shouting at our own private walls and expecting to get somewhere with it.

[Bucky]

Here are some things I'd look for out of a tier 2 fixed list caster:
* The ability to prevent enemy chargers from charging by level ~3
* The ability to kill a burrowing creature by level ~9, if the burrowing creature never surfaces
* The ability to destroy a fortification, or kill all its inhabitants without entering, by level ~11
* The ability to devastate an enemy army with far more low level soldiers than he has spell slots by level ~13
* Some way to not lose a fight to "enemy wins initiative and hits you with Finger of Death" by level ~ 13
* The ability to ignore large amounts of incoming damage at level 20, or buff someone to ignore that damage

How many of these can a warmage do?

[Troacctid]

I've played Warmages and I've DM'd for Warmages, and in my experience, power-wise, the classes they are most comparable to are Warblade and Crusader. Their damage output is not far off, and they trade away durability in exchange for range and crowd control, which is a fair trade. And in both cases, the classes tend to be very strong in combat, filling multiple combat niches very easily, but they also tend to feel left out of exploration and interaction scenes, where they have little to contribute.

Combat is more important than any other aspect of D&D for evaluating power level. However, I am reluctant to put a class in T2 if it can't excel in all three pillars of the game.

[Cosi]

If only Fizban had some kind of objective rubric he could fall back on to determine if classes performed comparably. Some kind of test to see if they're playing the same game.


I don't actually think the Warmage is T2 though. Maybe you get there with optimized Eclectic Learning spells, but realistically, your power level is more likely to be closer to the Warblade and Crusader than the Sorcerer and Beguiler. I put it in T3.

The Warmage's problem is that its base list is much worse than the Beguiler or Dread Necromancer, and not any easier to optimize than those lists are. So however much effort you pump into the class, the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer will be ahead. The Beguiler has enough stuff between its list and class features to compete with the Sorcerer, while the Warmage needs to get feats and probably at least a little oomph beyond that to reach that level, at which point the Beguiler is running around with four or five extra spells at each level, a sack of Knowstones, and a Prestige Domain with an Eternal Wand of substitute domain.


Here are some things I'd look for out of a tier 2 fixed list caster:
* The ability to prevent enemy chargers from charging by level ~3
* The ability to kill a burrowing creature by level ~9, if the burrowing creature never surfaces
* The ability to destroy a fortification, or kill all its inhabitants without entering, by level ~11
* The ability to devastate an enemy army with far more low level soldiers than he has spell slots by level ~13
* Some way to not lose a fight to "enemy wins initiative and hits you with Finger of Death" by level ~ 13
* The ability to ignore large amounts of incoming damage at level 20, or buff someone to ignore that damage

How many of these can a warmage do?

Some of those things seem kind of tough for a Sorcerer to do without some cheese. Like, beating an army in D&D is actually kind of hard (barring minionmancy cheese), because all your spells are designed for use in a dungeon environment.


Combat is more important than any other aspect of D&D for evaluating power level. However, I am reluctant to put a class in T2 if it can't excel in all three pillars of the game.

I think it would be reasonable to weight combat more, but the tiers don't really do that. It also feels really weird to not have some kind of penalty for a class that is comparatively effective in combat, but much less useful outside it.

[Aimeryan]

I think it would be reasonable to weight combat more, but the tiers don't really do that. It also feels really weird to not have some kind of penalty for a class that is comparatively effective in combat, but much less useful outside it.

I agree. You could do that, but its not what is being done here, nor even in JaronK's system which was stated somewhere to weigh it as something like 75% combat 25% other (I honestly can not find this anywhere, now; I'm sure I read it, though).

To be honest, I would probably be more partial to a tier system that looked at combat, adventure, and social contribution separately. It would solve one of my biggest complaints with the tier system; not telling people that a class you put in Tier 3 can be useless for half of a campaign because the DM happens to favour adventure and social as much as combat. However, I doubt this would get much traction as it is too complex for many people (seriously, any attempt to use more than one number for tiering seems to be taboo).

[Dagroth]

I read a lot about Battlefield control and such... and I've found that will a well-coordinated group of players, battlefield control is a minor issue most of the time.

Here's how I see combat for each of these three classes:

"Look out, it's a bunch of class-leveled Orcs!"
Warmage: "Boom! They're dead."
Beguiler: "Okay, I control these guys to kill those guys and the rest I just sleep/fog/distract until I can take control of some of them to kill the others."
Dread Necro: "First my Undead go out... then whenever one of the Orcs dies, he joins my army to kill the others."

"Look out, it's a group of Golems!"
Warmage: "Boom! They're dead."
Beguiler: "Uh...."
Dread Necro: "Tough fight for my Undead... hope they can handle it."

"Look out, it's a Dragon!"
Warmage: "Boom! It's dead."
Beguiler: "Uh... I think I can distract it or maybe mind control it for a bit..."
Dread Necro: "Tough fight for my Undead... good thing I've got fliers. This will make a great addition to my army!"

"Hey, we need to negotiate with the guards..."
Warmage: "Boom! They're dead.... oops!"
Beguiler: "I got this... we're already best friends. In fact, they're going to introduce us to their teenage daughters!"
Dread Necro: "Better hide the Undead army... but man, those guards would make great additions..."

[Cosi]

To be honest, I would probably be more partial to a tier system that looked at combat, adventure, and social contribution separately. It would solve one of my biggest complaints with the tier system; not telling people that a class you put in Tier 3 can be useless for half of a campaign because the DM happens to favour adventure and social as much as combat. However, I doubt this would get much traction as it is too complex for many people (seriously, any attempt to use more than one number for tiering seems to be taboo).

I don't think campaign balance is something you should address in the Tier Rankings per say. That seems like something that belongs in the "why each class is in its tier" section, which is probably the more important part of the exercise for something this theory driven.


"Look out, it's a group of Golems!"
Warmage: "Boom! They're dead."
Beguiler: "Uh...."
Dread Necro: "Tough fight for my Undead... hope they can handle it."

Beguilers automatically beat Golems. Golems are mindless, and follow a set program. That program does not include "walk through walls", so they can be defeated by a silent image, which the Beguiler can cast a first level.

[AnachroNinja]

I'm going to somewhat agree with Fizban in that I think there is a wide area of optimization where Warmage is T2 right along side beguilers and dread necros. Damage is a very good hammer to take to any number of problems, and they can easily expand their list to tackle other kinds of issues. Arguably it's much easier for a Warmage to expand to full other roles then it is for the others to match the warmage in his role. Right out of the gate, the warmage falls behind, but the higher the optimization the more then close the gap.

[Troacctid]

Beguilers automatically beat Golems. Golems are mindless, and follow a set program. That program does not include "walk through walls", so they can be defeated by a silent image, which the Beguiler can cast a first level.
Unless it includes "Punch through walls."

[Dagroth]

Unless it includes "Punch through walls."

True... or "Kill anyone who is in this room besides me". If something impedes the Golem's ability to see/sense if anyone is in the room, that object is preventing the Golem from following orders and thus needs to be removed.

Silent Image, really? I suppose Cosi thinks that throwing a sheet over a Golem's head will stop it from attacking too!

[Cosi]

Unless it includes "Punch through walls."

I mean sure, but you fortress is probably not long for this world if fill it with guardians programmed to punch its walls into oblivion.


True... or "Kill anyone who is in this room besides me". If something impedes the Golem's ability to see/sense if anyone is in the room, that object is preventing the Golem from following orders and thus needs to be removed.

The Golem doesn't know what "this room" means. It's mindless. The entire point of mindless enemies is that they have a program and it is very easy to defeat them if you can exploit that program. By, for example, altering the parameters of their environment. Or wearing whatever insignia triggers their "don't attack" routine. This is why giant vermin have such massive melee stats for their CR. You don't beat a mindless thing by punching it to death, you beat it by exploiting its inability to act tactically.

[Deophaun]

Silent Image, really? I suppose Cosi thinks that throwing a sheet over a Golem's head will stop it from attacking too!
Well... yeah... it would. Mindless creatures are mindless.

But it's not like golems aren't inherently vulnerable to magic users already, due to the 3.5 update forgetting that golems are magic items and dispel magic is SR: No.

[danielxcutter]

Well... yeah... it would. Mindless creatures are mindless.

But it's not like golems aren't inherently vulnerable to magic users already, due to the 3.5 update forgetting that golems are magic items and dispel magic is SR: No.

Holy smokesticks, really? And I thought golems would be fairly decent against most casters without Forcecage at least, but guess not.

[eggynack]

Yeah, the Beguiler's pretty freakin sweet. It's far better than a Sorcerer of similar bent. So is the Beguiler now the standard of tier 2? Because I thought that was the Sorcerer. And just like the Beguiler, the Warmage trades access to some of the better spells for versatility. Yes, multiple damage types and a spread of BC (Pyrotechnics, Sleet Storm, Stinking Cloud, Black Tentacles, Acid Fog, Prismatic Wall, Prismatic Sphere) are versatility that a Sorcerer has trouble matching. The Sorcerer can spend resources to try to match it, and the Warmage can do the same to reclaim some of the abilities they gave up. The opportunity costs for either are not so huge as to make a whole tier of difference.
That is not versatility that a sorcerer has trouble matching. It's like two things. Blasting and BFC. A sorcerer can easily build a list that can blast, BFC, buff, move around, learn stuff, and a bunch of other things besides. One of those two things is a good thing, but I dunno why we'd start overly prizing a particular niche now after you talked down that notion before. The sorcerer doesn't particularly want or need to spend a mass of resources to match a warmage's blasting. Just picking up an orb of fire and maybe something else to cover you at lower levels (which you might trade out) seems fine. Not warmage good, but the sorcerer is never going to perfectly match these fixed list casters in their core competency.



You seem to be implying I don't know what's on the Beguiler's list, maybe you should take another look at the Warmage's. The Warmage has as nearly as many of the best spells as the Sorcerer has spells known to begin with, until you start optimizing with splatbooks.
You were arguing that I was somehow tied to the mind control niche in arguing beguiler for tier two. That implies that they don't cover a bunch of other niches.


The miscommunication, as I've been working towards in the main thread, is that your definition of tier 2 requires that a class do a lot of different things. Though that is legible in the definitions you gave, I think that makes it too small of a step down from tier 1 to be considered an actual step.
I think it's a meaningful step. Wizards are significantly better than sorcerers, beguilers, and favored souls, in my opinion. So are clerics and druids. A tier two class can do a lot of different things. A tier one class can do way more things.


Ah, eggynack, eggynack, do you see where the road paved with loose definitions leads you? It leads you to a place where people say the Warmage is Tier 2 because it has "as nearly as many of the best spells as the Sorcerer has spells known"

You are trying to pin down two-dimensional qualities on a one-dimensional scale. Classes vary a lot with builds, and the variation means different classes can overlap a lot. The fixed lists of the three casters means they have a higher floor than the Sorcerer who can be totally ruined by poor spell selection. But their ceiling is also less movable.
What? No. Me and Fizban have some weird kinda fundamental disconnect about what the tiers should actually be in the first place. Warmages clearly aren't very good at solving nearly all problems, or incredibly good at solving most problems. Cause they can't do crap outside of the combat sphere. Fizban is disagreeing with the notion that consideration of those factors makes sense in the definitions, in a sense.


That's why I included the "thoroughly" qualifier. Traps are supported, but not as a major element. Traps/rogues have some of the chicken/egg problem, some tables completely eschew them and even some printed campaigns will have only a couple. Being able to deal with traps is nice, but it's also one of the lower cost things to find alternative solutions for.

Doesn't mean handling them isn't a bonus, but I don't think they're significant enough to warrant a whole tier step. The game only asks specialist characters to be able to handle non-combat encounters: you're supposed to have a rogue for traps, and you're not required to have anyone for social. You're only prevented from joining in those encounters if your DM forces you to keep your mouth shut when you have ideas that don't match your character's skills.
As I implied above, it seems a lot like you're doing the very thing that you've been accusing me of, and accusing others of on a hypothetical basis within the context of the system. All niches are pretty much equal, and people will try to slot theirs higher than other niches, but suddenly the ability to deal with traps isn't on the same level as blasting, and is instead just a bonus. I get where you're coming from in ranking these niches this way, but you must admit that you're absolutely ranking niches. Especiall


Guys, if you want to talk about how the tiers should work and what the definitions are please use the Home Base thread. A bunch of us do have some good material we have posted there and I wouldn't mind you interacting with that. Spreading the conversation just results in us all shouting at our own private walls and expecting to get somewhere with it.
It's a tricky thing. There's this discussion about the fundamental nature of tiering, which absolutely fits in the other thread, but there's this other major part of it that's about the nature of tiering as it specifically applies to the warmage. And, to the extent we're talking warmage, I'd probably prefer that we talk it here. Grim Reader's post is arguably something that'd fit better elsewhere, but it's also kinda a direct response to stuff we're talking about here. I'm beginning to think that some degree of overlap is inevitable.



Combat is more important than any other aspect of D&D for evaluating power level. However, I am reluctant to put a class in T2 if it can't excel in all three pillars of the game.
Yeah, this about covers my thinking. This other stuff is absolutely a thing, even if it's not the same as combat. Also, I do have to note, I think that beguilers are probably better at combat. Just because you can, for the sake of example, deal with an enemy that's invisible in a reasonably efficient manner.


I'm going to somewhat agree with Fizban in that I think there is a wide area of optimization where Warmage is T2 right along side beguilers and dread necros. Damage is a very good hammer to take to any number of problems, and they can easily expand their list to tackle other kinds of issues. Arguably it's much easier for a Warmage to expand to full other roles then it is for the others to match the warmage in his role. Right out of the gate, the warmage falls behind, but the higher the optimization the more then close the gap.
I don't think I'd ever put warmage on the same level as the other two fixed list casters. The beguiler and dread necro list seem just better to me. However, interestingly, there's a solid argument to be made for warmage as better than a sorcerer at low optimization. Cause, y'know, the sorcerer floor is awful. My feeling is that we've been emphasizing higher optimization situations than that though.

[AnachroNinja]

Well the thing is, a Warmage who grabs arcane disciple undeath is a pretty good Necromancer. And if he grabs arcane disciple domination he can do minionmancy pretty well. Not amazing in either case, but he can definitely get the job done, whereas it's pretty hard for a Beguiler or dread necromancer to really get a good variety of damage stuff going. Sand shaper also benefits the war mage a lot. Not saying they are really equal overall, just that the Warmage has more room to grow in some ways.

[Fizban]

If only Fizban had some kind of objective rubric he could fall back on to determine if classes performed comparably. Some kind of test to see if they're playing the same game.
Yeah, too bad it doesn't exist. Well, actually. . .

That is not versatility that a sorcerer has trouble matching. It's like two things. Blasting and BFC. A sorcerer can easily build a list that can blast, BFC, buff, move around, learn stuff, and a bunch of other things besides. One of those two things is a good thing, but I dunno why we'd start overly prizing a particular niche now after you talked down that notion before. The sorcerer doesn't particularly want or need to spend a mass of resources to match a warmage's blasting. Just picking up an orb of fire and maybe something else to cover you at lower levels (which you might trade out) seems fine. Not warmage good, but the sorcerer is never going to perfectly match these fixed list casters in their core competency.
You're confusing "has one or two spells that does this," with "has a bunch of different spells that does this." A Sorcerer gets one (1) new spell when they access a new level of spells known. A Warmage gets half a dozen or more. In what possible world does the Sorcerer's one or two outdated or restricted options compare with the warmage's whole new slate? Not until you start applying Sculpt Spell and Energy Substitution does it come close, and that's two feats. Only if you look at BC while ignoring all the blasting that is the focus of a blasting build, or demand particular splat spells that the Warmage has more trouble getting.

As I implied above, it seems a lot like you're doing the very thing that you've been accusing me of, and accusing others of on a hypothetical basis within the context of the system. All niches are pretty much equal, and people will try to slot theirs higher than other niches, but suddenly the ability to deal with traps isn't on the same level as blasting, and is instead just a bonus. I get where you're coming from in ranking these niches this way, but you must admit that you're absolutely ranking niches.
Because one, dealing with traps is not the primary function of a mind mage (or any kind of mage), and two, if we're going to start talking about objective measure as Cosi wants to needle me: there is an objective measure. It's combat. The only system the game thoroughly supports and tests by having books and books of monsters meant to be overcome by a group of four adventurers. Substitute and check. I don't care how you do your combat, blast mind control undead whatever, as long as you're as good at it as the best of that type. If there are fringe benefits, that's nice, they're probably fairly obvious. If you can do extra things, that's also nice, but unless you entirely co-opt multiple magical specializations I don't think you're actually better than any magical specialist. Wizards can do that, Beguilers can't, so as great as Beguiler is it doesn't deserve a whole tier higher than Warmage, and Sorcerer certainly doesn't.

It seems to me that if you're going to use something like what Troacctid called the "three pillars," you need to define those pillars first. What niches are important enough to get you to a tier, and how many you need for the next tier. Like I already suggested in the main thread.

Cause, y'know, the sorcerer floor is awful. My feeling is that we've been emphasizing higher optimization situations than that though.
Which is why you need a definition of optimization. I provided mine, in the main thread. Of course I've already had half a dozen arguments with Cosi and ryu and others over what amount of optimization the game expects, and the takeaway has been that a lot of people just can't go as low as they think they can. I say moderate optimization is stuff from the same book or one or two things from book further away, and other people seem to think moderate optimization is anything that's not an infinite cheese loop.

[eggynack]

You're confusing "has one or two spells that does this," with "has a bunch of different spells that does this." A Sorcerer gets one (1) new spell when they access a new level of spells known. A Warmage gets half a dozen or more. In what possible world does the Sorcerer's one or two outdated or restricted options compare with the warmage's whole new slate? Not until you start applying Sculpt Spell and Energy Substitution does it come close, and that's two feats. Only if you look at BC while ignoring all the blasting that is the focus of a blasting build, or demand particular splat spells that the Warmage has more trouble getting.
Damage spells tend to be a bit samey. One is solid, if perhaps not on the same level as what a warmage is doing. Maybe make the orb into an orb of force, to cover the broad range of energy immune foes, and make the second spell a fireball, to handle groups, and you're covering a lot of this ground. Are you blasting as well as a warmage? No. But that's not the overriding criteria for all tiering.


Because one, dealing with traps is not the primary function of a mind mage (or any kind of mage)
Fair. I thought you were disparaging the niche in general.


And two, if we're going to start talking about objective measure as Cosi wants to needle me: there is an objective measure. It's combat. The only system the game thoroughly supports and tests by having books and books of monsters meant to be overcome by a group of four adventurers. Substitute and check. I don't care how you do your combat, blast mind control undead whatever, as long as you're as good at it as the best of that type. If there are fringe benefits, that's nice, they're probably fairly obvious. If you can do extra things, that's also nice, but unless you entirely co-opt multiple magical specializations I don't think you're actually better than any magical specialist. Wizards can do that, Beguilers can't, so as great as Beguiler is it doesn't deserve a whole tier higher than Warmage, and Sorcerer certainly doesn't.
This combat only measure isn't the thing we're using here. Non-combat counts. On a more individual level, scouting, general information gathering, travel, traps, diplomacy, these things and others all count. As for extra things, it's not about being better within niches than a specialist in that area. It's about just being able to do a variety of things. Can another class spot hidden foes better than a beguiler? Sure. That doesn't suddenly eliminate the value of see invisible, glitterdust, and true seeing. And, notably, the warmage is way way worse at dealing with such foes. Do other classes have more comprehensive and potent defenses than a beguiler? Sure. But that also doesn't eliminate the value of mirror image and invisibility.


It seems to me that if you're going to use something like what Troacctid called the "three pillars," you need to define those pillars first. What niches are important enough to get you to a tier, and how many you need for the next tier. Like I already suggested in the main thread.

Actually don't remember what the third one was. She mentioned it awhile back. First two were social and combat. I'd assume the third covers whatever remains. You can also organize it in something like the niche ranking system. There, the warmage might get a 1 in ranged damage, a 1 or 2 in BFC, and then a whole lot of 4's. Comparatively, the sorcerer, an instantiated one rather than the class as a whole, might get a 2 in ranged damage, a 1 or 2 in BFC, and then a bunch more 1's and 2's along with some categories that have 4's. That you're falling behind somewhat in ranged damage isn't a big deal compared to all these advantages.


Which is why you need a definition of optimization. I provided mine, in the main thread. Of course I've already had half a dozen arguments with Cosi and ryu and others over what amount of optimization the game expects, and the takeaway has been that a lot of people just can't go as low as they think they can. I say moderate optimization is stuff from the same book or one or two things from book further away, and other people seem to think moderate optimization is anything that's not an infinite cheese loop.
Yeah, it's not perfect. I don't think there's ever going to be one unifying answer. It helps when you can average those moderate optimization situations with low optimization situations, because it means that people that consider single book use low optimization will still consider those scenarios.

[Troacctid]

Also, I do have to note, I think that beguilers are probably better at combat. Just because you can, for the sake of example, deal with an enemy that's invisible in a reasonably efficient manner.
Like half the Warmage's spells are AoE. They're not going to have trouble with invisible enemies.


Actually don't remember what the third one was. She mentioned it awhile back. First two were social and combat. I'd assume the third covers whatever remains. You can also organize it in something like the niche ranking system. There, the warmage might get a 1 in ranged damage, a 1 or 2 in BFC, and then a whole lot of 4's. Comparatively, the sorcerer, an instantiated one rather than the class as a whole, might get a 2 in ranged damage, a 1 or 2 in BFC, and then a bunch more 1's and 2's along with some categories that have 4's. That you're falling behind somewhat in ranged damage isn't a big deal compared to all these advantages.
The three pillars of the game (as described in 5th Edition) are Combat, Exploration, and Interaction. Most scenes in a D&D game fall into those three categories. All three are pretty broad.


Damage spells tend to be a bit samey. One is solid, if perhaps not on the same level as what a warmage is doing. Maybe make the orb into an orb of force, to cover the broad range of energy immune foes, and make the second spell a fireball, to handle groups, and you're covering a lot of this ground. Are you blasting as well as a warmage? No. But that's not the overriding criteria for all tiering.
The better contrast is of course the Psion, who gets a 4-for-1 deal on all her blasting powers.

[eggynack]

Like half the Warmage's spells are AoE. They're not going to have trouble with invisible enemies.
They might. Don't always know the general area of the thing you're attacking.



The three pillars of the game (as described in 5th Edition) are Combat, Exploration, and Interaction. Most scenes in a D&D game fall into those three categories. All three are pretty broad.
Makes sense.

[Dagroth]

The biggest advantage to having a wide variety of damaging spells is always having a spell that will damage any foe you encounter. Fire Giants, Golems, Dragons, Frost Worms, Undead, Constructs, Oozes, Swarms, Plants, Fey, Devils, Slaadi, Djinni, Xorn, Eldarin, Ghosts, Objects, Armies... The Warmage doesn't care. If it's a thing, he can blast it.

The Sorcerer can't say that. Sure, there's a couple of spells that are pretty universal (Force Orb being one)... but the Warmage is killing things faster and with fewer spells. Every time.

Edit: He's even better at it than the Wizard... because he doesn't have to prepare ahead of time for whatever he's killing that day.

[ryu]

The biggest advantage to having a wide variety of damaging spells is always having a spell that will damage any foe you encounter. Fire Giants, Golems, Dragons, Frost Worms, Undead, Constructs, Oozes, Swarms, Plants, Fey, Devils, Slaadi, Djinni, Xorn, Eldarin, Ghosts, Objects, Armies... The Warmage doesn't care. If it's a thing, he can blast it.

The Sorcerer can't say that. Sure, there's a couple of spells that are pretty universal (Force Orb being one)... but the Warmage is killing things faster and with fewer spells. Every time.

Edit: He's even better at it than the Wizard... because he doesn't have to prepare ahead of time for whatever he's killing that day.

Thing is, the warmage isn't actually better at dealing with those highly resistant things, because the other two have access to ways of solving those encounters that sidestep the issue entirely. It's only when they throw away their advantages for nothing and pretend to be warlocks that you have any place to call them inefficient.

[Grim Reader]

Not warmage good, but the sorcerer is never going to perfectly match these fixed list casters in their core competency.

The Mailman was here. Wanted a word with you. Something about goats.

[eggynack]

The Mailman was here. Wanted a word with you. Something about goats.
I guess. As was noted though, if the sorcerer is investing a lot in blasting, the warmage could probably invest in sorcerer stuff that helps with blasting. Either way, makes some sense to revise it down to that the sorcerer will rarely match the warmage in its core competency.

[Grim Reader]

I guess. As was noted though, if the sorcerer is investing a lot in blasting, the warmage could probably invest in sorcerer stuff that helps with blasting. Either way, makes some sense to revise it down to that the sorcerer will rarely match the warmage in its core competency.

It depends on how much the Sorcerer is willing to invest. I'm pretty sure the Mailman has spell picks and other resources left over. I believe the Warmages core competency requires much less in the way of resources for the Sorcerer to match than the other fixed-list casters. In part because the Sorcerer has access to better blasting spells than the Warmage.

But that discussion has been had. I wonder if the old "Goats in Hell" thread is accessible on the Wayback Machine or something?

[Dagroth]

The Mailman was here. Wanted a word with you. Something about goats.

Yeah... all the Feats & Classes that the Mailman qualifies for? So does the Warmage. Sure, there are some spells he can't get... but he can get the Spell Domain for Anyspell & Greater Anyspell. :smallbiggrin:

Here's your mail... I put it all in a box. And the box explodes. And so does the mail.

[eggynack]

Yeah... all the Feats & Classes that the Mailman qualifies for? So does the Warmage. Sure, there are some spells he can't get... but he can get the Spell Domain for Anyspell & Greater Anyspell. :smallbiggrin:

I don't think this works. Anyspell demands preparation all over the place.

[ryu]

Yeah... all the Feats & Classes that the Mailman qualifies for? So does the Warmage. Sure, there are some spells he can't get... but he can get the Spell Domain for Anyspell & Greater Anyspell. :smallbiggrin:

Here's your mail... I put it all in a box. And the box explodes. And so does the mail.

Your point? Mailman already consistently ends encounters on their first move AND can do other things besides. There's no point in giving up build resources to further optimize It's/they're dead damage.

[Troacctid]

I mean. Eclectic Learning. *shrug*

[Dagroth]

Your point? Mailman already consistently ends encounters on their first move AND can do other things besides. There's no point in giving up build resources to further optimize It's/they're dead damage.

The suggested spell list for the Mailman doesn't have much at all besides Blasting and Going First.

With the exact same feats, the Warmage isn't going first quite as often to be sure... (again, Anyspell & Greater Anyspell can help with that, as well as eclectic learning) but he's still going to be doing as much or more damage and it will be damage that targets any vulnerabilities that the enemies have as well. Thus, not needing as much metamagic/higher level spell slots.

[eggynack]

The suggested spell list for the Mailman doesn't have much at all besides Blasting and Going First.
Is the suggested spell list "full" as it were?



(again, Anyspell & Greater Anyspell can help with that, as well as eclectic learning)
Eclectic learning is cool and all, but still very much not convinced on anyspell, obviously.

[ryu]

Is the suggested spell list "full" as it were?


Eclectic learning is cool and all, but still very much not convinced on anyspell, obviously.

Even if it is you don't need an entire sorcerer's spells known to cover most of what a mailman is good for. Reliably kill whatever you're facing, while going first, and also do several other things competently? Easy game.

[Grim Reader]

Yeah... all the Feats & Classes that the Mailman qualifies for? So does the Warmage. Sure, there are some spells he can't get... but he can get the Spell Domain for Anyspell & Greater Anyspell.

Anyspell and Greater Anyspell needs to be prepared in your Domain slots.

[Grim Reader]

Ah, yes, here we are... By the power of the Wayback machine, I summon the old WoTC thread:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080221210646/http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=963854

[Troacctid]

Ah, yes, here we are... By the power of the Wayback machine, I summon the old WoTC thread:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080221210646/http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=963854

Tell me, what do you take for your Warmage's Eclectic Learning? Mirror Image, Fly (which you don't get until level *11*), and Spell Turning would be my choices.
Lol what

[eggynack]

Yeah, I don't disagree with all of that analysis, but that element is just bad.

[ryu]

Yeah, I don't disagree with all of that analysis, but that element is just bad.

Still though one derp doesn't change the fact that warmages blow goats for pocket change.

[eggynack]

Still though one derp doesn't change the fact that warmages blow goats for pocket change.
The man has always had a way with words.

[Gemini476]

Here are some things I'd look for out of a tier 2 fixed list caster:

[snip list]

How many of these can a warmage do?
I'm a bit bored right now, so I guess I'll just go through this. I'll try to stick primarily to the base class features, so some stuff can be solved easier if you have more feats and prestige classes. Oh, and I'll also try to stick strictly to the level given rather than go up a level to get access to the new spell level.

A lot of this is just having a hammer and seeing everything as nails, mind you.


* The ability to prevent enemy chargers from charging by level ~3
At level three the answer is "not much": only having first-level spells means that you're pretty much limited to doing 2d8+5ish(14) damage from 30ft away or 3d4+5(12.5) from 130ft and hoping that they die first. You're very much still in the "hope the Fighter can zone of control 'em" period of the magic-user life cycle.
Blowing your Advanced Learning to fight this could work, I suppose - skimming through stuff alphabetically, you could even just use Bigby's Tripping Hand (PHB2) to trip someone with a +11 bonus at 130ft.
Or just try to position Tenser's Floating Disc between you and the charger to throw off their charge by forcing them to make a DC10 "hop up" check (that also costs 10ft of movement).


* The ability to kill a burrowing creature by level ~9, if the burrowing creature never surfaces
Fun fact: AoE spells do actually destroy walls and floors in 3E. If you're really determined and kind of know where it is for whatever reason (e.g. it just attacked someone through the floor and now is lurking just beneath) then you can probably count on something like (in-class) Lightning Bolt hitting through ([9d6+7]/2-8)/15=0.75 inches of stone and opening up a one-foot hole in the ground that other party members could utilize. Or 1.425 inches of wood, or 6.12 inches of ice, or probably some other interesting number someone's made up for the hardness/hit points of ground. (Note that by default burrowing creatures can only go through dirt.)
From some googling it looks like the Stronghold Builder's Guide puts packed earth at 2 hardness / (5/6ths)hp/inch, so... well, the Lightning Bolt eats through 20.7 inches. That's 1' 8.7". You can do the same damage to the floor with Fireball, but it's less focused.
You can also Advanced Learning for Rainbow Blast's 8+2d10+(2d10/2+1d10/4)-3*hardness damage against objects - an average 25.875 before hardness, which beats Fireball/Lightning Bolt's 19.75 if the hardness is lower than 3.

It's not perfect by any means, but the Warmage does have the ability to (somewhat slowly) dig through mass amounts of dirt if necessary. Getting feats to mindslave a burrower is probably superior, though, and native to the other two classes being compared here.


* The ability to destroy a fortification, or kill all its inhabitants without entering, by level ~11
Depending on the fortification, a well-aimed Flame Strike might work. Or cast Cloudkill - targeting the top of a citadel will send it rolling down the stairs.

Avanced Learning rears its head again: Channeled Sound Blast does 10d10+INT damage, which eats through half the suggested hit points for a one-foot masonry wall. You can cast it four times. Or you can Sudden Empower it - 15d10+8 has a decent chance of eating straight through the 90hp wall, after all. By which I mean a 53.55% chance.


* The ability to devastate an enemy army with far more low level soldiers than he has spell slots by level ~13
Cloud Kill is one level behind and auto-kills enemies with 3 or less hit dice, and you can cast six of them. One being Sudden Enlarged.

Circle of Death kills 13d4HD of enemies, Chain Lightning fries fourteen, Blade Barrier stops anyone from trying to get close to you (and its +4AC combined with Armored Mage (Medium) means you don't need to worry about non-siege ranged weapons much), and if you're really bored you could try your luck with Tenser's Transformation.

Just make sure to target the archers first.

Also, you just have forty spell slots? That's not much of an army.


* Some way to not lose a fight to "enemy wins initiative and hits you with Finger of Death" by level ~ 13
Nothing much in-class, sadly. You'll have to find some other way to either not count as living or get immunity to [Death] spells. Like, say, a feat or magic item - like, I dunno, a Scarab of Protection or something. That's literally what it's there for, after all, even if it kind of sucks at its job. All you can really do in-class is cast Tenser's Transformation for +4 to physical stats and +5 to fort, which isn't really that much of an option.

You don't get access to Contingency until level 16 with Advanced Learning, so you're kind of out in the cold here. You don't have that much in the way of buffs.


* The ability to ignore large amounts of incoming damage at level 20, or buff someone to ignore that damage
Only really possible against cold and fire damage, sadly, unless you dip into Advanced Learning to grab something like Wall of Force. Or just cast Prismatic Sphere, I guess, but you need to set stuff like that up in advance of the damage being aimed at you.

You've got some debuff spells, and since offense is the best defense in 3E you might as well try your hand at that side of the equation instead? Maybe?

Or just summon a bunch of meatshields with Elemental Swarm. There's not really that many good defensive options here.

Oh wait, never mind, just have Contingency set to defensively Acid Fog anyone who looks at you funny. That'll work, right? (It probably won't work.)


tl;dr: the Warmage can technically eek it out in some of these, but doesn't have the defensive power to avoid incoming death effects or massive damage. In-class, at least. If you can nab some non-Evocation spells somehow you're better off, but for the most part you're just trying to rely on winning the damage race.

It's also not that great at the ones it succeeds at, although the AoE nature of it makes it more useful for them than the more mundane classes. A Fighter can also punch through dirt to hit the Ankheg beneath, but can't do so in a 20-foot radius. Opening a five-foot hole in a wall is less useful than a 120-foot one. (Channelled Sound Blast is kind of nuts.)

[Aimeryan]

The Warmage from what has been discussed sounds like it also falls into the Tier 3.5 category, unless its ability to expand its competence to other fields of expertise has been downplayed, in which case it would be Tier 3.

Eggynack, how are you handling Tier 3.5? I, of course, have my preference with the tiers I visually described in the Home Base thread...

Oh, I guess I'll throw my vote in for Beguiler and Dread Necromancer as Tier 2; obvious reasons given my presence in Jormengand's thread, but mostly its down to overall problem-solving ability being similar to other Tier 2s when you look at all three pillars of gameplay.

[eggynack]

The Warmage from what has been discussed sounds like it also falls into the Tier 3.5 category, unless its ability to expand its competence to other fields of expertise has been downplayed, in which case it would be Tier 3.
The class can expand its competence pretty well. Just not necessarily with the spell domain, and not enough to get it into tier two. Make good use of learning (perhaps eclectic learning), add in arcane disciple, maybe toss on a bloodline feat, and you're moving from two niches to a whole bunch.


Eggynack, how are you handling Tier 3.5? I, of course, have my preference with the tiers I visually described in the Home Base thread...
There's some logic to it as a category, but I'm not sure that the justification is sufficiently there to justify adding a new tier. This is especially because the definitions I have don't necessitate such a tier nearly so much. With the original, there was always this awkward space between one thing but decent at everything, and one thing but decent at almost nothing. Now, theoretically anyway, it should be possible to construct a reasonable line that divides this range of classes well. You don't technically have to be capable of applying your power to literally everything in order to hit tier three anymore, so the warblade could land there.

The construction of such a tier also has the problem that the gap between tiers three and four is kinda awkwardly narrow as is. Like, you're standing there saying that the warmage could fall into tier three, or it could fall into tier four, and that means tier 3.5. But what that really means is that the two tiers suffer at least somewhat from indistinguishability. Adding a seventh tier in this area could actually serve to exacerbate the problem. Say we add tier 3.5. Is the warmage at the bottom of tier three, the middle of tier 3.5, or the top of tier four? Same problem exists for the warblade. If you can't figure out which of two tiers something falls in, then putting an extra tier in the middle just means that you have three tiers to choose from instead of two.

For that reason, my thinking is no. Seems liable to generate more problems than it solves. Really, classes falling awkwardly on the line between three and four would mean deleting a tier before it'd mean adding one. I think the gap between the two tiers is wide enough that it's not in my current plans. The gap between a barbarian and a bard strikes me as a broad one. I want to be able to say that a paladin is better than a fighter without having to say that a paladin is as good as a warmage.

[Gnaeus]

That's why I included the "thoroughly" qualifier. Traps are supported, but not as a major element. Traps/rogues have some of the chicken/egg problem, some tables completely eschew them and even some printed campaigns will have only a couple. Being able to deal with traps is nice, but it's also one of the lower cost things to find alternative solutions for.

Doesn't mean handling them isn't a bonus, but I don't think they're significant enough to warrant a whole tier step. The game only asks specialist characters to be able to handle non-combat encounters: you're supposed to have a rogue for traps, and you're not required to have anyone for social. You're only prevented from joining in those encounters if your DM forces you to keep your mouth shut when you have ideas that don't match your character's skills.


While I agree, you snipped the part of my post that discussed other stuff I expect the Tier 2 to be able to handle. I don't think Beguiler is T2 because trapfinding. I think trapfinding is a part of a suite of abilities that help to make it T2 along with all the other stuff I mentioned. The fact that a warmage is worse at it than a sorcerer or Dread Necro is a mark against it.

Also, re the discussion where the warmage solved all the combat challenges with boom it's dead, let me point out that Haste generally does more damage than blasty spells and it's right there on the Beguiler list. Beguilers, before list expansion or things like shadowcraft gnomes which they also do excellently, can still more than pull their weight in the slugfest game with their nice selection of level 2-4 buffs and BFC. D&D is a team game, and pretending that blasting is a combat power but buffing isn't also radically distorts actual class power. And here I'm just talking about buffing your party melee. It ramps up quickly when you are hasting the warblade and half a dozen minions.

[Aimeryan]

The construction of such a tier also has the problem that the gap between tiers three and four is kinda awkwardly narrow as is.

I strongly disagree with this; I'll be making a post later in the Home Base thread once I've got everything ready.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Beguiler being in tier 3 is my 2nd biggest gripe with the tier system (first being that I don't think tier 1 and 2 are so different that they warrant separate tiers...you can destroy a game with 10 nukes, even if someone else has 200). they're so blatantly belonging in tier 2, They have a great spell list, can outright replace the rogue, and anything they're missing they can make up for with UMD and/or a runestaff and eternal wands.
So I'm glad to see the OP put them where they belong. Yes, it's weaker than Sorcerer, but Sorc w/ all its splat love is the pinnacle or tier 2 and IMO on par or better than some tier 1 classes, so that doesn't mean much.

Warmage...I guess low tier 3. It's not even that strong at killing things past the first few levels (where Warmage Edge actually makes a difference) compared to a good ToB or charger build, and it can't do much else besides damage and some battlefield control. Eternal Wands and PrCs to expand spell lists are what keeps it in tier 3, otherwise it might even slip to upper tier 4.

I really don't have much experience with Dread Necro, but from what I've seen they can easily make Shadow (as in the creature, which creates loyal shadow underlings from those they slay) Pyramid Schemes and such infinite undead army abuse, so probably low tier 2 for that alone.

[eggynack]

(First being that I don't think tier 1 and 2 are so different that they warrant separate tiers...you can destroy a game with 10 nukes, even if someone else has 200).
Yeah, it was always a core issue with the game breaker model of high tier tiering. The extreme example of it is this weird idea of primarily 20th level analysis you see sometimes, where one 9th and five are pretty much the same thing anyway. I think there is a meaningful difference, however, between a 6th or 8th level wizard and sorcerer. There's value in versatility when the area you're versatile in isn't strictly the application of more nukes. My feeling is that there's a place in the tier model for tier two if you focus on the generalized notion of versatility/power growth. I think that what I have got away from that issue at least somewhat, though the various divisions are always more or less hazy.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yeah, it was always a core issue with the game breaker model of high tier tiering. The extreme example of it is this weird idea of primarily 20th level analysis you see sometimes, where one 9th and five are pretty much the same thing anyway. I think there is a meaningful difference, however, between a 6th or 8th level wizard and sorcerer, however. There's value in versatility when the area you're versatile in isn't strictly the application of more nukes. My feeling is that there's a place in the tier model for tier two if you focus on the generalized notion of versatility/power growth. I think that what I have got away from that issue at least somewhat, though the various divisions are always more or less hazy.

I don't think ranking classes primarily on how much they break a game is the best model in the first place, since any actual DM is going to just ban obvious abuses like infinite loops. But if you are going to rank on there...having multiple ways to completely shatter game balance, it quickly ceases to matter how many more nukes are in your arsenal. "Tier 2" could just be merged into Tier 1 and placed on the low end, and the meaning of the tier listings wouldn't change at all.
It's like actual nukes...The U.S. and Russia may have thousands, but honestly only a small fraction of that would be enough to end humanity. Once you have several dozen of the things, there's really not much appreciable difference between you and the guy w/ 10x as many, from anyone else's perspective.

EDIT: Also, how often do you see games that advertise "Tier 3 or lower only"? I do plenty. How many do you see games that *only* ban tier 1? I've never seen that.
Everyone inherently knows the distinction between the first two tiers is trivial.

[Lans]

It depends on what break the game means. Using planar binding for multiple spell casters above your level is breaking the game in a different way than using it for wishes. Then their is things like alterself giving abilities that shouldn't readily appear for a few levels.

[eggynack]

I don't think ranking classes primarily on how much they break a game is the best model in the first place, since any actual DM is going to just ban obvious abuses like infinite loops. But if you are going to rank on there...having multiple ways to completely shatter game balance, it quickly ceases to matter how many more nukes are in your arsenal.
That's not the metric I'm using though. Kinda my point, that I think I've partially, if not entirely, avoided this issue you're citing. I mean, we're very likely to put mystic into tier two as well. That's really far off of something like a wizard.



EDIT: Also, how often do you see games that advertise "Tier 3 or lower only"? I do plenty. How many do you see games that *only* ban tier 1? I've never seen that.
Do you often see 5s but no 4s? Possible, but not too frequent, I'd figure. Close together tiers are close together. Usually. The 3/2 divide is obviously really big, but most of the tiers aren't like that. If everything were super obvious, we wouldn't be voting in the first place, y'know? I'm not sure exactly how much value is to the distinction we're noting here, but I think a distinction does exist. Probably not valuable for your cited full on tier ban scenario, but maybe valuable for figuring out what a particular character brings to the table.

It depends on what break the game means. Using planar binding for multiple spell casters above your level is breaking the game in a different way than using it for wishes. Then their is things like alterself giving abilities that shouldn't readily appear for a few levels.
Pretty much this. At 6th level, the sorcerer gets to pick a single 3rd level spell. The wizard is running up to something like four completely different ones. That strikes me as a substantial difference, even if the sorcerer still boasts a hefty stack of power.

[Aimeryan]

That's not the metric I'm using though. Kinda my point, that I think I've partially, if not entirely, avoided this issue you're citing. I mean, we're very likely to put mystic into tier two as well. That's really far off of something like a wizard.

This is true; the descriptions you use talk about losing/gaining power and versatility in order to move down/up tiers, not requiring such specifics as the ability to break the game. There is enough space via power-versatility to have six tiers and all be meaningfully different in their ability to solve various different problems, i.e., the problem space.


That aside, I agree with everything else StreamOfTheSky wrote. In particular in regard for this thread's topic, I am going to put my vote in at last for Beguiler and Dread Necromancer as being Tier 2 for all the reasons that have been discussed.

I'm less certain for Warmage. I think they fit around the same tiering as the gishes, so Tier 3 in the tiers we are using, but I don't know quite enough about their versatility to say that with conviction. If they are only strong in solving one sort of problem (that of which you apply damage towards) then, in the same way Barbarian is Tier 4, they might be Tier 4. Since it has been stated that this is not quite the case I will vote for Tier 3, but I would like to explore their possible versatility in more detail.

[Duelpersonality]

I've played Warmages and I've DM'd for Warmages, and in my experience, power-wise, the classes they are most comparable to are Warblade and Crusader. Their damage output is not far off, and they trade away durability in exchange for range and crowd control, which is a fair trade. And in both cases, the classes tend to be very strong in combat, filling multiple combat niches very easily, but they also tend to feel left out of exploration and interaction scenes, where they have little to contribute.

Combat is more important than any other aspect of D&D for evaluating power level. However, I am reluctant to put a class in T2 if it can't excel in all three pillars of the game.

I feel lie while I'm reading these responses that I have a very different style of running than most people. Maybe it's just too much value on Knowledge (history), but the warmages I've DMed for have always been able to contribute to interaction scenes fairly well.

That said, I still put them in Tier 3, with dread necromancer and beguiler in T2.

[DEMON]

Beguiler: T2
Dread Necromancer: T2.5
Warmage: T3.5

[GilesTheCleric]

Beguiler: T2
Dread Necromancer: T2.5

Is creating and controlling undead not as powerful as mind-affecting effects in your opinion?

[Bucky]

With the 'new' tier system, I think Warmage probably makes it to tier 3 on sheer power.

[Beheld]

Is creating and controlling undead not as powerful as mind-affecting effects in your opinion?

Probably the whole Beguiler having a better casting stat, better class features before PrCs, and and better spell list of all the other things.

[eggynack]

and better spell list of all the other things.
I'd tend a lot towards this one. The other factors are nice and all, but it's really the beguiler's diverse and powerful list of spells that aren't mind affecting at all that gives them their power. If it were just the features and stat, I'd consider them more likely equal in power level. As is, I think beguilers are more powerful, but not by even half a tier.

[Troacctid]

Probably the whole Beguiler having a better casting stat, better class features before PrCs, and and better spell list of all the other things.
You forgot more skill points!

But yes, Beguiler is better than Dread Necromancer for these reasons.

[DEMON]

Is creating and controlling undead not as powerful as mind-affecting effects in your opinion?

Perhaps not, depending on the campaign.

But as Beheld and Troacctid and eggy have already stated, I think the Beguiler has a more versatile spell list, as well as UMD and other skills and skill points for the levels where skills matter.

[bean illus]

Guys, if you want to talk about how the tiers should work and what the definitions are please use the Home Base thread. A bunch of us do have some good material we have posted there and I wouldn't mind you interacting with that. Spreading the conversation just results in us all shouting at our own private walls and expecting to get somewhere with it.Please?


While I agree, you snipped <....snip....>

D&D is a team game, and pretending that blasting is a combat power but buffing isn't also radically distorts actual class power. And here I'm just talking about buffing your party melee. It ramps up quickly when you are hasting the warblade and half a dozen minions.

I feel that somehow the 'i win this argument' crowd doesn't grok this the way the 'recruiting-T3 only' crowd does.
There is a certain skilled group of players who seem to feel that you're not really playing dnd until you take away all the DM's power to craft a story. They like numbers in their pile, and if their pile is bigger the game was 'won' (we all suffer the impluse).

But dnd is play. It's just a story told by older children, and some of the children like to go "boom! ... crash!" while others like to play 'tea party' (and other type of game). The market popularity of dnd is that so many
children could play this game together!
And a good dm is supposed to put those elements in according to the group.
Anyway, i'm rambling, but buffing is a thing. Social encounter is a thing. T3 is a thing.

AND i'm sometimes surprised how many folks will exclaim 'cool! 9ths, infinite damage, timestop, wish, greater anyspell, minions, divination, planar binding! oh my! ... .... and then say '... well, we shouldn't use diplomacy to tier cause it's broken (so your dm will nerf it to getting a break on hookers).

I've never had a dm unreasonably nerf diplomacy. It has always been treated as 'level appropriate', with common sense dictating that certain things are near impossible at 1st level, but a max op you can slowly gain control over kings.

One thing about diplomacy is, being a skill, you can spam it. All day every day. Now i admit that's not combat, and it's not standalone. But friends in combat is good, right?

Anyway, i'm tired, and you probably shouldn't bother reading this, lol.

I don't think i know the classes well, but it seems to me that beguiler is lower T2 (i thought upper t3 till this thread), DN is prolly T2 somewhere due to minionmancy, etc, but i only guess from what i've read, and it sounds like there are folks who think it doesn't actually play that way. Warmage is a bit limited, maybe, but strong, but lacks versatility. Seems like a very blasty T3. (please don't consider these votes, just chatter).

[eggynack]

AND i'm sometimes surprised how many folks will exclaim 'cool! 9ths, infinite damage, timestop, wish, greater anyspell, minions, divination, planar binding! oh my! ... .... and then say '... well, we shouldn't use diplomacy to tier cause it's broken (so your dm will nerf it to getting a break on hookers).
Aside from divination, which I would contend would be more of a middle-op thing, most of these objects are indeed somewhat low consideration as high op/high level game elements.



I've never had a dm unreasonably nerf diplomacy. It has always been treated as 'level appropriate', with common sense dictating that certain things are near impossible at 1st level, but a max op you can slowly gain control over kings.
But what you're describing here is very different from what diplomacy actually says it does. You don't slowly gain control over kings. You gain control over your sworn enemy (whether making a target friendly/helpful is truly "gaining control" is controversial, but it's certainly quite powerful) in a standard action, with a potentially non-existent rate of failure. The epic use of the skill can very plausibly be accessed pre-epic at moderate levels with sufficient effort, allowing you to turn your targets into fanatics, which is a whole lot more like gaining control, not in a slow manner, but within a minute. It's an incredibly powerful skill, as written. You're suggesting it's not broken by positing an alternate universe where its utility is slow transformation of targets indifferent or slightly favorable to you, where the barrier to entry could somehow be defined by character level, but that does not reflect the true insane nature of the skill at all.

[bean illus]

Aside from divination, which I would contend would be more of a middle-op thing, most of these objects are indeed somewhat low consideration as high op/high level game elements.

By divination, i meant when used with other stuff like timestop, go get greater anyspell and come back, then use another divination to get +++= on a one shot. Anyway, those were loose examples, i know most of you are better casters than i.



But what you're describing here is very different from what diplomacy actually says it does. You don't slowly gain control over kings. You gain control over your sworn enemy (whether making a target friendly/helpful is truly "gaining control" is controversial, but it's certainly quite powerful) in a standard action, with a potentially non-existent rate of failure. The epic use of the skill can very plausibly be accessed pre-epic at moderate levels with sufficient effort, allowing you to turn your targets into fanatics, which is a whole lot more like gaining control, not in a slow manner, but within a minute. It's an incredibly powerful skill, as written. You're suggesting it's not broken by positing an alternate universe where its utility is slow transformation of targets indifferent or slightly favorable to you, where the barrier to entry could somehow be defined by character level, but that does not reflect the true insane nature of the skill at all.

Not exactly what i mean. I mean i see a tendency to say (in these tier threads) 'well, we'll of course acknowledge that this long list of spells can break the game, we'll nerf them just a bit (though they can still break the game, heh). WAIT! OH NO! THAT SKILL NEEDS NERFED TO THRIFT SHOPPER EXTRAORDINAIRE!'
I'm saying that while we know that some spells need dm interpretation and nerfing, we act like just nerfing diplo a bit is HARD. So hard that instead it means people buy your beer sometimes.

Your argument about pre-epic use at mid levels is only as true as the dm supports the optimization. Such things need plot line, wbl, and an interpretation of the rule that says your enemy is listening to you, instead of fighting.
Saying that you can diplomacy during a battle is like saying that you can hide in shadow without a shadow.

And besides, you didn't address my point that at about those same levels T1 can just fry the beast, and then create an alternate universe utopia to live in (why do wizards even adventure? ego? lol)

I think the majority of a diplo nerf can be accomplished in just a few steps: No diplo during battle/etc (you have to actually be in a diplomacy encounter). Every diplo check automatically triggers a sense motive from every witness (including aid another for the defending group). And as soon at the diplomed are away from the diplomer a set of checks begins (once an hour/day/whatever).

Again, i'm just chatting. Thanks for your company. And in case you haven't heard me compliment you on your thread moderation, i'll add that here again.

[rrwoods]

FWIW, I've never been in a game where Diplomacy does what it says it does. Ever. Every DM I've played with has used it to mean some nebulous thing they decide on a case by case basis. Usually, influencing the outcome of an NPC's decision being made right now (more like Persuasion than Diplomacy; akin to Rich's fix but with less thought put into the numbers).

I don't know how well this reflects the rest of you all's experience, but there you have it.

[Troacctid]

FWIW, I've never been in a game where Diplomacy does what it says it does. Ever. Every DM I've played with has used it to mean some nebulous thing they decide on a case by case basis. Usually, influencing the outcome of an NPC's decision being made right now (more like Persuasion than Diplomacy; akin to Rich's fix but with less thought put into the numbers).

I don't know how well this reflects the rest of you all's experience, but there you have it.
I mean the rules do literally say "The DM decides" so...like...you kinda just described Diplomacy doing what it says it does.

[rrwoods]

I mean the rules do literally say "The DM decides" so...like...you kinda just described Diplomacy doing what it says it does.
Sure. But in RAW discussions it's often bandied about as essentially being mind control.

The truth is somewhere in between, right? Basically what I'm saying is, diplomacy isn't "broken" (and it isn't completely tossed aside because of how broken it is).

[eggynack]

Not exactly what i mean. I mean i see a tendency to say (in these tier threads) 'well, we'll of course acknowledge that this long list of spells can break the game, we'll nerf them just a bit (though they can still break the game, heh). WAIT! OH NO! THAT SKILL NEEDS NERFED TO THRIFT SHOPPER EXTRAORDINAIRE!'
I'm saying that while we know that some spells need dm interpretation and nerfing, we act like just nerfing diplo a bit is HARD. So hard that instead it means people buy your beer sometimes.
Dunno that nerfing it is hard. It's just necessary, and quite a bit of it needs to happen, which implies that the game object is really powerful by RAW.


Your argument about pre-epic use at mid levels is only as true as the dm supports the optimization. Such things need plot line, wbl, and an interpretation of the rule that says your enemy is listening to you, instead of fighting.
I suppose. It's a pretty sweet maneuver though.


Saying that you can diplomacy during a battle is like saying that you can hide in shadow without a shadow.

Not really. Pertinent hiding abilities tend to have explicit restrictions on their use. Diplomacy doesn't have anything that indicates it doesn't work in certain circumstances.


And besides, you didn't address my point that at about those same levels T1 can just fry the beast, and then create an alternate universe utopia to live in (why do wizards even adventure? ego? lol)
The latter is pretty high level. The former isn't even necessarily better. Diplomacy has a lot going for it compared to high tier stuff. Limited defenses, short time to bring about the effect, low cost as maneuvers go, and the end result is a friendly or helpful beast rather than a dead beast. Also, the levels aren't necessarily that high. I was talking about fanatic before as a plausible thing at mid-level with a lot of optimization, yeah? Well, getting a target from unfriendly to fanatic with an unrushed check is 60 points harder than getting them from hostile to helpful on a rushed check. 60 points is huge difference, meaning that if a mid-level character can do that fanatic thing with a ton of optimization, a lower middle character can do the helpful thing with less optimization. And you don't necessarily have to start at hostile or end at helpful either.


I think the majority of a diplo nerf can be accomplished in just a few steps: No diplo during battle/etc (you have to actually be in a diplomacy encounter). Every diplo check automatically triggers a sense motive from every witness (including aid another for the defending group). And as soon at the diplomed are away from the diplomer a set of checks begins (once an hour/day/whatever).
Plausible, I suppose. Doesn't make the actual thing uncrazy enough to consider in its RAW form though. But, yeah, the essential idea, I think, is to just assign a score of, "This makes you reasonably better at social situations," to having the skill on your list. Getting into specifics is troublesome.


Again, i'm just chatting. Thanks for your company. And in case you haven't heard me compliment you on your thread moderation, i'll add that here again.
Is all good and such.

[bean illus]

Not really. Pertinent hiding abilities tend to have explicit restrictions on their use. Diplomacy doesn't have anything that indicates it doesn't work in certain circumstances.


Just for the debate.... I don't believe the fly spell actually says you have to be in air. So if you're buried (or whatso) you could still theoretically cast the spell, but you can't actually fly.

That's approximately how i see diplomacy in a melee.

[Schattenbach]

Beguiler high T2, Dread Necromancer low T2, Warmage T3.

[Gemini476]

Just for the debate.... I don't believe the fly spell actually says you have to be in air. So if you're buried (or whatso) you could still theoretically cast the spell, but you can't actually fly.

That's approximately how i see diplomacy in a melee.


Action: Changing others' attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full-round actions). In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase. A rushed Diplomacy check (such as an attempt to head off a fight between two angry warriors) can be made as a full-round action, but you take a -10 penalty on the check.

Also, Diplomacy is another one of those things that works alright in core but falls apart terribly as more things get added - in core, a level three half-elf Bard is "only" getting +17+Cha to the check and unlikely to get more elsewhere. Before tomes come into play, the elite array half-elf is getting CHA 26: +8, in other words.

You only get auto-success at rushed checks at level... seven? And at level nine you auto-succeed even with a -2 circumstance penalty for refusing to roleplay it out. Level twelve if you want to skip magic items completely.

Yeah, no, it's completely busted. It's supposed to be something along the lines of the old-school reaction checks, except it's forced into the d20 framework and suddenly needs to contend with some characters having a +23 bonus to a 1d20 check.


Incidentally, for those who were arguing about impossible lies earlier: (was that in this thread or the Bard one?)


The bluff is way out there; almost too incredible to consider. +20
“You might find this hard to believe, but I’m actually a lammasu who’s been polymorphed into halfling form by an evil sorcerer. You know we lammasu are trustworthy, so you can believe me.”

Again, the way the d20 works means that at level ten a core Sorcerer can have a passive +20 bonus to the check and thus make outrageous lies with their Charisma check opposed by the opponent's Sense Motive. Which isn't necessarily all that good, and seems to have less miscellaneous bonuses that apply to it. Glibness and its ilk merely speed things up a bit and bring the lies online at a lower level (as well as making them more reliable).


It's really difficult to work stuff like this into the tier system, since it's largely class-agnostic stuff that's just completely busted on a fundamental level.

[bean illus]

First, i never claimed diplo isn't broken. I claimed it is as valid as most other game breakers that are kept in the convo because; 'we can't ban x, and xx, and xxx etc so we'll just keep those. wait, diplo is broken.


Also, Diplomacy is another one of those things that works alright in core but falls apart terribly as more things get added - in core, a level three half-elf Bard is "only" getting +17+Cha to the check and unlikely to get more elsewhere. Before tomes come into play, the elite array half-elf is getting CHA 26: +8, in other words.

Even starting at elite array is a dm's choice. Allowing the plot to hand a bard a game breaking tool, then calling it game breaking.... is disingenuous?


Originally Posted by PHB p.71-72
Action: Changing others' attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full-round actions). In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase. A rushed Diplomacy check (such as an attempt to head off a fight between two angry warriors) can be made as a full-round action, but you take a -10 penalty on the check.

I see that sentence as two folks in fisticuffs. Head off a fight between angry warriors is not the same as 'paid, trained, professional guards, who are protecting their home, and will be shot for treason if they don't do their job, will throw their lives away'. Not the same thing at all.


Yeah, no, it's completely busted. It's supposed to be something along the lines of the old-school reaction checks, except it's forced into the d20 framework and suddenly needs to contend with some characters having a +23 bonus to a 1d20 check.
I think i get your point, and you are right about many things


Again, the way the d20 works means that at level ten a core Sorcerer can have a passive +20 bonus to the check and thus make outrageous lies with their Charisma check opposed by the opponent's Sense Motive.

Again, some of that can be mediated by the dm in many ways to keep the Sorcerer from being quite that high.


It's really difficult to work stuff like this into the tier system, since it's largely class-agnostic stuff that's just completely busted on a fundamental level.

True. I'm not addressing diplo as less than difficult, or less than powerful. I'm addressing that SOME folks seem to throw it away casually, while allowing 50 game breaking spells/etc to remain 'because'.

[Aimeryan]

Due to the recent revelation in decimalisation, I'm changing my Warmage vote to Tier 3.5.

[Dagroth]

Again, some of that can be mediated by the dm in many ways to keep the Sorcerer from being quite that high.

How? Bluff is a class skill. Level 10 means 13 ranks. Level 10 means easy access to +2 & +4 items. Charisma is the Sorcerer's casting stat, so that means he's going to have a 20-24.

That's a base +18 to +20 Bluff.

[MHCD]

None of these three are "bad" to begin with, and all have impressive build flexibility and optimization potential, including the ability to launch any of them into tier one status without theoretical tricks.

I vote beguiler and dread necromancer T2 for the reasons already stated by others.

Warmage is a bit harder to pin down and depends on the nebulous definition of combat effectiveness. Beguilers are natural skillmonkeys, and DNs have class features of actual value, but the spell list is the greatest determiner of power and versatility for the three classes (itself placing them in T3 or higher as far as I'm concerned), and they all share similar methods of expanding it. Eclectic/advanced learning can make a big difference, and should at least make the difference for any seeking to demote WM to T4. Options that add spells known probably benefit the warmage disproportionately as it has the least versatile and most "blasty" spell list of the three to begin with.

I've seen in action a warmage who made good use of eclectic/advanced learning choices combined with necrotic cyst, cerebrosis, and a bloodline feat (he tried different methods of changing the bloodline feat before settling on one). The character was likely T1 before the nerf and T2 after - and he never touched rainbow servant or sacred exorcist.

But despite all that potential through expanding spell options, it still required dedicated feat investment and was something not unique to warmages. They have the ceiling that comes with 9th level spells, but require more work than many other full casters to reach the same level of power/versatility, particularly through feat investment.

I have a hard time saying T2 just because it's so dependent on choices outside of class features to rise from its lower floor, but it still has a lot of raw power and potential. Going by my best understanding of the hard-to-exactly-define tiers, my vote is T3, or T2.5 if decimals are allowed.

[ryu]

None of these three are "bad" to begin with, and all have impressive build flexibility and optimization potential, including the ability to launch any of them into tier one status without theoretical tricks.

I vote beguiler and dread necromancer T2 for the reasons already stated by others.

Warmage is a bit harder to pin down and depends on the nebulous definition of combat effectiveness. Beguilers are natural skillmonkeys, and DNs have class features of actual value, but the spell list is the greatest determiner of power and versatility for the three classes (itself placing them in T3 or higher as far as I'm concerned), and they all share similar methods of expanding it. Eclectic/advanced learning can make a big difference, and should at least make the difference for any seeking to demote WM to T4. Options that add spells known probably benefit the warmage disproportionately as it has the least versatile and most "blasty" spell list of the three to begin with.

I've seen in action a warmage who made good use of eclectic/advanced learning choices combined with necrotic cyst, cerebrosis, and a bloodline feat (he tried different methods of changing the bloodline feat before settling on one). The character was likely T1 before the nerf and T2 after - and he never touched rainbow servant or sacred exorcist.

But despite all that potential through expanding spell options, it still required dedicated feat investment and was something not unique to warmages. They have the ceiling that comes with 9th level spells, but require more work than many other full casters to reach the same level of power/versatility, particularly through feat investment.

I have a hard time saying T2 just because it's so dependent on choices outside of class features to rise from its lower floor, but it still has a lot of raw power and potential. Going by my best understanding of the hard-to-exactly-define tiers, my vote is T3, or T2.5 if decimals are allowed.

Pretty sure Eggy made those a legit thing yeah.

[AnachroNinja]

None of these three are "bad" to begin with, and all have impressive build flexibility and optimization potential, including the ability to launch any of them into tier one status without theoretical tricks.

I vote beguiler and dread necromancer T2 for the reasons already stated by others.

Warmage is a bit harder to pin down and depends on the nebulous definition of combat effectiveness. Beguilers are natural skillmonkeys, and DNs have class features of actual value, but the spell list is the greatest determiner of power and versatility for the three classes (itself placing them in T3 or higher as far as I'm concerned), and they all share similar methods of expanding it. Eclectic/advanced learning can make a big difference, and should at least make the difference for any seeking to demote WM to T4. Options that add spells known probably benefit the warmage disproportionately as it has the least versatile and most "blasty" spell list of the three to begin with.


I don't think there is any legitimate argument for putting Warmage in T4 as long as ToB classes are in T3. They have pretty close to the same basic floor out the gate.

[eggynack]

Pretty sure Eggy made those a legit thing yeah.
Well, what happened was, I put up the thing, and then almost immediately people were putting in decimal votes, so I just popped them in the spreadsheet as is, thinking it a bit odd because they aren't as reflected in the data analysis stuff I have. Cause I'm weird and I care about that kinda thing. It wasn't precisely something I encouraged, but if I can write it in a spreadsheet then I don't see why I should either not include it or demand it be changed from that. Then it became this whole thing, I guess, so now what was once implicitly allowed is explicitly allowed, and it's solving a problem people apparently had without actually changing anything about what I do. Bit ambivalent about the whole thing, personally. Upside is that people have their opinions better represented, downside is that the count rows, and to a lesser extent the mode row, are kinda rendered inaccurate. Upside has to outweigh the downside there, but still, I must mourn for my slightly less clean spreadsheet. Probably not worth it to add a bunch of new decimal count rows.

[GilesTheCleric]

Well, what happened was, I put up the thing, and then almost immediately people were putting in decimal votes, so I just popped them in the spreadsheet as is, thinking it a bit odd because they aren't as reflected in the data analysis stuff I have. Cause I'm weird and I care about that kinda thing. It wasn't precisely something I encouraged, but if I can write it in a spreadsheet then I don't see why I should either not include it or demand it be changed from that. Then it became this whole thing, I guess, so now what was once implicitly allowed is explicitly allowed, and it's solving a problem people apparently had without actually changing anything about what I do. Bit ambivalent about the whole thing, personally. Upside is that people have their opinions better represented, downside is that the count rows, and to a lesser extent the mode row, are kinda rendered inaccurate. Upside has to outweigh the downside there, but still, I must mourn for my slightly less clean spreadsheet. Probably not worth it to add a bunch of new decimal count rows.

You could use Round or Ceiling/ Floor for those averaging cells if you wanted to include decimals. It wouldn't be quite as honest/ accurate, but it's an option.

[eggynack]

You could use Round or Ceiling/ Floor for those averaging cells if you wanted to include decimals. It wouldn't be quite as honest/ accurate, but it's an option.
Yeah, not really something I'm inclined to do. Goal is to gain information, not lose it, and erasing post-decimals for the purpose of mean and count would do the latter, y'know? I think I will toss in a total count, though. I've been relying on the individual tier count to get knowledge of how many people are voting in each category, and that's becoming further and further from an accurate estimate.

[Aimeryan]

Mean should be able to accommodate decimals, or is this a problem with the spreadsheet itself?

Edit: Realised you meant mode.

Hmm. The valuable information is whether they are in a tier or between tiers. So a vote of 2.6 would be between tiers 2 and 3. I guess a vote of 2.8 could be said to be close enough to Tier 3, however. For mode and count only, maybe round to the nearest .5 if that can be done? It pretty much keeps the valuable information while allowing you to have meaningful mode and counts.

For mode and count you then have ...2; 2.5; 3; 3.5... etc. You should keep the actual value for the mean, though.

I think =MROUND(A1 ; 0.5) would do the job.

[MHCD]

I don't think there is any legitimate argument for putting Warmage in T4 as long as ToB classes are in T3. They have pretty close to the same basic floor out the gate.

I agree, though I would bet there is meaningful overlap between the groups who would put warmage in T4 and warblade in T4, and if that's the case, at least they're consistent!

And by the way, eggynack, thanks for all the work you're doing organizing and keeping up with all the threads and votes. I know that takes time, if nothing else.

[Troacctid]

Hmm. The valuable information is whether they are in a tier or between tiers. So a vote of 2.6 would be between tiers 2 and 3. I guess a vote of 2.8 could be said to be close enough to Tier 3, however. For mode and count only, maybe round to the nearest .5 if that can be done? It pretty much keeps the valuable information while allowing you to have meaningful mode and counts.

For mode and count you then have ...2; 2.5; 3; 3.5... etc. You should keep the actual value for the mean, though.

I think =MROUND(A1 ; 0.5) would do the job.
If this works, I support it.

[eggynack]

Mround seems to only accept a single value, while a mode would demand that the rounding be applied to each value in the range separately. I could theoretically apply the rounding to each value individually, but if that's the way to do it then I'm pretty certainly not gonna do it, cause it sounds like the worst thing ever. Interesting idea though. Notably, I don't think that applying this function would actually change any mode tabulation, because the total votes subtracted by the individual tier vote counts is always less than the votes for the current mode.

[rrwoods]

Mround seems to only accept a single value, while a mode would demand that the rounding be applied to each value in the range separately. I could theoretically apply the rounding to each value individually, but if that's the way to do it then I'm pretty certainly not gonna do it, cause it sounds like the worst thing ever. Interesting idea though. Notably, I don't think that applying this function would actually change any mode tabulation, because the total votes subtracted by the individual tier vote counts is always less than the votes for the current mode.

You want:

MODE(ARRAYFORMULA(MROUND([range], 0.5)))

[eggynack]

You want:

MODE(ARRAYFORMULA(MROUND([range], 0.5)))
Seems to work weirdly with null values. Keeps outputting zeros and such.

[rrwoods]

Seems to work weirdly with null values. Keeps outputting zeros and such.
Hm. Gimme a chance to try and work that out.


EDIT:
mode(arrayformula(if([range]="", "", mround([range], 0.5))))

MROUND assumes a blank value is a zero. MODE ignores the empty string, so even if you have more blanks than you do any actual value, this should work.

[bean illus]

Hm. Gimme a chance to try and work that out.


EDIT:
mode(arrayformula(if([range]="", "", mround([range], 0.5))))

MROUND assumes a blank value is a zero. MODE ignores the empty string, so even if you have more blanks than you do any actual value, this should work.

AAAWWWWHHHH! ... I was gonna do that!

I got ninja'ed by a spreadsheet assassin.


Edit: let us know if that works. I'm sure we can write something. I love building large integrated spreadsheets. We could eventually pull any conceivable info.

[eggynack]

Can't seem to get it to run, even with various and extensive modifications and some quantity of research into the null/zero problem. Man, Google sheets is so weird. Seems to absolutely hate various things in various fashions. It's eminently possible that the best solution is copying a space into every blank cell. I think that'd make it read as null instead of zero. Nope. Just up and decides to not even try if there are spaces, instead of just pretending they don't exist like it should. I think I'ma try something involving iferror. Okay, that kinda works, probably resolves some of the issue I was having with the old methodology, but I still need some way to give the thing working null values.

So, here's what I settled on, which may or may not be logically similar to the old solution, but I don't care anymore, cause something about the arrayformula thing acts wonky with the old one, and the new one took tons of whatever. Thus, this formula: "=mode(ARRAYFORMULA(IFERROR(MROUND(((1/B2:B59)^(-1)),0.5),"")))". Yeah. I think it does whatever thing I was trying to do at the beginning. Maybe the other one would have too had I inserted the range in some other fashion, or fiddled with it properly, but I kinda like this one, cause putting division by zero into whatever it is you're trying to do is neat.

[Jopustopin]

As someone who, back in the heyday, was a big JaronK convert after deciding to actually play a wizard in a group with a fighter and a monk. I had +2 LA that really was not even remotely optimal (PhaethonRaces of Ansalon). I had abrupt jaunt that caused cold damage each time I used it (test of high sorcery quirk). I was showing up the party regularly by ECL 5. Or level 3 for me. By ECL 7 it was a one man show. The Monk had died by that point. The Fighter was pretty much there for story reasons. I was converted, JaronK was my gospel.

So when I was DMing, one of my players decided to play a spellscale warmage. Tier 4, Jaron K said. The party had a druid (played by my girlfriend who was not a min/maxer at all), a Barbarian/fighter going frenzied, and a Warforged Crusader. I kept waiting for the warmage to fall off. And waiting... and waiting.....

Instead he was regularly carrying encounters by himself. When we finished around level 7 he still seemed stronger than everyone else. While he was comic relief out of combat (damn good job of role playing a spellscale honestly) I adhere to the idea that most of the "problems" are solvable by combat. Warmages honestly are really good at this.

Warmage is Tier 3

I've played a Dread Necromancer. They are absolutely tier 2. My vote is that a dread necromancer is tier 2.1

And of course the beguiler; yes they are tier 2.