What tier is this class? [Adept+]

[AvatarVecna]

Cultist

Hit Die

d6

Class Skills

Concentration, Craft, Decipher Script, Knowledge (all, taken individually), Profession, Speak Language, Spellcraft, and Use Magic Device.

Skill Points at 1st Level

(2 + Int modifier) x 4

Skill Points at Each Additional Level

2 + Int modifier



Level
BAB
Fort
Ref
Will
0th S/D
1st S/D
2nd S/D
3rd S/D
4th S/D
5th S/D
6th S/D
0th SK
1st SK
2nd SK
3rd SK
4th SK
5th SK
6th SK


1
+0
+0
+0
+2
4
2
-
-
-
-
-
5
3
-
-
-
-
-


2
+1
+0
+0
+3
5
3
-
-
-
-
-
6
4
-
-
-
-
-


3
+1
+1
+1
+3
5
3
-
-
-
-
-
7
5
-
-
-
-
-


4
+2
+1
+1
+4
5
4
2
-
-
-
-
7
5
3
-
-
-
-


5
+2
+1
+1
+4
6
4
3
-
-
-
-
8
6
4
-
-
-
-


6
+3
+2
+2
+5
6
4
3
-
-
-
-
8
6
5
-
-
-
-


7
+3
+2
+2
+5
6
5
4
2
-
-
-
8
6
5
3
-
-
-


8
+4
+2
+2
+6
6
5
4
3
-
-
-
9
7
6
4
-
-
-


9
+4
+3
+3
+6
7
5
4
3
-
-
-
9
7
6
5
-
-
-


10
+5
+3
+3
+7
7
5
5
4
2
-
-
9
7
6
5
3
-
-


11
+5
+3
+3
+7
7
6
5
4
3
-
-
9
7
7
6
4
-
-


12
+6
+4
+4
+8
7
6
5
4
3
-
-
10
8
7
6
5
-
-


13
+6
+4
+4
+8
7
6
5
5
4
2
-
10
8
7
6
5
3
-


14
+7
+4
+4
+9
8
6
6
5
4
3
-
10
8
7
7
6
4
-


15
+7
+5
+5
+9
8
6
6
5
4
3
-
10
8
8
7
6
5
-


16
+8
+5
+5
+10
8
6
6
5
5
4
2
10
8
8
7
6
5
3


17
+8
+5
+5
+10
8
7
6
6
5
4
3
11
9
8
7
7
6
4


18
+9
+6
+6
+11
8
7
6
6
5
4
3
11
9
8
8
7
6
5


19
+9
+6
+6
+11
8
7
7
6
5
5
4
11
9
8
8
7
6
5


20
+10
+6
+6
+12
9
7
7
6
6
5
4
11
9
9
8
7
7
6




Class Features

Weapon and Armor Proficiency

Cultists are proficient with all simple weapons. Cultists are not proficient with any type of armor nor with shields.

Spells

A cultist casts arcane spells which are drawn from any spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time.

To learn or cast a spell, a cultist must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a cultist’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the cultist’s Intelligence modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a cultist can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on the above table. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Intelligence score.

A cultist's selection of spells is limited in quantity. A cultist begins play knowing spells as indicated for a cultist of their level on the table above. Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a cultist knows is not affected by his Intelligence score. These new spells can be chosen from any spell list.

Upon reaching 2nd level, and at every cultist level thereafter, a cultist can choose to learn a new spell in place of one he already knows. In effect, the cultist "loses" the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged. A cultist may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that he gains new spells known for the level.

Unlike a wizard or a cleric, a cultist need not prepare his spells in advance. He can cast any spell he knows at any time, assuming he has not yet used up his spells per day for that spell level. He does not have to decide ahead of time which spells he'll cast.

Mostly just trying to get a feel for what tier this kinda casting should be considered, just on its own.

[Luccan]

Tier 3. Any possible spell is really powerful. Better than Bardic casting, in fact. But only up to 6th level means you can't really break into the power scale a tier 2 is playing with.

[Gnaeus]

I agree. Tier 3. Better casting than a Bard or PF half caster but no class abilities.

[Inevitability]

If it gets any spell list, including PrC cheese and , then it's tier 3, bordering on tier 2. There's out-of-the-box access to lots of cheese, as well as the ability to take spells that certain prestige classes grant at much lower levels. You could be summoning a fiendish fire giant every combat at ECL 10, for one.

[Luccan]

I agree. Tier 3. Better casting than a Bard or PF half caster but no class abilities.

Their spells alone push them to the upper end of Tier 3, I think. Arguably they can access higher level spells because of Planar Binding, but that's at their max power and will still cost them more than spell slots most of the time.

[JoshuaZ]

If it gets any spell list, including PrC cheese and , then it's tier 3, bordering on tier 2. There's out-of-the-box access to lots of cheese, as well as the ability to take spells that certain prestige classes grant at much lower levels. You could be summoning a fiendish fire giant every combat at ECL 10, for one.

How do they do that?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Since they are drawn from any spell list, it is possible to get some effects very early (haste as 1st, improved invisibility as 2nd), including some effects that are not available to most 6th-level spell users (polar ray as 5th, control weather as 6th).

That said, you're missing out on a lot of very important t1-t2 effects. Assuming you're not using Versatile Spellcaster + Extra Slot shenanigans (because those could break any class), this would be a solid t3, maybe a t2 with a lot of book diving.


Edit:
How do they do that?
Summon giants from the Disciple of Thyrm list.

[AvatarVecna]

If it gets any spell list, including PrC cheese and , then it's tier 3, bordering on tier 2. There's out-of-the-box access to lots of cheese, as well as the ability to take spells that certain prestige classes grant at much lower levels. You could be summoning a fiendish fire giant every combat at ECL 10, for one.

Essentially, you can pull your spells known from any list. Not like, you pick a list at lvl 1 and pick spells from that list forever, but every level, pick from any list.

And yeah, a lot of the build-to-build power for this class, I think, is gonna be dependent on how much you're taking advantage of some lists getting spell X or Y a level or two earlier than the standard.

[Lazymancer]

It has slow progression, but I say 6 spell levels is enough to make ability to choose spells from any spell-list (not even arcane spell list) enough to qualify it for Tier 2.

[Fizban]

I feel that describing this as Adept+ is a gross misrepresentation. It's actually Bard casting with 2-3x the slots and spells known, chosen from any list.

Since tiers are defined by however much weight the reader gives spellcasting, there you go. Classically, it can't be tier 2 because it doesn't have 9th level spells, but it can't be tier 4 because it has Actual Spellcasting, so it must be tier 3.

More importantly, as a generic spellcaster it has no role and messes with the standard casting divisions. Generic casters should immediately usurp all traditional spellcasting NPCs because why would anyone bother with books and gods and class lists when they could just do whatever they want? On the player side, it requires significantly more knowledge and self-awareness to replace the standard arcane/divine split with spontaneous generic casters without losing something important.

[Zancloufer]

Aside from a few of the spells that are level 1-2 for a niche class but level 3-5 otherwise I don't see it being that powerful. Tier 3 for sure due to sheer versatility but you really need to book dive to make up for being 2-7 levels behind everyone else.

Also it's not like the Chassis is any good so overall I can see how this is an Adept+ (Better spell selection but that is about it).

[JoshuaZ]

I feel that describing this as Adept+ is a gross misrepresentation. It's actually Bard casting with 2-3x the slots and spells known, chosen from any list.


Agreed here.



Since tiers are defined by however much weight the reader gives spellcasting, there you go. Classically, it can't be tier 2 because it doesn't have 9th level spells, but it can't be tier 4 because it has Actual Spellcasting, so it must be tier 3.

Disagree. The tiers are defined by what the classes can do. *In practice* this is closely correlated with what spellcasting one has.



More importantly, as a generic spellcaster it has no role and messes with the standard casting divisions. Generic casters should immediately usurp all traditional spellcasting NPCs because why would anyone bother with books and gods and class lists when they could just do whatever they want? On the player side, it requires significantly more knowledge and self-awareness to replace the standard arcane/divine split with spontaneous generic casters without losing something important.

By this logic, no NPC would ever bother being a commoner. This isn't quite how things work. Note also that from a flavor perspective having broad list access isn't unreasonable; if one looks at most classical notions of magic there wasn't really a clear division between things like arcane and divine spellcasting.

[GrayDeath]

Very very strong Tier 3 if its truly "any List.
Strong T3 if its "any Core CLass List. Very dependant on how much the player actually abuses that ability, though. Could sink to the lowest of T3 CLasses if the picks are stupid (as it lacks the Bards, which is the closest class, other advantages).

Ovberall boring as heck, but very powerful.

[Lazymancer]

Since tiers are defined by however much weight the reader gives spellcasting,
It is not. Spells simply happen to be the only consistent source of gamechanging effects.

If there was more feats like "Troll-Blooded" (for level 1) and only Fighter was getting them, I would consider Fighter to be Tier 2.


Classically, it can't be tier 2 because it doesn't have 9th level spells
"Classically"? When did new redefined Tier system become "classical"? :smallamused:

If you remove spell slot progression of Wizard class after level 15 (no 9th level spells!), would the class stop being Tier 1 - when you play at 1-15 levels?

If you take SoAO Mystic Ranger and do not use outside of campaigns of 1-10 levels, would it not be Tier 1 class in those campaings?

[ngilop]

Yeah, i have to concur with everybody else on this thread so far.

the any spell you ever want from any list ever is a bit CRAZY. take a look at some PrCs and see the wonky levels that some of them get some pretty powerful spells earlier than the 'standard' classes and by standard i mean wizard, druid, or cleric.


Id rather you pick a core class's spell list at first level and thats it ( there are plenty of ways to gain additional spells outside your class spell list) then give them some actual class features


this is a high tier 3, borderline tier 2 depending on the spells taken from which specific list.

[GrayDeath]

Maybe adjust it to any 2 core class Spell Lists, chosen at Level 1"?

Still a LOT of options, but none of the totally abusable Bargain Spell level PRC?s silliness.

[Luccan]

Maybe adjust it to any 2 core class Spell Lists, chosen at Level 1"?

Still a LOT of options, but none of the totally abusable Bargain Spell level PRC?s silliness.

I actually like this a lot; you can achieve the same effect* just limiting to base class lists, but this means you'll have more of a theme

*Edit: As in, no early access cheese

[Fizban]

To be clear, I'm not saying access to every list is crazy. Limited spells known makes class spell lists much less important, and if a class already has access to the sor/wiz there's no reason not to allow them everything else except to preserve roles and prevent particular stacking problems. Both of those are easily handled by not being a butt. The craziest thing here is the massive increase in slots and known spells which basically makes the bard look like a chump. Even the number of spells known isn't much compared to the fixed-list casters, and only a modest increase over that which a sorcerer would have.

The reason NPCs should all be of this class has nothing to do with their choice, it has to do with a logical setting. City generation has every core class, and each core class has fairly distinct reasons to exist, so it makes sense to have all of them. This generic spellcasting class can substitute for any of the casters except in maximum spell level (which is much less of a concern for NPCs), with none of the drawbacks. It makes sense to have powerful churches and wizard guilds when spells come from gods and spellbooks, not so much when a "cultist" can do the job without either. Why roll for cleric, druid, wizard, and sorcerer, when you could just roll generic spellcaster four times? Unless the "cultist" is kept aside as a unique class, but I tend to assume anything called a cultist is meant to be used en masse against the PCs- which is itself a practice that makes no sense, but anyway.

[JoshuaZ]

To be clear, I'm not saying access to every list is crazy. Limited spells known makes class spell lists much less important, and if a class already has access to the sor/wiz there's no reason not to allow them everything else except to preserve roles and prevent particular stacking problems. Both of those are easily handled by not being a butt. The craziest thing here is the massive increase in slots and known spells which basically makes the bard look like a chump. Even the number of spells known isn't much compared to the fixed-list casters, and only a modest increase over that which a sorcerer would have.

The reason NPCs should all be of this class has nothing to do with their choice, it has to do with a logical setting. City generation has every core class, and each core class has fairly distinct reasons to exist, so it makes sense to have all of them. This generic spellcasting class can substitute for any of the casters except in maximum spell level (which is much less of a concern for NPCs), with none of the drawbacks. It makes sense to have powerful churches and wizard guilds when spells come from gods and spellbooks, not so much when a "cultist" can do the job without either. Why roll for cleric, druid, wizard, and sorcerer, when you could just roll generic spellcaster four times? Unless the "cultist" is kept aside as a unique class, but I tend to assume anything called a cultist is meant to be used en masse against the PCs- which is itself a practice that makes no sense, but anyway.

Most campaigns in practice don't seem to pay careful attention to the breakdown of how many people of each class there should be, and when one does you those breakdowns one immediately gets settings which are inherently inconsistent with anything resembling the medieval-fee most people are going for (the obvious exception being Eberron which embraced the naturally high magic nature in some respects). So replacing NPCs with this class as people who have studied magic in some broad sense doesn't seem like a big deal. Moreover, since they get a fixed set of spells to choose from it still isn't always better; a cleric for example can go pray for a totally different set of spells one day or the next, whereas this class has a fixed set of spells they can't change.

[Zancloufer]

Quick question: Why does everyone keep saying this class replaces Bard? It doesn't. Bard has songs, skills+skill points, medium BaB + some weapons and armour. The only thing this class can do is cast spells. They are kind of like a mix between a Sorcerer and Favoured Soul, but with LESS class features and being some spell levels behind.

Yes this class is a better spell caster than a Bard but I would hope that a class that has NOTHING other than spells would be better at them than a Bards. Bards can me mini-gishes, party face, skill monkey and a bunch of other things. At the same time. Bard is the "Jack of all trades master of none". This class is JUST SPELLS.

[ryu]

Quick question: Why does everyone keep saying this class replaces Bard? It doesn't. Bard has songs, skills+skill points, medium BaB + some weapons and armour. The only thing this class can do is cast spells. They are kind of like a mix between a Sorcerer and Favoured Soul, but with LESS class features and being some spell levels behind.

Yes this class is a better spell caster than a Bard but I would hope that a class that has NOTHING other than spells would be better at them than a Bards. Bards can me mini-gishes, party face, skill monkey and a bunch of other things. At the same time. Bard is the "Jack of all trades master of none". This class is JUST SPELLS.

Yes, and spells are more important than all of those things combined. Being better at spells? Kinda important.

[Lazymancer]

This class is JUST SPELLS.
You can ask for almost anything, and you'll get the answer "there is an app a spell for this".

It's quite easy to take Find Traps & Knock and have this class replace Rogue by 4th level. Similarly, Charm Person (or somewhat saner Friendly Face / Price of Loyalty) do the Party Face thing.

[heavyfuel]

People saying this is Tier 3 just because it doesn't have access to Gate and other game breaking spells are assuming everyone playing starts out at lv 20.

This class is a very strong Tier 2 class up until around lv 13. Only then it becomes an insanely strong Tier 3 class

[Zaq]

My gut says that they're around T3, but they're a really weird and squishy T3. There's definitely shenanigans that you can get up to by poaching from lists that aren't intended to be accessed by base classes, but I'm not convinced that those shenanigans are enough to fundamentally affect the scope of problems that you can or cannot solve. (Plus, optimization within a tier is still a thing.)

Whether this class is T2 or T3 really depends on definitions. How much ability to reshape the campaign in your image do you need in order to be able to edge into T2 territory? 5th and 6th level spells from any list (and a decent number known) are still hefty even at ECL 6 (when you first get them), even if they aren't on par with 8ths and 9ths. You've still got, just to pull a smattering from the SRD, long-range travel (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleport.htm), minionmancy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarBinding.htm), strong divinations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contactOtherPlane.htm), heavy property (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWinds.htm) damage, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sympatheticVibration.htm) nonsensical wealth (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfIron.htm) generation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fabricate.htm), and so on, obviously expanding in capability with non-SRD resources.

Do the 9th level casters do it better? Of course they do. That was never in question. Polymorph is not Shapechange, Limited Wish is not Miracle, Dominate Person is not Mindrape, Control Winds is not Control Weather, and so on. (Plus, getting spells later is noticeable and shouldn't be ignored outright, even if your early game isn't actually that bad, especially with access to lower-than-usual spell levels with PrC dumpster diving.) But you can get yourself both into and out of a lot of trouble with just 5ths and 6ths, even at high levels.

The fact that you're relatively generous with spells known plays a big factor here. Even with a generous number of spells known, one Cultist obviously still can't do everything they'd ever want to do, but compared to a Sorc or a Bard or something, I feel like they've got more flexibility in terms of being able to pick a variety of their current highest-level spells.

I could honestly go either way for T3 or T2. If one follows a definition of T2 that specifies that a class MUST have campaign-breakers to be T2, then this probably falls short of that bar, but again, they're not that far behind. If we call them T2, they're a weird and slow T2, but the fact that they don't have to expend any effort to pull together an optimized spell list from disparate sources covers a little bit of ground.

They've actually got a little bit of similarity to a (non-early entry) Mystic Theurge, now that I think about it. You're a spell level or two behind a normal 9th level caster, but you've got greater flexibility for pulling from multiple lists, and you've got more slots per day than might otherwise be expected. (A true MT will have more slots per day, but the Cultist still has a lot of spells per day within a given level.) It's not a perfect comparison, but it's not totally crazy.

[Gnaeus]

You can ask for almost anything, and you'll get the answer "there is an app a spell for this".

It's quite easy to take Find Traps & Knock and have this class replace Rogue by 4th level. Similarly, Charm Person (or somewhat saner Friendly Face / Price of Loyalty) do the Party Face thing.

Hahahahahahaha!
So for 4 minutes a day you can find traps based on your search (not a class skill) +2 with no ability to disable! You could cast that and then open 2 doors or chests in a day! Yeah! That replaces a rogue for sure!

Charm person as a replacement for social skills? Hey! That’s Tier 1. In the sense that the first time you run across something which makes a save or is immune your armorless Bard/Rogue wannabe will be dead and your next character could actually be T1.

There’s a 3.5 class called Beguiler. It knows it’s entire spell list, so good freaking luck trying to get more utility out of your 5, 4th level spells known (and only 4 cast) than he does from his 4ths, 5ths, and 6ths. It expands its spells known easier than this guy. It gets actual class abilities. When you cast 4 4ths/day, he casts 7 4ths, 6 5ths, 4 6ths, And it still lives on the 2-3 border (based on forum consensus).

It’s clearly worse than Beguiler or DN. Not clearly superior to Bard. 3.

[Zancloufer]

You can ask for almost anything, and you'll get the answer "there is an app a spell for this".

It's quite easy to take Find Traps & Knock and have this class replace Rogue by 4th level. Similarly, Charm Person (or somewhat saner Friendly Face / Price of Loyalty) do the Party Face thing.

The problem is that you are replacing something that you can do at will with skills with a spell that you have a finite number for.

I am not saying that spell casting isn't good, it is. Just this class has ONLY spells and is a spell level or three behind full casters at that. The Bard while being similarly limited in spell level and spells known at least has a pile of class features and other things it can do. When this class runs out of spells it has nothing, Bard still has 80% of it's class features.

It is strong but it has all the weaknesses of a spontaneous caster (slower progression, finite spells know, slow meta-magic) combined while being even further behind in spell levels and having less spells per day. I mean it doesn't get 3rd level spells until 7th level and 4th level spells until 10th. It caps at 6th level just before full casters get their 9ths.

It's good and it's probably close to tier 2 for levels 1-4 but after that the spell level delay becomes very apparent and they don't get better. You can play it with other PCs and not feel cheated as you trade raw power for a ton of versatility.

[Luccan]

People saying this is Tier 3 just because it doesn't have access to Gate and other game breaking spells are assuming everyone playing starts out at lv 20.

This class is a very strong Tier 2 class up until around lv 13. Only then it becomes an insanely strong Tier 3 class

Why level 13 specifically? It has already fallen well behind in spell levels at that point (although it has an insane number of spells known for a spontaneous caster) and fourth level spells, so long as you don't get them earlier than anyone else, aren't that impressive in the grand scheme of spell casting. Is it the early access to more powerful spells via PRC spell lists?

[Gnaeus]

At level 12 the DN and Beguiler have almost twice as many spells per day. 34 spells to 18. 103 spell levels to 40, because they are heavily weighted to higher spell levels. The DN list includes such trash as planar binding. All on a much better chassis of class abilities. It doesn’t look close to me.

[Goaty14]

I want to know whether these are Arcane or Divine spells being cast. It currently suggests that you cast it as whatever the spell list casts it as, but just to clarify.

[Lazymancer]

The problem is that you are replacing something that you can do at will with skills with a spell that you have a finite number for.
I daresay at will abilities are overrated. Sure, you can't handle opening 20 locks in a row with spells (though, Knock wand costs 750 gp - due to Trapsmith spell-list), but how often does this come up?


I am not saying that spell casting isn't good, it is. Just this class has ONLY spells and is a spell level or three behind full casters at that.
Come on. Look at the class.

First five levels it is not simply indistinguishable from Sorcerer, it is better than the Sorcerer. Next six levels it is one spell level behind Sorcerer, but it has better spell selection and more spells known - which compensates it somewhat.

I.e. at worst (assuming 1-20 campaign - which almost never happens IRL) this class is equivalent to Sorcerer for more than half of the game - until level 12 arrives and difference reaches 2 spell levels. The only difference is that it doesn't have familiar and doesn't get some support sorcerer gets (note that it does get sorcerer-only spells).


It's good and it's probably close to tier 2 for levels 1-4 but after that the spell level delay becomes very apparent and they don't get better. You can play it with other PCs and not feel cheated as you trade raw power for a ton of versatility.
Even by the retarded power paradigm of Tiers this class is fully Tier 2 throughout 1-11 levels.

If you take the actual meaning of Tier 2, this class remains T2 during 1-20 level, since it can do the unexpected, and this unexpected depends on the build.

[Gnaeus]

I daresay at will abilities are overrated. Sure, you can't handle opening 20 locks in a row with spells (though, Knock wand costs 750 gp - due to Trapsmith spell-list), but how often does this come up?


Come on. Look at the class.

First five levels it is not simply indistinguishable from Sorcerer, it is better than the Sorcerer. Next six levels it is one spell level behind Sorcerer, but it has better spell selection and more spells known - which compensates it somewhat.

I.e. at worst (assuming 1-20 campaign - which almost never happens IRL) this class is equivalent to Sorcerer for more than half of the game - until level 12 arrives and difference reaches 2 spell levels. The only difference is that it doesn't have familiar and doesn't get some support sorcerer gets (note that it does get sorcerer-only spells).


Even by the retarded power paradigm of Tiers this class is fully Tier 2 throughout 1-11 levels.

If you take the actual meaning of Tier 2, this class remains T2 during 1-20 level, since it can do the unexpected, and this unexpected depends on the build.

Dare say what you want. I’ve seen a lot of days when you want more than 4 minutes of trapfinding and 2 doors opened. And the rogue isn’t useless after doing that. This guy is.

At no point is it better than the sorcerer. Spells known are nice, but spells per day are better. And sorcerer has an immediate and widening gap. Also a familiar, which can be a significant focus for optimization.

Ok. Show me. Build one of these guys that’s better than an equal op DN or Beguiler at a range 1-11.

[AvatarVecna]

I want to know whether these are Arcane or Divine spells being cast. It currently suggests that you cast it as whatever the spell list casts it as, but just to clarify.


A cultist casts arcane spells which are drawn from any spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time.

Arcane. They can pull from other lists (the same way Bard has access to some divine spells), but it's still arcane casting.

[Nifft]

Dare say what you want. I’ve seen a lot of days when you want more than 4 minutes of trapfinding and 2 doors opened. And the rogue isn’t useless after doing that. This guy is.

At no point is it better than the sorcerer. Spells known are nice, but spells per day are better. And sorcerer has an immediate and widening gap. Also a familiar, which can be a significant focus for optimization.

Ok. Show me. Build one of these guys that’s better than an equal op DN or Beguiler at a range 1-11.

Character Level 1:

Spell Level 1: Lesser Vigor (Cleric/Druid), Power Word: Pain, Detect Thoughts (Domain)


Character Level 4:

Spell Level 1: Lesser Vigor (Cleric/Druid), Power Word: Pain, Detect Thoughts (Domain), Haste (Trapsmith), Dispel Magic (Trapsmith), Improvisation (Bard)
Spell Level 2: Suggestion (Bard), Dimension Door (Trapsmith), Bestow Curse (Demonologist)


Character Level 7:

Spell Level 1: Lesser Vigor (Cleric/Druid), Power Word: Pain, Detect Thoughts (Domain), Haste (Trapsmith), Dispel Magic (Trapsmith), Improvisation (Bard)
Spell Level 2: Suggestion (Bard), Dimension Door (Trapsmith), Bestow Curse (Demonologist), Magic Circle Against Evil (Demonologist), Alter Self
Spell Level 3: Lesser Planar Binding (Demonologist), Dimensional Anchor (Demonologist), Wall of Stone (Trapsmith)


Character Level 11:

Spell Level 1: Lesser Vigor (Cleric/Druid), Power Word: Pain, Detect Thoughts (Domain), Haste (Trapsmith), Dispel Magic (Trapsmith), Improvisation (Bard), Lesser Restoration (Paladin), Gaseous Form (Trapsmith), Resist Energy (Ranger),
Spell Level 2: Suggestion (Bard), Dimension Door (Trapsmith), Bestow Curse (Demonologist), Magic Circle Against Evil (Demonologist), Alter Self, Stone Shape (Trapsmith), Know Vulnerabilities (Bard)
Spell Level 3: Lesser Planar Binding (Demonologist), Dimensional Anchor (Demonologist), Wall of Stone (Trapsmith), Greater Dispel Magic (Trapsmith), Fabricate (Trapsmith), Glibness (Bard), Ice Storm (Warmage)
Spell Level 4: Planar Binding (Demonologist), Dominate Person (Bard), Polymorph, Heaven's Trumpet (Emissary of Barachiel)

[Yogibear41]

Tier 2 at early levels using cheese to pull powerful spells at low spell levels, eventually dropping to tier 3 at higher levels.

Also a familiar is just a feat away for an arcane caster.

[Lazymancer]

Character Level 1: ...
I'd like to point out that I do not endorse any attempts to argue within the paradigm of power-based Tiers. Any arguments will inevitably devolve into "that's just, like, your opinion, man".

Expect demands to prove that those spells are sufficient to surpass benefits of +1 hp per level (from d6 HD) and bonus feats.

[Luccan]

I'd like to point out that I do not endorse any attempts to argue within the paradigm of power-based Tiers. Any arguments will inevitably devolve into "that's just, like, your opinion, man".

Expect demands to prove that those spells are sufficient to surpass benefits of +1 hp per level (from d6 HD) and bonus feats.

Ok, Lesser Vigor gives you 10 hp healed at level one over equivalent number of rounds (or is it 11?) and can be cast multiple times on different people if need be. Basically a low power regeneration, except multiple people could benefit from one person knowing the spell. 1 extra hp lets you survive one extra point of damage (Or 20 at 20th level. Woohoo. Meanwhile lesser vigor will ultimately heal less, but you also have better version of vigor (and other spells) at that point.) Few* classes give "whatever feat you want" for bonus feats. For Fighters, the list is vast, but most aren't particularly good and most of the good ones have feat tax. At level 1, Detect Thoughts lets you know what your enemy is planning next (immediately next, mind you, it isn't the most amazing thing in the world or anything), so you get some advantage over them. It also serves you in situations where you aren't trying to kill something, since, again, you can read minds. Catch someone trying to scam you, a pickpocket, or even an attempted assassin if you're lucky. Power Word: Pain is a no saving throw spell that will kill most anything you use it on at low levels, unless you roll particularly poorly.

I'm not an expert at optimization, so I won't try the whole 20 levels, but at level 1 at least, there's no way a better hit die (particularly a d6) is worth these spells and you'd have to find pretty handy bonus feats (since regular feats everyone gets aren't a class feature) to make the argument it's more worth it to be a level 1.... anything else, actually. While I don't think this class ultimately ranks at tier 2, simply because it will fall behind and never reach the ridiculous possibilities of a sorcerer, the argument it starts flat better than the sorcerer holds weight. Assuming a game starting at lower levels and staying in the first 10, this easily outclasses sorcerer, wizards that don't get DM's arcanist friendly bookstore and infinite gold, and comes pretty close to par with cleric/druid (who probably win out with having literally any of their spells a day away).

*Do any base classes actually do that?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Ok. Show me. Build one of these guys that’s better than an equal op DN or Beguiler at a range 1-11.
Dunno about the entire range or all possible roles (I doubt the cultist will beat a beguiler at face duties, for example), but just haste makes the cultist a better buffer than most any DN/Beguiler at 1-5 (beguilers get it at 6th level), and there's the likes of gaseous form, invisibility, detect thoughts, protection from energy, spider climb right at level 1.

Improved invisibility comes online at level 4, four levels before the beguiler gets to play with it. There's also animate dead at ECL 4, same level the DN gets it (though the DN has to burn Advanced Learning, else they get it at ECL 8), and stuff like lesser globe of invulnerability, displacement, heroism, dimension door, major image, and so on.

Charm monster, freedom of movement, hold monster, break enchantment, dominate person: these come online at at ECL 7 (ECL 8, 8, 10, 10, and 10 for beguiler).

So yeah, typically, you can expect a cultist to be better at minionmancy (animate dead at ECL 4, dominate person at ECL 7, lesser planar binding at ECL 7, planar binding at ECL 10) than either the dread necromancer or the beguiler at ECL 1-11. Their utility magic is top-notch across that level range, as well. That's just two dimensions of their performance, and I'm not going to bother exploring all of them, but I'll say it's an important dimension of raw power and an important dimension of versatility, so you wouldn't want to underestimate the stuff a cultist could get up to in-game.

[Gnaeus]

Character Level 1:

Spell Level 1: Lesser Vigor (Cleric/Druid), Power Word: Pain, Detect Thoughts (Domain)


1. No armor. No defensive spells at all. No spells that would stop a mind affecting immune. You're just dead. End analysis. Dead. But to be thorough:

2. Beguiler has a good battlefield control spell: Obscuring mist
2 solid multitarget save or loses: Sleep and color spray
a runaway spell: Expeditious retreat
A defensive buff: Mage armor (Likely just a buff for your monk, because I have armor, but...)
A couple of utility illusions: Lesser Image, Disguise Self
And a couple of good generic utility spells: Comprehend Languages, Detect Secret Doors

So, spells alone, Beguiler wins hands down, but beguiler also has
Light Armor Proficiency
Trapfinding
Spot, listen, search, move silently, hide.


Character Level 4:

Spell Level 1: Lesser Vigor (Cleric/Druid), Power Word: Pain, Detect Thoughts (Domain), Haste (Trapsmith), Dispel Magic (Trapsmith), Improvisation (Bard)
Spell Level 2: Suggestion (Bard), Dimension Door (Trapsmith), Bestow Curse (Demonologist)


As an adventurer, you are still pretty lame. Bestow curse sucks for you, as you have exactly 0 defense spells and you will die if you move into melee to touch things. But you do have some great spells, but some equally great problems:
1. 8 spells per day versus 11 is a real problem.
2. You have no way to detect a surprise attack other than spamming detect thoughts everywhere. Lacking armor or any defenses you have no way to survive one.
3. At this point, I can duplicate some of your tricks but more often. You have Lesser Vigor, Haste, Dispel Magic, Improvisation, DDoor, Bestow Curse. Thats good. I have (without relisting the duplicates)

good battlefield control spells: Obscuring mist, Fog Cloud
multitarget save or sucks that dont require touch: Sleep, color spray, Glitterdust, Daze Monster
a runaway spell: Expeditious retreat, Invisibility
defensive buffs: Mage armor (Likely just a buff for your monk, because I have armor, but...), Blur, Mirror Image
Anti caster spells: Touch of Idiocy, silence
A couple of utility illusions: Lesser Image, Disguise Self, Invisibility
And a couple of good generic utility spells: Comprehend Languages, Detect Secret Doors, See Invisibility, Spider Climb

And again, While improvisation is handy, its a +2 on checks. Ive still got all those skills, which your spells can't duplicate. Ive still got armor. You cant scout, you can't fight. 0 battlefield control. You have less divinations than I do. You can spam haste. Thats good I guess.


Character Level 7:

Spell Level 1: Lesser Vigor (Cleric/Druid), Power Word: Pain, Detect Thoughts (Domain), Haste (Trapsmith), Dispel Magic (Trapsmith), Improvisation (Bard)
Spell Level 2: Suggestion (Bard), Dimension Door (Trapsmith), Bestow Curse (Demonologist), Magic Circle Against Evil (Demonologist), Alter Self
Spell Level 3: Lesser Planar Binding (Demonologist), Dimensional Anchor (Demonologist), Wall of Stone (Trapsmith)


The funny thing here is that 7 is a breakpoint for you. Im clearly better at 6, when I get 3rds, and at 8, when I get 4ths. But thats cool, because I'm better at 7 too.

14 spells per day versus 19.
I had an advantage in divinations before. Now I have arcane sight and clairvoyance.
I had an advantage in social encounters before. Now I have Glibness.
I had better defenses before. You got Magic Circle v. Evil. I got Displacement,
You were better in buffing before. Now I also have haste, probably heroism too.
Wall of stone is a sexy battlefield controller. And you get it one level before I get solid fog, so congrats there. Of course, you have nothing like slow or glitterdust that might impede an incorporeal.

In fact, Wall of Stone is your only 3rd level spell good for immediate use. Basically, what we see here is a 7th level character built around the hope that the DM allows unlimited planar binding shenanigans. Its a non cha character, with no other cha synergy, and if a creature breaks out, you are screwed. For any normal adventuring purpose, this guy sucks. His ONLY area of mastery, at a level where all the cards should be in his favor, is hoping he can flood encounters with free planar bound minions.

Also, at this point, the DN or Beguiler has access to full list expanding tricks. For me, that would be arcane disciple either Travel (For Fly, but also I can duplicate his D Door next level) or Summoning (For all the summon monsters, but also planar ally next level).


Character Level 11:

Spell Level 1: Lesser Vigor (Cleric/Druid), Power Word: Pain, Detect Thoughts (Domain), Haste (Trapsmith), Dispel Magic (Trapsmith), Improvisation (Bard), Lesser Restoration (Paladin), Gaseous Form (Trapsmith), Resist Energy (Ranger),
Spell Level 2: Suggestion (Bard), Dimension Door (Trapsmith), Bestow Curse (Demonologist), Magic Circle Against Evil (Demonologist), Alter Self, Stone Shape (Trapsmith), Know Vulnerabilities (Bard)
Spell Level 3: Lesser Planar Binding (Demonologist), Dimensional Anchor (Demonologist), Wall of Stone (Trapsmith), Greater Dispel Magic (Trapsmith), Fabricate (Trapsmith), Glibness (Bard), Ice Storm (Warmage)
Spell Level 4: Planar Binding (Demonologist), Dominate Person (Bard), Polymorph, Heaven's Trumpet (Emissary of Barachiel)


21 spells (7/6/5/4) versus 33 (7/7/7/7/5). 4 spells level 4+ versus 12. Defensive spells pretty much nonexistent. He has no way to know when he is about to be attacked, and pretty much no defenses he can apply if he does other than run away via D Door. Awful AC, no displacement, mirror image, invisibility. He's basically just hoping that if you see Planar Binding on the list you will forget about how rubbish he is at pretty much everything else. Traps? Nope. Social Encounters? Worse than Beguiler. Heals? Beguiler now has Break enchantment so worse than beguiler. Scouting/Sneaking? Well, you can polymorph, thats not useless, but only a couple of times a day and I probably beat both your disguise and stealth totals with me unbuffed and you polymorphed, and if you use your polymorphs for scouting you don't have much mojo for anything else. Battlefield control? Similar abilities but I have more spells to use them with. In a game where Planar Binding > everything, he might have a slight edge over beguiler, although he will still suck compared with Dread Necromancer who can do that also. In any normal game, far far inferior. He would lose a fight, and would be less beneficial to an adventuring party. And again, hes picking odd levels because its slightly less embarassing.

[Gnaeus]

Dunno about the entire range or all possible roles (I doubt the cultist will beat a beguiler at face duties, for example), but just haste makes the cultist a better buffer than most any DN/Beguiler at 1-5 (beguilers get it at 6th level), and there's the likes of gaseous form, invisibility, detect thoughts, protection from energy, spider climb right at level 1.

Improved invisibility comes online at level 4, four levels before the beguiler gets to play with it. There's also animate dead at ECL 4, same level the DN gets it (though the DN has to burn Advanced Learning, else they get it at ECL 8), and stuff like lesser globe of invulnerability, displacement, heroism, dimension door, major image, and so on.

Charm monster, freedom of movement, hold monster, break enchantment, dominate person: these come online at at ECL 7 (ECL 8, 8, 10, 10, and 10 for beguiler).

So yeah, typically, you can expect a cultist to be better at minionmancy (animate dead at ECL 4, dominate person at ECL 7, lesser planar binding at ECL 7, planar binding at ECL 10) than either the dread necromancer or the beguiler at ECL 1-11. Their utility magic is top-notch across that level range, as well. That's just two dimensions of their performance, and I'm not going to bother exploring all of them, but I'll say it's an important dimension of raw power and an important dimension of versatility, so you wouldn't want to underestimate the stuff a cultist could get up to in-game.

The problem is, as the above analysis showed, they have way less spells to use. Like the other poster, some of your awesome tricks aren't actually better than what DNs and Beguilers can do natively (Spider climb is nice at one, but not necessarily better than expeditious retreat, for example). You can point to spells they can get faster than beguiler, but the beguiler has both more spells known and more spells per day at every possible point, AND skills and trapfinding and armor. At level 7? when you are pointing to those spells it can get a level early? It gets 3 spells known and 2 spells per day! It can't afford to waste time with stuff like freedom of movement, which is a useful but not fight winning spell. Subtract out enough defenses to make it survivable compared with the DN and Beguilers standard defense tricks and it has very little left for anything else. Its a pile of dead with some extra dead on top.

You cant just point to a list of all the spells you can get early and have it mean anything. Thats essentially what Nifft did. Great! We get wall of stone early! Wow. But its just a ref SOS/BFC spell, and those are imminently replacable. Its a cool option, but nothing special by itself. You need to find spells that are so freaking abusable that they are better than more than twice as many spells known and about 50% more spells per day while defending a cloth caster, and that hasn't remotely been demonstrated.

[Cosi]

Quick question: Why does everyone keep saying this class replaces Bard? It doesn't. Bard has songs, skills+skill points, medium BaB + some weapons and armour. The only thing this class can do is cast spells. They are kind of like a mix between a Sorcerer and Favoured Soul, but with LESS class features and being some spell levels behind.

Songs are just "more magic" that comes from a fixed (and not very good) list. Skills are not a replacement for spellcasting. Medium BAB is not a meaningful ability. At 7th level, it is a +2 bonus relative to poor BAB. Incidentally, this guy gets divine power at 7th level. Armor is in a similar boat when you consider that this guy gets mage armor.

[Gnaeus]

Songs are just "more magic" that comes from a fixed (and not very good) list. Skills are not a replacement for spellcasting. Medium BAB is not a meaningful ability. At 7th level, it is a +2 bonus relative to poor BAB. Incidentally, this guy gets divine power at 7th level. Armor is in a similar boat when you consider that this guy gets mage armor.

Does he though? I grant he should unless he can find mirror image or something else as a level 1. But it’s not on all these lists of all the awesomeness he gets. He knows 3 spells at 1. If Mage Armor is one, (and again, it should be) it means he has 2 spells to compare with everything else a T3 caster can do. And he better hope that the 4 encounters are crammed into an hour.

[Cosi]

Does he though? I grant he should unless he can find mirror image or something else as a level 1. But it’s not on all these lists of all the awesomeness he gets. He knows 3 spells at 1. If Mage Armor is one, (and again, it should be) it means he has 2 spells to compare with everything else a T3 caster can do. And he better hope that the 4 encounters are crammed into an hour.

At 1st level, he has color spray and the Bard doesn't. That's not close, even if he doesn't also have mage armor. I don't care how he compares to the Beguiler or Dread Necromancer, because those classes make the Bard look like a bad joke.

[Gnaeus]

At 1st level, he has color spray and the Bard doesn't. That's not close, even if he doesn't also have mage armor. I don't care how he compares to the Beguiler or Dread Necromancer, because those classes make the Bard look like a bad joke.

For my part, I don't care if he looks better than a bard, because if he can't top DN or Beguiler he's pretty clearly not crossing the tier barrier. OK. With solid optimization hes better than a bard.

[Cosi]

For my part, I don't care if he looks better than a bard, because if he can't top DN or Beguiler he's pretty clearly not crossing the tier barrier. OK. With solid optimization hes better than a bard.

I hesitate to actually use the tier terminology (because it is deeply stupid and based on bad assumptions), but the Dread Necromancer and the Beguiler very clearly do not belong in Tier Three. They are substantially better than the Favored Soul, and probably better than the Sorcerer.

[Lazymancer]

I hesitate to actually use the tier terminology (because it is deeply stupid and based on bad assumptions)
That's because you are not using Tiers correctly. It's not about "power" classes grant to players. Tiers are for GMs, to warn them about potentials of PCs.

Sorcerer is Tier 2 not because it is always strong, but because you don't know what it can do, until you take a good look at build.

CoDzilla is Tier 1 not because it is always strong, but because you don't know what it can do, even if you take a good look at build.

This is why Beguiler/Dread Necro did not get to T2 - they have fixed spell lists. GM knows what they do.

[Gnaeus]

I hesitate to actually use the tier terminology (because it is deeply stupid and based on bad assumptions), but the Dread Necromancer and the Beguiler very clearly do not belong in Tier Three. They are substantially better than the Favored Soul, and probably better than the Sorcerer.

And we agree on that. But there isn’t any point in reinventing that wheel every time. If the group consensus puts them at the edge of T3-2, and that’s pretty much what the votes said, then you need to be more versatile than they are to be above T3.

[Gnaeus]

That's because you are not using Tiers correctly. It's not about "power" classes grant to players. Tiers are for GMs, to warn them about potentials of PCs.

Sorcerer is Tier 2 not because it is always strong, but because you don't know what it can do, until you take a good look at build.

CoDzilla is Tier 1 not because it is always strong, but because you don't know what it can do, even if you take a good look at build.

This is why Beguiler/Dread Necro did not get to T2 - they have fixed spell lists. GM knows what they do.

Cosi knows the tier definitions. And this is not a particularly good one.

[Cosi]

That's because you are not using Tiers correctly. It's not about "power" classes grant to players. Tiers are for GMs, to warn them about potentials of PCs.

If the Tiers were actually about warning DMs about potential dirty tricks, why are they not a list of dirty tricks?


And we agree on that. But there isn’t any point in reinventing that wheel every time. If the group consensus puts them at the edge of T3-2, and that’s pretty much what the votes said, then you need to be more versatile than they are to be above T3.

I disagree. The tiers claim to objectivity. It's not supposed to be vote-based, it's supposed to be based on criteria. The problem is that those criteria aren't objective. But insofar as that is the goal of the system, that is how we should treat it.

[Jormengand]

As far as tiers go, this class is in a very special box with my favourite class of all time, the truenamer. It's in a very special box for a relatively simple reason: tiers are meant to stay reasonably constant with optimisation. At low optimisation the fighter does 2d6+STR*1.5 damage plus a little bit and the wizard and sorcerer really love fireball so they're better than the fighter. At high optimisation, the fighter does MANYdLOTS+BIG damage, and the wizard and sorcerer really love spells that actually do something so they're still better than the fighter.

Truenamer and cultist are weird. If you give a new player a truenamer, they'll probably mess up. A lot. They'll probably grok things like "Truespeak ranks are good" and "Maybe I should take skill focus", and then not put their INT high enough, take the wrong utterances and be worse than a fighter. If you give me a truenamer, it will be far, far better than most fighters I would build. That's because the truenamer has a massive skill curve since picking the right feats, race, utterances and items are all such a massive deal. That's why JaronK didn't put it in a particular tier.

In the cultist's case, a new player will probably play the cultist similarly to an adept, though they'll probably mostly blast things. They'll be better than an adept and worse than a bard, whatever tier you want to call that out of high 4 and low 3. An experienced player will be tempted to take the best spells, whether that's the unreasonably powerful Power Word: Pain or a spell at a lower level than usual, like the first-level haste which was mentioned. A strong enough spell list, on the other hand, can easily outdo a sorcerer at most levels, making it a solid T2 there.

[Lazymancer]

If the Tiers were actually about warning DMs about potential dirty tricks, why are they not a list of dirty tricks?
First and foremost, I must say I am amused by the derisive attitude. "Dirty" tricks? Is not being railroaded something amoral?

Secondly, would you mind explaining me, why are you demanding a list of all those potentially unpredictable actions Tier 1 can take - as a proof of it being unpredictable, due to having too many ways it can blindside GM to list them all?

Tiers describe classes, in case you forgot.

[Lazymancer]

Truenamer and cultist are weird.
No different from a Sorcerer. To rephrase you: "If you give a new player a Sorcerer, they'll probably mess up. A lot. ... If you give me a Sorcerer, it will be far, far better than most fighters I would build."

[Lans]

I hesitate to actually use the tier terminology (because it is deeply stupid and based on bad assumptions), but the Dread Necromancer and the Beguiler very clearly do not belong in Tier Three. They are substantially better than the Favored Soul, and probably better than the Sorcerer.

I think they can be argued that they belong in tier 3 using JKs definition of the tiers, where anything they can do does not count unless its a "nuke". I think an appropriate analogy would be if North Korea, South Korea, and Japan were classes. NK is tier 2, because of nukes, the other two are obviously better.

The Binder with the summoning vestige is problematic with this approach unless I'm missing something off the summon monster list.

I think this is a weakness in his tier system, but the appropriate counter argument for its placement of a class below tier 2 would be to compare how many nukes a beguiler/dread necro/bard/warmage/healer/SotAO paladin can get and compare them to FS/Psion/Sorcerer which ever one gets the least

[Jormengand]

No different from a Sorcerer. To rephrase you: "If you give a new player a Sorcerer, they'll probably mess up. A lot. ... If you give me a Sorcerer, it will be far, far better than most fighters I would build."

If I give a new player a sorcerer, they'll incinerate a new player's fighter with fire spells. If I give an experienced player a sorcerer, they'll twist an experienced player's fighter back into its elemental components. Either way, the fighter is just as dead. A greatsword that doesn't do half as much damage as a mid-level sorcerer with a constitution bonus has hit points is no more going to protect against a barrage of flaming death than all the tactics, cunning and zhentarim soldier dungeoncrashing in the world is going to protect against nigh-omnipotence. With cultist and truenamer, it's very very different - a low-OP truenamer is left muttering under his breath while he's carved up, and a high-OP truenamer probably deals a bunch of sonic damage over time to you and turns invisible so he can escape, maybe all in the same round. A low-OP cultist is just a bad bard, and a high-OP cultist is just a good mystic theurge.

[Cosi]

First and foremost, I must say I am amused by the derisive attitude. "Dirty" tricks? Is not being railroaded something amoral?

The things that gets brought up when people talk about "Tier Ones" are "dirty tricks". polymorph abuse, Chain Binding, wish for infinite power, etc. If you want to talk about stuff like teleport, sure, I'd disagree with the characterization (if you read my other posts, I think I'm pretty clearly pro-teleport), but that's not really the thing the Tiers seem to be about, just a consequence of contingent factors.


Secondly, would you mind explaining me, why are you demanding a list of all those potentially unpredictable actions Tier 1 can take - as a proof of it being unpredictable, due to having too many ways it can blindside GM to list them all?

Because saying "you could be blindsided" is just not useful information. You could be blindsided by an Ubercharger who negates every chargeable encounter. You could be blindsided by someone buying a Candle of Invocation. Really, which is more useful "because Efreet can be summoned with planar binding, and can themselves cast planar binding multiple times via wish, they can rapidly escalate player power to arbitrary levels" (which would cover planar binding, gate, and Candles of Invocation) or "Wizards could probably break your game somehow"?


I think they can be argued that they belong in tier 3 using JKs definition of the tiers, where anything they can do does not count unless its a "nuke". I think an appropriate analogy would be if North Korea, South Korea, and Japan were classes. NK is tier 2, because of nukes, the other two are obviously better.

I don't think you can count a class that has planar binding on its list as not having nukes. Similarly, the Beguiler is a Diplomancer in a box. Both classes also have absurd synergies with any number of things that expand your spell list. Before you shout "that's not class power", ask yourself how that's any different from the synergy Wizards have with scrolls.

[Fizban]

and when one does you those breakdowns one immediately gets settings which are inherently inconsistent with anything resembling the medieval-fee most people are going for (the obvious exception being Eberron which embraced the naturally high magic nature in some respects).
It actually doesn't, that's the kneejerk reaction that people give before they've gone over what the spells actually do and the number of people who can cast them. I've yet to see any examples that prove this beyond personal opinion even after several threads- it all depends on the DM's view of a few particular spells, how much the DM assumes they know about the problems those spells might address, how much they're benevolently working together, and so on. The only concrete possibilities I've found are heavy use of Animate Dead for basic slave labor (excavation and road building and such), if allowed, and Wall of Fire for steel smelting.

So replacing NPCs with this class as people who have studied magic in some broad sense doesn't seem like a big deal. Moreover, since they get a fixed set of spells to choose from it still isn't always better; a cleric for example can go pray for a totally different set of spells one day or the next, whereas this class has a fixed set of spells they can't change.
The number of spells an NPC cleric would use is very small, so they don't need to know the whole list. The wizard is the one you'd want to make an example of, but they've no guarantee of more than 4 spells known at each level, with all the drawbacks of a spellbook (this class gets 3+). Being able to prepare some specific spell is handy for serving adventurers, but NPCs only need the spells that concern their dayjobs. Which means that NPCs should favor this class, leaving fewer proper clerics and wizards to serve up needed higher spells and magic items.

The official answer is still that the city generation table doesn't change unless the DM says it does, and they could simply add this class on or replace whichever class they think would be replaced by it and leave the rest. I just think when people write up super-easy-mode stuff it should be noted that those easy mode classes would be extremely popular with NPCs. Specialists like Warmages and Beguilers can be justified as not generally around, but generalists should usurp generalists.


Quick question: Why does everyone keep saying this class replaces Bard? It doesn't. Bard has songs, skills+skill points, medium BaB + some weapons and armour. The only thing this class can do is cast spells. They are kind of like a mix between a Sorcerer and Favoured Soul, but with LESS class features and being some spell levels behind.

Yes this class is a better spell caster than a Bard but I would hope that a class that has NOTHING other than spells would be better at them than a Bards. Bards can me mini-gishes, party face, skill monkey and a bunch of other things. At the same time. Bard is the "Jack of all trades master of none". This class is JUST SPELLS.
And spells are lauded as the be-all end-all of everything. I find it quite amusing how people say the Bard is a great class just off the spellcasting, when Bard spellcasting is actually pretty terrible. You know what has better spellcasting than a Bard? A basic clr 3/wiz 3/mystic theurge. And people say that build is terrible garbage that can't stand up to a "real" game.

The Bard's other class features are nice but if you're there for say, the ability to cast cure spells along with other arcane spells, you don't care. If you don't like tracking inspire courage or spending a turn buffing every fight, if you don't want to muck around with skills, you don't care. And if you consider spells more important than anything else, you don't care. So having 2-3x Bard casting is pretty significant.

I've generally considered a "bard but with full arcane/divine" a perfectly valid plan for a base class, but figured the spells per day were too low. Then I ran a proper Mystic Theruge comparison and realized it was just better anyway. This class does compare fairly well aside from the lack of 7ths at 15th, with the SADness being a reasonable boon in exchange for a few less main spells per day. In particular it blows the spontaneous favored soul/sorc MT out of the water due to the penalties given them, so if you've got someone who wants a spontaneous MT then they'd probably be better off with this.

[Nifft]

I'd like to point out that I do not endorse any attempts to argue within the paradigm of power-based Tiers. Any arguments will inevitably devolve into "that's just, like, your opinion, man". Sure, but the goal isn't to convince those few people who post in bad faith.

It's to show anyone interested in the topic a plausible truth.



1. No armor. No defensive spells at all. No spells that would stop a mind affecting immune. You're just dead. End analysis. Dead. But to be thorough:

2. Beguiler has a good battlefield control spell: Obscuring mist
2 solid multitarget save or loses: Sleep and color spray
a runaway spell: Expeditious retreat
A defensive buff: Mage armor (Likely just a buff for your monk, because I have armor, but...)
A couple of utility illusions: Lesser Image, Disguise Self
And a couple of good generic utility spells: Comprehend Languages, Detect Secret Doors

So, spells alone, Beguiler wins hands down, but beguiler also has
Light Armor Proficiency
Trapfinding
Spot, listen, search, move silently, hide. With three spells and no skill point spent, this character fills the roles of direct-damage, social encounter, and healer.

Your Beguiler fails at all three.

Need something to actually die, instead of just faffing around with illusions? You fail. You're useless and dead.

Need to discern if the NPC you're talking to is full of crap? You fail. You're useless and dead.

Need to heal an ally? You fail. You're useless and your whole party is dead.

In summation: You fail. You're useless and everyone you've ever loved is dead because of your failure.


With respect to your argument that an unarmored spellcaster is dead: you seem to be confused about the efficacy of Wizards and Sorcerers, neither of which use armor, and both of which are better than your fixed-list ("dead and useless") classes.



As an adventurer, you are still pretty lame. Bestow curse sucks for you, as you have exactly 0 defense spells and you will die if you move into melee to touch things. But you do have some great spells, but some equally great problems:
1. 8 spells per day versus 11 is a real problem.
2. You have no way to detect a surprise attack other than spamming detect thoughts everywhere. Lacking armor or any defenses you have no way to survive one.
3. At this point, I can duplicate some of your tricks but more often. You have Lesser Vigor, Haste, Dispel Magic, Improvisation, DDoor, Bestow Curse. Thats good. I have (without relisting the duplicates)

good battlefield control spells: Obscuring mist, Fog Cloud
multitarget save or sucks that dont require touch: Sleep, color spray, Glitterdust, Daze Monster
a runaway spell: Expeditious retreat, Invisibility
defensive buffs: Mage armor (Likely just a buff for your monk, because I have armor, but...), Blur, Mirror Image
Anti caster spells: Touch of Idiocy, silence
A couple of utility illusions: Lesser Image, Disguise Self, Invisibility
And a couple of good generic utility spells: Comprehend Languages, Detect Secret Doors, See Invisibility, Spider Climb

And again, While improvisation is handy, its a +2 on checks. Ive still got all those skills, which your spells can't duplicate. Ive still got armor. You cant scout, you can't fight. 0 battlefield control. You have less divinations than I do. You can spam haste. Thats good I guess. Maybe I should take alter self earlier instead.

That's a choice that this character has, thanks to being in a class with actual spell choices -- most of them great, instead of lackluster garbage like obscuring mist. Seriously, those are not good battlefield control spells. They have uses, and carrying around a wand of fog cloud is a fine idea for the rare occasions when it's useful, but nobody with real choices would waste a slot preparing either of those. Do you honestly think that giving your allies a miss chance is a good use of your action? If you think so, then you have very poor options for your action.

Haste is phenomenal at levels where weapon attacks are the dominant source of damage. I've got it, you've got nothing comparable. When it comes to buffing the party, you're useless, and your party is dead (including you).

Moving the whole party a sizable distance (via dimension door) is a massive tactical benefit, and can end an encounter. You can't do that. You're useless, and your party is dead (including you).




The funny thing here is that 7 is a breakpoint for you. Im clearly better at 6, when I get 3rds, and at 8, when I get 4ths. But thats cool, because I'm better at 7 too.

14 spells per day versus 19.
I had an advantage in divinations before. Now I have arcane sight and clairvoyance.
I had an advantage in social encounters before. Now I have Glibness.
I had better defenses before. You got Magic Circle v. Evil. I got Displacement,
You were better in buffing before. Now I also have haste, probably heroism too.
Wall of stone is a sexy battlefield controller. And you get it one level before I get solid fog, so congrats there. Of course, you have nothing like slow or glitterdust that might impede an incorporeal.

In fact, Wall of Stone is your only 3rd level spell good for immediate use. Basically, what we see here is a 7th level character built around the hope that the DM allows unlimited planar binding shenanigans. Its a non cha character, with no other cha synergy, and if a creature breaks out, you are screwed. For any normal adventuring purpose, this guy sucks. His ONLY area of mastery, at a level where all the cards should be in his favor, is hoping he can flood encounters with free planar bound minions.

Also, at this point, the DN or Beguiler has access to full list expanding tricks. For me, that would be arcane disciple either Travel (For Fly, but also I can duplicate his D Door next level) or Summoning (For all the summon monsters, but also planar ally next level). I'm showcasing that at level 7, this character can do a thing which is broken even for a level 9 Wizard.

Read that again. This class can do Wizard-tier broken things, two levels early.

You can pretend that you don't understand how big a deal this is, but you can't honestly argue that it's not a big deal.

This is a big deal. It's a big deal when a Wizard does it, and it's a big deal that this guy can do it -- two levels early -- and there's nothing comparable that a Beguiler could do.

Dread Necromancer could do some minion-o-mancy, but not for free, and not with such a vast array of powerful minion choices. DN also needs some spell help for planar binding spells, since their spell list has some rather critical gaps. Also, DN can't even cast animate dead until level 8.



21 spells (7/6/5/4) versus 33 (7/7/7/7/5). 4 spells level 4+ versus 12. Defensive spells pretty much nonexistent. He has no way to know when he is about to be attacked, and pretty much no defenses he can apply if he does other than run away via D Door. Awful AC, no displacement, mirror image, invisibility. He's basically just hoping that if you see Planar Binding on the list you will forget about how rubbish he is at pretty much everything else. Traps? Nope. Social Encounters? Worse than Beguiler. Heals? Beguiler now has Break enchantment so worse than beguiler. Scouting/Sneaking? Well, you can polymorph, thats not useless, but only a couple of times a day and I probably beat both your disguise and stealth totals with me unbuffed and you polymorphed, and if you use your polymorphs for scouting you don't have much mojo for anything else. Battlefield control? Similar abilities but I have more spells to use them with. In a game where Planar Binding > everything, he might have a slight edge over beguiler, although he will still suck compared with Dread Necromancer who can do that also. In any normal game, far far inferior. He would lose a fight, and would be less beneficial to an adventuring party. And again, hes picking odd levels because its slightly less embarassing. Actually I picked levels 1 and 11 because some guy wanted to see a 1-11 build:

Ok. Show me. Build one of these guys that’s better than an equal op DN or Beguiler at a range 1-11.
Levels 4 and 7 were in the middle, and were where this class got new spells.

The fact that you're trying to nit-pick why these choices were diabolically clever rather than just representative random samples shows that you've got no real arguments.

Social encounters? Detect Thoughts + Suggestion, or ask our bound Succubus to deal with it. Beguiler has none of these options. You're stuck relying on skills. You're dead.

Healing? Literally every wand, including lesser vigor (the most efficient healing in the game), which was on the spell list earlier to highlight this fact. You can break enchantment -- good for you, you're as powerful as one of the worst Bard songs -- and I could have taken that spell as well, except I have better options.

BFC? Got a few, could have more if we prioritized it. Bound Outsiders can do a lot better in that regard, throwing down endless wall of ice SLAs for example.

Scouting? Get the Nightmare to astral project us and look around in near-perfect safety. Your Beguiler can't do that -- you fail one roll and you're stuck in a circle of orcs with sticks, one-third of them make their Will save against your only spell before they grapple you. You're dead and your party will never even recover your items.

Traps? Not our job. You have fun playing the Corpse role.

Invisibility? Command an Imp to turn itself invisible and do whatever it is your poor, vulnerable Beguiler is trying to do (before you inevitably fail and die in a useless way -- the Imp will probably also die, but the Imp is not our character, and we don't care quite so much about its survival).

-- -- --

tl;dr - Yes, I'm focusing on a small number of specific strategic options. I'm doing this to highlight a couple of the T2 capabilities that this class could bring to bear, while covering other roles using only spells.

The "only spells" thing is important: since this class gets no features but spells, it would be natural to PrC out and get some actual class features. My analysis is therefore a lower bound on functionality.
- Spellthief 1 / Cultist 4 / Unseen Seer 10 would have much better skills, for example, and a few extra spells. Plus that whole stealing spells thing.
- Binder 1 / Cultist 4 / Anima Mage 10 would provide another set of worthwhile features, and eventually two such feature sets, to help cover whatever roles the spells didn't. Plus that whole Persist-o-mancy thing.
... and so on.


This is not a good class unless you want to unleash Chameleon shenanigans at lower levels than such shenanigans could have previously been unleashed.

[Lans]

I don't think you can count a class that has planar binding on its list as not having nukes. Similarly, the Beguiler is a Diplomancer in a box. Both classes also have absurd synergies with any number of things that expand your spell list. Before you shout "that's not class power", ask yourself how that's any different from the synergy Wizards have with scrolls.

That's why I put the last section of my post about comparing a beguilers, et al to Sorc/FS/Psion

[JoshuaZ]

It actually doesn't, that's the kneejerk reaction that people give before they've gone over what the spells actually do and the number of people who can cast them. I've yet to see any examples that prove this beyond personal opinion even after several threads- it all depends on the DM's view of a few particular spells, how much the DM assumes they know about the problems those spells might address, how much they're benevolently working together, and so on. The only concrete possibilities I've found are heavy use of Animate Dead for basic slave labor (excavation and road building and such), if allowed, and Wall of Fire for steel smelting.


Healing magic makes many people who would die otherwise or be crippled for life end up being productive. Depending on whether one is in 3.5 or PF, cantrips may have a pretty big impact on day to day things. For example, Create Water makes desert area for more habitable (I was in a campaign once where this actually mattered on a small scale, the DM had been planning all this difficulty with us traveling into a desert and had brought the dehydration rules from Sandstorm into Pathfinder and didn't realize that the cleric had Create Water.) Similar remarks apply to Purify Food and Drink even in 3.5. Once one has escaped the Malthusian trap, your civilization starts looking very different. And this is happening just with the lowest level spells, while others will simply increase the standard of living. For example, Mending even in 3.5 will mean that many practical things won't wear out nearly as fast. And all these spells are regularly accessible in a moderate sized village of a few hundred people as you can see from playing with this location demographic generator
(http://www.d20srd.org/d20/demographics/).

[Fizban]

*snip*.
No, it doesn't, but consider that even if it could, that doesn't change how the setting is described. Magic exists but does not change the overall medieval setting: if the city generator says there's X many casters, then clearly X many casters is not enough to make a setting changing impact by Word of God. Human nature and supernatural occurances can compensate behind the scenes without stretching credulity in the slightest. Calculations and research on the two actual examples I gave are solid, and still don't matter unless the DM says they do.

But that's not what this thread is about. There are plenty of old threads on the topic, or you could start a new one if they're all expired. It's an old enough unsubstantiated argument that I'm getting tired of rehashing it though, so don't expect me to show up unless you've got something I haven't seen before. Remember that you raised the topic here as a counterpoint to my saying that this "cultist" class should logically impact city generation, by implying city generation doesn't make sense and casters already exist so it doesn't matter anyway.

If you want to prove the "cultist" can't fill the roles of the common NPC caster (mostly 1st level with up to around 5th in most places), then I suggest compiling a list of significant spells for the dayjob cleric/wizard which is significantly longer than the spells known of the cultist.

[Lazymancer]

The things that gets brought up when people talk about "Tier Ones" are "dirty tricks".
Then those people have limited intelligence.

It is not "wishing for infinite power" that defines T1/T2, but being able (in potentia) to surpass expectations (objectively expressed in level-appropriate encounters from DMG/published modules). Stuff like casting Sleep at first level and shutting down all or most enemies. Or using Disguise Self/Alter Self to impersonate someone.


You could be blindsided by an Ubercharger who negates every chargeable encounter.
Yes. Ubercharged could be considered a very limited T2. However, it is not a class, but a build. T2 classes have built-in abilities that place them there.


You could be blindsided by someone buying a Candle of Invocation.
Yes. However, it is not even remotely a class ability. You could call it a "T1 item".


Because saying "you could be blindsided" is just not useful information.
You were demanding the antithesis of a quality to act as a proof of quality. There is literally no way you can justify this.

And - no. It is very useful to know at what charsheets you need to take a look at, and what players you need to have an understanding with.

[JoshuaZ]

No, it doesn't, but consider that even if it could, that doesn't change how the setting is described. Magic exists but does not change the overall medieval setting: if the city generator says there's X many casters, then clearly X many casters is not enough to make a setting changing impact by Word of God. Human nature and supernatural occurances can compensate behind the scenes without stretching credulity in the slightest. Calculations and research on the two actual examples I gave are solid, and still don't matter unless the DM says they do.


That it doesn't impact your level of credulity is very different than whether it is not "stretching credulity in the slightest"- an inconsistent universe is still inconsistent when Word of God claims it works one way and it obviously doesn't. In any event, saying that the examples you gave are "solid" is essentially missing the entire point: the major impact isn't occurring from high to mid level spells but from the very low level spells which will be available *everywhere*. Moreover, there's a serious problem where one is objecting to the consistency of a class being present in a setting as a consistency issue where one is already allowing DM-fiat and Word of God to decide what is or is not consistent. I agree that this is a secondary topic and not the main thrust of the thread so this will be my last comment on the matter.

[Nifft]

Then those people have limited intelligence.

It is not "wishing for infinite power" that defines T1/T2, but being able (in potentia) to surpass expectations (objectively expressed in level-appropriate encounters from DMG/published modules). Stuff like casting Sleep at first level and shutting down all or most enemies. Or using Disguise Self/Alter Self to impersonate someone. I see what you're trying to say, but I don't think that the ability to go off the rails of a rail-road plot is a useful definition of T1.

Consider: "My PC, Conner the Commoner, uses his scythe to stab the Wizard PC right in the back."


Even a Commoner can go off the rails, by the simple method of being an anti-social psychopathic jerk.

The solution in this case is two-fold:

1/ Don't use railroad plots; and
2/ Don't play with anti-social psychopath jerks.


Anyway, back to the topic. The ability to go off the rails cannot be a defining feature of a T1 class, since it's trivially shown that even a Commoner can go off the rails.

How about this for a partial definition of a T1?


Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player.

[ryu]

I see what you're trying to say, but I don't think that the ability to go off the rails of a rail-road plot is a useful definition of T1.

Consider: "My PC, Conner the Commoner, uses his scythe to stab the Wizard PC right in the back."


Even a Commoner can go off the rails, by the simple method of being an anti-social psychopathic jerk.

The solution in this case is two-fold:

1/ Don't use railroad plots; and
2/ Don't play with anti-social psychopath jerks.


Anyway, back to the topic. The ability to go off the rails cannot be a defining feature of a T1 class, since it's trivially shown that even a Commoner can go off the rails.

How about this for a partial definition of a T1?

Perhaps re-phrase to likely to go off any given rails while legitimately playing in good faith because their abilities used honestly are just that effective.

[Nifft]

Perhaps re-phrase to likely to go off any given rails while legitimately playing in good faith because their abilities used honestly are just that effective.

I'm still not seeing any evidence that rails are helping this definition.

What the T1s are more likely to do is solve an encounter using a single mechanical capability.

Thus the original definition: "Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player."

Solving an encounter seems like it's usually the opposite of "going off the rails" -- that would be avoiding the planned encounter. Rather, the T1 plays in good faith and wins with little difficulty.

[ryu]

I'm still not seeing any evidence that rails are helping this definition.

What the T1s are more likely to do is solve an encounter using a single mechanical capability.

Thus the original definition: "Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player."

Solving an encounter seems like it's usually the opposite of "going off the rails" -- that would be avoiding the planned encounter. Rather, the T1 plays in good faith and wins with little difficulty.

"You said our goal was to get to THIS point on the map. I got us to this point on the map. What you mean you actually wanted us to spend months hiking? Maybe say what you actually want... Nah that's crazy."

[Lazymancer]

I see what you're trying to say, but I don't think that the ability to go off the rails of a rail-road plot is a useful definition of T1.

Consider: "My PC, Conner the Commoner, uses his scythe to stab the Wizard PC right in the back."
It's like arguing that every class that has Use Magic Device is a T1, because it allows to use scrolls.

What we have here is a player doing his thing. But Tiers describe classes, not players (or items).

As for definition, I'd say experience suggests that it is insufficient. First one need to define the quality that is being measured (aka "Balance"), only then should the scale get labels.


I'm still not seeing any evidence that rails are helping this definition.
Not rails as such, but expectations that are inevitably created once you start using rails. In our specific case (DnD) those expectations are being primarily expressed as level-appropriate challenges (for specific roles).

If you don't have expectations you can't have Tiers, since Tiers define how classes function when faced with those expectations:

Tier 1&2 surpass expectations (function beyond the expected competence), with T1 being able to surpass expectations in many ways and T2 - in few or single.

Tier 3&4 conform to expectations, with T3 being able to conform to many (i.e. is competent in many areas), and T4 - to few or single.

Tier 5 fails to function as expected - falls below the competence level in their niche.

The only way to avoid having expectations (to transcend Tiers) requires either not having rails, or having a very simplistic system.


Solving an encounter seems like it's usually the opposite of "going off the rails" -- that would be avoiding the planned encounter. Rather, the T1 plays in good faith and wins with little difficulty.
Please note that it is the way the encounter is solved that deemed to be important - not that encounter is solved (which is what you draw attention to).

[Nifft]

It's like arguing that every class that has Use Magic Device is a T1, because it allows to use scrolls.

What we have here is a player doing his thing. But Tiers describe classes, not players (or items). Exactly, the state of being on-or-off-rail is a player thing, not a class thing.

A class isn't inherently on or off any rail.

(But also: don't use rails.)


Not rails as such, but expectations that are inevitably created once you start using rails. In our specific case (DnD) those expectations are being primarily expressed as level-appropriate challenges (for specific roles).

If you don't have expectations you can't have Tiers, since Tiers define how classes function when faced with those expectations:

Tier 1&2 surpass expectations (function beyond the expected competence), with T1 being able to surpass expectations in many ways and T2 - in few or single.

Tier 3&4 conform to expectations, with T3 being able to conform to many (i.e. is competent in many areas), and T4 - to few or single.

Tier 5 fails to function as expected - falls below the competence level in their niche. Wait, you don't expect a Wizard to teleport?

I think you're trying to use those words in an unusual and unintuitive way.

T1 conform perfectly to expectations if your expectations were about Wizards, Druids, and Clerics.

You're trying to build a definition based on the expectations of someone who is apparently ignorant about how D&D actually works.

That's a poor foundation for a functional definition, since anyone qualified to run a game is definitionally excluded from having compatible expectations.


Please note that it is the way the encounter is solved that deemed to be important - not that encounter is solved (which is what you draw attention to). Actually here's what I draw attention to. It's a line from the original definition of T1:


Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player.

So far I'm seeing a lot of attempts to out-do this rather simple definition, but so far most of them fail to even hit the right target, let alone surpass the original bullseye.

[Lazymancer]

Exactly, the state of being on-or-off-rail is a player thing, not a class thing.
We are talking about causes, not who is the beholder observes the event.


Wait, you don't expect a Wizard to teleport?
There is about 10k spells in 3.5 (and - AFAIK - there is already more in PF). Do you really expect non-genius level GMs to know what all spells do?


T1 conform perfectly to expectations if your expectations were about Wizards, Druids, and Clerics.
Existing system of level-appropriate encounters is based on levels, not classes. You literally need to create a new challenge rating for T1 to make this argument plausible.


You're trying to build a definition based on the expectations of someone who is apparently ignorant about how D&D actually works.
You do realize that Tiers were designed for those who have limited understanding of how classes actually work in-game?


So far I'm seeing a lot of attempts to out-do this rather simple definition, but so far most of them fail to even hit the right target, let alone surpass the original bullseye.
And yet you fail to understand why this definition is relevant.

[JoshuaZ]

And yet you fail to understand why this definition is relevant.

If you think that your alternate definitions are equivalent to the standard definition then it might help to give an explanation for why you think that is the case. Simply asserting relevance doesn't really help much.

[Lazymancer]

If you think that your alternate definitions are equivalent to the standard definition then it might help to give an explanation for why you think that is the case. Simply asserting relevance doesn't really help much.
Read the thread. The definition I am talking about is already considered relevant by Nifft.

EDIT: rephrased a bit

[JoshuaZ]

Read the thread. The definition I am talking about is already considered relevant by Nifft.

EDIT: rephrased a bit

Relevant and also being a helpful category is not the same thing as being equivalent.

[Nifft]

Read the thread. The definition I am talking about is already considered relevant by Nifft.

EDIT: rephrased a bit
Still kinda rude even after re-phrasing.


IMHO the only relevant definition in the thread so far is the one I quoted from the original tiers thread:


Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player.

I'm not seeing any benefits to the alternative attempts to re-define T1.

[Lazymancer]

Still kinda rude even after re-phrasing.
Not as rude as not bothering to read a thread before posting, imo.


IMHO the only relevant definition in the thread so far is the one I quoted from the original tiers thread:

Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player.
Which is what I am talking about. Can you tell me why is it important to describe T1 in this way?

Also, note that this discussion is primarily about differences between T2 and T3 (consequently, your arguments against definition of T1 alone are not making much sense to me).

[JoshuaZ]

Still kinda rude even after re-phrasing.


Eh, as the person it was directed to, it didn't seem rude to me.




IMHO the only relevant definition in the thread so far is the one I quoted from the original tiers thread:


Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player.

I'm not seeing any benefits to the alternative attempts to re-define T1.

It may be useful to have multiple distinct definitions to capture different intuitions. One could easily have Tiers_JaronK (the original definitions), Tiers_Lazymancer, etc. The issue then becomes that Lazymancer is apparently asserting that Tiers_JaronK and Tiers_Lazymancer coincide, when they apparently don't. But having multiple distinct definitions is fine as long as one keeps track of which one one is talking about when.

[Lazymancer]

The issue then becomes that Lazymancer is apparently asserting that Tiers_JaronK and Tiers_Lazymancer coincide, when they apparently don't.
Would you mind telling me where is the difference?

[Nifft]

Which is what I am talking about. Can you tell me why is it important to describe T1 in this way? Rational and consistent definitions are important because irrational or inconsistent definitions are useless as the foundation for a discussion.

Having a consistent, usable definition for Tiers is necessary for a productive discussion about Tiers, and absolutely critical for a DM who wants to actually build a reasonably well-balanced game using the Tier system as a guideline.


Also, note that this discussion is primarily about differences between T2 and T3 (consequently, your arguments against definition of T1 alone are not making much sense to me).

Actually this was the guy who started talking about the definition of Tier 1 classes:



Then those people have limited intelligence.

It is not "wishing for infinite power" that defines T1/T2, but being able (in potentia) to surpass expectations (objectively expressed in level-appropriate encounters from DMG/published modules). Stuff like casting Sleep at first level and shutting down all or most enemies. Or using Disguise Self/Alter Self to impersonate someone.


Tier 1&2 surpass expectations (function beyond the expected competence), with T1 being able to surpass expectations in many ways and T2 - in few or single.

Tier 3&4 conform to expectations, with T3 being able to conform to many (i.e. is competent in many areas), and T4 - to few or single.

@Lazymancer, could you give that "Lazymancer" fellow a good talking to for me?

That pernicious "Lazymancer" fellow keeps bringing up useless T1 definitions, which you (the good @Lazymancer) agree are not making much sense to you, and are probably off-topic for this thread.

Cheers.

[Lazymancer]

Rational and consistent definitions are important because irrational or inconsistent definitions are useless as the foundation for a discussion.
This is applicable to any definition. But we are not discussing semantics in general.


Having a consistent, usable definition for Tiers is necessary for a productive discussion about Tiers
It's hard to contest this. :smallbiggrin: But the question is why should we be having discussion in the first place.


... and absolutely critical for a DM who wants to actually build a reasonably well-balanced game using the Tier system as a guideline.
Finally! Magic words: "well-balanced game". Can you tell me what this "Balance" is?

Personally, I define Game Balance as an objective quality of performance of characters contrasted with the expectations of their performance.


Examples:
if PC is expected to have tough fight with 50/50 odds, but wins easily, it is called "overpowered"
if PC is expected to have an easy fight, but is simply slaughtered by the enemy, it is too weak (do we even a term for this?)
if PC behaves according to expectations - it is "balanced"

NB: As it is easily seen, I restrict existence of Game Balance only to the areas where expectations exist - it is defined by those expectations and does not apply in the absence of expectations. If the expectations change, Game Balance changes.

It can be argued that dependency on expectations makes Game Balance subjective (dependent on personal opinion - and, consequently, inapplicable for discourse), but once we properly define those expectations, result of the character's performance can hardly be contested.

I.e. properly defined expectations make Game Balance objective.

As a part of the game, system of level-appropriate encounters (a system that is expressed in DMG/MM/published adventures and so on) canonically defines expectations of character's performance. It is only logical to assume this system as "default expectations" - and derive default objective Game Balance from those default expectations.

I.e. your attempts to refute "Game Balance as expectations" via "I can have different expectations" do not work. We already have default expectations.

Consequently, my opinion is that Tier system of classes can only describe how classes (not players/items) can potentially affect this (defined above) default objective Game Balance (defined by default expectations of performance).

And it is only logical for me to define Tiers not in a roundabout way ("can solve encounters easily"), but directly ("can surpass expectations").


Actually this was the guy who started talking about the definition of Tier 1 classes:
This guy was explicitly defining the whole system of Tiers, to demonstrate the underlying principle. You did not attempt to contest the underlying principle, but ripped out one definition out of context.

Your refutation remains unpersuasive.

[Nifft]

It's hard to contest this. :smallbiggrin: But the question is why should we be having discussion in the first place. We shouldn't, but you keep bringing up your own attempts at re-defining the Tiers.

You haven't advanced the discussion by doing so, and you've somewhat derailed the thread.

Since you are the one who keeps trying to have this discussion, I'm going to flat-out ask you: Why should we be having this discussion in the first place?

Why is it important to you that you be allowed to re-define the Tier system? And why should we allow you to do so on a very weak, inconsistent, poorly reasoned foundation?



Finally! Magic words: "well-balanced game". Can you tell me what this "Balance" is? Sure: all PCs can contribute to the solution of most encounters. None of the PCs feel disproportionately powerless or useless. Summed over time, each PC will shine in roughly equal proportion.

To me balance is a thing that happens between PCs.



Personally, I define Game Balance as an objective quality of performance of characters contrasted with the expectations of their performance. Again, that's short-sighted and requires a deeply ignorant DM.

Anyone who knows the game will ~expect~ a Wizard 10 to know teleportation. Does that mean teleportation is a low-tier ability? No, the ~expectation~ of a capability says literally nothing about the power of that capability.



This guy was explicitly defining the whole system of Tiers, to demonstrate the underlying principle.

He failed, and so did you.

Now please let the thread return to its actual topic.

[JoshuaZ]

Would you mind telling me where is the difference?

Sure, your definition has to do with DM and player expectations. That means that if a DM knows what wizards can do really well then that class is not T1. JaronK's definition has nothing to do with the DM's expectations. Similarly, if someone brings a CW samurai to a 3.5 table, it doesn't matter much if the DM has minimal knowledge of the class, it isn't going to break the game in a casual way that a wizard might be able to do. One definition is about what a class can practically do. The other is about what a given person expects the class to do. The map is not the territory (https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_map_is_not_the_territory).

[Lazymancer]

Rational and consistent definitions are important because irrational or inconsistent definitions are useless as the foundation for a discussion.
It's hard to contest this. :smallbiggrin: But the question is why should we be having discussion in the first place.
We shouldn't
Your wit is impeccable.


but you keep bringing up your own attempts at re-defining the Tiers.
Re-defining? Me? Local pundits were literally forced to re-arrange classes according to their own understanding of Tiers.

No. I'm not the one who distorts the idea of Tiers.


Since you are the one who keeps trying to have this discussion, I'm going to flat-out ask you: Why should we be having this discussion in the first place?
The question is literally "What tier is this class?" and people keep trying to use Tiers as power-level of classes. It's as if 1st-level Beguiler doesn't easily outperform 1st-level Wizard.

And we are having this discussion because you don't accept that there is a link between railroading and Tiers.


And why should we allow you to do so on a very weak, inconsistent, poorly reasoned foundation?
Oh, please. So far you've failed to demonstrate inconsistency. As for it being "very weak", I'd like to see your foundation first.


To me balance is a thing that happens between PCs.
Bzzzt.

If that is so, why did you attempt to define Tiers of classes via "well-balanced game"? Tiers of classes clearly do not measure performance of specific PCs in specific games. The balance Tiers of classes provide clearly depends on printed materials and is group-agnostic.

Could it be, now you are using different meaning of the Game Balance? The one that is unsuitable for definition of Tiers and has nothing to do with the balance of "well-balanced game" Tiers are supposed to facilitate?

Unless you'd like to explain what Tiers are for once again (this time using different words), I'd like you to explain the balance you defined Tiers with - not some other balance.



Personally, I define Game Balance as an objective quality of performance of characters contrasted with the expectations of their performance.
Again, that's short-sighted and requires a deeply ignorant DM.
What is short-sighted? Why are you quoting me, when you are valiantly trying to refute your own strawman? I definitely did not say a word about Teleport - neither here, nor anywhere else.

If you absolutely must talk about teleportation, then here is my actual opinion: teleportation as such, does not make any class high or low tier. Consequently, by itself, it is neither high tier, nor low tier ability.

Am I wrong? If Monk 10 gets Teleport 1/day spell-like ability, will he suddenly become different Tier? I say - no.


Anyone who knows the game will ~expect~ a Wizard 10 to know teleportation. Does that mean teleportation is a low-tier ability? No, the ~expectation~ of a capability says literally nothing about the power of that capability.
Before you start defining Tiers by "power", you need to prove that they are in fact defined by "power" (which would simultaneously explain what this "power" that they are defined by actually means).

If you will not, I will claim that "power" of High Tier is something that overrides supposedly "balanced" encounter (i.e. challenge that was expected to be challenging), while "power" of Mid Tier is something that allows to challenge the encounter as it was expected to be challenged.

Let us compare this "power" of Teleport:
A) Module makes no provisions for caster being able to cast Teleport, and allows party to bypass ~20 encounters and god knows how many Survival checks.
B) Module specifies, that the destination is unreachable via Teleport

You are saying that "~expectation~ of a capability says literally nothing about the power of that capability" - but this comparison proves otherwise. Teleport is game-changing in situation A and virtually useless in situation B. The spell did not change, but its "power" is clearly different.

NB: in this specific case, "expectations" are not THE (default) expectations, but expectations of module designers.


He failed, and so did you.
Given the fact that you did not even attempt to argue my point, I'm doubting the veracity of this statement.



Sure, your definition has to do with DM and player expectations.
My definition is different.

As I already pointed out (and did it several times), Game Balance - the one Tiers use - does not depend on GM or players. "Default expectations" are expressed through the whole system of level-appropriate challenges. See above.

P.s. I'd call it "expectations of game designers", but this would be a gross oversimplification.

[JoshuaZ]

My definition is different.

As I already pointed out (and did it several times), Game Balance - the one Tiers use - does not depend on GM or players. "Default expectations" are expressed through the whole system of level-appropriate challenges. See above.

P.s. I'd call it "expectations of game designers", but this would be a gross oversimplification.

Ok(I'll take your word for it since I don't have time to reread the whole thread and right now it isn't that relevant so I'll just accept this as your meaning, although I will note that underlining something like that above so it looks like a link when it isn't is a little misleading). That's still not the same thing as the tier system. For example, at very low levels (say level 1-2) a wizard even with some optimization is weaker than a fighter many purposes. Similarly, a high level truenamer gets access to Gate at will which is incredibly broken, not intended by the system, and yet they aren't Tier 1. Moreover, the Tier system includes many classes which are explicitly intended to be weak NPC classes (adept itself, which this original thread was talking about a variant thereof, as well as expert, commoner, warrior and magewright). It seems very hard to argue that the system as written had any intentions other than the commoner to be weaker than the warrior who was weaker than the fighter. But that expectation doesn't change their tier. So even with a notion of default expectations at a system level, that doesn't have much to do with things: The system implicitly has accurate expectations about most T3 classes and the commoner, but they aren't in the same tier at all.

[ryu]

You do know that text which is a link is commonly also a different color in addition to being underlined right? This site formats them all to be the same shade of brown that gets lighter if you've clicked it.

[JoshuaZ]

You do know that text which is a link is commonly also a different color in addition to being underlined right? This site formats them all to be the same shade of brown that gets lighter if you've clicked it.

Maybe it is just that I've got bad eyesight then but the underlined black and the underline brown of a link I haven't clicked look nearly identical unless I squint. They look at least close enough that I tried clicking on their underline bit to see the link and was annoyed when that didn't do anything. And now we're even more off-topic.

To bring things very marginally back on topic, I'll note that in my last campaign with a homemade setting to help reduce the level of magic I used close to the standard demographic distribution of magic users but reduced by a factor of about 2 and with most magic users being one of two classes. One was essentially the adept and the other was the magician. The magician had an adept spells per a day but cast from the sor/wiz list with a spellbook. However, an adept or magician only recovered spell slots daily equal to their class level, counting cantrips as half slots, but if a slot was unused that day they could then refill it with whatever fit in the slot. Also although this was Pathfinder, for these two classes, cantrips could only be cast once daily. This helped balance the magic and help explain why one wouldn't just have an adept wouldn't say just use their last mending on something every day right before they recovered spell slots or other things that would drastically increase the impact of low level magic. This seemed to work ok although in practice the PCs had little interaction with this part of the worldbuilding.

The Adept+ might be interesting for an explicitly high level magic setting, or as a rare type of magic user who has dabbled in everything. I'm currently undecided if this is upper end of T3 or is lower end of T2 but this shouldn't be surprising since categories by nature have fuzzy boundaries and aren't things which cleave reality at the joints.

[Lazymancer]

Ok(I'll take your word for it since I don't have time to reread the whole thread

It is not "wishing for infinite power" that defines T1/T2, but being able (in potentia) to surpass expectations (objectively expressed in level-appropriate encounters from DMG/published modules).

Not rails as such, but expectations that are inevitably created once you start using rails. In our specific case (DnD) those expectations are being primarily expressed as level-appropriate challenges (for specific roles).

As a part of the game, system of level-appropriate encounters (a system that is expressed in DMG/MM/published adventures and so on) canonically defines expectations of character's performance. It is only logical to assume this system as "default expectations" - and derive default objective Game Balance from those default expectations.


That's still not the same thing as the tier system. For example, at very low levels (say level 1-2) a wizard even with some optimization is weaker than a fighter many purposes. Similarly, a high level truenamer gets access to Gate at will which is incredibly broken, not intended by the system, and yet they aren't Tier 1.
I don't understand what your example is supposed to demonstrate. If anything, comparison of Wizard and Fighter proves my point - Tiers are not about strength.

And Truenamer doesn't get a rating, IIRC.


Moreover, the Tier system includes many classes which are explicitly intended to be weak NPC classes (adept itself, which this original thread was talking about a variant thereof, as well as expert, commoner, warrior and magewright). It seems very hard to argue that the system as written had any intentions other than the commoner to be weaker than the warrior who was weaker than the fighter. But that expectation doesn't change their tier.
I'm quite certain NPC classes in Tier system are evaluated as if they were PC classes. Consequently, the expectations that get applied to the NPC classes are the ones that get applied to PC classes, not some other expectations - as you suggest.


So even with a notion of default expectations at a system level, that doesn't have much to do with things: The system implicitly has accurate expectations about most T3 classes and the commoner, but they aren't in the same tier at all.
See above. The "system" (understood as a system of level-appropriate challenges, not as opinion of game designers) does not have any expectations for NPC classes. Those classes can only be (and are) evaluated as if those classes were PC classes.



I'm quite certain the topic is not how the class fits into the setting. The intent of OP is to discuss what tier the class fits in. I.e. to see the dividing line between the T2 and T3.

[QUOTE=JoshuaZ;22609974]... this shouldn't be surprising since categories by nature have fuzzy boundaries and aren't things which cleave reality at the joints.
Categories don't exist in nature, they are artificial constructs. And - yes, they usually are designed to separate things cleanly.

[Lans]

The Adept+ might be interesting for an explicitly high level magic setting, or as a rare type of magic user who has dabbled in everything. I'm currently undecided if this is upper end of T3 or is lower end of T2 but this shouldn't be surprising since categories by nature have fuzzy boundaries and aren't things which cleave reality at the joints.

Do you think it would be that high with out getting spell discounts from prestige classes?

[AvatarVecna]

Do you think it would be that high with out getting spell discounts from prestige classes?

Ignoring any shenanigans about getting spells earlier than intended, this is 6th lvl casting progression (same as bard), but with better slot progression, spells known progression, and list access. Bard is T3, and (in comparison) only has access to bard spells, and gives up extra slots and spells known for bard class features and skills and stuff. I feel like this class is a solid T3 without abusing early access, and jumps to high 3/low 2 territory when spells like that get taken advantage of.

[JoshuaZ]

Do you think it would be that high with out getting spell discounts from prestige classes?

Yes, without that it would probably be more clearly upper end of T3.