Community Tiering for all 3.5 Base Classes

[Jormengand]

Currently voting: Rogue, Samurai (CWr), Savant (DrC), Scout (CAd), Sha'ir (DrC), Shadowcaster (ToM)

So, recently there's been a lot of arguing about tiers and what class is in what tier and why, so I decided to make this thread to help the community decide together. This is a relatively involved process, and is going to take a while to complete, but at the end there'll be a complete tier list.

The rules of the thread are:

A) We are going to vote on the tiers of all base classes, except variants for another class, which were released as a 3.5 class. There are sixty-seven of these. Once the list is finished, any variants may be considered separately.

Spoiler: List

Show

These classes are Adept, Archivist (HoH), Ardent (CPs), Aristocrat, Artificer (ECS), Barbarian, Bard, Battle Dancer (DrC), Beguiler (PH2), Binder (ToM), Cleric, Commoner, Crusader (ToB), Death Master (DrC), Divine Mind (CPs), Dragon Shaman (PH2), Dragonfire Adept (DrM), Dread Necromancer (HoH), Druid, Duskblade (PH2), Expert, Expert (UA), Factotum (Dgs), Favoured Soul (CDv), Fighter, Healer (MHB), Hexblade (CWr), Incarnate (MoI), Jester (DrC), Knight (PH2), Lurk (CPs), Magewright (ECS), Marshal (MHB), Monk, Mountebank (DrC), Mystic (DCS), Ninja (CA), Noble (DCS), Paladin, Psion (XPH), Psychic Warrior (XPH), Ranger, Rogue, Samurai (CWr), Savant (DrC), Scout (CAd), Sha'ir (DrC), Shadowcaster (ToM), Shugenja (CDv), Sorcerer, Soulborn (MoI), Soulknife (XPH), Spellcaster (UA), Spellthief (CAd), Spirit Shaman (CDv), Swashbuckler (CWr), Swordsage (ToB), Totemist (MoI), Truenamer (ToM), Warblade (ToB), Warlock (CAr), Warmage (CAr), Warrior, Warrior (UA), Wilder (XPH), Wizard and Wu Jen (CAr).

B) We are going to vote using the alternative vote system between tiers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and X. What these tiers are will be explained in a moment for those who don't know. Please write your votes like this or in another way that is easy to read: Class name: 324X561

Spoiler: Elaboration

Show

The alternative vote system means that you put the tiers in order of preference for which you decide most accurately describes the class. For example, if you think that the Facepuncher is just tier 3, but might just slip into tier 4, you could vote "Facepuncher: 34", "Facepuncher - 3>4" or "Facepuncher 3, 4" or some other way which is clear. If on the other hand you think that the Facepuncher is clearly a tier 1, and you want to make sure it's the highest tier possible, you might vote "Facepuncher: 123456" (or the same with X thrown in somewhere). The alternative vote system is resolved by the following method:

• Look at the first tier in each person's list. For each tier which got the fewest first-place votes, discount that tier.
• Look at the first tier in each person's list again, removing all the tiers which you discounted in the first round.
• Keep discounting tiers and looking at lists until only one tier is left.
• If at any point you try to discount tiers, but then there would be none left, instead check which one got the most first-place votes. If each one got the most, check which one got the most second-place votes, and so on.
• If there's still a tie, choose randomly.

For example, if the votes were 123, 321 and 421, then the class would be considered Tier 1 (because Tier 2 is discounted in the first round). Notably, this means that there is no way of making your preferred tier less likely to win by providing alternative tiers.

C) Every week, starting at (about) midnight GMT on Thursday 29 December 2016, six classes will be put up to vote. These six classes will be chosen alphabetically, for the sake of fairness. It happens to be the case that the NPC classes Expert and Warrior are in the same set of six as the generic classes of the same name. You can vote at any time during this period, even if the classes haven't been explicitly stated to be up for vote yet. This time is to be used for discussion of the six classes, so that each class is in the spotlight long enough to discuss it where needed.

D) You are strongly encouraged to include reasons with your votes. Voting for an established T1 class as 654321 without a supporting reason is likely to get your vote discounted as a troll vote. Voting for the same class as 123456 probably won't, though it's still useful to explain why.

E) Please don't use this vote for joke votes, protest votes, or discussion of whether or not the tier system is a good idea. If you don't think the tier system is an accurate decription of classes, then what can you possibly hope to gain by posting in a thread for making the tier system? This is meant to be a useful resource for DMs and players, so the tier 1 commoner meme isn't a good idea - even if it's an obvious joke, it will throw doubt on whether or not the rest of this thread is serious. This thread is also not for arguing about how the tiers should be defined - they are what they are, and having more than one conflicting standard for tiering is only really going to cause confusion.

EDIT:

F) To clear up some confusion: you are expected to vote for your preference during the 7 days you have to do so. While the time you have may not be exactly 7 days, it is always as soon as feasible after a minute past midnight GMT Thursday. There are no re-votes.

G) To clear up some more confusion: You should consider the original printing of the class, plus any errata. Do not consider alternate class features, substitution levels, variants of that class, or anything else which intrinsically alters what class it actually is. After the vote, these may be considered as though they were separate classes. You may also consider the class with access to variants in general at that time. If you try to consider the class with variants before this time, I will ignore your vote. If you include separate

H) To prevent the excessive levels of antagonism that have been present in the thread, do not attack other posters or the thread procedure. This is really basic stuff. If you do, your account will be added to my ignore list. I appreiate that this is an extreme measure, but "Don't attack people for their views on a game" is really, really basic stuff.

Spoiler: The Tier System

Show

My general philosophy is that the only balance that really matters in D&D is the interclass balance between the various PCs in a group. If the group as a whole is very powerful and flexible, the DM can simply up the challenge level and complexity of the encounters. If it's weak and inflexible, the DM can lower the challenge level and complexity. Serious issues arise when the party is composed of some members which are extremely powerful and others which are extremely weak, leading to a situation where the DM has two choices: either make the game too easy for the strong members, or too hard for the weak members. Neither is desireable. Thus, this system is created for the following purposes:

1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group

2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.

3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).

4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a Fighter, and a Rogue, maybe you shouldn't let that fly.

5) To help homebrewers judge the power and balance of their new classes. Pick a Tier you think your class should be in, and when you've made your class compare it to the rest of the Tier. Generally, I like Tier 3 as a balance point, but I know many people prefer Tier 4. If it's stronger than Tier 1, you definitely blew it.

This post is NOT intended to state which class is "best" or "sucks." It is only a measure of the power and versitliity of classes for balance purposes.

Psionic classes are mostly absent simply because I don't have enough experience with them. Other absent classes are generally missing because I don't know them well enough to comment, though if I've heard a lot about them they're listed in itallics. Note that "useless" here means "the class isn't particularly useful for dealing with situation X" not "it's totally impossible with enough splat books to make a build that involves that class deal with situation X." "Capable of doing one thing" means that any given build does one thing, not that the class itself is incapable of being built in different ways. Also, "encounters" here refers to appropriate encounters... obviously, anyone can solve an encounter with purely mechanical abilities if they're level 20 and it's CR 1.

Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier in terms of tier descriptions, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level. As a rule, parties function best when everyone in the party is within 2 Tiers of each other (so a party that's all Tier 2-4 is generally fine, and so is a party that's all Tier 3-5, but a party that has Tier 1 and Tier 5s in it may have issues).

As a further note, some classes have specific variants or options to them that drastically change their abilities. These classes are noted on multiple tiers. If a variant is not mentioned, it's in the same Tier as the standard class (for example, the Cloistered Cleric is not mentioned because it's T1 like the Cleric. The same goes for the Battle Sorcerer and the Wilderness Rogue). Classes in blue are on the high side of their Tier and can easily move up. Classes in red are on the low side of their Tier and can easily move down.

The Tier System

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

Note that a few classes are right on the border line between tiers.

JaronK

Tier X is the place that classes get left behind if they don't scale with optimisation like they're supposed to. Essentially, if an Omnipotent One and a Suckimancer are badly optimised, then the Omnipotent One will still be better than the Suckimancer. The same is true if they're both well optimised. Sure, a well-optimised Suckimancer played by someone who knows what they're doing can be better than the Omnipotent One, but assuming the same optimisation level, the Omnipotent One is still Tier 1 and the Suckimancer is still Tier 5, whatever that optimisation level is. But the Variturge just won't play fair. A badly-played Variturge is worse than even a badly-played Suckimancer, but a well-played Variturge is better than a well-played Suckimancer - even when the two classes are the same optimisation level, it matters a great deal what that optimisation level is. Tier X is essentially what happens when there's no one single tier that you can reasonably put a class into.

Spoiler: Tier List so Far

Show

Classes currently being voted on are marked with a V.

Adept 4
Archivist (HoH) 1
Ardent (CPs) 2
Aristocrat 6
Artificer (ECS) 1
Barbarian 4
Bard 3
Battle Dancer (DrC) 5
Beguiler (PH2) 3
Binder (ToM) 3
Cleric 1
Commoner 6
Crusader (ToB) 3
Death Master (DrC) 2
Divine Mind (CPs) 5
Dragon Shaman (PH2) 5
Dragonfire Adept (DrM) 3
Dread Necromancer (HoH) 3
Druid 1
Duskblade (PH2) 3
Expert 5
Expert (UA) 4/5
Factotum (Dgs) 3
Favoured Soul (CDv) 2
Fighter 5
Healer (MHB) 3
Hexblade (CWr) 4
Incarnate (MoI) 3
Jester (DrC) 3
Knight (PH2) 5
Lurk (CPs)
Magewright (ECS)
Marshal (MHB)
Monk
Mountebank (DrC)
Mystic (DCS)
Ninja (CA)
Noble (DCS)
Paladin
Psion (XPH)
Psychic Warrior (XPH)
Ranger
Rogue V
Samurai (CWr) V
Savant (DrC) V
Scout (CAd) V
Sha'ir (DrC) V
Shadowcaster (ToM) V
Shugenja (CDv)
Sorcerer
Soulborn (MoI)
Soulknife (XPH)
Spellcaster (UA)
Spellthief (CAd)
Spirit Shaman (CDv)
Swashbuckler (CWr)
Swordsage (ToB)
Totemist (MoI)
Truenamer (ToM)
Urban Druid (DrC)
Warblade (ToB)
Warlock (CAr)
Warmage (CAr)
Warrior
Warrior (UA)
Wilder (XPH)
Wizard
Wu Jen (CAr)

The first round of classes to be voted on are Adept, Archivist (HoH), Ardent (CPs), Aristocrat, Artificer (ECS) and Barbarian.

Adept is probably Tier 4, though I could make a case for 3 or 5. It does a lot of jobs, but none of them amazingly well. It's like a cleric, but subpar, strapped to a wizard, but also subpar. My current vote for it is probably Adept: 453X.
Archivist seems to be a solid Tier 1 class, given that it's a spellbook-based cleric, in effect. My vote is Archivist: 123X45.
Ardent I'll leave to those who know more about the class, but my current feelings are that as an exceptionally limited but full-manifesting psionic class it's probably tier 3 or 2. I vote 32X for now Ardent: 23X.
Aristocrat seems to be essentially a bad chassis with no abilities beyond the high starting wealth, so my vote is Aristocrat: 65.
Artificer is essentially wizard but with magic items, so my vote is Artificer: 123X45.
Barbarian deals damage and not much else, although skills help. I vote Barbarian: 453.

(Disclaimer: I use Purple to raise procedural points in this thread and to call attention to results. This doesn't mean I'm a mod. Red text by a moderator supersedes purple - or any other colour - text by me).

[Zanos]

Adept: 435
Casts spells at severely limited progression from a fixed list, but fixed list is surprisingly strong, including staples such as sleep, protection from X, obscuring mist, cause fear, invisibility, see invisibility, scorching ray, web, mirror image, darkness, animate dead, polymorph, true seeing, wall of stone, heal, baleful polymorph, and commune, as well as some remove X spells. Often useful, but somewhat crippled by gaining access to effects long after characters are assumed to have access to them.

Archivist: 1
I can see no other option here. Significantly more powerful than even many other tier 1 classes with access to druid/cleric/domain/PrC spell lists.

Ardent: 23x
23 powers known and full power point progression. Not as good as a psion, but not weak enough to drop it a tier.

Aristocrat: 6
d8, 3/4 bab, proficiency with all martial and simple weapons. 4 skills per level off of a so-so skill list. Nothing of any real merit.

Artificer: 1
Gets access to every spell effect in the game 2 levels earlier than every other class. Power is extremely tied to WBL, but is tier 1 under normal WBL easily.

Barbarian: 453
Hits stuff really hard, but is significantly better at hitting stuff really hard than many other classes. 4+int skill points, but skill list lacks any game changing options.

[JBarca]

I imagine most classes will stay in the Tier normally assigned to them, but for the less-known classes, this seems pretty useful. Looking forward to the results.

Let's see.
Adept - Well, we have playable a caster, but one without 9ths (or even 6ths). So that pretty much knocks out Tiers 1,2, and 6 from contention. A Familiar is a nice touch, too. Several "ok" spells and a few very useful ones (such as Commune, a few BFC options, and the ever popular Polymorph). Relatively few spells/day, and prepared off a fixed list - two more downsides that limit versatility and power. "capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining" - Polymorph does this by itself, right? So I think I'd vote 4, 3, 5.

Archivist - I really don't see the need to elaborate a whole lot, here. A full prepared caster casting off a powerful list (Cleric), with some access to any other Divine list (including what is arguably the best list in the Druid's). Other class features range from neat (Lore Mastery) to great (Dark Knowledge). Only real limitation is the player's ability to not pick exclusively awful spells. So I think I'll vote 1, X, 2.

Ardent - I'm very unfamiliar. Limited Powers known, but still Powers. I'd guess that T3 is most likely. My vote'll be 2, 3, X. I could be way off, but that's the feeling I get right now.
- updated to reflect discussion.

Aristocrat - No Class Features, decent skills. Not much to say or analyze. So 6, 5, X.

Artificer - Wow, ok. A lot to handle here, so I'll summarize. Item crafting is basically spellcasting when done at this level. Coupled with "Infusions" (read: spellcasting), and you have a pretty solid class. Their Infusions make them basically a fixed-list spontaneous caster (a la Warmage, Beguiler) with a ton of added versatility through items. So T1 seems reasonable. Vote - 1, 3, 2, X.

Barbarian - Potential for a ton of damage with Rage and great ACFs and such. One very useful skill (Intimidate) and that's it. Most of its Class Features are basically useless in this discussion - no added power or versatility, just flavor and minor benefits. "Capable of doing one things quite well" hits the nail on the head. The potential for Intimidate to be great in social encounters can vary, but may push the Barb into T3 sometimes. And in some levels of optimization, a Barbarian's damage is near useless. Vote - 4, 3, 5, X.

Well, a fun exercise if nothing else. I look forward to the other votes and results!

[Troacctid]

Adept: 5
Slow spell progression, a limited spell list, and harshly restricted spells per day means that, while you can one or two things, you can't do any of them particularly well. This is the definition of T5. I don't think you can reasonably go to any other tier, although domains do help somewhat. It's not T4 because it doesn't fill its role well, and it's not T6 like the other NPC classes because it is actually capable of doing something even if it doesn't do it very well.

Archivist and Artificer are obviously 1s. Not much to say, they can do everything.

Ardent is a 2. It can do a relatively small number of extremely powerful and potentially game-breaking things (especially with the Mind's Eye ACFs, both of which are crazy strong), but has restrictions on powers known that hold it back from T1. I guess Ardent can fall to T3 if you don't take any of the mantles with truly busted powers in them, so I'll give it a 2>3.

Aristocrat is a 6 and is roughly tied with Expert. High-op might get you to 5, but you'd still never play one.

Barbarian is pretty much the archetypal 4. It does its thing and it does it competently. You could argue for 5 if you exclude ACFs, and it's easy enough to get to 3 with prestige classes (although they really shouldn't count), so I say 4>5>>>3.

Adept - Well, we have playable a caster, but one without 9ths (or even 6ths). So that pretty much knocks out Tiers 1,2, and 6 from contention. A Familiar is a nice touch, too. Several "ok" spells and a few very useful ones (such as Commune, a few BFC options, and the ever popular Polymorph). Relatively few spells/day, and prepared off a fixed list - two more downsides that limit versatility and power. "capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining" - Polymorph does this by itself, right? So I think I'd vote 4, 3, 5.

Adept: 435
Casts spells at severely limited progression from a fixed list, but fixed list is surprisingly strong, including staples such as sleep, protection from X, obscuring mist, cause fear, invisibility, see invisibility, scorching ray, web, mirror image, darkness, animate dead, polymorph, true seeing, wall of stone, heal, baleful polymorph, and commune, as well as some remove X spells. Often useful, but somewhat crippled by gaining access to effects long after characters are assumed to have access to them.

At low levels, you don't have enough spell slots to be effective as a caster. At high levels, you still don't have enough spell slots to be effective as a caster, and you're way behind on spell progression. Maybe you can argue that animate dead alone gets you to T4 (even though you're doing nothing for your first 7 levels?), but definitely not T3, you're way below the benchmarks for that.

Artificer: 1
Gets access to every spell effect in the game 2 levels earlier than every other class. Power is extremely tied to WBL, but is tier 1 under normal WBL easily.

Forget WBL, infusions alone are totally busted! Have you seen spell-storing item? You can spontaneously cast any spell of 4th level or lower off of any class's spell list, out of a 1st level infusion slot! And metamagic item straight-up gives you free metamagic, so you can have no money at all and still wear persistent buffs as well as or better than any cleric.

Ardent - I'm very unfamiliar. Limited Powers known, but still Powers. I'd guess that T3 is most likely. My vote'll be 3, 4, X, 2. I could be way off, but that's the feeling I get right now.

9th level manifesting off a decent list with full progression and plenty of powers known gets you to T2 without too much trouble. You get a lot of the best powers of any given level, like metamorphosis, time hop, anticipatory strike, psionic teleport astral construct...and even with weaker mantles, you're never going to fall below T3. So 4 is way off.

[Muggins]

Adepts are Tier 5/6. Some of their spells are quite strong, but their average chassis and the option to flub up spell selection lower their potential. Delayed spellcasting progression chokes them bigtime.

Archivists are Tier 1/X. Good class features, spells from anywhere, and skills to boot. The ceiling is high, but their basic abilities are such that they can contribute to the party even with poor spell selection.

Ardents are Tier 2/X. No class features to speak of, really, but they're the only class to get full access to mantles for free (and with full powers known and power point progression!). Further, the common reading of their manifester level-based power progression (as opposed to class-level) gives them plenty of wiggle room. Variant mantles, mantle abilities, and favoured mantle push them to the heights of Tier 2, but bad mantle/power selection can seriously numb their potency. A Cleric, at least, always has their non-domain spells; the Ardent doesn't.

Aristocrats are Tier 6. Is this better than a commoner? I don't know. Even if it is, that's not a high benchmark.

Artificer are Tier 1/X. So many class features, so little time; they all amount to pseudo-spellcasting, though, and that's worth a lot in DnD. Especially if you're pulling from all arcane or divine spell lists ever, even level-compressed ones like Trapsmith, or if you're a psionic artificer and you also have psionic powers to abuse. Again, you can mess around with this class and produce less-optimal results, but there's a reason this class has been known (informally) as the omnificer.

Barbarians are Tier 4/5. They can do good damage, but that's really all they can do, even if they do it well. Even a poorly-built barbarian can do that, while an Adept might just sit around preparing only Detect Law and Aid. ACFs can give them a flexibility, but it's nothing that special.

[Troacctid]

The problem with Adept is it's just not good at what it does. T4 requires you to be able to fill your role with competence—well enough not to be overshadowed in it. Adept doesn't do that. It' subpar in its own role. That's T5.

[flappeercraft]

Since I only really have experience with barbarians whether on playing them, DMing player who play them or seeing them be played in general I will only give my opinion about them.

As for barbarian I would give them a Tier 4 just because the only thing they really shine in is melee combat. They have the ability to deal great damage and take a good punch due to d12 HD, DR and with high Fort saves to stay up against death effects, poisons, etc. Other than that they do not influence things in a way that any other class could not do so equally or better and usually it is just better to wait for someone else to deal with it as they might end up screwing things up if they try to search for traps, knowledge checks, using magic devices, etc for which is my reason for Tier 4.

[AvatarVecna]

Spoiler: Adept (4/5)

Show

Adepts gain lvl 5 divine spellcasting over the course of 20 levels...and that's about it. Their chassis is nothing impressive - a d6 Hit Die and a good Will save don't make it particularly impressive - and their only feature besides spellcasting is the rather mediocre ability to summon a familiar. In a Core-only game, their spell list is...decent enough, but their slower casting progression is slow enough that their lack of supportive class features will prevent them from being on par with even a Core-only Bard past level 3. Fortunately, the spell list has enough solid Core spells that it can be relatively comparable to some non-casting classes. The ability to cast certain arcane spells as divine spells is potentially useful for somebody looking for sneaky tricks to pull, but most sneaky tricks require non-Core material. Adept is a solid low-tier caster for those people who love playing casters but don't want to be so ridiculous that they leave their noncasting teammates in the dust..but that's only in Core. Unfortunately, outside of Core, the Adept receives little support; where other casters gain more spells from every splat, the Adept can only hope that particularly useful or powerful feats are available to boost their casting. Having potential access to their entire list doesn't mean much when their list is so small.

Overall, while the Adept has some usually powerful/versatile spells on their list, their delayed spell progression means these abilities can be more than a few levels behind full casters, preventing them from fully utilizing those abilities. Overall, an adept that makes good feat and spell choices can potentially be either powerful enough or versatile enough to warrant being called low T4, but it would take some significant optimization (or a ludicrously high Wisdom) for them to be considered both powerful enough and versatile enough IMO to warrant being T3. One solid point is that, because all adepts have access to their entire list, it's difficult to really screw up making one, since you can just pick better spells tomorrow, but their list isn't robust enough to keep them out of T5.

Spoiler: Archivist (1/2/3/X/4/5)

Show

This one's gonna be much shorter and simpler than the Adept, since that's kind of a weird class. Archivist's tier is much more straightforward: it's a prepared full caster (so 9ths by 17) on the cleric list (one of the best lists) with the ability to snipe spells from any other list (so awesome) using Intelligence (the best casting stat IMO, since it assists skills and lets you play your character smart without being accused of metagaming), prepares from a spellbook prayerbook (allowing your spells to be stolen potentially, but also allowing additional spells to be scribed beyond your starting spells), has a solid caster chassis (d6 HD/4+Int SP/poor BAB/Good Fort/Good Will), and has actual class features (unlike the Cleric and Wizard). This belongs in T1, no question about it.

Spoiler: Ardent (2/3)

Show

Not much to say here: it gets 9th lvl powers, but has relatively limited access to powers, but has enough access to pick up the better ones in combination. T2 or high T3 if you pick less-than top-shelf mantles, nuff said.

Spoiler: Aristocrat (6/5)

Show

A mediocre-to-decent skill list that features Diplomacy, a big pile of starting cash, and a higher hit die than it deserves doesn't save this class from it's complete lack of features.

Spoiler: Artificer (1/2/3/X/4/5)

Show

An artificer, without crafting anything, has access to powerful, versatile pseudo-casting and metamagic shenanigans, including using metamagic whenever they like via wands/scrolls without said metamagic if they feel like it. When it comes to crafting, they at bare minimum double their wealth, have a pool of bonus XP for crafting purposes, can craft replicating any spell in the game, and have access to feats that further reduce crafting costs. Even if you only ever craft existing items, this is absolutely ridiculous; if you craft custom items that are restricted by skill/class/alignment, it gets even worse both in regards to effect and cost. Artificer is hands down one of the most versatile classes in the entire game, and among the most powerful.

Spoiler: Barbarian (4/5)

Show

A shining example of a T4 class: Barbarian fights really well, and is basically useless outside of fighting. Some ACFs can give enough options that it starts knocking on that T3 door, but not enough to give it a real chance of busting through IMO. Similarly, though, it's easy to get drawn into trap options on the coolness factor here, making T5 enough of a possibility to be worth mentioning.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Adept: Tier 5 at low levels, rising to 4; overall I have to agree with Troccaid, though, in that while they get a good spell list they just don't get enough spells to be really useful.

Archivist (HoH): Tier 1; while it has the usual full-caster low floor... it's T1.

Ardent (CPs): Tier 2; rising or falling to T1 or T3, depending on mantle choice and level of cheese.

Aristocrat: Tier 6. It does nothing.

Artificer (ECS): Tier 1, but looks like it could easily fall to a T3 or T4 if you don't know what you're doing and/or don't get downtime, and play it mostly like a 6th level caster.

Barbarian: T4, but high-- a Spirit Lion/Wolf Totem Trapkiller Whirling Frenzy Barbarian with a glaive and intimidation feats has quite a few effective strategies and methods to contribute outside of combat. Can fall to T5 with poor choices, as with most classes.

[eggynack]

The problem with Adept is it's just not good at what it does. T4 requires you to be able to fill your role with competence—well enough not to be overshadowed in it. Adept doesn't do that. It' subpar in its own role. That's T5.

They're relatively bad at magic, but I think that adepts do more useful stuff than tier five classes. It's not just about doing good stuff within your role, but about doing good stuff in general, or doing general stuff with sufficient capability. It's like, melee combat is a bad role that barbarians are great at, and magic is a great role that adepts are pretty bad at, and the two things get to the same place. As I pointed out last time this came up, animate dead isn't the end all and be all either. Their list has really strong options at every level, options often considered among the best in the game. It's enough to give consistent value throughout progression, even if that value doesn't get them to the same place as, say, a bard, which also relies on relatively slow and weak access to really strong spells, but gets those spells a decent amount faster and better.

Anyways, as for this thread, I think it's a pretty good idea, but the rank choice voting system is weird. When I give something a tier, it's not because I somehow prefer that tier, and other tiers are reasonable but not as good. I give it that tier because that's the tier I think it is. Adepts aren't 435 or 453 or 456, they're 4, maybe with a high or low appended, because this stuff does have gradations. With that in mind, I think that maybe an averaging system could work better. If one person follows a 4 with some numbers, and the other follows a 6 with some numbers, I'm inclined to think a 5 makes sense where just giving it the high or low number doesn't, and fractional scores actually make sense in tiering. I'll occasionally use the ranking, particularly with the barbarian where I feel like there's more wiggle room, but I'd rather not be tiering with some sort of weird other motivating force.

So, the tiers:

Adept: 4. As I said, really strong list, accessed crappily. Sleep, web, animate dead, and polymorph are really great spells for their levels, and most of the 5th level spells are really great in such a way that I'd rather not discard consideration of most of them by naming one spell. Each level then has a ton of extra utility and strength, offering what is overall a weirdly power dense list of spells. They strike me as right in the middle of the tier too, so they don't make much sense for any other tier. The spells/day is a downside, but the spells themselves are a major upside making up for that lack of daily endurance.

Archivist: 1. Obviously. With low force power seeking, they're already combining the cleric and druid lists into something very powerful. With real effort, they're getting an absolutely ridiculous spell list that hits just about everything. Where they fall between those two points is partially DM dependent and partially dependent on how far the player is willing/able to go, but anywhere on that spectrum is great.

Ardent/Artificer: I dunno. Seriously. Ardent, I just haven't looked that closely at, so I'd generally trust the assessment of others, and if that's the case, why am I saying anything? Artificer, it makes some sense to me that they'd be tier 1, but I've seen a lower tier claimed. I'm nowhere near certain of the latter number that I'd be willing to stake the number out there, so I'll just leave the existing number to stand on its own merits. I'd be comfortable with them landing where they seem to be landing, y'know?

Aristocrat: 6. Honestly, looking the class over, it's a bit better than I thought it was. Without checking, I thought it was a commoner with some starting cash, when really it's more like an expert trading some of its solid skill prowess for some melee power. Like some kinda expert/warrior compromise. But neither of those two classes is liable to leave tier 6 by my reckoning, and the pseudo-combination is worse than either of those.

Barbarian: 4/3/5. This one is interesting. Most of me feels like they're a direct tier four. Really good at hitting stuff hard, but perhaps in a way that could be interrupted. Maybe they have a couple other things of note, like dealing with traps or intimidation, but it's not that exciting. But then, there's also a part of me that thinks, damn, they're really really good at hitting stuff hard. Like, occasionally game-breaking good at it. They can kill anything they get their hands on, and do so with incredible action-speed. How much does that count for? How much should that count for? In a really direct hack and slash game, without too much variety, couldn't that hit the game weirdly hard? Should we account for that case? I dunno, and that part of me, a smaller part than the tier four part, puts them at tier 3.

Then again, there's also the part of me that thinks, yeah, they're good at hitting stuff hard enough to kill it, but isn't everyone? Or, can't everyone be? People have built ubercharging commoners. Not ones as good as the ubercharging barbarian, but it still kills stuff, doesn't it? Pounce effects are non-trivial to access, but they're not insanely difficult to get either, and should I really give barbarians tier four over a single ACF? Or over their first two levels? Dealing this kinda damage might be useful, but maybe it's also easy, easy enough that it shouldn't be given that much credit. This part of me is smaller than either the other two parts, so it's listed last, but I think there's truth to it, which is why it's listed at all.

[neriractor]

Adept: 345

Archivist: 1X

Ardent: 23X

Aristocrat: 6

Artificer: 1X

Barbarian: 45X

[AnachroNinja]

I'm mostly interested in weighing in on Adept because I've actually used it in normal play. Yes, they do have a terribly low number of spells per day. That is a huge limiting factor, but in my opinion not a crippling one. They can generally afford to launch at least one useful spell into each combat in a normal day once they hit about fifth level. That's not fantastic, but it is useful. It gets better if you support them properly with items/reserve feats/whatever to give them useful actions outside of their spells as well.

They're never going to be combat powerhouses on their own, though animate dead is a huge step in that direction when they get it. They're divine spellcasting does allow them to dip sacred exorcist to get DMM access. Their spell list isn't great for that, but especially with Reach Spell you can potentially manage some reasonably fun shenanigans.

A big factor is unfortunately mild house rule territory, and that's how your DM rules on their access to familiar feats due to their fairly unique divine access. If you can access improved familiar via your divine caster level, that potentially gives you a good bit more versatility. There's also options like Alternate Source that may or may not grant an arcane caster level depending on interpretation.

Yeah, they don't get a lot of support, bit I think they can contribute in a meaningful way at most levels of optimization, so I put forth my vote...

Adept: mid to high Tier 4... Maybe low Tier 3

Of less interest to me...
Archivist: T1
Aristocrat: T6
Argent: T2 or high T3
Artificer: T1
Barbarian: mid to low T4

[Troacctid]

I mean, maybe with ACFs an Adept can get to T4? The Religious Adept from Eberron Campaign Setting gets a free domain without even having to give anything up, which definitely helps. And the Urban Adept from Sharn, City of Towers has charm person, which is a good boost to low levels. But you still have weak spell progression, no skill points, no class abilities to speak of, and too few spell slots to make it through a full adventuring day. Aggregate niche rankings are roughly at the same level as the Dragon Shaman and Knight, both of which seem like pretty solid T5s to me.

[eggynack]

I mean, maybe with ACFs an Adept can get to T4? The Religious Adept from Eberron Campaign Setting gets a free domain without even having to give anything up, which definitely helps. And the Urban Adept from Sharn, City of Towers has charm person, which is a good boost to low levels. But you still have weak spell progression, no skill points, no class abilities to speak of, and too few spell slots to make it through a full adventuring day. Aggregate niche rankings are roughly at the same level as the Dragon Shaman and Knight, both of which seem like pretty solid T5s to me.

I didn't even really know about those. I just think the spells are good enough. Because the spells are really good. They have downsides, obviously, but they have some of that wide reaching capability to really change things, in combat and also not, and it's enough, I think. I think they do the weak spell thing better than a healer without alternate spell sources (including sanctified), for example. And worse than a bard, so they kinda slot in between. I'd take an adept over a knight any day.

[Troacctid]

No, Healer definitely does it way better, even without an expanded spell list, and it's not remotely close. Remember, at the same level the Adept gets her first single 4th level spell slot (that's 1/day if you have a bonus spell), the Healer is getting her choice of a lammasu companion that casts as a Cleric 7, a water naga that casts as a Sorcerer 7, or a gynosphinx that gets symbol of death, symbol of fear, symbol of insanity, symbol of pain, symbol of persuasion, symbol of sleep, and symbol of stunning as spell-like abilities with week-long durations and no material components (as well as several other notable SLAs, including legend lore, dispel magic, and clairaudience/clairvoyance). All that is on a separate body with its own full set of actions each round. That's right, the Healer has a class feature that's better than the Adept's entire class. Meanwhile, the Healer herself has spells up to 6th level at this point, and by the time the Adept finally gets to the next spell level, the Healer has gate.

[eggynack]

No, Healer definitely does it way better, even without an expanded spell list, and it's not remotely close. Remember, at the same level the Adept gets her first single 4th level spell slot (that's 1/day if you have a bonus spell), the Healer is getting her choice of a lammasu companion that casts as a Cleric 7, a water naga that casts as a Sorcerer 7, or a gynosphinx that gets symbol of death, symbol of fear, symbol of insanity, symbol of pain, symbol of persuasion, symbol of sleep, and symbol of stunning as spell-like abilities with week-long durations and no material components (as well as several other notable SLAs, including legend lore, dispel magic, and clairaudience/clairvoyance). All that is on a separate body with its own full set of actions each round. That's right, the Healer has a class feature that's better than the Adept's entire class. Meanwhile, the Healer herself has spells up to 6th level at this point, and by the time the Adept finally gets to the next spell level, the Healer has gate.

Sure, the healer has the edge at higher levels, but earlier on it seems a lot less healer favored. Before that point, the healer really doesn't have much that isn't straightforward and boring healing stuff. Maybe the occasional solid buff, but rarely anything that can ever solve a problem. Take level seven, for the sake of argument, to avoid the whole animate dead thing. The adept is getting web, invisibility, mirror image, scorching ray, and even a few other things of interest. The healer is getting cure critical, cure mass light, death ward, FoM, and panacea. There's a solid chance I'd prefer the adept list there, even accounting for castings/day. 12th level seems like a solid break point where the healer overcomes the adept, but the healer might actually go up a tier on the basis of that ability anyway.

[Troacctid]

Web and invisibility aren't so much better than freedom of movement and close wounds that it's worth having insufficient daily resources to make it through an adventuring day. Certainly none of them matches up against animate with the spirit.

[eggynack]

Web and invisibility aren't so much better than freedom of movement and close wounds that it's worth having insufficient daily resources to make it through an adventuring day. Certainly none of them matches up against animate with the spirit.

In some ways they are. FoM and close wounds aren't fully unimpactful, but they don't really do all that much to make encounters be defeated, and that's generally what you want to be doing. Web and invisibility both help some encounters end, web for combat and invisibility for stealth, and that means a lot. I agree that animate with the spirit is better, but I also think that animate with the spirit, and other spells of that kind, push healer to something like tier three, so that fact's not hurting adept overmuch. I mean, that's probably the top ranking I'm going to be giving healer when it comes around, if that means something. That or four, but I think pretty highly of sanctified and corrupt spells.

[Troacctid]

Healers and Adepts are both support classes at that level. Healer does it better, because the class simply has more resources and better action economy. Not to mention more skill points, a better chassis, and the ability to serve as a capable face outside of combat, with Diplomacy and Sense Motive as class skills keying off of primary/secondary stats.

[eggynack]

Healers and Adepts are both support classes at that level. Healer does it better, because the class simply has more resources and better action economy. Not to mention more skill points, a better chassis, and the ability to serve as a capable face outside of combat, with Diplomacy and Sense Motive as class skills keying off of primary/secondary stats.

Healers provide one very specific kind of support, eliminating status ailments, maybe with occasional defenses eventually. Adepts provide a multitude of forms of support, along with some things I wouldn't define as support. Like, is web really just support? Doesn't diminish in its impact all that much as you level either. Just does its usual webbing thing.

[Troacctid]

I'd say web is support, yeah. And it's also only one kind of support. I wouldn't call it a multitude.

[eggynack]

I'd say web is support, yeah. And it's also only one kind of support. I wouldn't call it a multitude.

I'd classify it more as a straight up combat spell, but whatever. The point isn't that web is somehow multiple kinds of support. It's that web is one of several forms of support an adept can provide at that level. It's just the best one. At that level, they also have invisibility, as was noted, which is a defensive buff, an offensive buff, and a stealth enabler, mirror image, which, while personal, does its particular job really well, scorching ray, which is straight up direct damage and of a pretty good form at that (and it scales well, so it doesn't matter quite so much that you're running a 2nd level blasting spell) and so on. They can help their allies in a way that actually allows them to end combat faster, or directly act to end combat themselves, or do things that have nothing to do with combat.

The healer's list is ridiculously homogeneous by comparison. Those fourth level spells are actually a bit atypical in this way. The best non-healing spell they have at second level spells is probably calm emotions. The best at third level is either non-existent or maybe status, depending on whether you think status is a thing worth casting. Sanctuary, at first level, is at least kinda interesting, but it's a pretty rare thing, and the comparison between the two classes seems really adept slanted early on anyway.

[AvatarVecna]

My understanding was that this thread was for voting on tier and explaining your vote, not incessantly arguing your reasoning when others don't kowtow to your way of thinking. We already have several threads for that kind of stuff on the front page.

[bekeleven]

Is there a particular optimization level I should be assuming?

[Troacctid]

I'd classify it more as a straight up combat spell, but whatever. The point isn't that web is somehow multiple kinds of support. It's that web is one of several forms of support an adept can provide at that level. It's just the best one. At that level, they also have invisibility, as was noted, which is a defensive buff, an offensive buff, and a stealth enabler, mirror image, which, while personal, does its particular job really well, scorching ray, which is straight up direct damage and of a pretty good form at that (and it scales well, so it doesn't matter quite so much that you're running a 2nd level blasting spell) and so on. They can help their allies in a way that actually allows them to end combat faster, or directly act to end combat themselves, or do things that have nothing to do with combat.

The healer's list is ridiculously homogeneous by comparison. Those fourth level spells are actually a bit atypical in this way. The best non-healing spell they have at second level spells is probably calm emotions. The best at third level is either non-existent or maybe status, depending on whether you think status is a thing worth casting. Sanctuary, at first level, is at least kinda interesting, but it's a pretty rare thing, and the comparison between the two classes seems really adept slanted early on anyway.

The Healer might have a primarily defensive role, but at least it actually has the tools to perform that role fairly effectively without running out of gas after two rounds, and it scales up to become more versatile later on. Also, Sanctified spells can provide some more proactive options, like diamond spray, and hammer of whatsit, and that one light spell that damages and blinds evil creatures, I don't know, I'm AFB, you know the one I'm talking about.

Try running an Adept through some encounters, especially at lower levels, and you'll quickly run into problems because you simply don't have enough to do with your actions. I've only played them as a DM, but their typical play pattern tends to be either "Unload all your spells in one encounter because you're an NPC and you only have one encounter per day" or "Conserve resources by only casting one spell per combat, maybe two if the second one is 1st level, and then fire a crossbow for the rest of the fight." Sure, you can unload a lightning bolt or scorching ray...once. And then you're spent. It's not a role you can play on a consistent basis. Maybe you look okay in one encounter, but average out your performance over four encounters and it looks a lot less impressive.

My understanding was that this thread was for voting on tier and explaining your vote, not incessantly arguing your reasoning when others don't kowtow to your way of thinking. We already have several threads for that kind of stuff on the front page.

It's on-topic and civil. I don't see the problem. *shrug*

[eggynack]

The Healer might have a primarily defensive role, but at least it actually has the tools to perform that role fairly effectively without running out of gas after two rounds, and it scales up to become more versatile later on. Also, Sanctified spells can provide some more proactive options, like diamond spray, and hammer of whatsit, and that one light spell that damages and blinds evil creatures, I don't know, I'm AFB, you know the one I'm talking about.

I know the sanctified spells. Again, not especially pertinent, because they push the healer high enough that them being better than the adept does not make the adept tier five.

Try running an Adept through some encounters, especially at lower levels, and you'll quickly run into problems because you simply don't have enough to do with your actions. I've only played them as a DM, but their typical play pattern tends to be either "Unload all your spells in one encounter because you're an NPC and you only have one encounter per day" or "Conserve resources by only casting one spell per combat, maybe two if the second one is 1st level, and then fire a crossbow for the rest of the fight." Sure, you can unload a lightning bolt or scorching ray...once. And then you're spent. It's not a role you can play on a consistent basis. Maybe you look okay in one encounter, but average out your performance over four encounters and it looks a lot less impressive.

The better spells are pretty decent on a one per encounter basis. More web than scorching ray, because unloading a single blasting spell in a combat tends to be sad. That you do have what is possibly the worst nova in existence is nice though. I don't think it's impressive, in any case, but it's not awful either. You're losing endurance but gaining surprising variety and some meaningful power.

[Jormengand]

My understanding was that this thread was for voting on tier and explaining your vote, not incessantly arguing your reasoning when others don't kowtow to your way of thinking. We already have several threads for that kind of stuff on the front page.

Then you misunderstand. The whole point of only doing this six at a time is so that we can discuss our views. Actually seeing people's discussion about the ardent, for example, is probably going to make me go back and change my vote, which is the point.

Is there a particular optimization level I should be assuming?

While a different optimisation level is going to change things, in general, any class that doesn't scale well with optimisation should probably be Tier X. That is, if there's a massive difference between [low B/high C]-optimisation and [high B/low A] optimisation, then the class is likely Tier X. The tier system, as specified, should hold across all optimisation levels because a 10th-level wizard, in low-optimisation, is still dealing about four or five times as much damage as the fighter, and also has access to fly and dimension door, which even a low-OP group will quickly realise can circumvent a lot of encounters. It's still "Breaking the game", because the core assumptions of the game are that the cleric will heal, the wizard will throw a few spells and then stand there using a crossbow, the fighter will beat face and the rogue will sneak around and open locks, which simply isn't what happens once the cleric and wizard actually read their spell lists. At medium optimisation, the cleric and wizard are supposed to be relatively versatile, the fighter is meant to fight three people at once and throw them around, and the rogue is meant to pass nearly every skill check he comes across, and that still isn't what happens because by medium optimisation the wizard's realised that polymorph is a spell. If there were a reasonable optimisation level where a level 6-16 wizard were generally worse than, say, a bard of that optimisation level, that would make it Tier X.

[AvatarVecna]

Then you misunderstand. The whole point of only doing this six at a time is so that we can discuss our views. Actually seeing people's discussion about the ardent, for example, is probably going to make me go back and change my vote, which is the point.

There's a difference between engaging in a discussion of what tier a class belongs in, and shouting your opinion at everybody who pops into the thread, just in case they posted without somehow seeing your half-dozen other posts on the exact same topic.

But since this thread is apparently for discussing tier, I'll make it known that I think saying Adept can't be T4 because Healer is better than Adept and Healer is T4 is an argument based on the assumption that Healer belongs in T4...which I don't think it does, and Troacctid's evidence of their abilities seems to corroborate that, so Adept being worse than Healer in a variety of ways doesn't mean Adept is worse than T4, it means Healer is better.

[Troacctid]

I know the sanctified spells. Again, not especially pertinent, because they push the healer high enough that them being better than the adept does not make the adept tier five.

The better spells are pretty decent on a one per encounter basis. More web than scorching ray, because unloading a single blasting spell in a combat tends to be sad. That you do have what is possibly the worst nova in existence is nice though. I don't think it's impressive, in any case, but it's not awful either. You're losing endurance but gaining surprising variety and some meaningful power.

I don't think web carries you. Sure, the best-case scenario is pretty good, but you won't always have two convenient anchor points with enemies in between them. And even when you do get to cast it, you become limp and useless after blowing your sticky white load. I like a class with stamina.

It all comes back around to the same problem: Yeah, you can do a few things that are okay, but you can't do them well, or reliably. Your spells are not really level-appropriate due to your delayed progression, and you don't have enough of them to contribute meaningfully in every encounter (unless you have like 30 Wis). If the best you can do is run at bare minimum capacity 40% of the time, that's not competence in my book. And without competence, you can't call yourself T4.

Oh, and, you can't really have meaningful variety when you only get to prepare two or three spells per day. In practice, your options are actually harshly limited. Scorching ray is always going to be sad, so you're probably not going to bother preparing it, which means you might as well not even have it. (You can use wands of it, but it's even sadder at CL 3, so that doesn't help much.)

While a different optimisation level is going to change things, in general, any class that doesn't scale well with optimisation should probably be Tier X. That is, if there's a massive difference between [low B/high C]-optimisation and [high B/low A] optimisation, then the class is likely Tier X. The tier system, as specified, should hold across all optimisation levels because a 10th-level wizard, in low-optimisation, is still dealing about four or five times as much damage as the fighter, and also has access to fly and dimension door, which even a low-OP group will quickly realise can circumvent a lot of encounters. It's still "Breaking the game", because the core assumptions of the game are that the cleric will heal, the wizard will throw a few spells and then stand there using a crossbow, the fighter will beat face and the rogue will sneak around and open locks, which simply isn't what happens once the cleric and wizard actually read their spell lists. At medium optimisation, the cleric and wizard are supposed to be relatively versatile, the fighter is meant to fight three people at once and throw them around, and the rogue is meant to pass nearly every skill check he comes across, and that still isn't what happens because by medium optimisation the wizard's realised that polymorph is a spell. If there were a reasonable optimisation level where a level 6-16 wizard were generally worse than, say, a bard of that optimisation level, that would make it Tier X.

I'm not sure if there is any class that truly fits in such a wide spread. It's pretty rare to vary by more than one tier at reasonable levels of optimization (bekeleven's A, B, and C grades) if you aren't including prestige classes. I guess maybe Wilder? Having so few powers known makes it really easy to screw the class up, so you can totally be T5 with bad choices, T4 with a mix of good and bad, T3 with a mix of good and medium, or T2 with heavy optimization and/or cheese.

Okay, sure, I can get behind Wilder as an X.

[stanprollyright]

Adept, Archivist (HoH), Ardent (CPs), Aristocrat, Artificer (ECS) and Barbarian.

Adept: 43. crappy list of 5th level spells, but still a spellcaster with full CL, and thus better than tier 5.

Archivist: 123. prepared 9th level spells. moving on.

Ardent: not familiar enough with class or mechanics.

Aristocrat: 65. not much going for it except that diplomacy is strong.

Artificer: X31. Too many independent factors. Optimization level, wealth, downtime, amount of splat support, and availability of magic items. Assuming the class functions as intended with a baseline amount of all of the above, it is probably at least tier 3 when unoptimized, but can easily copy the wizard's tricks and be tier 1.

Barbarian: 45. Hits stuff, like, really hard. Has bucketloads of hp. Also has a couple skills and some minor utility abilities. No door is safe. Quintessential tier 4.