Why each class is in its tier: 2019 update!

[BlackLamb]

Lurk augments allow you to ignore miss chance, ignore sneak attack immunity, make defenders flat-footed, give your weapon the ghost touch property, steal power points from psionic targets, deal ability damage (absolutely brutal against animals, who go into a coma in a single hit), or, if you're boring, spend power points to boost your damage. Not all of the effects are winners (the ones with saves to negate in particular have embarrassingly low DCs), but you automatically know the whole list of 'em, so it's not like it hurts you to have extra options here.

I agree Lurk augments are good. That's what makes them like a mindblade and better than smite.

And then you also happen to have some sneak attack, which, by the way, is always on (if you meet the conditions), so it's not really like a smite.

Psionic sneak attack alone is so anemic that considering it on its own is one of the reasons why so many people, including myself, write the class off on first glance. The fact that Lurk augments are only good for a single attack make it like a smite, and the fact that Lurk augments cost a resource you'd usually rather spend on psionic powers make it worse than a smite.

At 4th level, you get dimension door, which is amazing. Also freedom of movement, wall of ectoplasm, steadfast perception (AKA lesser true seeing), and a nice save-or-lose in death urge. Lurk 4ths are real nice.

Lurk 4ths are good. They're also the same as the Psychic Warrior 4ths, and since Psychic Warrior 1sts & 3rds are so much better than Lurk 1sts & 3rds that's what gives Psychic Warrior the edge in the first 12 levels.

Re-evaluating the Psionic Classes in order

Ardent: Tier 1.63
Erudite: Tier 2.25
Psychic Warrior: Tier 2.88
Wilder: Tier 3.5
Lurk: Tier 4.13
Psychic Rogue: Tier 4.75
Divine Mind: Tier 5.38

You couldn't talk me into Incarnate being higher than Tier 4, and I doubt you'll convince me otherwise on the Lurk. Maybe some people who tier less harshly than I do might be inspired to voice an opinion on the class.

Since I haven't mentioned it already the Divine Mind is really, really bad.

[Troacctid]

Psionic sneak attack alone is so anemic that considering it on its own is one of the reasons why so many people, including myself, write the class off on first glance.

You don't need a lot of sneak attack to interact with things that care about precision damage. Even a single d6 is enough to take Craven. 2d6 is enough for Sickening Strike.

The fact that Lurk augments are only good for a single attack make it like a smite, and the fact that Lurk augments cost a resource you'd usually rather spend on psionic powers make it worse than a smite.

Most lurk augments don't cost PP.

Lurk 4ths are good. They're also the same as the Psychic Warrior 4ths, and since Psychic Warrior 1sts & 3rds are so much better than Lurk 1sts & 3rds that's what gives Psychic Warrior the edge in the first 12 levels.

Are they really so much better, though? What does PsyWar have that's significantly outperforming lurk at those levels?

You couldn't talk me into Incarnate being higher than Tier 4, and I doubt you'll convince me otherwise on the Lurk. Maybe some people who tier less harshly than I do might be inspired to voice an opinion on the class.

It's super weird that you put soulborn above it though. You sure you don't have the two swapped in your head?

[Lans]

It's super weird that you put soulborn above it though. You sure you don't have the two swapped in your head?

Tier 4 is still high for Soulborn, which I could see justified if some one thought it could grab Shape Soulmeld with its bonus feats.

[Troacctid]

Tier 4 is still high for Soulborn, which I could see justified if some one thought it could grab Shape Soulmeld with its bonus feats.

It can't, though, and even if it could, it would still be a worse version of the incarnate, who could use two soulmelds to make up the difference in HP and BAB and still have enough left over to be a more powerful meldshaper and a more powerful melee fighter. That's to say nothing of the paladin—soulborn is kind of like if you took the paladin, removed the special mount and divine grace, and replaced the weak spell progression with an even weaker soulmeld progression. Or, if you prefer, it's like a fighter whose bonus feats are pre-selected like the monk's, but with mostly crappy choices.

[BlackLamb]

You don't need a lot of sneak attack to interact with things that care about precision damage. Even a single d6 is enough to take Craven. 2d6 is enough for Sickening Strike.

Waiting an extra six levels to take Sickening Strike seems like a disadvantage, but I don't know what you're doing with your feats.

Are they really so much better, though? What does PsyWar have that's significantly outperforming lurk at those levels?

Two of the Lurk 1sts you mention are also on the PsyWar list. Expansion is the big one PsyWars get that Lurks don't, in addition to the combat applications it also gives a decent bonus to Intimidate checks. Other notable PsyWar 1sts are Call Item, Claws of the Beast, Inertial Armor, Metaphysical Claws/Weapon, or Vigor. PsyWars have options.

PsyWars also get Greater Concealing Amorpha as a 3rd. In addition Psywars get Dimension Slide, Empathic Transfer, Ectoplasmic Form and Exhalation of the Black Dragon.

It's super weird that you put soulborn above it though. You sure you don't have the two swapped in your head?

It's been awhile since I played with Incarnum. I forgot the big negatives of the Soulborn. Put me down as Soulborn Tier 5.

[Troacctid]

Waiting an extra six levels to take Sickening Strike seems like a disadvantage, but I don't know what you're doing with your feats.

It's not a super big deal. There's plenty of good low-level feats. Psicrystal Affinity and Lurk Master are staples, and all the usual psionic feats like Expanded Knowledge (although ones that expend your focus are worse, since you have more incentive to keep it than other psionic classes). Craven can be taken at level 3, which is fine because the benefit scales with level. Staggering Strike is more restricted by the BAB requirement than the sneak attack requirement, since it only needs one. But, y'know, compare it to the PsyWar's bonus feat progression, which is pretty slow. It's not like there's a ton of competition on the class features front.

Two of the Lurk 1sts you mention are also on the PsyWar list. Expansion is the big one PsyWars get that Lurks don't, in addition to the combat applications it also gives a decent bonus to Intimidate checks. Other notable PsyWar 1sts are Call Item, Claws of the Beast, Inertial Armor, Metaphysical Claws/Weapon, or Vigor. PsyWars have options.

PsyWars also get Greater Concealing Amorpha as a 3rd. In addition Psywars get Dimension Slide, Empathic Transfer, Ectoplasmic Form and Exhalation of the Black Dragon.

Sure, but remember, each of them is only getting three powers at each level. The PsyWar might have more options to choose from, but if you look at just the top three? There's a big difference in function, but not a big difference in power level. And lurks make up for it pretty well with their lurk augments, many of which are essentially extra powers known.

[BlackLamb]

It's not a super big deal. There's plenty of good low-level feats. Psicrystal Affinity and Lurk Master are staples, and all the usual psionic feats like Expanded Knowledge (although ones that expend your focus are worse, since you have more incentive to keep it than other psionic classes). Craven can be taken at level 3, which is fine because the benefit scales with level. Staggering Strike is more restricted by the BAB requirement than the sneak attack requirement, since it only needs one. But, y'know, compare it to the PsyWar's bonus feat progression, which is pretty slow. It's not like there's a ton of competition on the class features front.

PsyWar's get three bonus feats fewer than a Fighter, that's not that slow. Fighter bonus feats tend to stop mattering after 8th level, but even if the PsyWar just keeps spending their bonus psionic feats on Expanded Knowledge after 8th level that's a pretty big boost.

And Fighter bonus feats are usually good all day, as opposed to Lurk augments. So PsyWars are better for more encounters per day than a Lurk is.

Sure, but remember, each of them is only getting three powers at each level. The PsyWar might have more options to choose from, but if you look at just the top three? There's a big difference in function, but not a big difference in power level. And lurks make up for it pretty well with their lurk augments, many of which are essentially extra powers known.

There's something to be said for variety. There are a few different ways you can build a PsyWar to be effective to tailor it to the needs of the party. There's pretty much just one way to build a Lurk for the early to mid-levels.

[Zombulian]

So I see that Mystic Ranger, Wild Monk, and Trickster Spellthief were all covered in a thread about base classes from Dragon Mag. Did the Sidhe Scholar ever get ranked? It seems like it would have fit in that thread.

[Luccan]

So I see that Mystic Ranger, Wild Monk, and Trickster Spellthief were all covered in a thread about base classes from Dragon Mag. Did the Sidhe Scholar ever get ranked? It seems like it would have fit in that thread.

Was that a base class/ACF? I'm honestly still somewhat unsure why those specific Dragon alternates were covered, other than I think they used to come up a lot in TO threads.

[Zombulian]

Was that a base class/ACF? I'm honestly still somewhat unsure why those specific Dragon alternates were covered, other than I think they used to come up a lot in TO threads.

Yeah it’s a Druid ACF from Dragon 339 that’s more fey than plant/animal themed.

[Luccan]

Yeah it’s a Druid ACF from Dragon 339 that’s more fey than plant/animal themed.

I think general consensus was that most ACFs weren't worth ranking on their own (very few greatly shift a class's power or even have an argument that they do). If you have an argument for Sidhe Scholar seriously shaking up the placement of a Druid that takes it, you could always present it

[Zombulian]

I think general consensus was that most ACFs weren't worth ranking on their own (very few greatly shift a class's power or even have an argument that they do). If you have an argument for Sidhe Scholar seriously shaking up the placement of a Druid that takes it, you could always present it

Ah yeah, I just thought it maybe was different enough to warrant examination like the others in that thread did. It seems like it’s likely worse than the base Druid, since it loses spontaneous summoning, but it still has a (buffed, if only slightly) animal companion and wildshape. It even gets the Evil
Domain added to the Druid class list which is... odd. Also it gets Craft Staff as a bonus feat and can craft at double pace.
Overall... on par with Spontaneous Druid probably?

[Zombulian]

Ah yeah, I just thought it maybe was different enough to warrant examination like the others in that thread did. It seems like it’s likely worse than the base Druid, since it loses spontaneous summoning, but it still has a (buffed, if only slightly) animal companion and wildshape. It even gets the Evil
Domain added to the Druid class list which is... odd. Also it gets Craft Staff as a bonus feat and can craft at double pace.
Overall... on par with Spontaneous Druid probably?

Actually, the SS has even more differences from the base Druid than I initially realized. The Hit Die is reduced from d8 to d6, and they can use armor of any material (though it caps at Light, not Medium). Also they don’t seem to have any issues with Undead, which is interesting.

[Troacctid]

Urban druid shows that you can knock the druid down somewhere between half a tier and a full tier by nerfing its wild shape and spontaneous casting. Sidhe scholar doesn't really nerf either of those things, though, so I have a hard time seeing it making a meaningful difference.

[BlackLamb]

Re-evaluating the Trapfinding Classes in order

Artificer: Tier 2.43
Spellthief: Tier 2.86
Ninja: Tier 3.29
Factotum: Tier 3.71
Mountebank: Tier 4.14
Savant: Tier 4.57

I was too focused on the Artificer not working as an Artificer at low levels that I overlooked how it can work at other roles in those levels until its main schtick starts.

I know I think that spellthieving is more valuable than the consensus and I stand by it.

Sudden Strike isn't as good as Sneak Attack, but you get a good progression of it. The Ninja's Ki class features synergize better with Sudden Strike than the Mountebank's Infernal Patron granted class features synergize with Deceptive Attack. The Ninja also gets almost all of the best class skills.

I don't put any stock into Iajitsu Focus. The Factotum gets a lot of tricks, but never really excels at anything.

I've also reconsidered the Incarnate and the Soulborn.

Incarnate: Tier 3.5
Soulborn: Tier 4

Upon further reflection of both classes, I think that the Incarnate's problems are pretty much the same as the Factotum's but that the Incarnate's Incarnum is better than anything that the Factotum brings to the table.

Limited though it is, the Soulborn's Incarnum is still better than most of the Paladin's non-mount features, making them about equal.

Sorry for being so indecisive

[Pippin]

Artificer: Tier 2.43

Pardon me?

[Thunder999]

How could artificer be anywhere but tier 1?

[Sutr]

Well their is a small minority of DM's that don't let you break wealth by level for anything. Also if we look at the timeline for red hand of doom you really don't have time to create multiple items. Some campaigns also don't use action points which limits infusions. Artificer can be junk by how the DM sets some campaign timelines and equipment. I've made this post before, and can see how it doesn't match the clerics ability to just choose new spells for that day or the wizards.

[Luccan]

Re-evaluating the Trapfinding Classes in order

Artificer: Tier 2.43
Spellthief: Tier 2.86
Ninja: Tier 3.29
Factotum: Tier 3.71
Mountebank: Tier 4.14
Savant: Tier 4.57

I was too focused on the Artificer not working as an Artificer at low levels that I overlooked how it can work at other roles in those levels until its main schtick starts.

I know I think that spellthieving is more valuable than the consensus and I stand by it.

Sudden Strike isn't as good as Sneak Attack, but you get a good progression of it. The Ninja's Ki class features synergize better with Sudden Strike than the Mountebank's Infernal Patron granted class features synergize with Deceptive Attack. The Ninja also gets almost all of the best class skills.

I don't put any stock into Iajitsu Focus. The Factotum gets a lot of tricks, but never really excels at anything.

I've also reconsidered the Incarnate and the Soulborn.

Incarnate: Tier 3.5
Soulborn: Tier 4

Upon further reflection of both classes, I think that the Incarnate's problems are pretty much the same as the Factotum's but that the Incarnate's Incarnum is better than anything that the Factotum brings to the table.

Limited though it is, the Soulborn's Incarnum is still better than most of the Paladin's non-mount features, making them about equal.

Sorry for being so indecisive

Have you weighed the Ninja's MADness in your results at all? Keep in mind it's dependant on almost as many stats as a Monk, needing at least four good stats to perform at its best (Dex, Con, Int, Wis). This is somewhat contrasted to the Factotum, which ties most of its abilities into Int, and the Rogue, which only really needs Wis for better saves and eventually gets better at those via class ability. Not saying it'll shake up your ratings, but I'm curious about your thoughts on that

[BlackLamb]

Have you weighed the Ninja's MADness in your results at all? Keep in mind it's dependant on almost as many stats as a Monk, needing at least four good stats to perform at its best (Dex, Con, Int, Wis). This is somewhat contrasted to the Factotum, which ties most of its abilities into Int, and the Rogue, which only really needs Wis for better saves and eventually gets better at those via class ability. Not saying it'll shake up your ratings, but I'm curious about your thoughts on that

I hadn't really considered the Ninja's MADness. I know I considered the MADness of the Monk and the Swashbuckler, but that's kind of insult to injury as those classes wouldn't have anything to recommend them even if they were SADder.

I placed the Rogue initially in Tier 3 and haven't changed it, and I place the Ninja higher than the community places the Rogue but not higher than I place the Rogue.

I think that Sudden Strike is slightly worse than Sneak Attack and the Ninja's skills are a bit worse than the Rogue's skills. If the Ninja had a few more Ki abilities or if the Ki abilities were at will I might place it higher, but as it stands I think slightly worse Rogue is about right.

I mentioned that the Ki abilities synergize well with Sudden Strike and it bears repeating. Not just compared compared to the Mountebank's deceptive attack and infernal patron, but to the Lurk's augments and psionic powers or to all of the Monk's class features and all of the Monk's other class features. The class doesn't make itself worse at it's class features by using it's class features

I think the Ninja is a decently designed class at doing what it promises.

My problem with the Factotum is that outside of skills, I don't know what it's supposed to do. The Factotum is very good at skills, but skills only go so far.

When I look at the Factotum or the Incarnate or the Lurk I don't know what these classes are for. It's hard to say they are bad at their jobs or good at their jobs because I don't know what their jobs are. Unlike the big three casters, which also aren't pigeon-holed, they aren't powerful enough to do everything. I don't necessarily think these classes are drains on their parties, and I don't think that they're assets either.

Where would you place those classes?

[Soranar]

My problem with the Factotum is that outside of skills, I don't know what it's supposed to do. The Factotum is very good at skills, but skills only go so far.

When I look at the Factotum or the Incarnate or the Lurk I don't know what these classes are for. It's hard to say they are bad at their jobs or good at their jobs because I don't know what their jobs are. Unlike the big three casters, which also aren't pigeon-holed, they aren't powerful enough to do everything. I don't necessarily think these classes are drains on their parties, and I don't think that they're assets either.

Where would you place those classes?

I have to admit the factotum and the incarnate are not easy to read right off the bat, the incarnate is especially tough since you basically need to read an entire book to get a idea of what it's like but nothing beats actually playing one. Basically, I find an incarnate can be really good at using skills and natural attacks. It's not great but it's not useless either.

As for a factotum, I came up with a build for a game that proved to be reliably useful.

Basically a factotum is a rogue that doesn't use sneak attack, which seems like quite a nerf but it does get class features to compensate for that.

First is cunning insight (the level 1 ability)

-you get 2 uses per encounter at level 1, more as your progress
-assuming you have 18 INT (which should be a given considering your class) you get either +4 to hit and/or damage to a single action

The best way to optimize this is to use it on an action that produces many attacks (manyshot) or one that multiplies damage (mounted combat lance charge or dragonborn of bahamut diving charge).

Manyshot requires BAB +6 and a couple of feats so that's off the table early game but +4 to hit with a manyshot is decent
diving charge isn't bad but you only get real flight at level 6
that leaves mounted combat at level 1-6

A factotum gets light armors, shields and lance proficiency so no investment required beyond getting a mount (wild cohort is your best bet, obtain familiar + improved familiar can also do in a jiffy, if you don't want to invest into a special mount you can always buy one and/or train it yourself. You can also use the mount spell though that takes a few levels to come into play).

Personally I find the mounted option (with wild cohort) to be the best for a factotum: it lets you do decent damage and remain relatively safe through ride-by attack. And once your mount gets some sort of flying option (some magical horseshoes let your mount fly and ignore difficult terrain) then it's a hell of a lot more reliable than sneak attack. (your limit is terrain, not creatures)

You also get synergy from shields
You also get your INT bonus to ride (on top of DEX)
Cunning insight works against everything
It's very straightforward to optimize : get a valorous lance with a wand chamber, get a wand of rhino's rush (level 1 caster want is dirt cheap), you can also use knowledge devotion effectively and tack on Power attack and use the lance two handed if you have decent strength, aim for spirited charge

You can also keep your feat investment at a minimum with magic items that grant you mounted combat and ride-by attack (battle bridle), you can use the heroics spell to gain spirited charge temporarily

With all of that you do STR + INT+ lance x 2 (normal lance ability) x3 (spirited charge) x4 (rhino's rush wand) x5 valorous lance

Suddenly your cunning insight deals INT x5 damage +5d8 (the lance) and whatever STR and power attack you commit to your character + knowledge devotion

If you don't like power attack or lances, you can eventually trade both for a manyfanged dagger (x4 damage base) and stick with your shield. Again you can combine this with a dragonborn diving charge or the spirited charge feat tree (which again works with valorous and rhino's rush).

All of these options are great for characters with medium BAB: your second attack is pretty far level wise (level 8) and using 1 accurate attack that deals a lot of damage is better against DR than using lots of low damage attacks. A factotum hits a hell of a lot more often than a TWF rogue or a rapid shot rogue and it does so with a better chassis (d8 hitpoints) and better AC (light armor + shield).

And if your DM plays with the massive damage rule (50 or more damage means you need to save vs death) then it's downright OP

Now remember that boosting your INT will also boost this ability and you'll get more uses per encounter so you get even more reasons to boost INT

Outside combat, this character has every relevant knowledge skill maxed with a crazy INT bonus (which is super useful to plan a campaign)
It can eventually cast crazy strong downtime spells like planar ally and animate dead
It can turn undead as well as a cleric (which is better than a paladin)
It can also heal
Oh and yeah it can find and disarm traps like a rogue too

And the factotum can craft alchemical items
And the factotum can use the obtain familiar feat to get a second scout
And a high level factotum can polymorph into a cryohydra and grant himself extra actions at higher levels (for which knowledge devotion still works)

There's a reason factotum are considered tier 3 by most experienced players.

But even say, a level 5 factotum with wild cohort vs a paladin or a rogue

assuming all 3 are strongheart halflings using a riding dog (no dog for the rogue)

-the paladin mount has +1 HD
-the paladin has 2 smites per day vs evil, the factotum has 2 per encounter vs anything
-the paladin has level 1 paladin spells, the factotum has a level 1 and 2 wizard/sorcerer spells
-the paladin has +2 BAB
-the paladin has +4 hitpoints on average

but

-the factotum has a ton of skillpoints more than the paladin
-similar AC
-better initiative (brains over brawn)
-better ride skill (brains over brawn)
-better turn undead (full cleric turning vs cleric -3)

compared to a rogue

-a TWF rogue deals 3d6 bonus damage with sneak attack
-assuming a short sword in each hand, that's 1d6 base damage + 3d6 sneak attack x2 so around 4d6 damage x2 (assuming weapon finesse and no STR bonus) = about 14 damage x2

or

-a factotum deals 1d8 damage (lance) + 4 (18 INT) x2 = about 17 damage

but a facotum gets +4 to hit while a TWF fighting rogue gets -4 to hit on both attacks

and that's versus something not immune to sneak attack, assuming penetrating strike your rogue gets 1d6+ 3d6 x.5 = about 10 damage (rounded up) x2

and that'S not counting knowledge devotion (which should give you +2 to hit and damage at this level)

A factotum is a rogue and a paladin rolled into one.

[BlackLamb]

snip

I appreciate seeing a Factotum idea that isn't reliant on Iajitsu Focus, the Gnomish Quickrazor and a web only feat.

Thank you for that.

The lancer is a great character concept that's fairly class agnostic. Any stoutheart halfling with a riding dog, regardless of class, can be a good lancer.

There's a reason factotum are considered tier 3 by most experienced players.

3.5 has been out of publication for ten years. There are no players of this game that are inexperienced. Factotum is considered Tier 3 because JaronK said so in the original tier list and the Factotum is an obscure enough class from an obscure enough sourcebook that most players don't have an opinion on it one way or another.

[Zaq]

I'm honestly okay with factotum as low T4 or high T5. A lot of their alleged tricks are far, far more limited than advertised. They're decent as skillmonkeys, but honestly you've gotta be trying pretty hard to have list of high-rank skills that the rogue (with its better points and overall better class features) can't match or nearly match, and cunning knowledge is not as good as you think it is (I find that it's relatively rare for a single skill check to solve a problem entirely). Similarly, the SLAs are cute and all, but not being able to use the same spell twice per day hurts, and not being able to get more than one spell of your best level hurts.

Otherwise, the class just kind of runs out of juice on its own. Most of their tricks are little. Even getting extra standard actions only matters if you have something to spend those actions on, and honestly, the class as written DOESN'T have any fun tricks to do with that sort of thing until very high levels. (Oh, you want to cast two spells? Okay, hotshot, that's five inspiration points. You know, your entire load--sans FoI and you really don't have THAT many feats--at the level you get cunning surge. And it's most of your spells per day. Not. Impressed.)

They're not garbage, but they're nowhere near as capable as I need to rank something in T3.

[Dimers]

I completely agree about the Factotum being weaker than T3. It has a bit of stuff you can leverage, but lots of other non-full-caster classes will be more effective in multiple areas. Factotum does pretty well as one side of an Int-heavy gestalt, but by itself it always seems to come up short.

[Lans]

I think it might be low T3, but it would be off the back of it's spells. Looking for floor, it has to be above Expert, Magewright and Adept. That means at least T4.

[BlackLamb]

I'd also like to re-evaluate the Trickster Spellthief. When I first ranked it, I was simply following the arguments that it's a mix of Bard and Spellthief. Upon further study I think it's a bit worse than either.

I would now place Trickster Spellthief in Tier 4

What the Trickster Spellthief gives up in exchange for Bardic spellcasting are two skill points per level, most of the sneaky and physical skills from its skill list, trapfinding and most of its sneak attack.

It stops being a skillmonkey and being a skillmoney is one the core advantages of being a Bard or a Spellthief. I know the community consenus is that spellthieving is a more interesting than it is an effective mechanic, something I clearly disagree with, and the Trickster Spellthief is even worse at that.

The spellcasting is an advantage, but let's compare it to other classes with similar spellcasting and we will see a wide range in power and effectiveness.

Magewright
Adept
Psychic Rogue
Lurk
Jester
Duskblade
Bard
Mystic Ranger
Psychic Warrior

Since I'm placing the Trickster between Lurk and Jester, I'll just state simple comparison between them.

I think the Trickster's spellcasting is an advantage over the Lurk's psionic powers, but they both suffer from the same problem of not having any clear role in an adventuring party. Too much power to be a drain on the party, but too little focus to be an advantage. The Trickster's spellcasting is also an advantage over the Jester's, but the Jester is an effective skillmonkey and debuffer. A Jester isn't as good at being a Bard as a Bard is, but it's better at being a Bard than a Trickster Spellthief is.

[Gnaeus]

As an endorsement to the quality of the list, I’ve been thinking about JaronKs old suggestion for using tiers as a starting point for gestalt.

After doing some analysis, I feel pretty confident that any class could play at any tier by adding enough T5 classes to make up the Tier difference. So for example any T3+2 synergistic T5s could play competitively in a T1 group. (Or any T4 +3 T5s, Or any T2+1 T5, or 5T5s). Where competitive play is defined by can contribute as an equal member of the team in a typical campaign, and will not be completely overmatched for more levels than it completely overmatched T1s. In most cases this looks like being decisively better for about levels 1-4 and not contesting levels 17+ with roughly 5-16 being in play. (In some cases this might require easing alignment restrictions to allow the gestalt). Would there be interest in a thread(s) to analyze that?

[Troacctid]

As an endorsement to the quality of the list, I’ve been thinking about JaronKs old suggestion for using tiers as a starting point for gestalt.

After doing some analysis, I feel pretty confident that any class could play at any tier by adding enough T5 classes to make up the Tier difference. So for example any T3+2 synergistic T5s could play competitively in a T1 group. (Or any T4 +3 T5s, Or any T2+1 T5, or 5T5s). Where competitive play is defined by can contribute as an equal member of the team in a typical campaign, and will not be completely overmatched for more levels than it completely overmatched T1s. In most cases this looks like being decisively better for about levels 1-4 and not contesting levels 17+ with roughly 5-16 being in play. (In some cases this might require easing alignment restrictions to allow the gestalt). Would there be interest in a thread(s) to analyze that?

I would generally not recommend tier-based gestalt as a balance fix because of the three disclaimers I mentioned at the start, but if you want to try and work out a system for it, I suppose I can't stop you.

[Gnaeus]

I would generally not recommend tier-based gestalt as a balance fix because of the three disclaimers I mentioned at the start, but if you want to try and work out a system for it, I suppose I can't stop you.

I really don’t think any of them are problems.

They are roughly (if I may sum up)
1. Optimization level. Not really a problem. I’m looking at fairly optimized forum level play for the most part. By the time you understand the tiers well enough that you are seriously concerned about gestalting for balance you’ve already cleared the TWF fighters out of the player pool. What’s left is less optimization level than cheese tolerance, and I don’t think that’s abnormally hard to judge.

2. Multiclassing produces unexpected benefits. You call it a bug. I call it a feature. You need those synergies if you are looking at comparing big 3 casters with some of the worst classes in the game.

And 3. Level by power differences. Again, I think it helps more than it hurts. Low tier classes are mostly frontloaded. High tier ones dominate at 17+ and no level of skills and smites changes that. Almost all the gestalts I have looked at share the opposite power curve to a wizard. You either plan to play 1-20 and let players hang on through the rough spots, or you play 5-15. Based on group preferences.

[NigelWalmsley]

I just don't really see the appeal of tier-based gestalt as a solution for balance problems. Balance problems aren't just "this character is weaker than this other character", because if that's all people cared about they would just all play T1 (or T3 or T6) classes to begin with. When people talk about balance problems, what they mean is "the character concept I want to play is not strong enough/too strong for my group".

Gestalt doesn't seem like a good solution to that problem, because for the most part it's not really about making one concept better, but combining two concepts. A Gestalt Paladin//Rogue might be T3, but it is probably less satisfying than a single-classed Paladin for the player who wants to play a Paladin. Conversely, a Paladin//Crusader still feels a lot like a Paladin, but is not dramatically stronger than a Crusader. It seems like this solution would mostly be appealing to someone who wants to play Gestalt, and at that point why not just play a Gestalt campaign to begin with?