Retiering the Classes: Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Magewright, Warrior

[eggynack]

In this thread we will consider that most maligned subset of classes, the NPCs. As one would expect, they are generally worse than PC classes, though not every NPC class is necessarily worse than every PC class. These classes force us to ask what value certain game objects have in isolation. What is broad skill use worth in a vacuum, or slow progression casting, or good BAB and weapon access? What can a class with basically nothing do?

Adept: Perhaps the best of the NPC classes, the adept has pretty slow casting, maxing out at 5th's off of a limited list. Said list is actually pretty good, but the utility is hindered somewhat by low spells/day.

Aristocrat: The aristocrat is the most strangely average of the NPCs. Decent skills and decent melee, at least by NPC standards, along with a pile of starting gold for whatever that's worth.

Commoner: You get nothing. I mean, you can take levels in survivor immediately, I guess, but that's not a factor we're considering, and you can take chicken infested, but that's liable to get categorized separately if we do it all. So, you get nothing.

Expert: With six skill points a level, and a weird ten skills of your choice skill list, the expert is the clear skill monkey of the group. Not precisely a great skill monkey, but a skill monkey nonetheless.

Magewright (ECS, 256): This is like an adept, but with a weird kinda spells known thing going on. The list is still decent, though your access to it even more stunted by that spells known thing.

Warrior: The warrior is the direct meleeist of the NPCs, with full BAB, all martial weapons, and all armor and shields. As is true of all NPC classes though, they're not especially good at it.



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
Adept: Tier four

Aristocrat: Tier six

Commoner: Tier six

Expert: Tier five

Magewright: Tier five

Warrior: Tier six

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

[GilesTheCleric]

Are we considering the religious/ Eberron variants of Adept here, or separately?

[eggynack]

Are we considering the religious/ Eberron variants of Adept here, or separately?
I suppose it'd depend on whether it's enough for a tier shift. Is the only variant the one with the extra domain, or are there others?

[Troacctid]

There are two ACFs for the Adept.

I think Adept is at the high end of T5. Probably a 4.75 or so. Same for Urban Adept. The class is not good, but it is certainly better than a decent number of T5s and worse than any class that I'd put in T4.

Adding the domain to either version bumps it up a little bit, but not all the way to 4.

Magewright is about the same as Adept, but a little worse. I'll give it a straight 5.

All the others are T6.

[Dondasch]

Well, this should be fun. In no particular order:

Adept: Bad chassis, familiar and nerfed divine casting. Your class skills are adequate for a caster, but your skill points suck. The base familiar isn't going to amount for much, and you need an Arcane Spellcaster Level for the feats that give you good options. So if you're to get anywhere, the casting must carry the day. So let's take a look:
0th (level 1): These are largely the standard cleric fare. Ghost Sound stands out as the best option, though Create Water is a fun one. While 0th level spells are generally not huge, you at least get a few that can be useful.
1st (level 1): Now we're talking. Sleep and Cause Fear can both end low-level encounters, and Obscuring Mist is your BFC option. On the buff side of things, you get the Protection from [Alignment] series. For utility, you have Comprehend Languages and Endure Elements. At this point, you are reasonably competitive with full casters, having options for a variety of situations.
2nd (level 4): Your get these at the same time as the Sorcerer, but with fewer spells/day. That said, Web is a solid BFC option, Mirror Image is a good defensive option, and Invisibility is both a defense and utility. Bull's Strength and Cat's Grace are still good buffs at this point, and Resist Energy is useful if you expect a certain energy type.
3rd (level 8): At this point, your stunted progression is really hurting. Thankfully, Animate Dead doesn't care. Unfortunately, you don't get any good combat options here; Bestow Curse would be good if it wasn't touch-range. Deeper Darkness is okay. Your best spell here is Lightning Bolt, and you never even have to cast it. Because you get it as a divine spell, you can get into Hexer, which is a huge upgrade. Probably not that important for tiering because it's a 3.0 PrC, but still fantastic.
4th (level 12): Late Polymorph is still Polymorph. Stoneskin remains as a defensive buff against melee, and Minor Creation is another abusable spell.
5th (level 16): Other prepared casters are getting 9ths next level. This level, you're getting Heal, True Seeing, Major Creation, Raise Dead, Wall of Stone, and Commune. It still doesn't really compare, but those are all potentially worth casting.

Verdict: I'm going to say T4. The progression hurts a lot, but you get quite a few spells worth casting.

Commoner: You get better BAB than a War Hulk! You can be better with your unarmed strikes than a Monk! You can enter Survivor right off the bat! You can have better perception skills than most Fighters! If you're an Elan or Killoren, you can get infinite money from Profession! You can use Handle Animal for minionmancy! T6.

Aristocrat: You get barely anything worth mentioning, and not enough to count. Your best bet is being a face, but even then you're running on normal skill use with no boosters. Forgery is hugely underrated, but still not great. T6, you just don't have anything strong enough to be relevant.

Warrior: Full BAB and proficiencies are still not enough to make you good. At least the CW Samurai technically has class features. T5 ​T5.5, if only because you have rudimentary competency.

Expert: While you don't get any skill-boosting class features, you can probably be decent at something at least. You can also do things with UMD. T5, because you do get basic functionality in one or two areas.

[Malroth]

Commoner: tier 6 Literally the worst at everything by design minus a couple niche builds that would work just as well as almost anything else.

Aristocrat: Tier 5 Decent party face and can stab stuff the extra gold can be cheesed into achieving a modicum of compitence.

Expert: High Tier 5 Slightly worse skill monkey than Savant, Can occasionally Contribute if their skill lists are chosen well.

Adept: Tier 4 Has some of the stronger PHB spells in list and a Familiar who can scout.

Warrior: Tier 5 Pretty much identical to the Fighter. Stabbing things sometimes works.

Magewright: Low Tier 4 Has enough magic to Surpass a mundane at a single job, very good at making things.

[Jopustopin]

Commoner: 6.5 - Just to emphasize that, yes, in fact this is as low as you can get straight out of the box.

Warrior: 6 - Yes there is more than just one base class in tier 6. Here is another one.

Aristocrat: 5.9 - And another base class in tier 6. Being better than the commoner isn't saying much.

Expert: Tier 5.2 - Poor man's Factotum. There are a lot of shenanigans that one can pull with "any ten skills." But... let's be honest; they are shenanigans nothing more. It pains me to say that depending on party composition I might prefer an expert to a fighter. And that troubles me.

Magewright: Tier 4.8 I'm struggling to imagine this guy in play. But I think he'd be slightly worse than an Adept and slightly more useful than a fighter.

Adept: Tier 4.5 - I put this guy below the barbarian but above the fighter. Right in between the two (in my opinion).

[eggynack]

Commoner: 6.5 - Just to emphasize that, yes, in fact this is as low as you can get straight out of the box.
Not sure that I'ma support scores below six. Gets into a weird space, where we presumably have this space between zero and one too, which means that whole other talk about crazy stuff or something. I'll put it down at 6 for now.

[Jopustopin]

Not sure that I'ma support scores below six. Gets into a weird space, where we presumably have this space between zero and one too, which means that whole other talk about crazy stuff or something. I'll put it down at 6 for now.

Yeah I don't care lol. It's for emphasis.

[eggynack]

Yeah I don't care lol. It's for emphasis.
I figured. Just don't wanna put anyone's vote in different from how they said it without saying that.

[Zancloufer]

Hmm it's like the opposite of the Wizard/Cleric/Druid one!

Adept: Tier 4: Almost as good as Bard casting off a worst list and weaker chassis. Still a few options that if used right can make them okay. Also although not proficient with it they can wear armour without much fuss as they are divine spell casters.

Aristocrat: Tier 6: Forget Monks, here is "Mediocrity the class" in action. There is NO reason to take this class at all. It is literally a DM going "Here these NPCs are worse than you for some reason".

Commoner: Tier Chicken. No really the entire use of this class is cheesing infinite poultry. On the offhand your DM disproves of you taking leadership and having hundreds of commoners summoning infinite chickens they are Tier 6.

Expert: Tier 5: Mostly because the game is kinda stingy with skill/skill points and this class is good at it. They literally can select a battery of 6-10 skills and be really good at them. Find some shtick involving skill synergy and you have the discount skill monkey.

Warrior: Tier 6: Literally worse than the CW Samurai. Worse than any Full BaB class tbh. Makes the Aristocrat and Commoner look good.

[Bucky]

Logical deductions:
Expert - Tier 6 (follows from my T5 Savant vote)
Commoner - Tier 6 (follows from Expert T6)
Aristocrat - Tier 6 (they might poke into a higher tier at very low levels due to extra money, but the extra money doesn't scale. 3/4 Commoner and 1/4 Commoner w/Shotgun still averages to T6.)

New arguments:
Warrior - Tier 6 as a no-variant Fighter is T5 without heavily optimized feat selection and low T5 if they pick their bonus feats at random. But Warrior is worse than a Fighter who takes the worst possible bonus feats. It's a pretty good dip class for NPC monsters, since they get it at a CR discount, but we're talking about PCs here.

Synthesized:
[B]Adept - Tier 4[B] accepting Dondasch's analysis


Uncategorized for now:
Magewright

[Efrate]

Commoner T6. Bad. You can't do pretty much anything.
Aristocrat low T5. Bad, but in a highly social game you actual are playable and can contribute, if less than any other face class, but I think it is at least doable.
Expert: low T5. You can do some things. Not much short of UMD abuse but I think in the right situation you can contribute. Still, better than fighter a lot of time with decent skill choice. Says a lot about fighter. Or monk.
Magewright: T5. I hate this class mostly because the I dislike eberron in general and this class kind of does not fit within a standard DnD setting. Again it can contribute in the right situation, but most of your stuff involves crafting which is actually something to do almost entirely in downtime, but given a lot of downtime I can see it being useful.
Warrior: T5.5 I think you are worse than the other classes in tier 5, but still better than a commoner. You hold your own in a fight, and if you do not do much, well, neither does the fighter, and you have about the same amount of class features.
Adepts T4: Better than fighter, better than a lot of barbarians. At least equal to a rogue, possibly better in some situations. Definitely the best NPC class, and better than fighter, CW samurai, monk, savant, and I am sure some others by a fair margin.

[Dondasch]

Oh yeah, forgot about decimals.

I am amending my Warrior vote to T5.5​

[Soranar]

Adept: Tier 4, the spellcasting is too limited to warrant more though it could certainly go up with the right PrC or feats

Aristocrat: Tier 6

Commoner: Tier 6

Expert: Tier 5 , vastly dependant on which skills you pick to be functional

Magewright: Tier 4.5 weaker than the adept

Warrior: Tier 6, lacks any class feature beyond his chassis

[eggynack]

Huh, I guess this is right at the edge of thread title length where part of it gets awkwardly cut off. Such is the risk to longer thread titles. Prolly worth it, though this supports my feeling that I shouldn't do these big style too often. Still not sure what to do with these adept variants. Interestingly, the fact that I care more about the decimal values now makes the idea of separately assessing things on the wire more interesting. If we do wind up looking at these, I'm thinking they'd pop up wherever I put the healer. Thinking further, no matter what we do with the classes, I don't think talking about them much now makes too much sense, simply because adepts don't have that many cool ways to optimize. If these things are tier altering on their own, then we must look at them separately, and if they don't, no combination is liable to do so. So, like, maybe we assess whether they're worth looking at once we have a tiering down, because if they wind up five, then these things are more worth assessing than if they're four.

Anyways, my tier rankings.

Adept: Tier four. You're certainly doing the casting itself in pretty mediocre fashion, but the list is sweet, and I think that's good enough. We have fighter at tier four now, which I agree with, and I think this matches up well enough to that. Obviously your endurance, especially at low levels, is kinda lacking, but you have a solid high level range compared to melee types, and the early stuff isn't that bad.

Aristocrat: Tier six. This one's actually pretty close. Decent skills, better combat than the expert, but I just don't think there's quite enough here. This is the edge, I think. Above this is tier five, but here there is tier six. Honestly, defining the edge is really weirdly opinion based. We have tier one reasonably mapped out through talk and such, but tier six is just kinda, "The ones that suck," and how much they suck has been ill defined. I suppose defining that ill defined thing is part of what we're doing though, y'know?

Commoner: Tier six. Seems straightforward. It's the worst.

Expert: Tier five. A choose your own skill list opens up a lot of cool stuff, and average BAB makes you at least halfway passable in combat. The expert is, I think, enough better than the aristocrat to justify the move.

Magewright: Tier five. Like the adept, but worse. The adept was pretty close to the line, in my opinion, and this crosses that line.

Warrior: Tier six. This seems a decent amount worse than the tier five melee options, like the baseline monk (don't want to assume that'll stay in its current tier), or the samurai (CW and OA alike). It's close though, I think.

[jywu98]

Everything except adept is t6, adept is t4. I don't understand why people overrate skillmonkeys that much. Once again UMD isn't a ****ing class feature, everyone can use it.

[Troacctid]

Huh, I guess this is right at the edge of thread title length where part of it gets awkwardly cut off. Such is the risk to longer thread titles. Prolly worth it, though this supports my feeling that I shouldn't do these big style too often.
Just drop the "and".

[eggynack]

Just drop the "and".
I guess. Can't say it don't hurt though.

[yellowrocket]

Everything except adept is t6, adept is t4. I don't understand why people overrate skillmonkeys that much. Once again UMD isn't a ****ing class feature, everyone can use it.

While not a class feature the difference between class skill and cross class skill is huge when it comes to that particular skill and the rate that you become competent at it.

[eggynack]

Everything except adept is t6, adept is t4. I don't understand why people overrate skillmonkeys that much. Once again UMD isn't a ****ing class feature, everyone can use it.
Pretty sure magewright isn't tier six. Does decent stuff.

[Hurnn]

Adept: T4.5

Bad chassis, and delayed casting, but an actually pretty decent list for core only. Unfortunately that is one of the problems they have no way to expand the list. A familiar will always be somewhat useful, and having all the knowledge skills doesn't suck. Oddly I think I would be tempted to keep my wisdom right at the minimum to get the bonus spell of each level and just worry about Int and Con.

Aristocrat: T5.75

These guys are the kings of average, average BAB, average skills per level (thought it is a not bad list), average HD. They do have some nice things all simple/martial all armor/shield, that nice skill list, and a good will save. I think they are at the line of T5 and T6. They are so close to crossing over I think like even a second good save would have maybe done it.

Commoner: T6

Really T6, so bad that if there was a 7 these guys would be alone in it.

Expert: T5

10 class skills of your choice and 6 per level makes a passable skill monkey, Average BAB means you are at least not awful at combat.

Magewright: T5

Worse adept.

Warrior: T6

Good BAB, Fort, and all/all proficiency does not even a decent NPC class make. These guys make aristocrats look good.

[Hurnn]

Everything except adept is t6, adept is t4. I don't understand why people overrate skillmonkeys that much. Once again UMD isn't a ****ing class feature, everyone can use it.

It's not just UMD. For an expert it's the 10 best skills in the game, and they can be pretty good at them. They still aren't bad in combat either.

[weckar]

Adept: T4

Aristocrat: T6

Commoner: T6

Expert: T5

Magewright (ECS, 256): T5

Warrior: T6

[Zancloufer]

Everything except adept is t6, adept is t4. I don't understand why people overrate skillmonkeys that much. Once again UMD isn't a ****ing class feature, everyone can use it.

Actually it is a trained skill that is cross-class for the majority of classes. Also it has some pretty high DCs (20-40 on average) you cannot take 10 on it or use aid another. It is one of the most powerful skills and probably the hardest to get bonuses to.

Also the Expert is more UMD + 9 other skills. The point of the expert is that it can do 2-10 skills based things REALLY well. They can be alright at solving a few problems, or massing skills they can spec to be a 1-2 trick skill pony. They will be VERY GOOD at that skill trick though which puts them into a decently high tier 5.

[Bucky]

Experts don't have anything besides skill ranks to help them use their skills. No interaction between skills and class features. No special take 10s. Not even Skill Focus as a bonus feat. I guess they get more synergy bonuses than most other classes?

[Zancloufer]

Experts don't have anything besides skill ranks to help them use their skills. No interaction between skills and class features. No special take 10s. Not even Skill Focus as a bonus feat. I guess they get more synergy bonuses than most other classes?

Well they can select any 10 skills to be considered "class skills" which gives them a degree of flexibility in choosing what they are good at. Only the Factotum has a larger skill list (literally all of them) and only Rouges/Factotums have more skill points.

It's not that good (hence tier 5) but still better than most NPCs classes as they are arguable only completely eclipsed by Bard, Factotum and Rouge.

[Troacctid]

One of the problems with Expert is that being the second-best at a lot of the best skills is often as good as not having that skill at all. Diplomacy? No point bothering if there's a Bard in the party with a higher score, guess you're just using aid another. UMD? Might as well just hand that scroll to the party Wizard who doesn't even need a check. Etc. And without any class features to enhance their skills, Experts are often just not that good at the thing they're supposed to be good at.

[Bucky]

I've got a homebrew somewhere that tries to bring Expert up to T4. Starting with Skill Focus as a bonus feat at level 1 and building into all the things I mentioned that vanilla Experts don't have.

The bonus Skill Focuses (they eventually get three) and take 10s (2 skills) would be the minimum sufficient to put them into T5 by my reckoning. Maybe you can trim a Skill Focus from that.

Actually putting them into T4 required a scaling lvl/2 bonus to the skills they can take 10 on, an Aid Another aura, time reductions on certain skill checks and capping off with the ability to use their signature skills normally while disabled by Daze or several other conditions.

[eggynack]

One of the problems with Expert is that being the second-best at a lot of the best skills is often as good as not having that skill at all. Diplomacy? No point bothering if there's a Bard in the party with a higher score, guess you're just using aid another. UMD? Might as well just hand that scroll to the party Wizard who doesn't even need a check. Etc. And without any class features to enhance their skills, Experts are often just not that good at the thing they're supposed to be good at.
Perhaps, but it's always possible that characters are being built in a slightly collaborative manner to reduce skill crossover. I also don't really buy the UMD argument here, at least not in a combat context. Out of combat, sure, other sources of magic reduce the value of your crap-magic, but in combat the wizard's gonna just be casting their own spells. Not really sure I'd count getting overshadowed by a wizard a significant issue either.

[ApologyFestival]

Will we also be considering the "Generic Class" take on the Adept, Expert, and Warrior, from Unearthed Arcana? While intended for PCs rather than NPCs, they could be considered updates of the DMG classes--two of them even share the same name. They are considerably stronger, each of them a significant enough improvement on the DMG class to bump them up a tier.

[eggynack]

Will we also be considering the "Generic Class" take on the Adept, Expert, and Warrior, from Unearthed Arcana? While intended for PCs rather than NPCs, they could be considered updates of the DMG classes--two of them even share the same name. They are considerably stronger, each of them a significant enough improvement on the DMG class to bump them up a tier.
Yeah, those three seem incredibly likely to get their own thread. Certainly not all that mechanically similar, so you lose that upside analysis-wise, but they're quite thematically connected, being, y'know, generic.

[Bucky]

Just to point out how bad Expert is, here' a list of statements of the form "an Expert is worse at X than a poorly built Y" where Y is a core class of tier 4 or worse on the JaronK's tier list:


Appraise - Rogue
Balance - Monk
Bluff - Rogue
Climb - Rogue
Concentration - Monk
Craft - Rogue
Decipher Script - Rogue
Diplomacy - Rogue
Disable Device - Rogue
Disguise - Rogue
Escape Artist - Monk
Forgery - Rogue
Gather Information - Rogue
Handle Animal - Barbarian, Ranger
Hide - Ranger
Know (Geography) - Rogue
Know (Nature) - Rogue
Intimidate - Barbarian
Listen - Monk
Move Silently - Rogue
Open Lock - Rogue
Sense Motive - Rogue
Spot - Rogue
Survival - Ranger
Swim - Rogue
Tumble - Monk
Use Magic Device - Rogue
Use Rope - Rogue

(Statement may not apply before the relevant class feature comes online. I also didn't include buffs from the Adept, Paladin and Ranger lists.)

[Gemini476]

It would probably be more useful to compare it to tier 5 classes, I think, since there seems to be somewhat universal agreement that it is at most a Tier 5 class.

As-is that list just shows that, yes, the Tier 5 class is worse than the Tier 4 ones. Some people think Factotum is Tier 4, and it just laughs in the face of the Expert.

A comparison with Tier 5 classes might be more useful, since it could perhaps show the Expert to be Tier 6.

[Bucky]

The problem with T5 comparisons is that our retiering doesn't have many examples of T5 classes, especially with Fighter bumped to T4, and ESPECIALLY in Core only.

But assuming that Monks are T5...

An Expert will never be as good at Listen as an Invisible Eye Monk.
An Expert will never be as good at Tumble as a Denying Stance Monk.
An Expert will never be as good at Balance as a Hand and Foot Monk.
An Expert will never be as good at Escape Artist as a Cobra Strike Monk.

Those Monk variants all gain significant benefits besides the skill bonus.

(E) Repeating the exercise with other T5 classes from the other retiering thread,

Dragon Shaman > Expert at Appraise, Bluff, Intimidate, Search. They additionally get Skill Focus with several other options as a bonus feat.
CW Samurai > Expert at Intimidate
Soulborn > Expert at a lot of stuff, from various soulmelds
Swashbuckler > Expert at Jump and Tumble

[Zancloufer]

Just to point out how bad Expert is, here' a list of statements of the form "an Expert is worse at X than a poorly built Y" where Y is a core class of tier 4 or worse on the JaronK's tier list:


Appraise - Rogue
Balance - Monk
Bluff - Rogue
Climb - Rogue
Concentration - Monk
Craft - Rogue
Decipher Script - Rogue
Diplomacy - Rogue
Disable Device - Rogue
Disguise - Rogue
Escape Artist - Monk
Forgery - Rogue
Gather Information - Rogue
Handle Animal - Barbarian, Ranger
Hide - Ranger
Know (Geography) - Rogue
Know (Nature) - Rogue
Intimidate - Barbarian
Listen - Monk
Move Silently - Rogue
Open Lock - Rogue
Sense Motive - Rogue
Spot - Rogue
Survival - Ranger
Swim - Rogue
Tumble - Monk
Use Magic Device - Rogue
Use Rope - Rogue

(Statement may not apply before the relevant class feature comes online. I also didn't include buffs from the Adept, Paladin and Ranger lists.)

Problems with that list. First most of those are the Rouge, which is a tier 4 class. Being worse than a tier 4 class at your shtick doesn't drop you down two entire tiers. Concentration is useless unless you cast spells or have Diamond Mind manoeuvres and all those Monk ones (A) require a specific ACF therefore you can't take all of them and (B) most are skills that you wouldn't use much anyway.

Best Expert build (IMHO, though we are trying to optimize a tier ~5 here) would be a UMD+Diplomacy build with something else on the side (probably knowledge or Open lock or something). Not as good as the Bard at it but the Bard is higher tier 3 so. . .

[Bucky]

Diplomacy is one of the skills where I think Expert loses to Soulborn (Silvertongue Mask and/or Truthseeker Goggles on an LG Soulborn) but I don't have the primary source to confirm it works.

And these are just areas where a fellow T5/T6 candidate exceeds the Expert's competence. Anyone can match the Expert simply by having the correct class skill.

Granted, there aren't too many T5 candidates, and so some of the rarer skills like (I think) Use Rope and Knowledge:Architecture simply don't appear as class skills on any of them. So the Expert wins there by default, as would a hypothetical T6 with JUST Use Rope and Knowledge:Architecture as class skills.

----
The argument for comparing them to Rogues is that they're being mildly overshadowed within their narrow area of competence by something that's only a secondary strength for that particular Rogue build, thereby justifying a 2-tier gap.

[Soranar]

Assuming Iaijutsu focus is banned, what can an expert do ?

Well you get

d6 hitpoints,
simple weapons and light armor
medium BAB
good will save

x6 skillpoints

any 10 skills

Combat wise, it wouldn't be hard to optimize knowledge devotion, you'd need

Arcana
Dungeoneering
Local
Nature
Religion
The Planes

Since knowledge devotion gives you one knowledge skill for free, that leaves you 5 picks left

UMD is a no brainer
Diplomacy + Bluff might be worth it if you intend to be the face
you might as well throw in intimidate
Finally you could top it off with gather information

You could play an elf to get a composite longbow proficicency
Or play a human and burn your bonus feat on rapid reload for a light crossbow build

The elf is probably a better choice since you can make your bow elvencraft and it'll double as a melee weapon when you need it although crossbow sniper would let you ignore STR and concentrate on DEX .

It's not great but it's playable.

[Lans]

Adept: Tier 4.5, between familiar, solid spells, animate dead I think it just eeks out of tier 5

Aristocrat: 5.6 It gets solid skills, and weapon proficiencies. Ultimately its a toss up between it and expert. It has most of the good skills that an expert would want to take only loosing out on UMD and IF.

Commoner: 6 You get nothing.

Expert: 5.4 With six skill points a level, and a weird ten skills of your choice skill list, the expert is the clear skill monkey of the group. Not precisely a great skill monkey, but a skill monkey nonetheless. I feel like this can cover a role badly

Magewright 5 list a tad worse than adept, and its bad at spells known.


Warrior: Tier 5.4 If the samurai is tier 5 then this should also be tier 5. It has the body to actually cover a role

[Hurnn]

Just to point out how bad Expert is, here' a list of statements of the form "an Expert is worse at X than a poorly built Y" where Y is a core class of tier 4 or worse on the JaronK's tier list:


Appraise - Rogue
Balance - Monk
Bluff - Rogue
Climb - Rogue
Concentration - Monk
Craft - Rogue
Decipher Script - Rogue
Diplomacy - Rogue
Disable Device - Rogue
Disguise - Rogue
Escape Artist - Monk
Forgery - Rogue
Gather Information - Rogue
Handle Animal - Barbarian, Ranger
Hide - Ranger
Know (Geography) - Rogue
Know (Nature) - Rogue
Intimidate - Barbarian
Listen - Monk
Move Silently - Rogue
Open Lock - Rogue
Sense Motive - Rogue
Spot - Rogue
Survival - Ranger
Swim - Rogue
Tumble - Monk
Use Magic Device - Rogue
Use Rope - Rogue

(Statement may not apply before the relevant class feature comes online. I also didn't include buffs from the Adept, Paladin and Ranger lists.)


The problem with T5 comparisons is that our retiering doesn't have many examples of T5 classes, especially with Fighter bumped to T4, and ESPECIALLY in Core only.

But assuming that Monks are T5...

An Expert will never be as good at Listen as an Invisible Eye Monk.
An Expert will never be as good at Tumble as a Denying Stance Monk.
An Expert will never be as good at Balance as a Hand and Foot Monk.
An Expert will never be as good at Escape Artist as a Cobra Strike Monk.

Those Monk variants all gain significant benefits besides the skill bonus.

(E) Repeating the exercise with other T5 classes from the other retiering thread,

Dragon Shaman > Expert at Appraise, Bluff, Intimidate, Search. They additionally get Skill Focus with several other options as a bonus feat.
CW Samurai > Expert at Intimidate
Soulborn > Expert at a lot of stuff, from various soulmelds
Swashbuckler > Expert at Jump and Tumble



Where to begin...

First a fair amount of the skills listed are trash or pretty niche, so who cares if someone else does them better. Let the Ranger go pick flowers, cuddle animals, and eat dirt, that's his damn job.

Second as was already pointed out almost every skill you listed in the first post was a rogue thing. The problem is the rogue can't/won't be better at all of them. Rouges have 26 class skills not including craft, perform, or profession so even with 8+int they have to pick and choose. A reasonable expert will probably have close to or just as many skill points per level as a rogue.

Third you say there are no T5 classes to compare yet but that is patently false. There are currently 3 others, both samurai, and the magewright, and I am 99.5% sure monk and swashbuckler will be there too.

So lets look at those examples.

CW Samurai: Primarily a melee combatant, with some CHA synergy. They have no reason to invest in INT, it is probably their least important stat, at least WIS and DEX will get them a save bonus. So 2+int, and that may actually be 1 per level so either 4 or 8 skill points at first level. If they max out their intimidate at 6th level they will be 4 better than the expert can be. That's cool I guess, to bad they will potentially have 0 skill points in anything else, literally 0.

Dragon shaman: MAD class with 2+INT and no reason to boost INT, in fact INT is probably one of the dump stats so yeah probably won't actually be better at any skills. Anyway see above. I guess they at least get 3 free skill focuses so they might be better or as good as the expert in 1-3 things but probably not.

OA Samurai: This might be the best contender with it's mighty 4+INT, but once again Primary melee combatant, so by default fairly MAD. Their skill list does lean towards CHA skills so at least they have a reason to bump it. On the down side INT is again at best a tertiary stat so maybe a 12. I came up with 16,10,16,12,10,12 on a 32 point buy, it's not spectacular but not awful, and would be reasonable at skills. Still will never compete with the expert though unless they heavily focus on 1 or 2 skills.

Monk: The poster child of MAD, needs STR, DEX, WIS, CON, so 2 possible dump stats, guess what they are. If you guessed INT, and CHA you win the prize, unlike the monk who just neutered their skills per level and their ability to use most powerful class skill.



Ok enough direct comparison.

Let's take a look at the expert in the context of how the writers expect the game to be played. A 4 person party with a stab guy, a heal guy, a skill/trap guy, and a magic pew pew guy. So basic party: fighter, cleric, wizard, and filling in for rogue an expert. Which 3 classes in that list are generally terrible at skills? Fighter, cleric, and to a lesser extent wizard (they do get a lot of points but will burn a fair amount of them on concentration and spellcraft). Still going to take UMD (but it is probably slightly less important with this comp), the 4 social skills, and probably open locks, move silently, hide, search, and spot. So they will still be better at every one of those skills except UMD than the rest of the party, and can still be a reasonable combatant.

Let's look at a different composition. Say a Paladin, a Druid, and a Sorcerer. UMD just became much more important, but now they can ditch the social skills and probably the sneaky skills except open lock. The sorcerer, and druid can handle them respectively. Instead the expert can now move into the knowledge based skills and things like decipher script, or speak language, and will still do their skill based roll in the party better than anyone else in their area of expertise. They will also get the added benefit on no one competing for INT based gear which will in turn give more skill points, and make them even better in their roll.

[Soranar]

I'm trying to imagine what a tier 5 group would look like.

The Aristocrat would be the party's face.
The Warrior would be the tank
The Magewright would be the spellcaster/knowledge monkey


And expert would have to fill out for the rogue

Assuming Iaijutsu focus was allowed...

Iaijutus focus
UMD
hide/move silently
search/disable device
open lock
balance/tumble
sleight of hand

and thats 10 skills

as for combat, you could make a dagger thrower or spend a feat on obtaining a quickrazor proficiency

[Bucky]

Third you say there are no T5 classes to compare yet but that is patently false. There are currently 3 others, both samurai, and the magewright, and I am 99.5% sure monk and swashbuckler will be there too.
Sweet, the Magewright has all the Knowledges and some innate Int synergy. Know:Architecture isn't Expert-exclusive down here after all, assuming T5 Magewright.



So lets look at those examples.

CW Samurai:They have no reason to invest in INT, it is probably their least important stat, at least WIS and DEX will get them a save bonus.

OA Samurai: Their skill list does lean towards CHA skills so at least they have a reason to bump it. On the down side INT is again at best a tertiary stat so maybe a 12.

Monk: The poster child of MAD, needs STR, DEX, WIS, CON, so 2 possible dump stats, guess what they are. If you guessed INT, and CHA you win the prize

Is it fair to summarize this as "skill points are worse than save bonuses or synergy with class features, so these classes shouldn't have high Int and are therefore bad at skills in general"?

[eggynack]

I think I'ma drop to 5.5 on expert. It seems worse than a CW samurai, which seems like the bottom line on tier five, but better than an aristocrat, which is the top line on tier six. It's a class that is oddly poorly suited to low op and at least decently suited to mid or high op. Cause, in low optimization scenarios, you're at best picking a set of reasonable skills, not doing all that much better than other classes of comparable tier that are still doing other things. It's only at higher optimization scenarios that you can plausibly assume the class will pick a really interesting load out with stuff like UMD, autohypnosis, and iajatsu focus, and in those scenarios a well designed samurai is probably doing cool stuff that's not that much less useful, if it's less useful at all. I kinda like the idea of expert as the line.

Edit: On a semi-related note, I wasn't really sure of what set of classes to pull out next. The note that we don't have enough tier fives, however, implies to me that we should run something that'll populate that section of the tier system, to kinda retroactively clarify the work we're doing here. It's either that or whatever category would contain the sorcerer, or maybe the higher end psionic classes.

[Jopustopin]

Auras and Breath Weapon and Invocations, Oh My!: Marshal, Dragon Shaman, Dragonfire Adept, Warlock

[Bucky]

I'd suggest either the lesser psionic classes or the monklikes.

[Dondasch]

Auras and Breath Weapon and Invocations, Oh My!: Marshal, Dragon Shaman, Dragonfire Adept, Warlock

I understand the desire to repress the knowledge, but the Divine Mind also has auras.

[eggynack]

Auras and Breath Weapon and Invocations, Oh My!: Marshal, Dragon Shaman, Dragonfire Adept, Warlock
I feel like those are two elements each of two separate groups. Marshal and dragon shaman are the aura classes, along with maybe divine mind as the third. Breaks my all psionics in one group plan, but that doesn't seem like a big issue. Then dragon shaman and adept are the more at-will style classes along with truenamer. The truenamer/warlock comparison strikes me as really solid. If I were aiming for a tier five thread, it'd be the aura one, obviously, cause the DFA/warlock/truenamer thread has more of a tier 3/4 vibe. Another solid option is something like monk/battle dancer/mountebank, as a crappy pseudo-magical fighter group. Those all tend to land in or around five, though I could see something like invisible fist monk as a plausible spin off. Mountebank and battle dancer aren't necessarily super interesting to folks, but I'm essentially generating a monk thread here so it balances out well.

[Euclidodese]

Adept: 4 Cool spells.

Aristocrat: 6 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnTdUYTOaCQ)

Commoner: 1 Obviously. Think about it, 95%+ of people in every village you visit are commoners. Why would so many people choose to be a class unless that class was powerful? Commoner must be amazing, logic dictates it... Nah, just joking, tier 6.

Expert: 5 A lot of skill points to spend on whatever you so choose, that's about it, but it's enough to get you out of tier 6.

Magewright: 5 With a tiny number of pretty much entirely non-combat spells, it seems like the stars would have to align for you to contribute, but it could happen.

Warrior: 6 Sadly, you can't Mortal Strike with your Arcanite Reaper like a WOW warrior.

[Hurnn]

Is it fair to summarize this as "skill points are worse than save bonuses or synergy with class features, so these classes shouldn't have high Int and are therefore bad at skills in general"?

No it's fair to summarize that they are bad at skills to start with, and all of them devalue INT in general so they will be bad to worse at skills. I suppose one could make any of those classes much better at skills by highly valuing INT, and just sacrificing their ability to perform their primary role in order to still be a worse skill monkey than the expert. I personally think that would be seen as bad form at most tables.

[Troacctid]

I suppose one could make any of those classes much better at skills by highly valuing INT, and just sacrificing their ability to perform their primary role in order to still be a worse skill monkey than the expert. I personally think that would be seen as bad form at most tables.
Now realize that your Expert is already doing exactly that.

[Bucky]

The Apprentice feat, from DMG2, lets everyone be an Expert. Or at least 1/10th of an Expert.

[Hurnn]

Now realize that your Expert is already doing exactly that.

How exactly is he doing that? His primary role is skill monkey.

[Troacctid]

How exactly is he doing that? His primary role is skill monkey.
He's dumping everything else in order to be a mediocre skill monkey.

[MHCD]

Adept: 4. Spells do it here.

Aristocrat: 5.5. Yes, something is better than nothing, but even if only by a couple tenths, I'm at still least sticking to '.5s and '.0s - there might be enough to partially escape T6, so I'm rounding to a half.

Commoner: 6. The aforementioned "nothing".

Magewright: 5. Its magic secures a whole number above commoner.

Warrior: 5.5. Actual fighting man abilities make the difference, even if they're not grand ones. This is the T5/6 mirror to the aristocrat, perhaps a few tenths beloww T5, so I'm rounding to the middle.

[eggynack]

It's about time to toss up the ratings. Everything stayed the same, though I didn't much expect it to change. Been a relatively uneventful thread, all in all. Next thread is liable to be one of those tier five-ish things I was talking about, and it'll come out tomorrow, as is typical. Should be fun.

[Bucky]

Summarizing the different angles of argument for T6 Expert.

1) They are thoroughly overshadowed by Savant, which is itself underpowered.
1a) If Savant is considered T5, that puts Expert in T6.
1b) If Savant is considered T4, there is material for a two-tier gap. Savant gets +1 tier on Expert for overshadowing it, and an additional +1 tier for doing so with only a fraction of the Savant's resources.
2) They have no redeeming characteristics besides good skills, yet aren't particularly good at using those skills.
2a) One of the premier Expert builds, Knowledge Devotion, is comparable to what the Tier 6 Aristocrat can do; the Aristocrat loses some fringe skills and a feat (UMD Apprentice) but is using martial weapons to apply their damage bonus.
2b) Comparison to other T5 classes shows they can overshadow the Expert in a significant subset of the Expert's functions by having class features that boost skill checks.
3) Potentially T5 classes can dump non-Int ability scores to be more Expert-like. They choose not to do so, indicating that their attribute dependent class features are better than skill points. They can also dump save stats but don't, thus good saves are better than skill points. Experts do not have good saves or class features.
3a) In particular, a hypothetical Monk ACF that traded Flurry and unarmed strike damage progression for extra class skills of their choice and 2 extra skill points per level would probably be ignored while also being clearly better than Expert.
4) Experts' skill flexibility is tempered by MAD problems if they spread their skills across too many attributes.
5) Tier inflation is a potential problem with the usability of the tier system. Putting Expert into T5 broadens T5, and by extension probably pushes some classes into T4, while threatening to almost empty T6.

[eggynack]

1) They are thoroughly overshadowed by Savant, which is itself underpowered.

Sure. Not necessarily sure the savant is tier five though. We have it as a four currently. I haven't actually voted on this one, but I could see a plausible argument for everything on the range from four to five. Given that, being worse than the savant isn't much of a nail in the coffin of the expert.


5) Tier inflation is a potential problem with the usability of the tier system. Putting Expert into T5 broadens T5, and by extension probably pushes some classes into T4, while threatening to almost empty T6.
Yeah, this is something I've been thinking about. The classes that move near universally move upwards, and I'm not even sure what that means from a broader perspective. It's not clear if we're doing something wrong or not when that happens. Are we more knowledgeable about the game than those of the past, or are we simply deluding ourselves in the fashion JaronK once warned of, that we vote up those classes that we appreciate.

A few things make that seem not that problematic though. First, few classes have moved. Six, to be precise (starting to wonder if I should start doing some highlighting of those, maybe one color for classes new to the system, another for those that have moved, and perhaps a third to delineate the direction of movement). They've all moved up, which implies this sort of inflation, but we've gone though a lot of classes so this isn't so much a rising tide lifting all ships as perhaps a more precise event. Second, while no tier has reduced, it strikes me as notable that the factotum, and to a lesser extent the wild shape ranger, have landed pretty close to the tier four mark. The measure of these classes could be considered reduced, if not by a whole number. Third, the fighter is incredibly close to the tier five line, and the class has long been considered on the line, so this is a pretty subtle movement in my opinion.

Anyway, this clearly isn't an issue in this particular case, Expert has always been considered tier five. The class that has actually left six is the CW samurai, which strikes me as a correct assessment. I think my current rating for the class, 5.5, is a rather reasonable one. Worse than a samurai, but with sufficient higher optimization capabilities (there are some pretty useful obscure skills out there) to get the class better than an aristocrat. I don't love how small tier six is, but it was never intended to be all that large, even in the original formulation. There are some pretty bad classes out there, in any case. Maybe one will land in six. That'd be neat.

[Troacctid]

I'm still not convinced that Expert is even better than Aristocrat.

[Soranar]

I'm still not convinced that Expert is even better than Aristocrat.

I think that could fall on the amount of UMD abuse you're familiar with.

-If you always have DMs that don't provide magic marts or wands, lacking UMD doesn't seem like a big deal

-if you have a permissible DM, with access to whatever magic item you want, UMD becomes huge

There's also skills like

UPD

autohypnosis

and

Iaijutsu focus

that rarely see play yet can be game changers in certain situations

[Troacctid]

I think that could fall on the amount of UMD abuse you're familiar with.

-If you always have DMs that don't provide magic marts or wands, lacking UMD doesn't seem like a big deal

-if you have a permissible DM, with access to whatever magic item you want, UMD becomes huge

There's also skills like

UPD

autohypnosis

and

Iaijutsu focus

that rarely see play yet can be game changers in certain situations
UMD just isn't that much of a game-changer. It's very costly if you want to use anything other than 1st and 2nd level spells, it drops dramatically in value if the party already has a caster, and it's not class-exclusive, so anyone who really wants it can easily get it. The amount of investment it would take for an Expert to become as proficient in combat as an Aristocrat is greater than the amount of investment it would take for an Aristocrat to be more proficient in UMD than an Expert, and combat proficiency is much more important than having additional options for spending WBL.

As for Autohypnosis, it barely does anything. I'm not even sure it's worth investing more than a point or two. And Iaijutsu Focus is setting-specific 3.0 material that's difficult to use even if you have access to it; it's like basically not even a thing.

[TIPOT]

As a side note, looking at the aristocrat they get automatic proficiency in exotic armour and shields.

Still not enough to push them up a tier though...

Aristocrat tier 5.5
Magewright tier 5
Expert 5.5
Warrior 5.5
Adept 4
Commoner 6

Although from the definitions of the tiers in this thread it gives Aristocrats as the default upper end of tier 6

[GilesTheCleric]

I'm going to repost a post from Jormengand's tiering thread. I probably should have done so earlier, sorry. I'll also note that Craft (Alchemy) could probably have some good uses, but I haven't looked into it so I couldn't say for sure.


I'd like to point out a few overlooked skills. I don't think they change the tiering for these skill-based classes, but they're worth acknowledging.

Profession: Executioner (BoVD) lets you have a flat DC 18 to succeed on your CdG attempt (using an Executioner's Sword). Combined with Death Blow (CAd), you can be a valuable finisher in combat without any other combat ability necessary.

Profession: Siege Engineer (HoB) with an eg trebuchet allows you to target a square, using your int mod for your to-hit, and you only need to hit a flat AC 15. Trebuchets deal 5d6-14d6 of damage (with several rounds to prepare to fire), and are pretty impractical in a lot of situations. But they can be used without a whole lot of skill in combat.

Knowledge: Warcraft (Dark Sun 3) lets you buff your allies' AC or to-hit, and it runs off cha, which you probably had pumped for diplomacy anyway. The bonus is equal to your cha mod; the DC is 15+number of allies affected, so low and fixed.

Warcraft (Birthright Campaign Setting) lets you pick where you end up engaging with your foes. It's meant for mass battles (both strategy and tactics), but if your GM will let you use it against foes that are chasing you, it's a neat way to get some free terrain bonuses. Runs off int, so you're golden.

[eggynack]

Although from the definitions of the tiers in this thread it gives Aristocrats as the default upper end of tier 6
I think it's useful information, the general guidelines of what a reasonable comparison point for each tier looks like, but it shouldn't necessarily be taken that seriously. If you think that a class I have listed as central to a tier doesn't fit that tier, then you can tier in accordance with that, and if folks agree with that to the extent the result is different from what I have, I'll just wind up switching the definition to some other class. Comparison testing is critical, so having something to compare a class to in a vacuum is critical, but we're becoming less and less a vacuum as time goes on. Long as the things you think are tier three are better than the things you think are tier four and such, you can't go too far off course.

[Lans]

2a) One of the premier Expert builds, Knowledge Devotion, is comparable to what the Tier 6 Aristocrat can do; the Aristocrat loses some fringe skills and a feat (UMD Apprentice) but is using martial weapons to apply their damage bonus.


A feat is a big deal, while the Aristrocrat is using a feat on apprentice, the expert can be using a feat on Shape Soulmeld to get a bonus on saves, skills, attacks and damage or hidden talent for minor psionic creation

[Troacctid]

The Aristocrat is already starting out with what are effectively bonus feats in the form of extra proficiencies and a larger hit die. It would cost the Expert more feats to match that than it would cost the Aristocrat to get a couple extra class skills.

[DEMON]

Almost missed this one.

Adept is a T4, I think, thanks to spells (and familiar).

Magewright is probably T5 and the Commoner T6.

The other 3 are somewhere in between, so I guess T5.5 would be fair.