How much would being a gestalt class or having la effect tiers

[Brenden1k]

Looking at class tier system, I wonder if say fighter might move up a tier if we gave it negative level adjustment or gestalt it with another tier five class.


Would you say being a gestalt or plus two LA is worth about a tier?

[Psyren]

The answer to both is the same - it depends on what they buy with it.

2 free LA that the fighter uses to be a drow noble is not going to change their tier, and neither is gestalting with Commoner. But being Phrenic or gestalting with druid is a very different scenario.

[Brenden1k]

The answer to both is the same - it depends on what they buy with it.

2 free LA that the fighter uses to be a drow noble is not going to change their tier, and neither is gestalting with Commoner. But being Phrenic or gestalting with druid is a very different scenario.

Emergency rule patch, gestalts must be same tier or lower, that what I intended and makes sense, Likewise the negative la is intended to be free levels, level 10 fighter is now level 12 kind of deal.


As for gestalt it intended for same tier pick, like fighter picks Paladins,ninja or monk, commoners can be safely ruled out as a option because anyone who picks that, would reasonably as a Wizard pick entirely healing spells and predestination.

The tier system is not really dependent on what you buy to my understanding because it assumes all classes are optimized to the same level, a mix maxed fighter can beat a poorly build wizard, but not a mix maxed one, likewise a poorly build wizard would have good odds vs a poorly build fighter.

[AvatarVecna]

It works to a degree, but only because the lower tiers are closer together than the higher ones. I could see somebody making the argument that a Marshal//Knight in on-par with a Fighter, that a Fighter//Rogue is on-par with a Crusader, and maybe even Sorcerer//Favored Soul being on-par with Wizard, sure. But it gets trickier going from T2 to T3, just cuz of how the tiers are laid out and how they relate to particularly broken tricks and sheer number of options available to pick (and to pick from, for that matter). How many feats would Fighter have to get before they could be considered T2 instead of low 4/high 5?

Tristalt would do a better job of definitely bumping people up a tier, although it then becomes a question of whether you're bumping them too far.

One thing I've seen suggested is gestalt where the base tiers need to add to 6. This mostly works out well enough because T5//T1 is a T1 build, T4//T2 is a T2 build, and T3//T3 is a T3 build...and T3/2/1 can play together just fine at medium optimization. A big part of the issue is that while a bard can carry a T5 team, and not be totally useless to a T1 team, a T5 person on a T1 team (or vice versa) has no business being a part of that group unless the game is be very carefully managed to make it work out.

[Gnaeus]

I’ve been doing a fair bit of analysis and I strongly believe that any reasonably optimized gestalt will raise the tier functionally if not definitionally. That is to say, any T3 with a compatible gestalt will perform at or above the level of a T2. That they will outperform (In terms of combat and utility) the higher tier on about as many levels (Or more) as the higher tier will outperform them. In almost all cases you can go up a tier by gestalting with a Tier 5. Two T3s for T2 is easy.

It works to a degree, but only because the lower tiers are closer together than the higher ones. I could see somebody making the argument that a Marshal//Knight in on-par with a Fighter, that a Fighter//Rogue is on-par with a Crusader, and maybe even Sorcerer//Favored Soul being on-par with Wizard, sure. But it gets trickier going from T2 to T3, just cuz of how the tiers are laid out and how they relate to particularly broken tricks and sheer number of options available to pick (and to pick from, for that matter). How many feats would Fighter have to get before they could be considered T2 instead of low 4/high 5?

I disagree. I think this is theorycrafting taken to extremes.

I absolutely agree that the Tiers roughly measure comparative power. But the difference between a sorcerer and wizard in play is probably less than the difference between a fighter and a samurai. I would happily take a favored soul//sorcerer in a game with big 3 casters, but honestly I would happily play a Sorcerer//hexblade or Favored Soul//Divine mind in a party with a Wizard or a Cleric. I think any T3 in a gestalt with a synergistic class is very likely to play comparably with a T2.

[Brenden1k]

It works to a degree, but only because the lower tiers are closer together than the higher ones. I could see somebody making the argument that a Marshal//Knight in on-par with a Fighter, that a Fighter//Rogue is on-par with a Crusader, and maybe even Sorcerer//Favored Soul being on-par with Wizard, sure. But it gets trickier going from T2 to T3, just cuz of how the tiers are laid out and how they relate to particularly broken tricks and sheer number of options available to pick (and to pick from, for that matter). How many feats would Fighter have to get before they could be considered T2 instead of low 4/high 5?

Tristalt[/URL] would do a better job of definitely bumping people up a tier, although it then becomes a question of whether you're bumping them too far.

One thing I've seen suggested is gestalt where the base tiers need to add to 6. This mostly works out well enough because T5//T1 is a T1 build, T4//T2 is a T2 build, and T3//T3 is a T3 build...and T3/2/1 can play together just fine at medium optimization. A big part of the issue is that while a bard can carry a T5 team, and not be totally useless to a T1 team, a T5 person on a T1 team (or vice versa) has no business being a part of that group unless the game is be very carefully managed to make it work out.

Not sure the higher ranks are closer together, for example the gap between commoner and any tier five like ninja, expert, fighter, soul knife, is huge, since the former have something they do well, what can commoner.

The only tier six gestalt build i can come up with is samurai plus aristocrat, where you got something notably worse at melee than a fighter but have good will saves (helps with some of the most nasty stuff in game) have some useful class skills, that let him be party face at the cost of mad, and a honor code. In short tier five but not easy and i can see a claim for being the low end of the tier, a 5.5


tier 3 to 2 is also a pretty big jump, i wonder if the dread necromancer/beguiler combo would work, both are full casters and both have useful class features that make them better at there era of expertise than a sorcerer, each suffers from limited spell options, but each spell list can supplement the other to give each class a lot of flexibility, through it lacks wish and a lot of utility spells (including the spells needed for scry and die) so does not have quite the flexibility of sorcerer/favored soul, on the other hand it very good at action economy thanks to it necromancy giving it more bodies than the party, has massive endurance thanks to a massive reserve of spell slots, that means it can keep casting (prehaps very useful if one gets quickened meta magic which would require a feat for rapid metamaigv) so it is better at straight forward combat but lacks the flexibility, would be a odd fit but good have it role. Maybe bard, factotum, and if pathfinder is allowed, unchained summoners, can add flexibility or more actions(which help so much in combat, something able to punch above it ECL can solve many issues no other character can solve and means other ch)

Not sure if tier 3 need a trigestalt to break the tier, but it the one that i would not bet versus and feel confident.

as for adding tier up to six, neat idea but wizards could be better melee/skillmonkeny than ones who pick bard, who whole point is a jack of all stats, the adding of extra roles can ruin the gish flow of many tier 3 classes i worry, maybe if some negative la equal to highest tier, minus one, it might be balanced

I’ve been doing a fair bit of analysis and I strongly believe that any reasonably optimized gestalt will raise the tier functionally if not definitionally. That is to say, any T3 with a compatible gestalt will perform at or above the level of a T2. That they will outperform (In terms of combat and utility) the higher tier on about as many levels (Or more) as the higher tier will outperform them. In almost all cases you can go up a tier by gestalting with a Tier 5. Two T3s for T2 is easy.



I disagree. I think this is theorycrafting taken to extremes.

I absolutely agree that the Tiers roughly measure comparative power. But the difference between a sorcerer and wizard in play is probably less than the difference between a fighter and a samurai. I would happily take a favored soul//sorcerer in a game with big 3 casters, but honestly I would happily play a Sorcerer//hexblade or Favored Soul//Divine mind in a party with a Wizard or a Cleric. I think any T3 in a gestalt with a synergistic class is very likely to play comparably with a T2.

Can i see any of your analysis.
It is worth noting that samurai is actually on the top of tier 6, it another level vs commoner

What your opinion of la, is a sorcerer a match for a wizard when one level higher or two, some of my thoughts at fixing tier via LA (negetive la to be precise since positive LA is just a pain at low level) ,Wizards unlock spells a level quicker, so one la does not do much, ECL two higher however would allow the sorcerer to cast at a higher spell slot than wizards at even level which would leave them well balanced, as for samuari not sure two level enough to allow them to catch to fighters at the 5plus levels that normally factor into tiers, fighters just get to many extra feats, more skills and less mad.