Retiering the Classes: Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Wilder

[heavyfuel]

Ah, Psionics. So often banned, so often broken with optimization, so often misunderstood. I seriously love these classes and this subsystem, even more than I love Vancian Casting. But enough about my opinion, let's get down to facts. Most psionic classes make use of Power Points to manifest (aka, cast) Powers, which are like spells, only better. They don't suffer failure chance due to armor, they are automatically silent and stilled so you may cast when sneaking, or bound/imprisoned, or in social situations much more easily. But it's not all roses and cheese. For starters, there aren't as many powers as there are spells, which means some niches aren't as well covered by powers as they are by spells. And then there's the selfishness. A Wizard can cast Fly on the Barbarian and allow him to become a tornado of death, a Nomad Psion not only gets Psionic Fly two levels later than the Wizard, but Psionic Fly has a range of "Personal", and this holds true for many powers. So many powers are of "Personal" range that it's almost impossible to play a "God Psion", which sucks.

A special note for this round: Avoid things that are very clearly cheese. I know, I know this is very subjective, but let's try. Infinite PP tricks, Linked Power+Synchronicity, or anything that appears on this thread's OP (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?177889-Brainstorm-for-Psionic-Tricks-Tactics-and-Combos-Handbook), are very unlikely to be allowed at any given game, so they shouldn't influence the classes' tier. And I'm done. Time to see some rankings

Psion: Poster child of the Psionics subsystem, the Psion is much like a Sorcerer. He learns a couple of powers each level and can manifest them spontaneously as long as he has the Power Points to do it. The Psion is a force to be reckoned with, and the Expanded Knowledge feat really works wonders for your versastility. This puts the Psion very clearly in Tier 2, and I'll even go as far as saying that it's as high as a class can go in terms of Tier two-ness.

Psychic Warrior: I'll be honest that I never really got this class. It's the psionic gish-in-a-can, but it gets a D8 and 3/4 BAB and poor Will save (which is compensated by its manifesting stat, Wisdom). A really terrible chassis to be sure. Of course, this is all more than made up for with the addition of Powers. The PsyWar manifests much like a Bard casts. They get a single power known per level, and can manifest up to 6th level powers. Also, the PsyWar's power list is not shy at all, containing some pretty great buffs and swift action powers that really help the action economy. I hesitate to give this class a Tier 3, but it's definitely not Tier 4. For my official vote I'm going with Tier 3.5, which I'm rounding up to Tier 3 in this section.

Soulknife: Hooooly crap is this class terrible. People often give the Monk a hard time, but I think it's only because they don't know much the Soulknife sucks. It doesn't get Psionic Powers and it's only class feature is having a weapon that's worse than any weapon WBL gives the Fighter. It's also 3/4 BAB for some weird reason. Strong contender for "worst non-NPC class in thte entire game" here, folks. Tier 6.

Wilder: Ok, remember when I said the Psion was like the "psionic sorcerer"? Well, this class is the one the designers intended to be the "psionic sorcerer", at least from a fluff point of view. Wilders manifest up to 9th level powers from a very strong list, but they get a pitiful single power known every two levels! That's a single power known for each power level except 1 and 9. Still, they have a slightly better chassis than both the Psion and the Sorcerer, though I'm not sure is enough. This class is Tier 2, for certain, but similarly to the PsyWar, it ranks low on its tier.


What are the tiers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



The Threads

Tier System Home Base (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?568771-Retiering-the-Classes-A-new-home)

The Icarnum Classes: Incarnate, Soulborn, Totemist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?568774-Retiering-the-Classes-Incarnate-Soulborn-Totemist&p=23358636#post23358636)

The Auraists (Re-Done): Divine Mind, Dragon Shaman, Marshal (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?569997-Retiering-the-Classes-Divine-Mind-Dragon-Shaman-and-Marshal-(re-done)&p=23392694#post23392694)

Completing the Psionics: Ardent, Erudite, Lurk, Psychic Rogue (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?570457-Retiering-the-Classes-Ardent-Erudite-Lurk-Psychic-Rogue)


The Rankings

Psion: Tier 2

Psychic Warrior: Tier 3

Soulknife: Tier 6

Wilder: Tier 2

[Nifft]

Psion: T2.

Psychic Warrior: T3, quite comfortable at that tier thanks to both off-list power access (Hidden Talent / Expanded Knowledge) and weird splatbook effects.

Soulknife: T5, with many of the Monk's problems -- built-in weapon which isn't quite as good as just picking up a monster drop; speed boost so you can skirmish with your terrible weapon; 3/4 BAB and light or no armor because you're a primary melee combatant; on top of a solid foundation which isn't sufficient by itself (d10 HD, 4+Int skills off a decent list, 2 good saves). Soulknife lets you charge up & throw your built-in weapon, but you can't rapid-shot attack with it until 17th level for some insane reason. What you get overall just isn't good enough to justify the levels, but it's not nearly as bad as a Commoner.

Wilder: T2.6, or T2*, or T2-except-terrible -- this is a class which has a scaling feature that makes it worse at its primary function as you accumulate levels. Taking fewer levels in the class itself makes it better at its job. Psion gets bonus feats, PsyWar gets bonus feats, but this thing which needs Expanded Knowledge gets nothing. This class is bad, and just to highlight how little WotC thought about Wilder mechanics, there's a PrC (Anarchic Initiate) which gets all the perks with no drawbacks, and you can get into it from a Psion (but not from a Wilder because of knowledge skills). So if that class is available, then Wilder is also obsolete.

[Eldariel]

I'm largely in agreement on all those. Psychic Warrior kinda sucks WRT its power points. It just doesn't have enough without shenanigans. But its powers are good enough that you can't put it any lower. Psion and Wilder are a world apart but still probably the same tier, though it's worth noting that Psychic Reformation does exist and allow day-to-day versatility. Hidden Talent Soulknife (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070214a) is marginally better than normal Soulknife, being able to generate a small reservoir of power points and a good list of powers. Combine with the bonus-feats-over-Psychic-Strike [which frankly sucks horribly] and you can spend your normal feats on gaining a decent set of 1st level powers and enough power points to manifest them making you a...not nearly half caster-level spellcaster but at least a spellcaster. 1st level powers actually are pretty good at augmenting combat so perhaps this would be enough to push it into Tier 5 (the sole distinction from any other Tier 6 being the ability to take Hidden Talent multiple times).

So:
Psion: T1.75 rounded to T2
Psychic Warrior: T3.5 rounded to T3
Soulknife: T5.5 rounded to T5
Wilder: T2.5 rounded to T2


EDIT: Changed my opinion on Soulknife. With all the support I think it's still Tier 5 albeit a very weak one.

[OgresAreCute]

Wilder gets less powers, delayed power progression, no bonus feats and the same amount of PP as a psion, with only a slightly better chassis and wild surge to show for it. You also have no access to discipline powers without expanded knowledge or mantle ACFs. I'd say it's clearly worse than a psion, but it's still pretty strong. You can manifest from power stones to get out-of-combat utility without clogging up your tiny little powers known list, and if you use the educated wilder ACF (and why wouldn't you?) you get access to 5 more powers throughout your carreer which can pick from discipline lists and such. Clearly inferior to a psion, but the ACFs from Mind's Eye help, and I don't think it's so bad as to bump you down to tier 3.

Edit: Forgot to mention the daze from enervation can be solved with 2 feats, and the PP drain will always be outweighed by the gain from wild surge unless you're REALLY unlucky.

Also, I'm guessing Ardent will be rated along with the other (terrible) CPsi classes?

[Crichton]

No love for the Erudite, StP or otherwise?

[heavyfuel]

Also, I'm guessing Ardent will be rated along with the other (terrible) CPsi classes?

Your guess is correct :)


No love for the Erudite, StP or otherwise?

There will be Psionics part 2, which will contain the other psionic classes.

[Troacctid]

So, first off, guys, why are you rounding? Fractional votes are allowed.

Psion I think is a strong T2 bordering on T1. It does a ton of powerful things and does them efficiently. Let's say 1.8.

Soulknife is about as bad as it gets. Arguably the weakest standard class in the game. I'll generously give it a 5.4.

Psychic Warrior is a little overrated IMO. It's actually pretty difficult to build and play. I think it's inarguably weaker than initiators (which I have in T3) and the Duskblade as well (which I have in low T3, bordering T4). Sure, they eventually get some good stuff, but so do Paladins, and I'm not putting them in T3. My vote is 3.5.

Putting Wilder at T2 seems far too generous to me. Have you ever built a Wilder? Do you really think it hits the same power level as a Sorcerer with, what, 9 powers known over 20 levels? The fact of the matter is, it's much closer to a Warmage than a Sorcerer. In fact, I think the best comparison is Warlock. You actually get fewer powers than the Warlock gets invocations! Anything above a 3 for Wilder is madness IMO. I vote 3.


Wilder: T2.6, or T2*, or T2-except-terrible -- this is a class which has a scaling feature that makes it worse at its primary function as you accumulate levels. Taking fewer levels in the class itself makes it better at its job. Psion gets bonus feats, PsyWar gets bonus feats, but this thing which needs Expanded Knowledge gets nothing. This class is bad, and just to highlight how little WotC thought about Wilder mechanics, there's a PrC (Anarchic Initiate) which gets all the perks with no drawbacks, and you can get into it from a Psion (but not from a Wilder because of knowledge skills). So if that class is available, then Wilder is also obsolete.
It can't be that terrible if you're ranking it higher than every single T3 class.

Anyone who thinks Wilder is a 2, I challenge you to come up with any power list for it that can outmatch a Warmage, Warblade, or Bard.

[heavyfuel]

So, first off, guys, why are you rounding? Fractional votes are allowed.

Personally, I rounded because I feel like the starting point should be a whole number. I intend to put a fractional value when the spreadsheet is ready.

But yes, fractional values are encouraged if you feel a class is "high tier 2" for example.



Putting Wilder at T2 seems far too generous to me. Have you ever built a Wilder? Do you really think it hits the same power level as a Sorcerer with, what, 9 powers known over 20 levels? The fact of the matter is, it's much closer to a Warmage than a Sorcerer. In fact, I think the best comparison is Warlock. You actually get fewer powers than the Warlock gets invocations! Anything above a 3 for Wilder is madness IMO. I vote 3.

They do get encounter-ending powers from level 1, and game-breaking powers even without cheese. From "Psionic Grease" to "Reality Revision", powers make them at least Tier 2. Expanded Knowledge also gets you really good powers, though you have to spend pretty much every single feat on it.

Since I've just said fractional values are encouraged, I'd say that Wilder is 2.8. The bare minimum for a Tier 2 class before it's "Basically Tier 3".

[daremetoidareyo]

I was just in the E6 competition for soulknife, and it is my opinion that this is a tier 5 class because of the existence of that expanded classes Mind's Eye article. It is not a great class by any measure, but with hidden talent it can do some neat tricks. The weapon is better than most weapons wbl. So in a magic starved setting, this guy is even a high tier five.

Psywarrior is tier 3, high tier four. It's powers and feats put it around the duskblade in gishibility. Again, the Mind's Eye article plants this firmly in tier 3, as you gain access to every weapon enchantment printed. It's like polymorph for a magic sword.

Psion is tier 1. It's a wizard.

Wilder is low tier 1, it's a crappier Wizard.

[Troacctid]

They do get encounter-ending powers from level 1, and game-breaking powers even without cheese. From "Psionic Grease" to "Reality Revision", powers make them at least Tier 2. Expanded Knowledge also gets you really good powers, though you have to spend pretty much every single feat on it.

Since I've just said fractional values are encouraged, I'd say that Wilder is 2.8. The bare minimum for a Tier 2 class before it's "Basically Tier 3".
Your example of an overpowered effect is...grease? First off, it's not that strong. Second, you want it to be your only power for the first three levels? That's your plan? And this is supposed to be better than a Warblade? Third, you're still not beating the Bard, which gets the same spell and more.

Reality revision is plenty overpowered, but you get it at level 18. What are you doing until then? Healers get gate at level 17, Truenamers get at-will gate at level 20, and Warlocks get at-will shades at level 21, but I don't see anyone putting them in T2. (Except for that one guy, but the point stands.)

Show me any set of 9 powers that beats a Warmage, Warblade, or Bard.


I was just in the E6 competition for soulknife, and it is my opinion that this is a tier 5 class because of the existence of that expanded classes Mind's Eye article. It is not a great class by any measure, but with hidden talent it can do some neat tricks. The weapon is better than most weapons wbl. So in a magic starved setting, this guy is even a high tier five.
D&D 3.5e is the opposite of a magic-starved setting.


Psywarrior is tier 3, high tier four. It's powers and feats put it around the duskblade in gishibility. Again, the Mind's Eye article plants this firmly in tier 3, as you gain access to every weapon enchantment printed. It's like polymorph for a magic sword.
So like a 3.25?


Psion is tier 1. It's a wizard.
You know, I actually think this position is within the realm of reason. The class is quite strong. But I do think it's also clearly weaker than the other classes in T1.


Wilder is low tier 1, it's a crappier Wizard.
This, though, I'm calling BS.

[Luccan]

Soulknife is possibly the best example of T5. It doesn't have the utility or expertise in its supposed niche to rise any higher, but it does have actual class abilities, so it can't really be T6.

I'm tempted to say Psions are a low T1. They can be built poorly and are technically stuck with their choices for a bit (though not forever, neccesarily). But psionic powers are more flexible than the majority of individual spells. T1.5

Wilders are to Psions what Sorcerers are to Wizards: weaker in almost every way and the way in which they're supposed to be superior their counterpart can actually do too (or arguably doesn't even need to do). That said, they have a good list and again, psionics flexibility. Wilders are probably low T2. T2.5. You know, the thing I find fun about the "Pick your set of abilities forever" classes is they're much easier to move into lower tiers. Fixed-list casters are hard to lower and prepared Full Casters have to actively hamper themselves every day (as opposed to just doing it on level up) to fit into lower tiers. But sorcerer types can just be built for lower tiers.

[Mike Miller]

Psion is tier 1. It's a wizard.

Isn't the better analogy sorcerer?

[mabriss lethe]

It think Psion really only breaks from t2 to t1 with shenanigans. It can get access to any number of game breaking tricks, but it can't normally get access to them all.

Psychic warrior is pretty solidly in T3. Its PP total is somewhat low, but that's counterbalanced to a degree by getting native access to a good number of useful powers at a lower level than other classes.

Soulknife... I love this class. It's so... dysfunctional and poorly implemented. The chassis itself is solid tier 5 material, though individual builds can be bootstrapped up to high t4/very low t3 functionality with a LOT of work.

Wilder. Very very low t2. It has the same basic level of access to game breaking effects as the Psion, but has a much narrower scope in terms of practical access.

[Troacctid]

Still waiting to see a Wilder power list that can beat a T3 class. I really don't think there is one.


Isn't the better analogy sorcerer?
Not really IMO. Psions have Int casting with bonus feats and the good progression. They feel more like wizards as a result.

[heavyfuel]

Your example of an overpowered effect is...grease?

Show me any set of 9 powers that beats a Warmage, Warblade, or Bard.

That was out the top of my head, but sure, I'll try.

Lv1- Psionic Grease / Entangling Ectoplasm
Lv1- Energy Ray
Lv2- Control Sound
Lv3- Telekinetic Force/Touchsight
Lv4- Psychic Reformation
Lv5- Incarnate/Major Creation
Lv6- Temporal Accelaration
Lv7- Mind Blank, Personal
Lv8- Bend Reality/Teleport, Psionic Greater
Lv9- Reality Revision
Lv9- Stygian Conflagration

Expanded Knowledge lv6 - Astral Construct
Expanded Knowledge lv9 - Concealing Amorpha, Greater
Expanded Knowledge lv12 - Metamorphosis / Schism
Expanded Knowledge lv15 - Dominate, Psionic / Clairtangent Hand / Second Chance
Expanded Knowledge lv18 - Astral Seed / Fate of One / Fission / Fusion

Looking at my own list, which is not at all perfect, I'd say the Wilder is a Tier 4.5 until and including level 5. At level 6, they rocket jump their way into Tier 2.5 and stay there until level 20. And that's for standard Wilder. Educated Wilder makes them significantly better.

[remetagross]

Show me any set of 9 powers that beats a Warmage, Warblade or Bard.

Uh. That's actually a rather interesting challenge. I have no idea whether this can be pulled off, but let's see.
For one, Wilders gain 11 powers of the course of 20 levels (not 9) because they gain another one at level 2 and yet another one at level 20.

So...skimming the New, No-Nonsense Guide to Psions and looking at the purple powers...
Level 1: Entangling Ectoplasm, I guess? It remains useful for a long, long time.
Level 2: We have to pick another 1st level power. Maybe there we can mention Psionic Grease?
Level 4: Energy Stun takes great advantage of Wild Surge, and provides with a debuff in addition to damage.
Level 6: Dispel Psionics. Thanks to Wild Surge this will quickly reach the cap of dispelling bonus, so you'll be ahead of the expected caster level on opponent spells. Or maybe Time Hop for utility?
Level 8: Psionic Divination is an all-in-one divination power. Or Psionic Dimension Door?
Level 10: I guess Ectoplasmic Shambler provides with battlefield control.
Level 12: Psionic Disintegrate takes well advantage of Wild Surge, and can be used for a modicum of utility in addition to damage.
Level 14: Nothing seems too great here. Maybe Eyes of the Basilisk or Decerebrate for the save or dies, or Personal Mind Blank.
Level 16: I believe Bend Reality does not cost too much exp at that level and provides with a lot of utility.
Level 18: Dunno. Stygian Conflagration for debuff?
Level 20: That's when I'd take Reality Revision.

So, how does that look? I'd say the raw damage can beat the Warblade, what with Psionic Disintegrate. There's a modicum of BFC, maybe not at the level of a Warmage though. Psionics is ill-suited to buffing allies, so there's no rivalling that part of the Bard, but this power list contains a number of debuffs. Plus Psionic Divination and/or Psionic Dimension Door that can either account for the Bard's intel gathering ability or for those White Raven maneuvers that allow the team to reposition.


With the Educated Wilder it becomes better, though. The Expanded Knowledge you get can grant you Discipline-exclusive powers. How about:
Level 5: Astral Construct. It pairs really well with Wild Surge. Or Psionic Minor Creation, or Charm Person.
Level 9: Hustle, Ectoplasmic Cocoon, False Sensory Input?
Level 13: Schism, or maybe Psionic Dominate. There's also Metamorphosis.
Level 17: Fission, Mass Ectoplasmic Cocoon.

I do feel going from 11 to 15 powers known is a significant improvement in the Wilder's power...

In addition to that, Wilders have 4 skill points/level, are Cha-bases and have all the social skills, so maybe they can afford not to take Psionic Charm Person or Psionic Dominate and Diplomance their way through social encounters.

[Andor13]

I want to love the soulknife, but man, it's such a terrible class. All it does is fight, but it has 3/4 BAB so it's built in magic weapon bumps it all the way to to "Warrior with a club" levels of competency. The PF redo is much, much better. That I'd put at tier 4 (tier 3 for the Warsoul or Gifted Blade archetypes) but 3.5 Soul Knife? 5.5 at best.

Psiwarrior seems like a solid T3 to me. Maybe 3.2. It has less staying power than the initiating classes, but can nova harder, and has some more interesting option, including the ability to learn other powers.

Psion is a strong 9 level casting class, so T1 by default, but it casts from a limited spells known list akin to a Sorcerer so probably 1.5.

Wilder is just weaker so maybe 2.5? Xykon seems to feel a limited Spell list can be made to work.

[Nifft]

It can't be that terrible if you're ranking it higher than every single T3 class.

Anyone who thinks Wilder is a 2, I challenge you to come up with any power list for it that can outmatch a Warmage, Warblade, or Bard.

1 - Because after it becomes so much worse than not using it, you can just opt to not use it. The major bonus which was supposed to be what you get as compensation for having so few powers becomes a liability which you simply ignore.


2 - Okay. Trivial build: Wilder 5 / Thrallherd 10 then into some other PrC for the last 5. Get mindlink via Hidden Talent.


I think a full-on Wilder 20 can beat Warmage / Warblade / Bard by cherry-picking powers using feats... let me try:

Level 1: Hidden Talent (Psi Minor Creation)
- Crystal Shard

Level 2:
- Vigor

Level 3: Psicrystal Affinity

Level 4:
- Share Pain

Level 6: Expanded Knowledge (Astral Construct)
- Time Hop

Level 8:
- Psi Dimension Door

Level 9: Expanded Knowledge (Psi Suggestion)

Level 10:
- Psi Plane Shift

Level 12: Expanded Knowledge (Metamorphosis)
- Psi Disintegrate

You're behind what any competent Psion could have done, but I think you're ahead of most T3 classes, including the three listed. You've got a very solid tanking combo, plus you're well set up to exploit sharing a power with your pet rock (hello metamorphosis).

That's all from core. If we extend the build higher, I'd probably want to look at non-core power lists.

[catman04221985]

Are you comparing these to the 3.5 versions or dreamscarred press?

[Luccan]

Are you comparing these to the 3.5 versions or dreamscarred press?

This* Tier system has been devised largely for 3.5 1st party base classes, so Dreamscarred press and right now at least even PF classes don't enter into these considerations.

*Edit: The to This

[Cosi]

2 - Okay. Trivial build: Wilder 5 / Thrallherd 10 then into some other PrC for the last 5. Get mindlink via Hidden Talent.

I get that this wasn't supposed to be a serious submission, but I don't even think that beats Warmage/Rainbow Servant or Bard/Sublime Chord.


I think a full-on Wilder 20 can beat Warmage / Warblade / Bard by cherry-picking powers using feats... let me try:

If we're counting list-expanding feats, the Warmage has you beat all to hell. It gets a decent spell at most levels anyway, and Apprentice (Spellcaster) lets it get whatever two spells it wants at each level. Personally, I think the Warmage probably belongs in Tier Two, because the fixed list casters have some pretty stupidly good synergies, but in a world where it is in Three, I don't think the Wilder gets out of there.

[liquidformat]

So Psion is somewhere between a high mid two and a low 1 so I go with Tier 1.9.

Psychic warrior seems like a mid 3 maybe low 3 I don't play them enough to really nail them down so I will stick with Tier 3 (by the way why is everyone hating on duskblade hands down better than psywarrior and competitive with initiators).

Soulknife, darn you soulknife you are such an awesome idea until you actually start trying to build one and realize how horrible they are. I give you Tier 5.5 because not quite 6 material.

On to the Wilder, first off I think the best comparison is probably paladin or even ranger into divine crusader which is tier 3 so I can't see Wilder getting any higher than a tier 3 prc that gives me 9 spells over 10 levels, especially since Divine Crusader can be abused into pretty nasty if you are at a cheese dip friendly table whereas even if I dump all my feats into Expanded Knowledge I still don't favorably compare to divine crusader. I am going with Tier 3.2.

[eggynack]

So Psion is somewhere between a high mid two and a low 1 so I go with Tier 1.9.
This score seems low for that description. Theoretically, tier two ranges from 1.5 to 2.5, so a high two alone would probably hit the top half of that range. So, I would expect at least a 1.8 or 1.9 from just that description. If the psion is between that and a low one, which ranges from 1 to 1.5, then I would expect a 1.6 or even a straight 1.5. In other words, almost one but not quite.

[liquidformat]

This score seems low for that description. Theoretically, tier two ranges from 1.5 to 2.5, so a high two alone would probably hit the top half of that range. So, I would expect at least a 1.8 or 1.9 from just that description. If the psion is between that and a low one, which ranges from 1 to 1.5, then I would expect a 1.6 or even a straight 1.5. In other words, almost one but not quite.

High mid two would be 2.3 or 2.2 a low one would be 1.9,1.8, or maybe 1.7 therefore a 1.9 seems reasonable. Also this fractional tiering system is screwy, you should technically be saying a tier two is a 2.5 to 1.5 not the other way around....

[eggynack]

High mid two would be 2.3 or 2.2 a low one would be 1.9,1.8, or maybe 1.7 therefore a 1.9 seems reasonable. Also this fractional tiering system is screwy, you should technically be saying a tier two is a 2.5 to 1.5 not the other way around....
You said between high mid two and low one, so I assumed you meant high as in, y'know, good. Tier one is generally considered higher than tier two. Given that, high mid two would be above two, not below it.

[Nifft]

If we're counting list-expanding feats,

The ones in core plus Complete Arcane? Sure. That'd be a fair comparison to the ones from the XPH which I've shown. Count them for us, but do mind the errata. If you manage to find even one, I'll be surprised.


the Warmage has you beat all to hell. This sort of personal violence as metaphor is how we're supposed to communicate, eh?

If so, then I guess Psi Minor Creation has already sent your broken body to the ICU, because the Warmage honestly can't compete with that level 1 power, and from level 6+ this Wilder offers a very substantial combat package in addition to a ton of utility and combat-negation. Uh, wait, I went off into civility instead of insinuating violence against you. Let me re-try in your language: Wilder has you beat down and curb-stomped. Is this amenable to your idiom?


Apprentice (Spellcaster) lets it get whatever two spells it wants Ha! Have you even read the feat, or are you just whiffing second-hand smoke from the posterior of a Theory Only thread?

That feat doesn't allow you to go off-list, and there's nothing on the Warmage list which isn't already known to every Warmage. It's non-functional, not super-powered.

Nothing wrong with blasters, but you're blatantly ignoring the rules in your attempt to over-rate this one.

[OgresAreCute]

I get that this wasn't supposed to be a serious submission, but I don't even think that beats Warmage/Rainbow Servant or Bard/Sublime Chord.



If we're counting list-expanding feats, the Warmage has you beat all to hell. It gets a decent spell at most levels anyway, and Apprentice (Spellcaster) lets it get whatever two spells it wants at each level. Personally, I think the Warmage probably belongs in Tier Two, because the fixed list casters have some pretty stupidly good synergies, but in a world where it is in Three, I don't think the Wilder gets out of there.

Rainbow Warsnake and Sublime Chord are not tier 3 by any stretch of the imagination. Spontaneous casting from the entire cleric list is lower than tier 2? Yeah, nah.

[remetagross]

As far as single-class PCs are concerned, I like to think the power selection I've provided above holds it own relatively well when compared to the combined capacities of a Warmage, a Warblade and a Bard :smallsmile: not beating any at his schtik but not being utterly outshadowed either.

[Grim Reader]

Ha! Have you even read the feat, or are you just whiffing second-hand smoke from the posterior of a Theory Only thread?

That feat doesn't allow you to go off-list, and there's nothing on the Warmage list which isn't already known to every Warmage. It's non-functional, not super-powered.

Nothing wrong with blasters, but you're blatantly ignoring the rules in your attempt to over-rate this one.

I've tried to explain this to him before. His position is that unless it specifically prohibits going off-list, he can pick spells from any list.

[Cosi]

The ones in core plus Complete Arcane? Sure. That'd be a fair comparison to the ones from the XPH which I've shown. Count them for us, but do mind the errata. If you manage to find even one, I'll be surprised.

The Healer got ranked for Sanctified Spell access, despite the fact that those don't appear in the Minature's Handbook. The standard has generally not been "Core + 1 book". Yes, that's all your Wilder uses, but that's because there are relatively few sources with options for Psionic characters, and surely that lack of resources ought to be reflected in the class's evaluation.


Ha! Have you even read the feat, or are you just whiffing second-hand smoke from the posterior of a Theory Only thread?

Have you? Because it doesn't say anything about your list. It uses the phrase "a spell"

We could choose to believe that "a spell" always implicitly means "from your list", but that causes problems in other places. Consider the Warmage's Advanced Learning class feature:


At 3rd, 6th, 11th, and 16th level, a warmage can add a new spell to his list, representing the result of personal study and experimentation. The spell must be a wizard spell of the evocation school, and of a level no higher than that of the highest-level spell the warmage already knows.

So to pick something with Advanced Learning, it has to be "a spell", and that it must be "a wizard spell", and that it must be "of a level no higher than that of the highest-level spell the Warmage already knows". Notice how everything there except "a spell" is a restriction. If "a spell" means "from the Warmage list" the only valid targets for Advanced Learning are spells already on the Warmage list, which makes the feature dysfunctional. This is a very good reason to prefer an interpretation where "a spell" just means "a spell". Because apparently "that's what the feat says and adding extra text for no reason breaks our ability to make coherent decisions about the rules" wasn't good enough.

But apparently something that makes a class better than the Sorcerer but still worse than the Wizard is "cheese" while the Artificer getting every spell in the game two character levels before the lowest class level that anyone else gets it is totally fine. This forum has a very strong bias against certain classes for reasons that are totally unclear to me. I have described some cheese strategies for those classes (like using Apprentice to get PrC spells at lower levels), but generally in the context of discussions about cheese, or clearly demarcated as such. This feat is not cheese, it's just something that happens to reward people for having lots of spells they don't need.


Rainbow Warsnake and Sublime Chord are not tier 3 by any stretch of the imagination. Spontaneous casting from the entire cleric list is lower than tier 2? Yeah, nah.

If the Tiers are functioning correctly, opening new avenues of optimization shouldn't dramatically change evaluations. Nifft opted to include a PrC. If those are being accounted for, Warmages can become Rainbow Servants and Bards can become Sublime Chords. If the Wilder is in a higher tier than those classes, PrCs should produce a correspondingly more powerful build.


I've tried to explain this to him before. His position is that unless it specifically prohibits going off-list, he can pick spells from any list.

Yes, and I've tried to explain to you that "the feat has a restriction that's not in the text" is wishful thinking rather than a rule. I'm not sure why your failure to persuade me is relevant here, outside of an attempted appeal to groupthink.

[remetagross]

If the Tiers are functioning correctly, opening new avenues of optimization shouldn't dramatically change evaluations. Nifft opted to include a PrC. If those are being accounted for, Warmages can become Rainbow Servants and Bards can become Sublime Chords. If the Wilder is in a higher tier than those classes, PrCs should produce a correspondingly more powerful build.


I do agree here. On the other hand, I think Nifft's Thrallherd Wilder is indeed more powerful than a Bard Sublime Chord or a Rainbow Warsnake (though I don't know if you disagree with that or not @Cosi). Which means I am comfortable ranking a Wilder at least at the same level as a Warmage, and above a Bard.

On the other hand, eggynack's prescription mentions the case of a single game object significantly altering the problem solving power of a class singlehandedly. In such cases, ranking the class with and without that one game object is the recommanded answer. While I am no Bard expert, I tend to believe that Sublime Chord is the one and only way Bards access tier 2, and that Sublime Chord all by itself lends sufficient power to the Bard for that, with no need to combine it with othe options or choices. As such, I would be hesitant to consider Bard + Sublime Chord as one of the many variations comprised within Bard, but rather as its own tierable class. What all of this boils down to for me is that I do not think we should rate the Wilder at the same problem solving level as the Bard, just because the Bard + Sublime Chord is as powerful as or more powerful than a Wilder.

With that said, the Wilder is the only class about which I have a modicum of experience. Hence I will only cast my vote for this one. I rate it at 2.5.

[eggynack]

Not sure if it's clear, but PrC's aren't really part of evaluation anyway. They briefly were in a minimal sense at the beginning, but the arguments against their inclusion were pretty convincing. Just noting this cause I wasn't sure whether the conversation was talking about this as a real rating object.

[mabriss lethe]

For wilder being T2:
-native access to the full psion/wilder list, including the power equivalents to Limited/Wish alongside analogs to other A list high level spells.
-native access includes psychic reformation, allowing the power list to be overhauled for a trivial amount of xp along with skills and feats. It also allows for the entire party to be overhauled in the same fashion. If someone in the party doesn't have the spell,skill, or feat that they need for a given adventure, 10 minutes of downtime will fix it.
-easy non-native access to off-list and otherwise exclusive powers via Expanded Knowledge.
-Large PP reserve allows for spamming said powers.

Against wilder being T2
-limited number of powers at any one time. (Trivialized to a certain degree via Psychic Reformation.)

[Sian]

IMHO Wilder shouldn't be considered the Sorcerer to the Psions Wizard, but rather the Paladin/Ranger to the Psychic Warriors Fighter.

You get fewer powers sure (which to a certain extent can be alleviated with Educated Wilder ACF, which trades their weakest feature), but they're from a stronger list (Psion/Wilder actually have a surprising amount of Gishy spells) and they have the PP so they can push them hard without running OOM faster than a low-level wizard, and have the ability to nuke much harder via Wild Surge. Sure, they're someway between low t2 to high t3, but other than a d6 as hd they have a very competent base for building a Gish.

[stack]

I suspect the question of how psychic reformation impacts tiering is of primary importance for any class that has native access to it. If you assume it will be used frequently, the day-to-day flexibility of the classes skyrockets.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I suspect the question of how psychic reformation impacts tiering is of primary importance for any class that has native access to it. If you assume it will be used frequently, the day-to-day flexibility of the classes skyrockets.Even more so with an Expanded Knowledge wilder, given they have (albeit limited) ACF-granted access to every power in the game short of 9ths. Of course, psions get bonus feats as well, but no static class features, so average access is a bit more limited; then again, they have a much wider variety of "class features" to choose from as a result, so that probably puts them ahead again.

Also, judicious use of Linked Power + psychic reformation means any manifesting class with access to the combo can do a full feat/power rebuild within 1 round. So, there's that.

[Piggy Knowles]

I suspect the question of how psychic reformation impacts tiering is of primary importance for any class that has native access to it. If you assume it will be used frequently, the day-to-day flexibility of the classes skyrockets.

Came to say this. PsyRef alone makes psions feel out of place in tier 2, even if they are not quite at wizard level. Also unlike the wilder, they get enough powers known to really never have any reason to not have this on their powers known list, meaning they don’t have to resort to items or limiting their flexibility elsewhere in order to take it.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Came to say this. PsyRef alone makes psions feel out of place in tier 2, even if they are not quite at wizard level. Also unlike the wilder, they get enough powers known to really never have any reason to not have this on their powers known list, meaning they don’t have to resort to items or limiting their flexibility elsewhere in order to take it.Given psychic reformation's massive ability to increase a wilder's extremely limited flexibility, they need it even more than psions do.

[Troacctid]

2 - Okay. Trivial build: Wilder 5 / Thrallherd 10 then into some other PrC for the last 5. Get mindlink via Hidden Talent.
Prestige classes are not considered here.


I think a full-on Wilder 20 can beat Warmage / Warblade / Bard by cherry-picking powers using feats... let me try:

Level 1: Hidden Talent (Psi Minor Creation)
- Crystal Shard

Level 2:
- Vigor

Level 3: Psicrystal Affinity

Level 4:
- Share Pain

Level 6: Expanded Knowledge (Astral Construct)
- Time Hop

Level 8:
- Psi Dimension Door

Level 9: Expanded Knowledge (Psi Suggestion)

Level 10:
- Psi Plane Shift

Level 12: Expanded Knowledge (Metamorphosis)
- Psi Disintegrate

You're behind what any competent Psion could have done, but I think you're ahead of most T3 classes, including the three listed. You've got a very solid tanking combo, plus you're well set up to exploit sharing a power with your pet rock (hello metamorphosis).

That's all from core. If we extend the build higher, I'd probably want to look at non-core power lists.
This is about what I'd consider a high-end power list, and by my estimation it's not substantially better than a Warmage. Crystal Shard requires you to augment it with a bunch of power points to get the damage that Chill Touch (or Lesser Energy Orb) offers in a single slot. Vigor keeps you alive, but eats your PP and doesn't directly help take down enemies or solve problems. At level 6, you can summon a beatstick or make a thing vanish temporarily, while the Warmage now has Stinking Cloud and Fireball and maybe even Charm Person. Dimension Door is of course amazing—but is it better than Black Tentacles, Wall of Fire, Blast of Flame, Phantasmal Killer, and all six Energy Orbs combined? Hard to say IMO. If it is, it can't be by much. Once you hit Metamorphosis, you can be about as effective in combat with buffs as the Warmage can be without them.

I'd say this list hits at a similar power level to a Warmage with a bloodline feat.

(Also, none of these powers are core because psionics is not core.)


Uh. That's actually a rather interesting challenge. I have no idea whether this can be pulled off, but let's see.
For one, Wilders gain 11 powers of the course of 20 levels (not 9) because they gain another one at level 2 and yet another one at level 20.

So...skimming the New, No-Nonsense Guide to Psions and looking at the purple powers...
Level 1: Entangling Ectoplasm, I guess? It remains useful for a long, long time.
Level 2: We have to pick another 1st level power. Maybe there we can mention Psionic Grease?
Level 4: Energy Stun takes great advantage of Wild Surge, and provides with a debuff in addition to damage.
Level 6: Dispel Psionics. Thanks to Wild Surge this will quickly reach the cap of dispelling bonus, so you'll be ahead of the expected caster level on opponent spells. Or maybe Time Hop for utility?
Level 8: Psionic Divination is an all-in-one divination power. Or Psionic Dimension Door?
Level 10: I guess Ectoplasmic Shambler provides with battlefield control.
Level 12: Psionic Disintegrate takes well advantage of Wild Surge, and can be used for a modicum of utility in addition to damage.
Level 14: Nothing seems too great here. Maybe Eyes of the Basilisk or Decerebrate for the save or dies, or Personal Mind Blank.
Level 16: I believe Bend Reality does not cost too much exp at that level and provides with a lot of utility.
Level 18: Dunno. Stygian Conflagration for debuff?
Level 20: That's when I'd take Reality Revision.

So, how does that look? I'd say the raw damage can beat the Warblade, what with Psionic Disintegrate. There's a modicum of BFC, maybe not at the level of a Warmage though. Psionics is ill-suited to buffing allies, so there's no rivalling that part of the Bard, but this power list contains a number of debuffs. Plus Psionic Divination and/or Psionic Dimension Door that can either account for the Bard's intel gathering ability or for those White Raven maneuvers that allow the team to reposition.


With the Educated Wilder it becomes better, though. The Expanded Knowledge you get can grant you Discipline-exclusive powers. How about:
Level 5: Astral Construct. It pairs really well with Wild Surge. Or Psionic Minor Creation, or Charm Person.
Level 9: Hustle, Ectoplasmic Cocoon, False Sensory Input?
Level 13: Schism, or maybe Psionic Dominate. There's also Metamorphosis.
Level 17: Fission, Mass Ectoplasmic Cocoon.

I do feel going from 11 to 15 powers known is a significant improvement in the Wilder's power...

In addition to that, Wilders have 4 skill points/level, are Cha-bases and have all the social skills, so maybe they can afford not to take Psionic Charm Person or Psionic Dominate and Diplomance their way through social encounters.
It's hard, right? You just have so few tricks. There's very little room for error.


That was out the top of my head, but sure, I'll try.

Lv1- Psionic Grease / Entangling Ectoplasm
Lv1- Energy Ray
Lv2- Control Sound
Lv3- Telekinetic Force/Touchsight
Lv4- Psychic Reformation
Lv5- Incarnate/Major Creation
Lv6- Temporal Accelaration
Lv7- Mind Blank, Personal
Lv8- Bend Reality/Teleport, Psionic Greater
Lv9- Reality Revision
Lv9- Stygian Conflagration

Expanded Knowledge lv6 - Astral Construct
Expanded Knowledge lv9 - Concealing Amorpha, Greater
Expanded Knowledge lv12 - Metamorphosis / Schism
Expanded Knowledge lv15 - Dominate, Psionic / Clairtangent Hand / Second Chance
Expanded Knowledge lv18 - Astral Seed / Fate of One / Fission / Fusion

Looking at my own list, which is not at all perfect, I'd say the Wilder is a Tier 4.5 until and including level 5. At level 6, they rocket jump their way into Tier 2.5 and stay there until level 20. And that's for standard Wilder. Educated Wilder makes them significantly better.
You think Astral Construct and Telekinetic Force are enough to take a T4 class to T2? I'm skeptical (I don't think that's outmatching the Warmage or Warblade), but even if you're right, what if the Wilder takes some other powers instead? What percentage of Wilders are making it out of T3?


As far as single-class PCs are concerned, I like to think the power selection I've provided above holds it own relatively well when compared to the combined capacities of a Warmage, a Warblade and a Bard :smallsmile: not beating any at his schtik but not being utterly outshadowed either.
That should put it in the same tier as them.


For wilder being T2:
-native access to the full psion/wilder list, including the power equivalents to Limited/Wish alongside analogs to other A list high level spells.
-native access includes psychic reformation, allowing the power list to be overhauled for a trivial amount of xp along with skills and feats. It also allows for the entire party to be overhauled in the same fashion. If someone in the party doesn't have the spell,skill, or feat that they need for a given adventure, 10 minutes of downtime will fix it.
-easy non-native access to off-list and otherwise exclusive powers via Expanded Knowledge.
-Large PP reserve allows for spamming said powers.

Against wilder being T2
-limited number of powers at any one time. (Trivialized to a certain degree via Psychic Reformation.)
First off, you can't just be burning xp constantly on everything. It's a real cost. Second, if your rating is highly dependent on a specific power, you have to take into account that most builds won't choose that power. We're tiering the class as a whole, not a specific build.

[Piggy Knowles]

Given psychic reformation's massive ability to increase a wilder's extremely limited flexibility, they need it even more than psions do.

I don’t disagree, but they also feel it eating up their fourth level power known slot in a way that psions really do not. It’s a bug, not a feature.

EDIT: Just wanted to expand on what I mean by this. A wilder absolutely appreciates having access to PsyRef because of their limited powers known, but they also hate it at the same time. Realistically, you're talking about levels 6, 7, 8 and 9 where your most powerful option is going to be a single third level power. PsyRef means you can change what that third level power is (at the cost of some XP, which can drag out these levels even further), but doesn't actually get around this issue. That's a really significant chunk of time. Based on my own experiences, in actual real-life playing time, that probably means 10-15 sessions and a time investment of several months. It may not look like that big of a deal written out on a build table, but dead zones like that suck in real life play, to the point where in all likelihood if I were playing one I'd probably rather just take something else as a power known and pray I can get my hands on an item of PsyRef down the road.

I know that tiering doesn't take into consideration how annoying something like this is in an actual game, but I'm just pointing out that PsyRef has some real drawbacks for a wilder in practice, whereas a psion basically never minds having its presence on their powers known list.

[mabriss lethe]

You should never have to be constantly burning exp. Just enough to make sure your build is right for the environment you find yourself in, and just enough tweaking per manifesting to get what you need. So, you'd burn about as much exp if not less as any other caster with a standard allotment of exp eating spells. But none of that is relevant.

To address a build vs. Class. This isn't a build. It's a single low level power readily accessible to the class in question that happens to make specific builds largely irrelevant at both the individual and party level.

Access to an ability, spell, power, etc that trivializes, ignores, or rewrites fundamental game mechanics is a hallmark of the T3/T2 divide. It's just one of several powers on the P/W list that falls in that category.

Simply put: If individual powers are capable of breaking the game and the Wilder can learn them, then it's a T2 class by default.

And as a comparison: If Sorcerer is still a T2 class based on their access to game breaking spells even if an individual build never takes them then a Wilder is as well.

[daremetoidareyo]

Im downgrading wilder to low tier 2. Say 2.8. It blows significantly more than psion.

So, in total:

Soulknife tier 5
Psywar tier 3
Psion tier 1.7
Wilder tier 2.8

[GrayDeath]

Lets throw in my ratings as well (for this I am ssuming the following Limitations: Psychic Reformation is limited to very few usages and assume no wild "One power into the other into the third" to skirt close to infinite loops).


Wilder: Lets go first with the Wilder, as I recently played one. Even with Education its a very very closely focussed class, but it is also VERY powerful in that small area.
For me THE Definition of lowest T2. Its a One Trick Dragon (sorry for the Pun^^). 2.5

Soulknive: Lowest possible T5. With Full BAB, D10 and a bit more (and earlier) flexibility to its weapon, or half the PsyWarriors Manifesting, it could be a great Class for "Poor" settings. ALas.....nope.
5.5

PsyWarrior: Middle T3. So much so I`d rate it as THE Martial T3 together with the Swordsage. 3

Psion: Under the abovementioned limits its as close to a Wizard as a Sorcerer can get, psionically speaking. Highest T2 to lowest T1, so around 1.6.

[Grim Reader]

Have you? Because it doesn't say anything about your list. It uses the phrase "a spell"

We could choose to believe that "a spell" always implicitly means "from your list", but that causes problems in other places. Consider the Warmage's Advanced Learning class feature:

Generally, we assume it means "From your list unless otherwise specified" You know, general rule being from your list, with a specific clause allowed to override it.


Yes, and I've tried to explain to you that "the feat has a restriction that's not in the text" is wishful thinking rather than a rule. I'm not sure why your failure to persuade me is relevant here, outside of an attempted appeal to groupthink.

Well, I got a bit of a problem taking that seriously as an argument. It strikes me as attempting to cast a spell with a dead (not undead) character because the rules do not specify that you cannot cast spells while dead. And other "the rules do not specifically prohibit it so it must be allowed" arguments.

Did you notice that when exchanging a spell for a different one when leveling, neither Bard nor Sorcerer actually specifies that it must come from their lists? So by that reasoning they can come from any list :smallbiggrin: I don't think thats going to pass as rules.

Speaking of rules... arcane casting classes tend to have a line saying they cast arcane spells drawn from such and such list. They can't cast other spells with that class slots even if they know them. For example, a Cleric 9/Wizard 1 cannot use Cleric slots to cast Wizard spells even if they are in his spellbook and thus count as spells known.

[Troacctid]

To address a build vs. Class. This isn't a build. It's a single low level power readily accessible to the class in question that happens to make specific builds largely irrelevant at both the individual and party level.

Access to an ability, spell, power, etc that trivializes, ignores, or rewrites fundamental game mechanics is a hallmark of the T3/T2 divide. It's just one of several powers on the P/W list that falls in that category.

Simply put: If individual powers are capable of breaking the game and the Wilder can learn them, then it's a T2 class by default.

And as a comparison: If Sorcerer is still a T2 class based on their access to game breaking spells even if an individual build never takes them then a Wilder is as well.
The tier list isn't about breaking the game, it's about overall power level. Sorcerer is T2 because on average, it is more powerful overall than any of the T3 classes. Notably, it has substantially more known spells than the Wilder, which gives it a built-in versatility boost and more room for error.

[mabriss lethe]

From the tier list:


Tier 1 characters can BREAK THE GAME, litterally, all of them, that's why they are gods, that's why we are wary of the power we wield when we use them.

Tier 2 characters can BREAK THE GAME, just a tad less obviously, or in a more limited way.

I'm on mobile so I won't extensively quote right now. But in the definition of T2 it goes on to identify that the narrowness of the classes are a defining characteristic along with not showing the raw combat effectiveness and flexibility of a T3. ( They often play more like T4s in that respect but with a short list of T1 tricks up their sleeve. )

Wilder is at the very lowest end of t2 because it has access to the exact same game breaking tricks as a Psion. Many of which are often copypasta'd from the wizard list. Generally, if the psion can do it, there's a way to cram the essentials of the same trick into a Wilder.

[Troacctid]

From the tier list:



I'm on mobile so I won't extensively quote right now. But in the definition of T2 it goes on to identify that the narrowness of the classes are a defining characteristic along with not showing the raw combat effectiveness and flexibility of a T3. ( They often play more like T4s in that respect but with a short list of T1 tricks up their sleeve. )

Wilder is at the very lowest end of t2 because it has access to the exact same game breaking tricks as a Psion. Many of which are often copypasta'd from the wizard list. Generally, if the psion can do it, there's a way to cram the essentials of the same trick into a Wilder.
You probably want to read the OP again.



What are the tiers?

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

A big issue with the original tier system is that, if anything, it was too specific, generating inflexible definitions for allowance into a tier which did not cover the broad spectrum of ways a class can operate. When an increase in versatility would seem to represent a decrease in tier, because tier two is supposed to be low versatility, it's obvious that we've become mired in something that'd be pointless to anyone trying to glean information from the tier system.

[...]

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

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

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

[eggynack]

From the tier list:

I'm on mobile so I won't extensively quote right now. But in the definition of T2 it goes on to identify that the narrowness of the classes are a defining characteristic along with not showing the raw combat effectiveness and flexibility of a T3. ( They often play more like T4s in that respect but with a short list of T1 tricks up their sleeve. )

Wilder is at the very lowest end of t2 because it has access to the exact same game breaking tricks as a Psion. Many of which are often copypasta'd from the wizard list. Generally, if the psion can do it, there's a way to cram the essentials of the same trick into a Wilder.
To build on what Troacctid said, the reason those aren't the definitions we're using is because they are, while well meaning enough as definitions go, pretty dumb. They do not function in any meaningful sense. What even is a game breaker? The obvious ones are obvious. Gate, wish, shapechange, planar binding, even teleport. But is color spray a game breaker? Alter self? Dispel magic? Black tentacles? These spells are what a wizard is for the first, say, half of the game. They basically never stop being what a druid is, for the most part. So, either we're calling color spray a game breaker, which is honestly pretty silly, or wizards are tier three for a lot of their run time.

This pushes us to a second silly aspect of this definition. Game breakers are typical of high level play, and they are part of the definitions of high tier classes, so the tier system must, logically, describe high level play exclusively. But that's not true. Even in the original tier system that's not true, because said system concerned itself primarily with mid-level play, as this one does. That's usually considered something like 6-15.

The only reasonable conclusion then is that the tier system primarily cares about low and mid level play, but just happen to have this arbitrary requirement at high level play. Getting shapechange at level 17 does not make a class good, and not getting it does not make a class bad. At all. It is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for class quality. The original tier system would assert that it is necessary, but why? Besides the fact that it is a descriptive truth of the high tier classes as originally conceived, what does shapechange really tell us?

That gets us to the ultimate problem, the one that contains all others, including ones related to other parts of the definition. The tier system is supposed to tell us which classes are more useful and powerful than other classes. If you would rank one class as more useful than another, but the definitions tell you to tier them in opposition to that, then that is the definitions failing. If someone is claiming that spirit shaman could be tier one or tier three, but never tier two, because the definitions line up that way, then that is the definitions failing. The game breaker thing is probably the silliest individual part, but it's symptomatic of a bigger issue, which is either definitions that were constructed to be too prescriptive, or people reading actually descriptive definitions in prescriptive ways.

In either case, don't do that. If the wilder is worse than some tier three classes, that should be all you need to know.

[Nifft]

In either case, don't do that. If the wilder is worse than some tier three classes, that should be all you need to know.

Hmm.

Sorcerer, the poster-child for T2, is significantly worse than some T3 classes in a variety of scenarios.

That's clearly NOT all we need to know. If it were, then the tier system would have been up-ended long ago. It wasn't, therefore you must be wrong about this.

[eggynack]

Hmm.

Sorcerer, the poster-child for T2, is significantly worse than some T3 classes in a variety of scenarios.

That's clearly NOT all we need to know. If it were, then the tier system would have been up-ended long ago. It wasn't, therefore you must be wrong about this.
If the sorcerer is tier two, it is because people think that, on average, across levels and optimization levels alike, the sorcerer is better than every singly tier three class. Not all the time, and not every time, but most of the time. Y'know, the thing that is plausibly measured. People's ratings don't have to be reliant on esoteric and silly definitions to be distinct from your own.

[Nifft]

If the sorcerer is tier two, it is because people think that, on average, across levels and optimization levels alike, the sorcerer is better than every singly tier three class. Not all the time, and not every time, but most of the time. Y'know, the thing that is plausibly measured. People's ratings don't have to be reliant on esoteric and silly definitions to be distinct from your own.

The thing is, the tier rating is not always about being strictly better or worse -- especially not when distinguishing between T2 / T3 / T4.

So, you know, your idea about "If X is worse than a T3, that's all you need to know" is kind of NOT all you need to know. In fact it's just plain misleading. Which is why I'm here, not talking about any esoteric or silly definition, but just correcting your over-reach.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

T2 in the original tier system for classes is an odd duck. The system progresses smoothly from T6 through T3, and T1 fits nicely on the far end of the spectrum, through both power and versatility. T2, though, is strange in that it's significantly more powerful than T3, while often being less versatile than both T1 and T3. It's not an absolute, especially when specific builds are involved, but overall, I think the factotum is more versatile than anything but an optimized, high-level sorcerer or psion, as an example of this.

[eggynack]

The thing is, the tier rating is not always about being strictly better or worse -- especially not when distinguishing between T2 / T3 / T4.

So, you know, your idea about "If X is worse than a T3, that's all you need to know" is kind of NOT all you need to know. In fact it's just plain misleading. Which is why I'm here, not talking about any esoteric or silly definition, but just correcting your over-reach.
You are mistaken. I dunno if I have to say much more than that. If you think the sorcerer is, averaging across all pertinent parameters, worse than at least one tier three class, then rank it tier three. It's pretty straightforward, and not remotely misleading.

[daremetoidareyo]

I agree with assessment that odd tiers are versatile while even tiers have more focus on a few aspects. Just because it stratifies that way doesn't mean that odd tiered classes can't gimp their versatility to meet the focus of the next lower even tier. A wizard that goes all melee buff gish can reach down to behave as fundamentally a tier two sorcerer. So it's not like the tier system is terrible, I mean, it does overvalue versatility, but considering how modular this game is, there is no way around that when comparing one class to another while considering the additional splat options.

[Nifft]

Sorcerer, the poster-child for T2, is significantly worse than some T3 classes in a variety of scenarios.


You are mistaken. I dunno if I have to say much more than that. If you think the sorcerer is, averaging across all pertinent parameters, worse than at least one tier three class, then rank it tier three. It's pretty straightforward, and not remotely misleading.

Well, that's not what I said, so I'm gonna nope your argument.


Anyway, back to my argument: only the tier extremities are about better & worse -- a T6 is worse than a T5 which in turn is worse than all the others.

T4 is not strictly worse than T3.

T2 is not strictly better than T3.

Sorry, your understanding of the tiers is too simplistic -- you're wrong about what the tiers mean, and that's obvious when you try to discuss them.



T2 in the original tier system for classes is an odd duck. The system progresses smoothly from T6 through T3, and T1 fits nicely on the far end of the spectrum, through both power and versatility. T2, though, is strange in that it's significantly more powerful than T3, while often being less versatile than both T1 and T3. It's not an absolute, especially when specific builds are involved, but overall, I think the factotum is more versatile than anything but an optimized, high-level sorcerer or psion, as an example of this. Yeah.

Not sure about Factotum in specific, but there are certainly enough cases where T3 classes can out-perform an equally optimized Psion or Sorcerer -- and we should be familiar with how well an Uber-Charger can perform in combat, while remaining firmly T4.

[eggynack]

Well, that's not what I said, so I'm gonna nope your argument.
If that isn't what you said, then it's irrelevant. If the sorcerer is not, on average, worse than any tier three class, then it is likely tier two. If it's better than a single tier two class, then it's definitely tier two. Being markedly better than any tier three class is more than sufficient though.



Anyway, back to my argument: only the tier extremities are about better & worse -- a T6 is worse than a T5 which in turn is worse than all the others.
I admit that determining the outer boundaries of the tiers is non-trivial. The voting actually helps a lot with that though. We currently have some classes sitting right alongside most or all of the existing borders. We also just generally have a decent idea of how the tiers are shaped, which helps a lot. Bard probably isn't going to be breaking into tier two, for example, so if a class is worse than the bard, then that in itself is sufficient.


T4 is not strictly worse than T3.

T2 is not strictly better than T3.

Sorry, your understanding of the tiers is too simplistic -- you're wrong about what the tiers mean, and that's obvious when you try to discuss them.
I didn't say strictly worse. I said worse. Your understanding of the tiers is overly complex. The tiers are, at a basic level, a hierarchical ranking of power level. If your tier system is not hierarchically ranking power (where power is meant in the broader problem solving sense), then it has failed. If another part of the definition is causing you to hierarchically rank power worse, then that part of the definition needs to be removed until it stops doing that. Which ultimately renders those other parts of the definition useless.

[Nifft]

If that isn't what you said, then it's irrelevant. I think that what I actually said ought to be relevant, since it's related to the topic of this thread.


The tiers are, at a basic level, a hierarchical ranking of power level. If your tier system is not hierarchically ranking power (where power is meant in the broader problem solving sense), then it has failed. If another part of the definition is causing you to hierarchically rank power worse, then that part of the definition needs to be removed until it stops doing that. Which ultimately renders those other parts of the definition useless. No, the tiers never were just a hierarchical ranking of power level.

If that's been your understanding, you've failed to understand the tier system that JaronK laid down and which has been widely used and discussed ever since.

The tiers mean what they say they mean, and "raw power ranking" isn't what they say.

Here's what the OP of the thread says (with emphasis added):



What are the tiers?

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

What's a tier? Problem solving capacity.

Is that the same as power? Nope, not the same.

How do power and tier relate? At the extremes. A total lack of power usually accompanies a lack of problem solving capacity. In contrast, having a wide variety of high-power abilities will tend to grant a concomitant capacity to solve a wide variety of problems.

What about having some power, but not a wide variety of power? That's either T2 or T4, depending on the details.


Maybe @heavyfuel can chime in and let us know who is on track here.

[eggynack]

I think that what I actually said ought to be relevant, since it's related to the topic of this thread.
Your initial comment was in response to me, in a post where I had nothing about strictly better or worse whatsoever. Just regular better or worse. I suppose I assumed that you meant that the tiers aren't strictly a measure of better or worse, instead of the off-topic thing you said, which is that the tiers aren't a measure of strictly better or strictly worse.

Anyway, the reason it's irrelevant is that one of two things is true. Either the sorcerer is worse than at least one tier three class, in which case it's tier three, or it's not, in which case it's probably tier two. Not certainly, and here lies one issue, but honestly it's not an issue that comes up much.


No, the tiers never were just a hierarchical ranking of power level.

If that's been your understanding, you've failed to understand the tier system that JaronK laid down and which has been widely used and discussed ever since.

The tiers mean what they say they mean, and "raw power ranking" isn't what they say.
If the issue here is just that power needs to be meant in a general way that more closely aligns with problem solving, which kinda acts as a product of power and versatility, sure. That is what we're measuring. Glad I could clarify. If the issue is that the tier system does not hierarchically rank by whatever metric we're using, no. You are mistaken. Going by the original tier system the first goal is to: "1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PC classes in their group." No subsequent definition conflicts with this one.



What's a tier? Problem solving capacity.

Is that the same as power? Nope, not the same.
I agree that they are not the same thing. However, what I actually mean when I say "problem solving capacity" is that giant wall of text. "Power" is easier to write out. I literally put the problem solving capacity thing in a parenthesis in that text you just quoted. You are not correcting me.



Maybe @heavyfuel can chime in and let us know who is on track here.
No? I'm the person that developed this set of threads, including the definitions we're using. You're quoting me right now in order to argue against me. It's a bit silly, you must admit.

Edit: Seriously, this has to be the first time someone has used me as an authority to make an appeal to authority against myself.

[Nifft]

No? I'm the person that developed this set of threads, including the definitions we're using. You're quoting me right now in order to argue against me. It's a bit silly, you must admit.

Edit: Seriously, this has to be the first time someone has used me as an authority to make an appeal to authority against myself.

That's hilarious!

How did you manage to oversimplify your argument to the point that you're honestly not agreeing with your own definitions?

Your original definition seemed pretty decent. What happened to make you change your view to this other bad one ("a hierarchical ranking of power level"), and why should we prefer the new one over the one in the OP?

[eggynack]

That's hilarious!

How did you manage to oversimplify your argument to the point that you're honestly not agreeing with your own definitions?

Your original definition seemed pretty decent. What happened to make you change your view to this other bad one ("a hierarchical ranking of power level"), and why should we prefer the new one over the one in the OP?
That's easy. My view never changed. It's literally right there in what you quoted of me: "If your tier system is not hierarchically ranking power (where power is meant in the broader problem solving sense)..." Just cause I don't write out giant paragraphs every time doesn't mean they're not implicitly present. I mean, even the first post I made on this topic said both useful and powerful, not just powerful.

[Nifft]

That's easy. My view never changed. It's literally right there in what you quoted of me: "If your tier system is not hierarchically ranking power (where power is meant in the broader problem solving sense)..." Just cause I don't write out giant paragraphs every time doesn't mean they're not implicitly present. I mean, even the first post I made on this topic said both useful and powerful, not just powerful.

Yeah that's not what I got from "The tiers are, at a basic level, a hierarchical ranking of power level."

But if you meant "where power = utility and also power, plus some versatility and also the ability to re-spec at 1 and 3 but not 2 or 4 through 6", then I guess we're mostly in agreement.

[daremetoidareyo]

Yeah that's not what I got from "The tiers are, at a basic level, a hierarchical ranking of power level."

But if you meant "where power = utility and also power, plus some versatility and also the ability to re-spec at 1 and 3 but not 2 or 4 through 6", then I guess we're mostly in agreement.

OMG. we made it. Whew.

That was like reading david mitchell argue with christopher hitchens.

[eggynack]

But if you meant "where power = utility and also power, plus some versatility and also the ability to re-spec at 1 and 3 but not 2 or 4 through 6", then I guess we're mostly in agreement.
Everything except that last part, sure. That's the kinda overly specific and prescriptive nonsense that lead to problems with the old system in the first place. Particularly the weird spirit shaman thing, in this particular case. It's a class that has the capacity to respec, so it can't be in tier two, but its power level doesn't really suit tier one that well, so it is inexplicably supposed to be in either tier one or tier three. If tiers are supposed to be a broad averaging of problem solving capabilities, and they are, then someone arguing for either tier one or tier three but not tier two makes no sense whatsoever.

[Troacctid]

What's this about lower-tier classes not being allowed to re-spec? Are we putting Adept in T3 now?

[eggynack]

What's this about lower-tier classes not being allowed to re-spec? Are we putting Adept in T3 now?
Wow, I guess I missed the reductio ad absurdum forest for the actually sometimes argued trees on this one. There're so many funny rankings you can do with this one. I'll just note that this definition also makes it basically impossible to rank the fixed list casters (or any number of other kinda similar setups) in different tiers, and move on to the original point.

This is why definitions like this are bad. The goal, and it is the only goal, is better classes above worse classes. You can add tons and tons of nuance to what better and worse mean, but you should ultimately have one smooth definition of how "better" operates. "Better" can't have certain advantages popping up at certain tiers and then leaving. "Better" can't involve some arbitrary new game object coming into play when you get way up high.

To put it another way, you should be able to state exactly what "better" means without referencing a single tier.

[heavyfuel]

I was just going to bed, but sure, I'll chime in.

I've always though of tiers, even throughout these couple of threads, as both problem solving capacity and power. Tier 3 classes could very well outperform T2 ones in a few situations, but T2s would shine. Yeah, Bards can do plenty a non-specialized Sorcerer cannot, but a Sorcerer will absolutely destroy the Bard when doing whatever it is he did specialize in. Adding to that, the Sorc can also do some things he didn't specialize in, though not as many things in total as the Bard.

I very much agree with Eggy that re-specs aren't exclusive to Tiers 1 and 3, though. These tiers are about versatility, but you can be versatile without re-specs, and you can lack versatility with it.

Though it seems you've somewhat come an agreement, no? Guess I'll just actually go to bed now. :smallsigh:

[Cosi]

And we have reached the fundamental problem of Tier Systems derived from JaronK's work. They insist on including things that are not power in something that is going to be used as a power ranking in roughly 100% of cases. If you tell someone that some class is "higher tier" than another class, they will understand that as meaning "more powerful". Because that is what it means in the context of every other tier system anywhere.

Of course, "versatility" isn't actually meaningfully distinct from "power". If you bump up the numbers on a power you already had, you can overcome some new challenges. If you get a new power, you can overcome some new challenges. Separating the terms, if it can be done at all, is simply not a useful exercise. Particularly because no one ever bothers to define testable standards for these things.

Equally, "power" does actually mean "capacity to overcome more challenges". People understand the statement "the Wizard is more powerful than the Sorcerer" as having meaning despite the fact that Wizard and the Sorcerer draw from the same spell list. Arguing that because someone doesn't give a full page explanation of every word they use they must agree with your definitions of those words is a pretty shady rhetorical technique.

Consider that argument eggynack is talking about for a second. Are we really supposed to believe that it's impossible to be worse than the Wizard, better than the Bard, and have daily respec capacity?* Consider the hypothetical "Sorcerer, but with Incarnum". It's a Sorcerer that loses no abilities, but gains some amount of Incarnum, which they can shuffle around daily like any other Meldshaper. Under JaronK's model or any other that isn't just straight power, this class can't be Tier Two. Which implies either that adding abilities to a class reduces its tier, that there is no amount of Incarnum a Sorcerer could gain that is smaller than the difference between Sorcerer and WIzard**, or that versatility only counts in conjunction with power. Those first two are pretty farcical, and the third is a concession to the argument that power should be dominant in rankings.

Also I'm 90% sure that at this point this discussion belongs in the main thread for this project, not the psionics thread.

*: No, I don't care about "versatility". Because users won't, and unless this whole project is about growing our collective and individual internet fame, the foremost consideration needs to be on the user. Also, give a test for distinguishing between versatility and power before you make an argument that depends on them being different.
**: Or wherever you think the biggest gap is. If you believe this claim is false for the Sorcerer and the Wizard but true for the Beguiler and the Druid, don't get so caught up in the specific example I've chosen as to miss the general principle.

[Luccan]

And we have reached the fundamental problem of Tier Systems derived from JaronK's work. They insist on including things that are not power in something that is going to be used as a power ranking in roughly 100% of cases. If you tell someone that some class is "higher tier" than another class, they will understand that as meaning "more powerful". Because that is what it means in the context of every other tier system anywhere.

Of course, "versatility" isn't actually meaningfully distinct from "power". If you bump up the numbers on a power you already had, you can overcome some new challenges. If you get a new power, you can overcome some new challenges. Separating the terms, if it can be done at all, is simply not a useful exercise. Particularly because no one ever bothers to define testable standards for these things.

Equally, "power" does actually mean "capacity to overcome more challenges". People understand the statement "the Wizard is more powerful than the Sorcerer" as having meaning despite the fact that Wizard and the Sorcerer draw from the same spell list. Arguing that because someone doesn't give a full page explanation of every word they use they must agree with your definitions of those words is a pretty shady rhetorical technique.

Consider that argument eggynack is talking about for a second. Are we really supposed to believe that it's impossible to be worse than the Wizard, better than the Bard, and have daily respec capacity?* Consider the hypothetical "Sorcerer, but with Incarnum". It's a Sorcerer that loses no abilities, but gains some amount of Incarnum, which they can shuffle around daily like any other Meldshaper. Under JaronK's model or any other that isn't just straight power, this class can't be Tier Two. Which implies either that adding abilities to a class reduces its tier, that there is no amount of Incarnum a Sorcerer could gain that is smaller than the difference between Sorcerer and WIzard**, or that versatility only counts in conjunction with power. Those first two are pretty farcical, and the third is a concession to the argument that power should be dominant in rankings.

Also I'm 90% sure that at this point this discussion belongs in the main thread for this project, not the psionics thread.

*: No, I don't care about "versatility". Because users won't, and unless this whole project is about growing our collective and individual internet fame, the foremost consideration needs to be on the user. Also, give a test for distinguishing between versatility and power before you make an argument that depends on them being different.
**: Or wherever you think the biggest gap is. If you believe this claim is false for the Sorcerer and the Wizard but true for the Beguiler and the Druid, don't get so caught up in the specific example I've chosen as to miss the general principle.

I'm always curious why you participate in these threads. Not to say you can't or even that you shouldn't, but you seem to hate this Tier system so much I have to wonder why you would want to be involved with it. No one seems inclined to change this specific Tier system as you would like, so it would probably be better to introduce your own, no?

[Cosi]

I'm always curious why you participate in these threads. Not to say you can't or even that you shouldn't, but you seem to hate this Tier system so much I have to wonder why you would want to be involved with it. No one seems inclined to change this specific Tier system as you would like, so it would probably be better to introduce your own, no?

As I've said, it's because I think the discussion is worthwhile. Also, the end result will probably end up being pretty close to what I would consider correct, and it certainly won't get any better if I don't participate. The current rankings are strictly better than JaronK's just because the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are put on par with the Sorcerer where they belong. As far as making my own goes, it's not worth the effort. Even if you ranked things in a way that was simultaneously more useful and more accurate than JaronK's, people would still cite that one. It's the same basic issue with making your own game.