Why each class is in its tier: 2019 update!

[Hish]

This looks like a good project. Everything is about where I'd expect it.

I think this shows that tiers are still a useful description of classes. Even though there aren't prescriptive traits in the tier descriptions anymore, the classes in a tier still have generally have traits in common.

I have a few votes to submit, but I want to read the discussions before I make them official.

EDIT: Okay, I've read the discussions, and all of my votes have changed by a little.

Adept: T4.75. Adepts are severely anemic with spell slots. They get a good list, but the list is too small to really be powerful, and on top of that they're prepared casters. By the time they get good spells and enough slots to use them reliably, the spells are no longer worthwhile. That being said, they are better than most T5, with its samurais and monks and truenamers. So I'm voting on the high end of tier 5.

Expert: T6. Expert is the only really sucky class that does skills well. This makes it hard to compare, but there is no niche protection in the tier system. Expert is worse than CW Samurai, between chassis and actually having some class features (I can count a whole 3 real class features on the Samurai, plus a few bonus feats). It's comparable to Aristocrat, which I rank as a definite T6. Compared to Aristocrat, Expert gains 2 skill points and a class skill or two in exchange for martial weapon proficiencies and a HD size. It's probably better than Aristocrat, but it's close.

I really like incarnum as a system, and I want Incarnate to be good, but whenever I look at it it seems to lack something to be actually good at. That being said, I lack the practical build experience to differentiate between T4 and T3. I did build a Necropolitan Incarnate/Necrocarnate as an NPC once, but it was more a puzzle excounter than anything.