Why each class is in its tier: 2019 update!

[Troacctid]

Also, this system does have criteria and definitions. They're just benchmark-based instead of rubric-based.

[RedMage125]

It's the same information. But option b might be easier to read than option a, especially if a person wants to, for example, choose a class that is similar in power level to the other classes in his party (or any other reason why people use the tier lists). By separating the list into discrete sections, it improves our ability to analyse and compare the information presented. And if someone wanted to know why mystic ranger is where it is in the list, he can check the official thread to find out why. Simpler numbers like a scale 1-6 is easier to understand than a scale which is 20+ long.

Mystic Ranger keeps coming up because it was a convenient example. But what I am asking is what makes it "about as powerful as a sorcerer" to be in Tier 2? Why does the 0.89 difference between Mystic Ranger and Death Master keep them in the same tier while the 0.11 difference between it and Wilder make the different tiers?

Eggynack said that the 0.11 is not the same between Death Master and Generic Spellcaster as it is between Mystic Ranger and Wilder.

I'm not satisfied with that answer, because that would make the number ranking itself somewhat arbitrary (which I don't think it is).

Eggynack has already confirmed that the "tier breaks" are basically arbitrary. I personally do not care for that.

Because people do better with six categories than a hundred. Because the categories actually do feature some commonalities within them simply by dint of operating at similar power levels.

And some of those commonalities are self-evident. Beguiler on same tier as Dread Necromancer? Makes sense. Rogue and Ninja in same Tier? Checks out. These classes share similarities that make them being grouped together resonate well. Death Master and Mystic Ranger...wtf? I'm not arguing that Mystic Ranger isn't more powerful than most gish classes (like psychic warrior, hexblade, etc). But without something making it clear what the criteria was to make it into Tier 2, it's jarring.

But if members of a tier have some shared identity beyond power level, then we cease to measure power level effectively.

Not if the criteria was thresholds of power.

It needn't model directly off JaronK's system. Something along the lines of "Tier 2 classes are able to X, or Y, to Z extent". It could be catered to the criteria you used to make this list.

This is written a bit confusingly, given the possibility of inclusive versus exclusive or. Do tier one and tier two classes have to pick A, B, or C and hit it at some level of capacity? If so, what if a class can do A, B, and C, but only reasonably well? Or can only do A, and less well than a tier one, but do D and E so ridiculously well that it compensates? Or whatever.

It could be "or". If what your are saying applies, then spell it out.

But that's the problem exactly. JaronK's definitions don't merely measure effectiveness. They also measure some arbitrary other things. My criteria are just the effectiveness thing. No more and no less.

JaronK's measured effectiveness. He just had specific criteria of how that effectiveness was measured. Is it perfect? No. His prioritization of "nukes" led us to a barely-distinct Tier 2. Show us the criteria in the finished product. Someone shouldn't have to slog through 5-10 pages of people voting with numbers to find out what criteria led to more votes of whichever given class to try and glean some measure of understanding of why it's in the tier it is.

You misunderstand. The issue isn't some quality of the writing. It's having non-effectiveness criteria in the first place. They will always raise questions of whether to use the effectiveness or the weird criteria.

Then establish the effectiveness criteria to make the reader understand the tier placement!

Cause they convey information. Just not extra information besides effectiveness. If I say, "Beguiler is tier two," then you know, without having to check, that that means, "Beguiler is about as good as a sorcerer." That's useful. It's also useful that, if I say, "Beguiler is tier two and fighter is tier four," then that means, "These classes are pretty far apart in power, but not as far as it is possible to be." Seriously, this is how basically all tier lists work. It's nice having groups. They fit better in your head.

The exact same thing would be established by saying "Begulier and Sorcerer are within 0.5 of each other" which tells you they are close in power. Or "Sorcerer and Fighter are over 2.5 apart" which tells you that the gulf there is much larger.
That also tells you that the Mystic Ranger is more like the Wilder in power than it is like the Death Master.

Also, uh, what people besides you don't like low-meaning milestones?

I don't know.

My language this entire time has been peppered with "it seems to me", "what resonates with me", "I prefer"...have I not been clear that I am expressing my own subjective viewpoint on this matter?

Lets you know you're going the right way. Otherwise you're just in a featureless landscape and you have to be checking the map constantly.

You could do that by staying on the road and having a compass.

You have already said that the "stops" for the tiers were arbitrary. I dislike that, because I prefer groups to have a cohesive group identity.

Why'sat? If you disagree with individual rankings, you might be better off just arguing about that.

Not specifically "disagree with individual rankings", as far as power ranking (the number next to each class). Mystic Ranger being in the same tier as sorcerer and death master is jarring, but that's because there's no cohesion within tiers.

That's really all I have an issue with. That the "tiers" themselves don't tell me anything about the classes within them.

Also, this system does have criteria and definitions. They're just benchmark-based instead of rubric-based.

No, it doesn't. You ranked the classes by power and averaged the results. Then, completely separate from that, you laid out a number spread from 1-6, and put in the "stops" at where one "rounds off to". Then the two results were combined, and the classes fell between whichever stops their number corresponded to. Thus, the grouping of classes within a given tier is arbitrary.

[eggynack]

Mystic Ranger keeps coming up because it was a convenient example. But what I am asking is what makes it "about as powerful as a sorcerer" to be in Tier 2? Why does the 0.89 difference between Mystic Ranger and Death Master keep them in the same tier while the 0.11 difference between it and Wilder make the different tiers?

These issues were already present in the original system. They just weren't apparent because the numbers aren't laid out all rigorously and junk. Unless a system has really big power gaps all over the place, you're always going to have some gaps within tiers greater than those between tiers. Notably, another thing that makes it hard to identify these problems in the original is that the original has some pretty big missteps. Like, what are we to make of the fact that the healer and monk are in the same tier while the healer and the adept are in different tiers? The latter gap is arguably inverted, with the healer actually stronger than the adept.

Eggynack said that the 0.11 is not the same between Death Master and Generic Spellcaster as it is between Mystic Ranger and Wilder.

I'm not satisfied with that answer, because that would make the number ranking itself somewhat arbitrary (which I don't think it is).

What? Your entire issue was that the tiers didn't have any meaning besides a linear rating that would be equivalent to a 1-100 scale. I'm saying that this is untrue. That the 1-2 gap looks different from the 2-3 gap which looks different from the 3-4 gap.

And some of those commonalities are self-evident. Beguiler on same tier as Dread Necromancer? Makes sense. Rogue and Ninja in same Tier? Checks out. These classes share similarities that make them being grouped together resonate well. Death Master and Mystic Ranger...wtf? I'm not arguing that Mystic Ranger isn't more powerful than most gish classes (like psychic warrior, hexblade, etc). But without something making it clear what the criteria was to make it into Tier 2, it's jarring.

But, like, classes that are distinct are sometimes pretty similar in effectiveness. What do you want me to do about it?

Not if the criteria was thresholds of power.

It needn't model directly off JaronK's system. Something along the lines of "Tier 2 classes are able to X, or Y, to Z extent". It could be catered to the criteria you used to make this list.

My system already uses approximately those sorts of criteria. The benchmark for tier two is, "About as effective as a sorcerer." Done. Once we start having specific criteria that center on specific capabilities, then we face the possibility of a class that can't do the thing but is strong anyway.

It could be "or". If what your are saying applies, then spell it out.

This doesn't clarify much about your scenario. And I've already listed several cases in which what I'm saying definitely applies regarding JaronK's tiers. I mean, if you have these amazing tier definitions, you could always just list them.

JaronK's measured effectiveness. He just had specific criteria of how that effectiveness was measured. Is it perfect? No. His prioritization of "nukes" led us to a barely-distinct Tier 2. Show us the criteria in the finished product. Someone shouldn't have to slog through 5-10 pages of people voting with numbers to find out what criteria led to more votes of whichever given class to try and glean some measure of understanding of why it's in the tier it is.

He did not specifically measure effectiveness. He also measured other things. For example, it's possible to be as effective as a tier three while neither having one specialty and reasonable effectiveness otherwise nor being quite good at everything. There are other options.

Then establish the effectiveness criteria to make the reader understand the tier placement!

There can be no "criteria" besides comparison to other classes, realistically.

My language this entire time has been peppered with "it seems to me", "what resonates with me", "I prefer"...have I not been clear that I am expressing my own subjective viewpoint on this matter?

Not in that case, no.

You could do that by staying on the road and having a compass.

I think this has left the useful bounds of the metaphor.

You have already said that the "stops" for the tiers were arbitrary. I dislike that, because I prefer groups to have a cohesive group identity.

They do have a cohesive group identity. Power level. That we could have made other groups does not make the ones we have useless.

Not specifically "disagree with individual rankings", as far as power ranking (the number next to each class). Mystic Ranger being in the same tier as sorcerer and death master is jarring, but that's because there's no cohesion within tiers.

But, again, there is cohesion. Mystic ranger is where it is because it has a variety of abilities that are broadly applicable and quite strong. It's a weird class, so ranking it will always have issues, but it operates better than all the classes below it. If your issue is not simply that you wish mystic ranger were rated otherwise, then you have to face the strong possibility that the original system would have rated the class the same way.

That's really all I have an issue with. That the "tiers" themselves don't tell me anything about the classes within them.

Except about how strong they are.

No, it doesn't. You ranked the classes by power and averaged the results. Then, completely separate from that, you laid out a number spread from 1-6, and put in the "stops" at where one "rounds off to". Then the two results were combined, and the classes fell between whichever stops their number corresponded to. Thus, the grouping of classes within a given tier is arbitrary.

What are you even talking about? People's votes were done using the original tier system and its rankings as a loose foundation. We didn't just ask for random votes and then apply a 1-6 scale afterwards. There were no two steps. There was no combination of paired results. There was never some effort to shove votes into a different structure. And you should know all of this because you were literally in the first voting thread. I am so confused right now.

Edit: Forgot that we actually got healer all the way up to three. Even bigger problem with the original then. Healer is pretty strong. It's great that we finally got that score up.

[Gnaeus]

Imagine that we have fixed criteria.
Tier 1 is “casters with a huge list, who can pick their spells selected daily” (wizard)
Tier 2 is “spontaneous casters with fixed spells known. Can select spells freely from a huge list.” (Sorcerer)
Tier 3 is “fixed list casters” (beguiler)

So we now rank 3 hypothetical home brew classes.
W has a wizards spell mechanic. But he gets one less spell per level per day and only 1 free spell per level and he can only scribe spells by some expensive or time consuming method. Tier 1

S is just like a sorcerer but with double spells known. Tier 2.

B is just like a beguiler, but we replace his fixed spell list with the 20 most powerful and versatile spells of each level. And triple his spells/day. Tier 3.

The general tier categories work. We know exactly, definitionally where to put each class. A goes in tier 1 with wizard. S in tier 2 with sorcerer. B in tier 3. But the information that gives us is the opposite of what we want. The tier 3>the tier 2>the tier 1.

The only way the tier definitions are at all helpful is if they give us useful information on how to play/mod classes. Definitional definitions don’t. Power based definitions do.

You can look at a couple of long threads I was involved in about Omni-gestalts of all the tier 4-5, or 3-5, or even just all the tier 5 classes. A gestalt of all tier 4-5 classes functions better in a typical game than does a tier 1. Aside from the sheer time needed to copy paste all relevant abilities onto a sheet, I’d be happy to play it in a same game challenge against a similarly opped tier 1. But it misses arbitrary benchmarks. Ranked by JaronK system, it’s tier 3. It lacks nukes. It lacks or gets delayed access to broken T1 powers. And the tricks it uses to bypass those things are specifically discounted in the tier system, because no existing class looks remotely like it.

[Troacctid]

No, it doesn't. You ranked the classes by power and averaged the results. Then, completely separate from that, you laid out a number spread from 1-6, and put in the "stops" at where one "rounds off to". Then the two results were combined, and the classes fell between whichever stops their number corresponded to. Thus, the grouping of classes within a given tier is arbitrary.

No we didn't. We started with certain benchmark classes and then ranked the classes based on how they compare to the benchmarks. Go back and look through the discussions and you'll see, it's lots of "This is just better than a sorcerer most of the time," and "How does this line up against a bard?" and "If barbarian is here, this should be here too."

[RedMage125]

These issues were already present in the original system. They just weren't apparent because the numbers aren't laid out all rigorously and junk. Unless a system has really big power gaps all over the place, you're always going to have some gaps within tiers greater than those between tiers. Notably, another thing that makes it hard to identify these problems in the original is that the original has some pretty big missteps.

Oh, I agree that the original has some flaws as well. But at least it's easy to understand (due to the criteria being spelled out) why each class was placed in it's respective tier.

I think one of the biggest flaws in JaronK's system was the over-emphasis on "nukes". But at least knowing that "nukes" were the criteria for Tier 1 and 2, those class assignations make sense.

Like, what are we to make of the fact that he healer and monk are in the same tier while the healer and the adept are in different tiers? The latter gap is arguably inverted, with the healer actually stronger than the adept.

What I would take from it is that the adept has access to spells with a wider range of capability than the healer, who is pretty one-dimensional.

I may be biased. I wanted the healer to be better than it was (being MAD for a single-class spellcasting is absurd). I've actually enjoyed some of the homebrew "fixes" to the healer.

What? Your entire issue was that the tiers didn't have any meaning besides a linear rating that would be equivalent to a 1-100 scale. I'm saying that this is untrue. That the 1-2 gap looks different from the 2-3 gap which looks different from the 3-4 gap.

I may have misinterpreted what you meant. And if so, that's on me, and I apologize.

But the gaps shouldn't look SO different. What makes that gap distinct? It should be clear in the finished product, IMO.

But, like, classes that are distinct are sometimes pretty similar in effectiveness. What do you want me to do about it?

Give SOME kind of criteria of what kinds of power levels and ability to overcome obstacles makes the criteria for a given tier?

My system already uses approximately those sorts of criteria. The benchmark for tier two is, "About as effective as a sorcerer." Done. Once we start having specific criteria that center on specific capabilities, then we face the possibility of a class that can't do the thing but is strong anyway.

Like the Mystic Ranger? I seriously doubt it's "about as effective as a sorcerer". Especially compared to a primary "caster" like the Wilder.

This doesn't clarify much about your scenario. And I've already listed several cases in which what I'm saying definitely applies regarding JaronK's tiers. I mean, if you have these amazing tier definitions, you could always just list them.

I meant in regards to yours, not JaronK's. If a given tier has multiple criteria, that's okay, too, as long as it is clear. "Power" and "Effectiveness" are general enough to have multiple iterations of meaning in a D&D class.

He did not specifically measure effectiveness. He also measured other things. For example, it's possible to be as effective as a tier three while neither having one specialty and reasonable effectiveness otherwise nor being quite good at everything. There are other options.

I'm confused by your criticism here. JaronK even expresses that his personal favorite is Tier 3. They are usually quite effective. He just created a criteria where "nukes" was basically worth an extra-elevating consideration as far as how he saw "tiers".

There can be no "criteria" besides comparison to other classes, realistically.

I disagree. Something about what a given class' spell list or capabilities can do, what the limits to their respective bailiwicks are, and so on...

Not in that case, no.

Then I apologize again. I have thought I was very clear that I am expressing my personal criticism of the system.

They do have a cohesive group identity. Power level. That we could have made other groups does not make the ones we have useless.

I don't think the power ranking is "useless", just to be clear.

I think the grouping is.

But, again, there is cohesion. Mystic ranger is where it is because it has a variety of abilities that are broadly applicable and quite strong. It's a weird class, so ranking it will always have issues, but it operates better than all the classes below it. If your issue is not simply that you wish mystic ranger were rated otherwise, then you have to face the strong possibility that the original system would have rated the class the same way.

I honestly have a hard time with how much Dragon Magazine content is rated, but that's so deep into my personal preference that I don't even think I can convey it in a manner that isn't filled top-full of blatant bias, lol.

Except about how strong they are.

The power ranking number tells me the same information. The arbitrary "stops" for the tiers make me think the Mystic Ranger is "more akin" to the Death Master than it is to the Wilder.

What are you even talking about? People's votes were done using the original tier system and its rankings as a loose foundation. We didn't just ask for random votes and then apply a 1-6 scale afterwards. There were no two steps. There was no combination of paired results. There was never some effort to shove votes into a different structure. And you should know all of this because you were literally in the first voting thread. I am so confused right now.

The Tier "stops" are exclusively number-based (whatever the score rounds to). Classes just got dropped into whichever tier their average score (rounded) corresponded to. That's what I meant.

Edit: Forgot that we actually got healer all the way up to three. Even bigger problem with the original then. Healer is pretty strong. It's great that we finally got that score up.

I already mentioned my beef with healer. MAD for spellcasting (one to determine highest level and bonus spells, another to determine DC), an armor restriction worse than a druid's, mediocre skill list...

I know I'm only listing the shortcomings, but I just felt let down by it. This is the kind of class I would only ever use as a DMPC if my group playing was short and no one wanted to play a class capable of healing. DMPC would be a Healer who exists only to heal and not talk.

The only way the tier definitions are at all helpful is if they give us useful information on how to play/mod classes. Definitional definitions don’t. Power based definitions do.

Definitions don't need to match JaronK's. I said that already.

No we didn't. We started with certain benchmark classes and then ranked the classes based on how they compare to the benchmarks. Go back and look through the discussions and you'll see, it's lots of "This is just better than a sorcerer most of the time," and "How does this line up against a bard?" and "If barbarian is here, this should be here too."

You're not going to convince me when eggynack themself already confirmed that actual tier breaks are mostly arbitrary.

[Troacctid]

Like the Mystic Ranger? I seriously doubt it's "about as effective as a sorcerer". Especially compared to a primary "caster" like the Wilder.

Well, that's why context is important, and why one should read the class's entry in the thread in order to better understand its placement.

You're not going to convince me when eggynack themself already confirmed that actual tier breaks are mostly arbitrary.

Her definitions include benchmarks too.

[eggynack]

Oh, I agree that the original has some flaws as well. But at least it's easy to understand (due to the criteria being spelled out) why each class was placed in it's respective tier.

I think one of the biggest flaws in JaronK's system was the over-emphasis on "nukes". But at least knowing that "nukes" were the criteria for Tier 1 and 2, those class assignations make sense.

I'm not just saying the system had flaws. I'm saying it has exactly this flaw, and that basically any tier system will have it as well.

What I would take from it is that the adept has access to spells with a wider range of capability than the healer, who is pretty one-dimensional.

I may be biased. I wanted the healer to be better than it was (being MAD for a single-class spellcasting is absurd). I've actually enjoyed some of the homebrew "fixes" to the healer.

I mean, you shouldn't take anything that's actually about the classes from the ranking. The ranking is pretty clearly wrong. The question is how we contextualize this blatant error.

But the gaps shouldn't look SO different. What makes that gap distinct? It should be clear in the finished product, IMO.

What makes the gaps distinct is implicit from which classes are placed where.

Give SOME kind of criteria of what kinds of power levels and ability to overcome obstacles makes the criteria for a given tier?

I do. "Like a sorcerer" is a solid power level criteria.

Like the Mystic Ranger? I seriously doubt it's "about as effective as a sorcerer". Especially compared to a primary "caster" like the Wilder.

This is absurd. You seem to have this weird bias against the mystic ranger specifically, and you're acting like that one disagreement is more than just a disagreement about a single class and instead some broader issue. But it's not. People just voted in a way you don't like. It happens.

I meant in regards to yours, not JaronK's. If a given tier has multiple criteria, that's okay, too, as long as it is clear. "Power" and "Effectiveness" are general enough to have multiple iterations of meaning in a D&D class.

Multiple criteria aren't really enough. There are countless ways to be powerful.

I'm confused by your criticism here. JaronK even expresses that his personal favorite is Tier 3. They are usually quite effective. He just created a criteria where "nukes" was basically worth an extra-elevating consideration as far as how he saw "tiers".

I really don't care which tier JaronK liked the most. The basic reality of this "nuke" consideration is that it fails to actually line up with what it means to be effective in the game.

I disagree. Something about what a given class' spell list or capabilities can do, what the limits to their respective bailiwicks are, and so on...

But what if a class is at a given level of strength without having your specific stated capabilities? What if it's at a given level of weakness without your stated limits?

The power ranking number tells me the same information. The arbitrary "stops" for the tiers make me think the Mystic Ranger is "more akin" to the Death Master than it is to the Wilder.

Classes a tier apart are gonna be pretty similar to each other. Again though, this issue you cite is present in the original system, as well as any system really. I mean, consider the basic alternative for this system. The mystic ranger suffers a rating tragedy and goes to 2.51. Huzzah, now it's tier three. Except now the exact same problem crops up. The mystic ranger is .89 points from the psychic rogue, a tier three class, but .27 from the favored soul, a tier two class. This is fundamentally unavoidable, especially when you have a lot of classes ranked.

The Tier "stops" are exclusively number-based (whatever the score rounds to). Classes just got dropped into whichever tier their average score (rounded) corresponded to. That's what I meant.

But you're acting like the people doing the rating are making those ratings arbitrarily. The reason the mystic ranger is tier two is because a lot of people said, "This is about as good as a sorcerer," a lot said, "Eh, I think it's only as good as a bard," and a bunch were like, "Nah, I'd say it's in between." Classes aren't being dropped in arbitrary places. They're being compared to benchmarks that are based on the original list and being tiered on that basis. You just disagree with the outcome of the comparison and are acting like this renders the comparison arbitrary.

I already mentioned my beef with healer. MAD for spellcasting (one to determine highest level and bonus spells, another to determine DC), an armor restriction worse than a druid's, mediocre skill list...

I know I'm only listing the shortcomings, but I just felt let down by it. This is the kind of class I would only ever use as a DMPC if my group playing was short and no one wanted to play a class capable of healing. DMPC would be a Healer who exists only to heal and not talk.

Have you looked into sanctified spells at all? Or, more obviously the options for that companion ability? The original rating was blatantly wrong.

You're not going to convince me when eggynack themself already confirmed that actual tier breaks are mostly arbitrary.

The original was mostly arbitrary. You think JaronK couldn't have broken out the tiers otherwise? Of course he could have.

[BlackLamb]

I'm on lockdown and figure I'd through my votes in.

Tier 1

Druid

Second best spell list of the core casters AND wildshape AND animal companion.

Wizard

Best spell list in the game and a good chance of knowing any spell you want from it. At least enough of the spells you want to dominate.

Wu Jen

Slightly worse spell list than wizard, solid class features.

Tier 2

Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, & Warmage

Great spell lists that they don’t have to prepare ahead of time.

Cleric

The Cleric spell list is good, but it’s not as good as the Druid’s or Wizard’s. Domains are a great class feature.

Sorcerer

Slightly delayed and severely limited access to the best spell list in the game.

Spirit Shaman

Druid spell list, but none of the other features.

Tier 3

Archivist

Hypothetically it has access to the Cleric and Druid spell list. In practice it has most, but not all, Cleric spells and some, but not many, Druid spells. Dark Knowledge is a good ability, but it’s not as powerful as Domains.

Artificer

Unplayably awful for the first six levels, and more powerful than a Wizard at levels twelve and up. I’m splitting the difference.

Bard

Good spell list and good skills.

Dragonfire Adept & Warlock

All the reasons everyone says.

Duskblade

Good spell list and Full BAB

Healer

Very good at healing and a few other things. The Companion class feature is fantastic.

Rogue

Good skills and Sneak Attack is a solid class feature.

Shugenja

Good spell list and good spell progression.

Spellthief

Good skills and spell thievery is an effective class feature.

Totemist

The soulmelding Druid, and soulmelds aren’t as good as Druid spells.

Warblade

Great maneuvers and the best refresh method.

Tier 4

Barbarian

A Fightin’ Man with a Rage gimmick. While the gimmick is good, it’s not good enough to make it competitive at higher levels.

Dragon Shaman & Marshal

Auras are adequate at low level, but they don’t scale well.

Factotum

Worse than a Bard or Rogue before level seven. About on par until level fourteen. Probably more power after that, but those levels don’t see play as much.

Favored Soul

Slightly delayed and severely limited access to the Cleric spell list. What really holds it back is the Healbot expectation. Cleric’s can deal with being the party Healbot by being able swap out any prepared spell for a healing spell. Druid’s can deal with being the party Healbot by preparing healing and swapping them out for summons when need be. Favored Souls have the spend one of their precious few spells known on a level appropriate healing spell. And they’re aren’t as good at healing as a Healer. And they never get any level appropriate class features.

Hexblade

Hexblade’s Curse isn’t as good as Rage, and it’s better than Smite Evil. The Hexblade’s familiar is a pretty good class feature.

Ninja

Worse skill list than the Rogue and Sudden Strike isn’t as good as Sneak Attack.

Paladin

The Paladin’s saving grace is the Paladin’s Mount.

Soulborn

The soulmelding Paladin, and soulmelds are more poweful than Paladin spells. All the Soulborn’s class features are better than Paladin class features. Except for Paladin’s Mount, Paladin’s Mount is awesome.

Swordsage

Second best maneuver refresh rate. The variety of disciplines is a false variety, since most of them aren’t good enough to actually see play.

Tier 5

Crusader

Worst maneuver refresh rate. Their only unique discipline doesn’t justify an entire class. Their maneuver progression is so borked that the class isn’t fully playable as written.

Fighter

A Fightin’ Man with no gimmick. The bucket of feats is good at low levels and meaningless past level eight.

Incarnate

This class is not a skill monkey. It has more soulmelds than the Soulborn, and fewer soulmelds to choose from, and their soulmelds aren’t any better.

Knight

It’s a decent Fighter. It tries to tank, but it doesn’t tank well.

Ranger

Not as good at fighting as the Fighter, not as good a skillmonkey as the Rogue, nowhere near as good a naturist as the Druid. The only thing that’s special about it is Favored Enemy and Favored Enemy isn’t good.

Samurai

Fightin’ Man with an Intimidation gimmick. Intimidation is not a powerful gimmick.

Scout

Skirmish is not as powerful as Sudden Strike. The skill list is better than the Ranger’s and not as good as the Rogue’s.

Tier 6

Monk

The Monk is good at making saving throws and running away. That’s it.

Swashbuckler

A lightly armored Fightin’ Man is not a high level concept and the Swashnuckler isn’t even the best at that. The Rogue is a better a Swashbuckler than the Swashbuckler, the Ranger is a better Swashbuckler than the Swashbuckler, and the Monk is a better Swashbuckler than the Swashbuckler.

[Luccan]

-snip-

I'll give you that Monk and Swashbuckler are hardly the best classes, but you'd really rank them in the same tier as the no spell or class features NPCs? And below Samurai, no less?

[Troacctid]

Artificer

Unplayably awful for the first six levels, and more powerful than a Wizard at levels twelve and up. I’m splitting the difference.

That's aggressively low for a class with the artificer's spell list.

Favored Soul

Slightly delayed and severely limited access to the Cleric spell list. What really holds it back is the Healbot expectation. Cleric’s can deal with being the party Healbot by being able swap out any prepared spell for a healing spell. Druid’s can deal with being the party Healbot by preparing healing and swapping them out for summons when need be. Favored Souls have the spend one of their precious few spells known on a level appropriate healing spell. And they’re aren’t as good at healing as a Healer. And they never get any level appropriate class features.

"Precious few spells known" seems like quite the exaggeration. Favored souls have a lot of spells known—the most of any non-fixed-list spontaneous caster, if I'm not mistaken.

Crusader

Worst maneuver refresh rate. Their only unique discipline doesn’t justify an entire class. Their maneuver progression is so borked that the class isn’t fully playable as written.

I get the feeling you've never actually played one? Crusader is one of the most powerful melee classes in the game. It's seriously beefy. I'm not saying it doesn't have design flaws, but we're rating classes for power, not elegance.

Incarnate

This class is not a skill monkey. It has more soulmelds than the Soulborn, and fewer soulmelds to choose from, and their soulmelds aren’t any better.

Cleric isn't a skillmonkey either, but I see you put it in T1. Why do you say they have fewer soulmelds to choose from than the soulborn? Their list is bigger, and they can shape more soulmelds at a time. Are you mixing it up with another class, maybe?

[eggynack]

Cleric isn't a skillmonkey either, but I see you put it in T1. Why do you say they have fewer soulmelds to choose from than the soulborn? Their list is bigger, and they can shape more soulmelds at a time. Are you mixing it up with another class, maybe?

They actually put cleric in tier two. Which is odd. Also archivist in tier three. Which is inexplicable. And, as you note, favored soul in tier four. Which is hyper-inexplicable. What an odd set of ratings.

[Luccan]

They actually put cleric in tier two. Which is odd. Also archivist in tier three. Which is inexplicable. And, as you note, favored soul in tier four. Which is hyper-inexplicable. What an odd set of ratings.

I mean, if they really think the cleric spell list is bad enough to drop a prepared full-caster from T1, I guess those follow, sort of. Except that an archivist can access druid spells, which are the main reason druid should be T1, so yeah, inexplicable.

Edit: Actually yeah, I have more questions. Apparently the Spirit Shaman is T2 because it doesn't have the same class features as a druid, not because of the limits on spells prepared. Wild Shape and Animal Companion don't put you on T1 if your spell list isn't good enough to be there on its own. Also, Ranger somehow rates in a lower tier than the other two half-caster martials.

[NigelWalmsley]

They actually put cleric in tier two. Which is odd. Also archivist in tier three. Which is inexplicable. And, as you note, favored soul in tier four. Which is hyper-inexplicable. What an odd set of ratings.

I mean, all of that kind of follows from putting the Cleric in T2 in the first place. The Archivist really is a worse Cleric in most cases, and the Favored Soul is worse than that. Probably not a tier worse in both cases, but Cleric > Archivist > Favored Soul is the correct ordering. Probably not Healer > Favored Soul though.

A lot of their points seem to be basically valid, just overstated. For example, the Artificer really is pretty awful at low levels. And the Crusader does have a broken maneuver progression. But neither of those things make them as bad as he seems to think. Also I don't know how the Warmage list is supposed to be "great". It's basically a bunch of redundant blasting spells and one decent BFC spell per level. That's fine, and you can definitely do work with that list, but the only way the Warmage is T2 is if you're counting the various ways it has to expand its list.

[BlackLamb]

That's aggressively low for a class with the artificer's spell list.

In the original tiering threads it mentioned that we should consider mid-levels first, low-levels second, and high-levels last.

I acknowledge that the Artificer is better than the Wizard or Druid at levels 12 and up, which would make it Tier 1. I also argue that it can't reliably do anything magic related at levels 1-6, which would make it Tier 5 at best.

In the original thread where people were debating the Artificer's power, many people put it at 1 with an asterisk because it's powerful class at high levels and a powerless class at low levels.

This class is very hard to average out at every level of play, this is my best effort.

"Precious few spells known" seems like quite the exaggeration. Favored souls have a lot of spells known—the most of any non-fixed-list spontaneous caster, if I'm not mistaken.

"Precious few spells known" is a piece of hyperbole on my part.

AND

Most spells known of any non-fixed list spontaneous caster is a very low bar. Outside of Sorcerer and Bard, how many are there? One's without other limitations on casting so severe that spell access is barely worth considering on a power scale.

I get the feeling you've never actually played one? Crusader is one of the most powerful melee classes in the game. It's seriously beefy. I'm not saying it doesn't have design flaws, but we're rating classes for power, not elegance.

The refresh rate design flaw limits your ability to choose what powers to use, which is a limitation on power.

The maneuverability and stance progression design flaw means that your access to level appropriate maneuvers and stances and never actually get access to your highest level options. This is also a limitation on power.

I concede that I may have judged this class too harshly. I still think that it's the least powerful of of the ToB classes. What would be your suggestion of effectively communicating this on a Tier ranking list?

Cleric isn't a skillmonkey either, but I see you put it in T1. Why do you say they have fewer soulmelds to choose from than the soulborn? Their list is bigger, and they can shape more soulmelds at a time. Are you mixing it up with another class, maybe?

In the original thread where people were debating the Incarnate's power, it was being defended on it's merits as a skillmonkey. Outside of that context I get that calling it out for not being a skillmonkey makes no sense.

I say that the Incarnate gets fewer soulmelds to choose from than the Soulborn because of alignment restrictions.

Soulborns can be LG, CG, CE or LE. As such a LG Soulborn has access to both Lawful and Good soulmelds.

Incarnates can NG, CN, NE or LN. As such a NG Incarnate has access to only Good soulmelds.

The Incarnate's list looks bigger, but when alignment restrictions are taken into consideration the list is actually smaller.

[BlackLamb]

I'll give you that Monk and Swashbuckler are hardly the best classes, but you'd really rank them in the same tier as the no spell or class features NPCs? And below Samurai, no less?

Samurai is a passable beatstick at low levels that is very good at Intimidation. Intimidation isn't great, but it's something.

I don't think the Monk passably fills any role.

The MADness of the Swashbuckler makes it worse than an NPC Warrior.

[Gnaeus]

Edit: Actually yeah, I have more questions. Apparently the Spirit Shaman is T2 because it doesn't have the same class features as a druid, not because of the limits on spells prepared. Wild Shape and Animal Companion don't put you on T1 if your spell list isn't good enough to be there on its own.

But part of the problem is that many Druid spells either suck or don’t function at all without wildshape/AC. Like enhance wildshape, a amazingly versatile spell. Or self buffs like the bite of the wereX line, which are awesome if you are a tiger, and junk as a mid bab caster with bad weapons and armor. Spirit Shamans functionally lose a bunch of the best Druid spells.

Although that last part is no longer necessarily true. There is no reason a tier 2 class can’t hit tier 1 by tacking on lower tier powers. Wizard>sorcerer at most levels. It’s easy to propose sorcerer//low tier gestalts that would outperform Wizard at most levels, and should therefore be same tier.

[eggynack]

I mean, all of that kind of follows from putting the Cleric in T2 in the first place. The Archivist really is a worse Cleric in most cases, and the Favored Soul is worse than that. Probably not a tier worse in both cases, but Cleric > Archivist > Favored Soul is the correct ordering. Probably not Healer > Favored Soul though.

Not sure whether the cleric or archivist is better offhand. I suppose it depends on optimization level. But yeah, it's mostly just this compounding magnitude thing that makes it increasingly bizarre. Like, the distance between cleric and archivist is, at best, significantly overstated, and, while favored soul is a tier worse than archivist, it reads really odd when that puts the class in tier four somehow. I guess the cleric is the one I'd really want explained though. Cause that'd go a long way to explaining the other two placements.

But part of the problem is that many Druid spells either suck or don’t function at all without wildshape/AC. Like enhance wildshape, a amazingly versatile spell. Or self buffs like the bite of the wereX line, which are awesome if you are a tiger, and junk as a mid bab caster with bad weapons and armor. Spirit Shamans functionally lose a bunch of the best Druid spells.

There's just a lot going on with these abilities. There's this stuff, the direct combos, but then you also have the basic fact that wild shape is how druids fly, and the next best options are decidedly not great. Or, in higher optimization scenarios, you get ridiculously silly stuff like aberration wild shape. Wild shape interacts with spells, but it also just is a lot of spells, implicitly. And it also interacts with the spell list in other ways, cause spells just work better when you're well defended or can always spot your enemies. It's an ability that is difficult to overestimate. And the animal companion is nice too.

[Sutr]

In the original tiering threads it mentioned that we should consider mid-levels first, low-levels second, and high-levels last.

I acknowledge that the Artificer is better than the Wizard or Druid at levels 12 and up, which would make it Tier 1. I also argue that it can't reliably do anything magic related at levels 1-6, which would make it Tier 5 at best.

In the original thread where people were debating the Artificer's power, many people put it at 1 with an asterisk because it's powerful class at high levels and a powerless class at low levels.

This class is very hard to average out at every level of play, this is my best effort.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the tier but wanted to contribute to the discussion. I have seen the class get hamstrung by no action points and hamstrung by a DM claiming that wealth by level could not be exceeded and finally killed by campaign time limits intended to limit 10 minute workdays. It definitely is one of the classes with a very high ceiling and one of the lowest floors in 3.5.

From levels 1 to 20 at 4 encounters a day its 61 days to level 20. That wand with a 3rd level spell takes 1/6 of the time of what could be an entire campaign.

[BlackLamb]

Not sure whether the cleric or archivist is better offhand. I suppose it depends on optimization level. But yeah, it's mostly just this compounding magnitude thing that makes it increasingly bizarre. Like, the distance between cleric and archivist is, at best, significantly overstated, and, while favored soul is a tier worse than archivist, it reads really odd when that puts the class in tier four somehow. I guess the cleric is the one I'd really want explained though. Cause that'd go a long way to explaining the other two placements.

I shall do my best.

There's a word bandied about when discussing the Cleric's power; CoDzilla. The CoDzilla is so amazing that it completely overshadows the Fighter at Fightering at midlevel. So what. Many classes overshadow the Fighter at Fightering at level one. The powerful classes that don't overshadow the Fighter at Fightering at mid-level don't do so because Fightering is something that becomes decreasingly worth trying by mid-level. Wizard handbooks don't highlight how the Wizard can be a better Fighter, they show how being a Fighter isn't even worth bothering with. If I look at the top three powerful spells off the Wizard list and the Druid list and the Cleric list at spell levels 1-9, the Cleric usually comes up short on power and comes up short by a lot. I'll give the Cleric credit for early access to Plane Shift and True Seeing. Wizards and Druids are more likely to overshadow the entire party on accident than the Cleric is to do on purpose. I haven't mentioned Domains. There are certainly some powerful domains. Once that choice is made, it eliminates the Cleric's ability to make other powerful choices that would be better effective in other situations, much like the Sorcerer's spells known.

Previously I briefly mentioned the Healbot Expectation in regards to the Favored Soul, but I think it also applies to the Archivist. I acknowledge that in an optimized party no one actually casts healing spells and everyone relies on healing items. I'll assume a lower level of optimization. A divine spellcaster, moreso THE divine spellcaster, in a party is expected to provide some healing. 3rd edition D&D took some of that pressure off of the Cleric by allowing spontaneous healing and domains spells that either can't swapped for healing spells, or in the case of the Healing domain allow a backstop of dedicated healing spells so the Cleric can be less mindful of how spell slots The Cleric has left to convert to healing. 3.5 allowed the Druid who's stuck preparing healing spells to spontaneously swap them for summons. The Archivist has neither of these freedoms. Not only is there no guarantee that the Archivist will actually have access to the best Cleric or Druid spells, there is also the expectation that the Archivist will be stuck using a significant portion of its prepared spells on healing.

I don't think the Cleric is a powerless class, it is a powerful class. One of the most powerful in the game. I don't think it's in the same league as the Wizard of Druid.

One of my big objections to JaronK's list is that seemed to assume hyper-optimization and 20th level play, neither situation being common enough to make the tier system actually useful. I've heard horror stories of DMs using JaronK's list to harshly limit low-level Clerics, without realizing just what the specific game-breaking tricks the Cleric has that placed it in Tier 1. A more useful tier system would weigh mid-levels over low-levels, and low-levels over high-levels. Likewise it should weigh mid-optimization over low-optimization, and low optimization over high optimization.

[Troacctid]

In the original tiering threads it mentioned that we should consider mid-levels first, low-levels second, and high-levels last.

I acknowledge that the Artificer is better than the Wizard or Druid at levels 12 and up, which would make it Tier 1. I also argue that it can't reliably do anything magic related at levels 1-6, which would make it Tier 5 at best.

In the original thread where people were debating the Artificer's power, many people put it at 1 with an asterisk because it's powerful class at high levels and a powerless class at low levels.

This class is very hard to average out at every level of play, this is my best effort.

You can make a single-charge wand in 1 minute and multiple scrolls in one night. You have access to every spell list in the game. Both of these abilities are available from level 1. And the artificer spell list is really strong. Where are you getting the idea that they don't come online until level 12? Are you mixing them up with warlocks or something, or do you really think that they can't function without Craft Staff?

I played an artificer in my last in-person campaign. We started at level 5 and went to level 10. My character was a powerhouse the whole time. I always had the right spell for the job (or could fetch it quickly) between spell-storing item and a big pile of scrolls, wands, and wondrous items. I was commanding small armies of constructs, undead, and other minions, and I could buff the whole party and myself. And on top of everything, I was effectively doubling everyone's WBL. It's basically like being a wizard, but with more accounting.

"Precious few spells known" is a piece of hyperbole on my part.

AND

Most spells known of any non-fixed list spontaneous caster is a very low bar. Outside of Sorcerer and Bard, how many are there? One's without other limitations on casting so severe that spell access is barely worth considering on a power scale.

Spontaneous casters make up more than 25% of the classes on the tier list. Count for yourself.

Favored soul is very close to being actively better than a sorcerer. So close! It's true that sorcerer has a better list, but favored soul often has more than twice as many spells known, and the cleric spell list is still really good. Have you looked at some of those spells lately? Even just in Core + SpC, there's so much good stuff.

And you know what? They're also really good at healing. One of their ACFs buffs up your allies with temp HP when you cast spells on them, so you can throw support spells around and boost HP at the same time, or, when casting healing spells like close wounds or heal in combat, heal extra. And because they have so many spells known, a favored soul can take a cure spell at every spell level and still have more spells known of their highest two levels than a sorcerer would—and that's at low-op. You don't really need all of the cure spells.

The refresh rate design flaw limits your ability to choose what powers to use, which is a limitation on power.

The maneuverability and stance progression design flaw means that your access to level appropriate maneuvers and stances and never actually get access to your highest level options. This is also a limitation on power.

I concede that I may have judged this class too harshly. I still think that it's the least powerful of of the ToB classes. What would be your suggestion of effectively communicating this on a Tier ranking list?

I would again strongly disagree. I personally think it is actually the most powerful of the ToB classes because it's just so beefy in both offense and defense. And no, the randomly granted maneuvers are not really a handicap, because the crusader list has very few situational boosts and counters like the other lists do. All the best ones are either mostly-interchangeable strikes or universally-useful boosts like WRT. If you do draw one that's not useful right now, you can just use another one, because you always have multiple maneuvers available. In fact, since no action is required to refresh, you could very well argue that it's the best refresh method of all of them. It's certainly better than the swordsage, who pretty much doesn't have a refresh method at all.

In the original thread where people were debating the Incarnate's power, it was being defended on it's merits as a skillmonkey. Outside of that context I get that calling it out for not being a skillmonkey makes no sense.

I say that the Incarnate gets fewer soulmelds to choose from than the Soulborn because of alignment restrictions.

Soulborns can be LG, CG, CE or LE. As such a LG Soulborn has access to both Lawful and Good soulmelds.

Incarnates can NG, CN, NE or LN. As such a NG Incarnate has access to only Good soulmelds.

The Incarnate's list looks bigger, but when alignment restrictions are taken into consideration the list is actually smaller.

Dude, there are literal zero lawful soulmelds. The only one is incarnate avatar, which always has the same alignment descriptor as the meldshaper, and soulborn doesn't get it. Same with chaos. What are you even talking about? 🤔

Incarnates are a mix of melee bruiser, minionmancer, secondary ranged, and fifth-wheel support. They can do some skills as part of the latter role, and they don't rely on skill points as part of it. I strongly suspect you're one of the people I was talking about when I said a lot of voters downgraded the class because they didn't understand it.

Previously I briefly mentioned the Healbot Expectation in regards to the Favored Soul, but I think it also applies to the Archivist. I acknowledge that in an optimized party no one actually casts healing spells and everyone relies on healing items. I'll assume a lower level of optimization. A divine spellcaster, moreso THE divine spellcaster, in a party is expected to provide some healing. 3rd edition D&D took some of that pressure off of the Cleric by allowing spontaneous healing and domains spells that either can't swapped for healing spells, or in the case of the Healing domain allow a backstop of dedicated healing spells so the Cleric can be less mindful of how spell slots The Cleric has left to convert to healing. 3.5 allowed the Druid who's stuck preparing healing spells to spontaneously swap them for summons. The Archivist has neither of these freedoms. Not only is there no guarantee that the Archivist will actually have access to the best Cleric or Druid spells, there is also the expectation that the Archivist will be stuck using a significant portion of its prepared spells on healing.

Healing can be an essential party role or it can be a useless drag on your class resources, but it can't be both. If healing spells are good, then they're good, and if they're bad, then you can simply not take them.

[NigelWalmsley]

Spontaneous casters make up more than 25% of the classes on the tier list. Count for yourself.

But as he reasonably points out, many of those are fixed-list, or partial casters.

Incarnates are a mix of melee bruiser, minionmancer, secondary ranged, and fifth-wheel support.

I'm not super familiar with the Incarnate, but this seems like stretching it based on what I recall. They have bad BAB, a d6 hit die, and don't get heavy armor. What totally insane soulmelds are they getting to make them a "melee bruiser"? Similarly, the only minionmancy I remember them getting is that "make a zombie" thing, and that's really not a big deal.

[Troacctid]

[QUOTE=NigelWalmsley;24424785]But as he reasonably points out, many of those are fixed-list, or partial casters.
Not counting half-casters or fixed-list casters, there are 20 spontaneous casting classes on this tier list, out of 80 classes total. 15 of those 20 have access to 9ths. Evangelist and spontaneous cleric have more spells known if you count their domain spells; otherwise, favored soul has more than any of the others, I'm pretty sure.

I'm not super familiar with the Incarnate, but this seems like stretching it based on what I recall. They have bad BAB, a d6 hit die, and don't get heavy armor. What totally insane soulmelds are they getting to make them a "melee bruiser"? Similarly, the only minionmancy I remember them getting is that "make a zombie" thing, and that's really not a big deal.

From the OP:

An incarnate can function as a melee brawler, a ranged support, a minion master, or a utility-focused skillmonkey.

• Key soulmelds for melee include lightning gauntlets and astral vambraces.
• Key soulmelds for ranged include dissolving spittle.
• Key soulmelds for minion mastery include necrocarnum circlet and soulspark familiar.
• Key soulmelds for skillmonkeying include lucky dice, mage's spectacles, theft gloves, silvertongue mask, and truthseeker goggles.
• Supplementary soulmelds for defense include crystal helm, astral vambraces, lammasu mantle, planar chasuble, planar ward, strongheart vest, flame cincture, impulse boots, incarnate avatar (good), spellward shirt, and vitality belt.
• Supplementary soulmelds for offense include armguards of disruption, bloodwar gauntlets, lucky dice, sighting gloves, bloodwar gauntlets, bluesteel bracers, incarnate weapon, incarnate avatar (law or evil), and necrocarnum shroud.
• Supplementary soulmelds for mobility include acrobat boots, airstep sandals, and cerulean sandals.
• Situational soulmelds include enigma helm, theft gloves, riding bracers, sailor's bracers, psion's eyes, mage's spectacles, pauldrons of health, apparition ribbon, planar chasuble, strongheart vest, flame cincture, truthseeker goggles, and silvertongue mask.

So basically, you can pick one role and fill it very well by using the key soulmelds for that role plus supplementary ones, or you can fill multiple roles by picking the key soulmelds for both, and every day you can change your loadout depending on what you think will be most useful to the party, including switching to situational picks when the adventure calls for it. This gives you a lot of day-to-day flexibility, as well as level-by-level flexibility—for example, you can use astral vambraces at low levels when the DR is at its most powerful, and then switch it out for vitality belt at higher levels, when the HP boost is more valuable. Additionally, once you hit level 5, you get the ability to swap out soulmelds in the middle of the day, which lets you pull a situational soulmeld out of your back pocket whenever it's needed.

At higher levels, the more powerful chakra binds can open up new and exciting options, like flight, at-will suggestion, at-will mindlink, 1/week gate, and so on—or they can simply turbocharge the options you already had, like with dissolving spittle or soulspark familiar. This ability to scale up to higher levels is another big advantage over nonmagical counterparts like rogue or fighter.

[NigelWalmsley]

*snip*

I'm not going to go through your list of citations and figure out what your argument is supposed to be. You need to tell me why you're right, by explaining how those abilities fit together into something a reasonable person would call a "melee bruiser", not make me tell you why you're wrong based on my hypothesis about how a build might work.

[ZamielVanWeber]

A good aligned incarnate can easily hit thanks to relying on melee tough attacks and can actually keep their AC to relevant levels all throughout the game thanks to a mix of soul melds and class features. the d6 hit die is deceptive thanks to the fact they depend primarily on Con and Wis. They aren't going to reach ubercharger drama, but they can definitely mix it up in melee well enough to keep the team supported.

[NigelWalmsley]

A good aligned incarnate can easily hit thanks to relying on melee tough attacks and can actually keep their AC to relevant levels all throughout the game thanks to a mix of soul melds and class features. the d6 hit die is deceptive thanks to the fact they depend primarily on Con and Wis. They aren't going to reach ubercharger drama, but they can definitely mix it up in melee well enough to keep the team supported.

The Ubercharger is a Fighter or Barbarian build. Those classes are T4. How on earth is the Incarnate T4 if it's worse in its niche than other classes in that tier? Classes it's ranked higher than. So what gives? Is there some super-tank combo that is just so obvious that no one is bothering to articulate it explicitly? Because it looks to me like the class does mediocre damage and has moderate-to-poor defenses, even by the standards of other classes in the tier.

[Luccan]

The Ubercharger is a Fighter or Barbarian build. Those classes are T4. How on earth is the Incarnate T4 if it's worse in its niche than other classes in that tier? Classes it's ranked higher than. So what gives? Is there some super-tank combo that is just so obvious that no one is bothering to articulate it explicitly? Because it looks to me like the class does mediocre damage and has moderate-to-poor defenses, even by the standards of other classes in the tier.

My understanding is that it's significantly more versatile, a different form of power. An Ubercharger is great at one task that's not always the right answer to your problem. But I didn't vote on MoI classes specifically because I've never used them.

[Lans]

The Ubercharger is a Fighter or Barbarian build. Those classes are T4. How on earth is the Incarnate T4 if it's worse in its niche than other classes in that tier? Classes it's ranked higher than. So what gives? Is there some super-tank combo that is just so obvious that no one is bothering to articulate it explicitly? Because it looks to me like the class does mediocre damage and has moderate-to-poor defenses, even by the standards of other classes in the tier.

Charging is easily shut down with out major optimization.



The incarnate can have 3d6+1 touch or ranged touch attack at level 1. Its poor attack bonus is countered by it being a touch attack, and the +1 from lucky dice.


It can also have rock solid defense. Fellmist robe gives miss chances, flame mantle can reflect back more damage than most monsters deal 3d6 at level 1, up its hp by levelx essentia, at level 1 it can function with 12 extra hp with blood talons. Astral Vambraces gives up to 6 damage reduction at 1st level.




It can also do the skill monkey role passably with several soulmelds giving 2-4+2xessentia to several skills.

It also has a grab bag of other things that it can swap into on the fly, and is extremely front loaded

I am personally on the fence as to whether it's high tier 4 or low tier 3. It's very do this or that at low levels, and at higher the effectiveness drops off.

[BlackLamb]

You can make a single-charge wand in 1 minute and multiple scrolls in one night. You have access to every spell list in the game. Both of these abilities are available from level 1. And the artificer spell list is really strong. Where are you getting the idea that they don't come online until level 12? Are you mixing them up with warlocks or something, or do you really think that they can't function without Craft Staff?

I played an artificer in my last in-person campaign. We started at level 5 and went to level 10. My character was a powerhouse the whole time. I always had the right spell for the job (or could fetch it quickly) between spell-storing item and a big pile of scrolls, wands, and wondrous items. I was commanding small armies of constructs, undead, and other minions, and I could buff the whole party and myself. And on top of everything, I was effectively doubling everyone's WBL. It's basically like being a wizard, but with more accounting.

I don't mean that the class doesn't start until level 12. I mean the class doesn't become OP until level 12. The point where the Artificer isn't failing any UMD checks to do anything. Not just level appropriate things, but anything. What helps the Artificer do that is a Staff of Skill Enhancement. The Artificer can function without Craft Staff, it breaks the game with it.

Failing UMD checks to Scribe Scrolls and failing UMD checks to read from scrolls is very very real at low levels.

Most gaming tables don't use Action Points.

I believe that you were effective between levels 5 and 10. That's not far off from where I placed the sweet spot between 7 and 11.

Spontaneous casters make up more than 25% of the classes on the tier list. Count for yourself.

Favored soul is very close to being actively better than a sorcerer. So close! It's true that sorcerer has a better list, but favored soul often has more than twice as many spells known, and the cleric spell list is still really good. Have you looked at some of those spells lately? Even just in Core + SpC, there's so much good stuff.

And you know what? They're also really good at healing. One of their ACFs buffs up your allies with temp HP when you cast spells on them, so you can throw support spells around and boost HP at the same time, or, when casting healing spells like close wounds or heal in combat, heal extra. And because they have so many spells known, a favored soul can take a cure spell at every spell level and still have more spells known of their highest two levels than a sorcerer would—and that's at low-op. You don't really need all of the cure spells.

I only tiered 40 of the classes because I'm only familiar with 40. I didn't realize how many of the remaining classes were non-fixed list spontaneous casters. Thank you for information.

Limited spells known is still a limitation. I acknowledge that the Cleric list good and that it's still worse enough than the Wizard list that I don't believe that the Favored Soul is on the same same level as the Sorcerer.

I would again strongly disagree. I personally think it is actually the most powerful of the ToB classes because it's just so beefy in both offense and defense. And no, the randomly granted maneuvers are not really a handicap, because the crusader list has very few situational boosts and counters like the other lists do. All the best ones are either mostly-interchangeable strikes or universally-useful boosts like WRT. If you do draw one that's not useful right now, you can just use another one, because you always have multiple maneuvers available. In fact, since no action is required to refresh, you could very well argue that it's the best refresh method of all of them. It's certainly better than the swordsage, who pretty much doesn't have a refresh method at all.

You've convinced me that refresh mechanics is more a matter of preference than power. I don't dispute that the Crusader is beefy, it's just that beefiness only goes so far.

The Crusader still has a borked progression and the worst choices of disciplines of the three ToB classes. There might not be as much daylight between them as I originally thought, but I still think I got the order right.

Dude, there are literal zero lawful soulmelds. The only one is incarnate avatar, which always has the same alignment descriptor as the meldshaper, and soulborn doesn't get it. Same with chaos. What are you even talking about? 🤔

Incarnates are a mix of melee bruiser, minionmancer, secondary ranged, and fifth-wheel support. They can do some skills as part of the latter role, and they don't rely on skill points as part of it. I strongly suspect you're one of the people I was talking about when I said a lot of voters downgraded the class because they didn't understand it.

I admit that it's been awhile since I looked at the list. I remembered the alignment restrictions more than I remembered the list. My mistake.

I believe that the Incarnate is as much melee bruiser as much as it's a skillmonkey, which is not very. Secondary ranged and fifth-wheel support are by definition not powerful roles. Minionmancy could get there, but if the best it's got is Necrocarnum Circlet is the best it's got than it's about as good as a Ranger. I placed the Ranger at Tier 5. In fact, trying to do everything and excelling at nothing is why I placed Ranger at Tier 5.

Healing can be an essential party role or it can be a useless drag on your class resources, but it can't be both. If healing spells are good, then they're good, and if they're bad, then you can simply not take them.

I'm not saying it's essential and useless. I'm saying it's expected and low-powered. In a party where you are expected to provide healing, it can be difficult to just not do so. Are you going to tell your friends that you read somewhere on the internet that healing is the suxxorz and you'd rather memorize l33t spells that help you hog the spotlight away from everyone else?

I ranked Druid and Cleric in Tiers 1 and 2, the highest tiers. I ranked Archivist and Healer Tier 3, that's above average.

[eggynack]

I'm not saying it's essential and useless. I'm saying it's expected and low-powered. In a party where you are expected to provide healing, it can be difficult to just not do so. Are you going to tell your friends that you read somewhere on the internet that healing is the suxxorz and you'd rather memorize l33t spells that help you hog the spotlight away from everyone else?

This reasoning just doesn't make much sense. You're saying that the presence of more spells on these classes reduces their tier. More spells is better. It lets you do more stuff.

I ranked Druid and Cleric in Tiers 1 and 2, the highest tiers. I ranked Archivist and Healer Tier 3, that's above average.

You have the archivist, a class with an incredible spell list, the same as a bard, who is a bard. You ranked the favored soul below the bard. Which, again, is a bard. Do you really think the bard list compares favorably to the favored soul list? It makes no sense.

There's a word bandied about when discussing the Cleric's power; CoDzilla. The CoDzilla is so amazing that it completely overshadows the Fighter at Fightering at midlevel. So what. Many classes overshadow the Fighter at Fightering at level one. The powerful classes that don't overshadow the Fighter at Fightering at mid-level don't do so because Fightering is something that becomes decreasingly worth trying by mid-level. Wizard handbooks don't highlight how the Wizard can be a better Fighter, they show how being a Fighter isn't even worth bothering with.

The capacity to beat things up is something the cleric has. It is not the central defining feature of the class. You keep pointing to these things the class does well as bad things, as though it's bad to be really good at stabbing stuff.

If I look at the top three powerful spells off the Wizard list and the Druid list and the Cleric list at spell levels 1-9, the Cleric usually comes up short on power and comes up short by a lot. I'll give the Cleric credit for early access to Plane Shift and True Seeing. Wizards and Druids are more likely to overshadow the entire party on accident than the Cleric is to do on purpose. I haven't mentioned Domains. There are certainly some powerful domains. Once that choice is made, it eliminates the Cleric's ability to make other powerful choices that would be better effective in other situations, much like the Sorcerer's spells known.

A wizard will usually be ahead of a cleric spell-wise, a thing that is compensated for somewhat early on by stats and such. You are above dismissive of fighting capability, but fighters don't compare all that poorly to wizards in the opening levels. Combine that with the solid list, and clerics are ahead of the wizard for a reasonable stretch early on. This relationship is reversed with the druid. Druids probably win the comparison for the first, say, ten or so levels. Past that? The cleric is likely advantaged. Druids get pretty awful 7th's and 8th's, even considered across all the books, and 6th's are just okay. As for domains, some of them are quite strong across the whole level range. You don't necessarily have to make some big sacrifice.