Min/Max Boards

Gaming Discussion => D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder => Topic started by: JaronK on November 08, 2011, 10:13:08 PM

Title: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: JaronK on November 08, 2011, 10:13:08 PM
Thanks to Soundwave for doing the work of porting this over for me.

This is the third repost of this thread, which gets locked occasionally for going over 50 pages.

Introduction

(click to show/hide)

The Tier System

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

Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite (Spell to Power Variant)

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

Examples: Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges), Erudite (No Spell to Power)

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

Examples: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psychic Warrior

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

Examples: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Zhentarium Variant)

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

Examples: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight, CW Samurai (with Imperious Command available)

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

Examples: CW Samurai (without Imperious Command available), Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner

And then there's the Truenamer, which is just broken (as in, the class was improperly made and doesn't function appropriately).  Highly optimized (to the point of being able to spam their abilities) a Truenamer would be around Tier 4, but with lower optimization it rapidly drops to Tier 6.

Now, obviously these rankings only apply when mechanical abilities are being used... in a more social oriented game where talking is the main way of solving things (without using diplomacy checks), any character can shine. However, when the mechanical abilities of the classes in question are being used, it's a bad idea to have parties with more than two tiers of difference.

It is interesting to note the disparity between the core classes... one of the reasons core has so many problems. If two players want to play a nature oriented shape shifter and a general sword weilder, you're stuck with two very different tiered guys in the party (Fighter and Druid). Outside of core, it's possible to do it while staying on close Tiers... Wild Shape Variant Ranger and Warblade, for example.

Note that a few classes are right on the border line between tiers.  Duskblade is very low in Tier 3, and Hexblade is low in Tier 4.  Fighter is high in Tier 5, and CW Samurai is high in Tier 6 (obviously, since it's pretty much strictly better than the same tier Warrior).

JaronK
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: JaronK on November 08, 2011, 10:13:18 PM
FAQ:

Q:  So, which is the best Tier?

A:  In the end, the best Tier is the Tier that matches the rest of your party and appeals to you.  If your party is Fighter, Rogue, Healer, Barbarian, then Tier 4 or 5 is going to be the best.  If your party is Sorcerer, Beguiler, Crusader, Swordsage, then Tier 2-3 will be best.  Really, if you're having fun and no one in the party feels either useless or overpowered, then you're doing it right.  Personally, I prefer Tier 3, but I still match to whatever party I'm in if I join after other characters are created.

That said, here's something that might help some DMs decide which tier is best for their campaigns:

(click to show/hide)

Q:  Why is my favorite class too low?  It should TOTALLY be much higher!

A:  Remember, you're probably more experienced with your favorite class than with other classes.  Plus, your personality probably fits well with the way that class works, and you probably are better inspired to work with that class.  As such, whatever your favorite class is is going to seem stronger for you than everyone else.  This is because you're simply going to play your favorite class in a more skillfull way... plus you'll be blinded to the shortcomings of that class, since you probably don't care about those anyway (they match with things that you as a player probably don't want to do anyway).  As such, if I did this right most people should think their favorite class is a little too low, whether that class is Fighter or Monk or Rogue or whatever else.  If everybody looks at this system and sees that one or two of their favorite classes are a tier or so too low, but most other stuff looks about right, I consider it a success.

Q:  I totally saw a [Class X] perform far better than a [Class Y] even though you list it as lower.  What gives?

A:  This system assumes that everything other than mechanics is totally equal.  It's a ranking of the mechanical classes themselves, not of the players who use that class.  As long as the players are of equal skill and optimize their characters roughly the same amount, it's fine.  If one player optimizes a whole lot more than the other, that will shift their position on the chart.  Likewise, if one player is more skilled than the other, or campaign situations favor one playstyle over another, classes can shift around.  Remember, this is a rough ranking and a guideline, not a perfect ruler.

Q:  So what a minute, how can I use it then?  My players all play differently.

A:  First, determine what you'd say is the average optimization and skill level in the group, then make adjustments for people who are noticably different from that.  I can't give examples of skill level, but here's an example for optimization.  Imagine for a moment that your party has a Cleric with DMM: Persistant Spell, a Fighter with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack, a Beguiler with a Mindbender dip and Mindsight, and a traditional Sword and Board Fighter.  Now, the first three are pretty optimized, but the fourth is pretty weak.   So in that case, what you've actually got is a Tier 1, a Tier 3, a Tier 5, and a Tier 6, with that second Fighter being Tier 6 because he's far less optimized than the rest of the group.  However, if your group is instead a healbot Cleric, a Beguiler who hasn't figured out how to use illusions effectively, a Sword and Board Fighter, and a Shock Trooper/Leap Attack Fighter, then the charge based Fighter is the odd one out.  Bump him up a Tier... maybe even 2.  So now you've got a Tier 1, a Tier 3, a Tier 5, and maybe a Tier 4.  Remember, this whole thing is about intra party balance... there's no objective balancing, because each campaign is different.

Also, a simple way I've used it is this: in my regular gaming group, I've got one player who optimizes like crazy and likes making characters for other players.  And then I've got a bunch of people who make their own characters, and they're less optimized.  I can therefor tell people that they can be a Tier 4 class if they let him make their characters, or Tier 3 if they make their own.  It's worked out pretty well.

Q:  Why didn't you rank this from best to worst, like Wizard first, Archivist second, and so on?  Why tiers?

A:  There are too many variables in the game to actually rank the classes from best to worst.  If the DM allows the Archivist to just research any spell he wants and is including the Divine Magician and Divine Bard varients in his game, plus the other ways for Archivists to get all Wizard/Sorcerer spells, then the Archivist is clearly stronger than the Wizard.  If not, the Wizard may be stronger than the Archivist.  Factors like that, plus questions of which books are allowed, what the wealth by level is, and what access to magic shops is allowed to the players... these things make it impossible to make a specific ranking of best to worst without assuming a heck of a lot, and I wanted this system to work for the vast majority of games.  As such, I ranked them in tiers of power... regardless of the general campaign, an Archivist and a Wizard will be reasonably close to each other in power, and both will be far stronger than a Monk, for example.  I do still have to make a few basic assumptions, such as that player skill and optimziation are reasonably close and that for the most part RAW is being played, but that's about it.

Also, the purpose of this system isn't to say "X class is the best!"  It's to allow players and DMs to maintain intraparty balance... for that purpose, tiers are specific enough.

Q:  So what exactly is this system measuring?  Raw Power?  Then why is the Barbarian lower than the Duskblade, when the Barbarian clearly does more damage?

A:  The Tier System is not specifically ranking Power or Versitility (though those are what ends up being the big factors). It's ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in any given situation. Highly versitile classes will be more likely to efficiently apply what power they have to the situation, while very powerful classes will be able to REALLY help in specific situations. Classes that are both versitile and powerful will very easily get what they want by being very likely to have a very powerful solution to the current problem. This is what matters most for balance.

For example, here's how the various Tiers might deal with a specific set of situations, cut to spoilers due to size:

(click to show/hide)

That's really what the Tiers are about. How much does this class enable you to achieve what you want in a given situation? The more versitile your power, the more likely that the answer to that question is "a lot." If you've got tons of power and limited versitility (that's you, Sorcerers and charging Barbarians) then sometimes the answer is a lot, but sometimes it's not much. If you've got tons of versitility but limited power (hi, Rogue!) then it's often "a decent amount." If you've got little of both (Commoner!) then yeah, it's often "it doesn't."

And of course reversing that and applying it to DMs, you get "how many effective options does this class give for solving whatever encounters I throw at them?" For Commoners, the answer may be none. For Fighters, it's sometimes none, sometimes 1, maybe 2, but you generally know in advance what it will be (if he's got Improved Trip and a Spiked Chain and all that, he's probably going to be tripping stuff, just a hint). For Wizards, it's tons, and they're all really potent, and you have no idea how he's going to do it. Does he blind the enemy army or assassinate all its leaders or turn into a Solar and just arbitrarily win the battle? There's no way to know until he memorizes his spells for the day (and even then you might not see it coming).

Q:  But what about dips?  I mean, I rarely see anyone playing single class characters.  What would a Barbarian 1/Fighter 6 be, for example?

A:  It's pretty simple.  This system is paying attention to the fact that people are more likely to take the early levels of a class than the later levels, either because they simply don't get to a level where they'd see the late levels, or because of dipping.  Generally speaking, a mix of classes should end up being as high up as the most powerful class in the mix if it's optimized, or somewhere in the middle of the classes used if not very optimized, and below them both if it's really strangely done.  A Barbarian 1/Fighter 6 that's optimized would thus be Tier 4 generally, because it took the best qualities of a Barbarian (probably pounce, rage, and so on) and then made it stronger.  Generally, you don't multiclass out unless you get something better by doing so, so you're usually going to end up at least as strong as the strongest class.  This isn't always true, but it generally is.  Meanwhile, if you do something silly like Wizard 4/Sorcerer 4, you might end up much lower.  But assuming you're not doing anything rediculous, a combination of Tier 4 and Tier 5 classes will usually be Tier 4, though it might be Tier 5.  Similar examples would be that a Scout/Ranger is probably going to be Tier 4 (though because there's a multiclassing feat for that, it could end up Tier 3), a Monk 1/Druid X will be Tier 1, a Fighter 2/Warblade X will be Tier 3, and so on.

Q:  My players want to play classes of wildly different Tiers.  What can I do about this?

A:  Well, this will be a test of your DMing skill.  The easiest solution is to convince them to play classes that are similar conceptually but different in power.  For example, if they're currently going with Paladin, Druid, Monk, Illusionsist, then maybe you can get them to try out Crusader, Wild Shape Varient Ranger, Unarmed Varient Swordsage, Beguiler.  That would make your life a lot easier.  But if they're attached to their classes or feel that their class choice bests fits their character, then you've got a few options.  One is to see the house rule section above and try something like that.  Another is to simply provide extra support for the weaker classes... for example, perhaps more random magic items that drop are useful for unarmed strikers, while Wildling Clasps just don't seem to exist in your game.  Maybe allowing more oddball "broken" tricks for the Monk (and perhaps Paladin) while being much more strict with the Illusionist and Druid.  You can also allow more PrC options for the weaker guys... Monk 6/Shou Disciple 5/Unarmed Swordsage 4/Master of Nine 5 is fine for that Monk, but Illusionist 10/Earth Dreamer 5/Shadowcraft Mage 5 is not acceptable, and Druid/Planar Shepard is right out.   You can also make sure that the challenges being put forward suit the strengths of the weaker classes.  Something that makes good use of the Monk and Paladin's diplomacy would be advisable, for example.  A challenge where being able to run really fast is handy might work too.  And finally, you can bring the Druid and Illusionist aside and tell them the answer to the next question.

Q:  My party mates all want to play classes of wildly different Tiers.  What can I do about this?

A:  First... see if you can get them to play something closer together, as above.  If that won't work, okay.  Now, if the class you're playing is noticeably stronger than everyone else, try focusing your energy on buffing your party mates.  Channel your power through them... it helps.  If you're a DMM Cleric in a party with a Monk and Fighter, try persisting Recitation, Lesser Vigor, and Righteous Wrath of the Faithful instead of Righteous Might, Divine Power, and Divine Favor.  You're still very powerful, and definitely getting results, but since you use your party mates to get those results, they feel useful too.  Also, let them shine in their areas.  If they're melees and you're a Cleric, don't turn into Godzilla and smash Tokyo.  It's not polite.  Focus on the other areas a bit more.  If one of them is playing a Rogue, using Divine Insight to beat him on skills isn't nice.  Let him have his fun, and save your spells for other areas if you can.  If, however, you're playing a weaker class, then optimize optimize optimize!  A CW Samurai is going to have a lot of trouble in a party full of Tier 3s and up, so maybe try being a Necropolitan CW Samurai 10/Zhentarium Fighter 10 with Imperious Command, Eviscerator, Improved Critical, and a pair of Lifedrinker Kukris.  Carve out a niche where you're the king... they can have everything else.  Also, make sure you've got something to do when you do have to sit out.  Give your character a drinking habit or something.

Q:  Why does it matter if a class has broken abilities?  Won't a DM just nerf that anyway?  Shouldn't you just ignore broken abilities when ranking classes?

A:  It actually matters a great deal if a class has broken abilities (such as flowing time Genesis, Planar Binding Wish loops, and so on).  This system is designed to help DMs and players know what kind of power is coming their way, and if a DM is blindsided by something broken that's a serious problem.  I'm not going to tell someone that a Sorcerer is weak because I'm assuming their best spells are all nerfed... I'd rather warn them that Sorcerers have overpowered abilities, so that they look more closely at the character sheets of Sorcerers that are playing in their game and watch out for such stuff.  Remember, not everyone has the same opinion of "broken" and nothing ticks a player off more than having a DM tell them their neat trick that they were counting on is overpowered and suddenly banned.  Ever seen a Sorcerer who took Shivering Touch and Spectral Hand and has been holding those in reserve for a few levels suddenly use those on a Dragon, only to have the DM suddenly say "no, that's broken, you can't use those spells?"  It's not a pretty sight, and I'd like to avoid that.

So again, this is a system that ranks classes before such nerfing.  Tier 1 and 2 class can easily do game breaking things, and DMing for those classes does require checking to make sure the player won't do anything silly (with good players, this is a simple matter of asking them to use their judgement.  With munchkins, you have to be firm).  The fact that they're Tier 1 and 2 is supposed to warn you that some house ruling may be necessary to avoid broken campaigns if your players go a little nuts.

Q: What assumptions were used in making this system?

A:  I tried to use as few assumptions as possible, to ensure the system would apply to as many games as possible.  However, I had to use a few.  The primary assumptions are equivalent player skill and equivalent optimization level.  If one class is heavily optimized (taking the best available options, whatever best might mean in this case) and another example of the same class is not very optimized at all (taking a bunch of random options without regards to power) then obviously the same class would have two very different power/versitility levels.  Likewise, an incompetent player (or one who's simply not trying) will do far less with a powerful class than someone who's creative and knows the rules well.  I simply can't measure those factors, so the system assumes it's the same.

As far as books available, I assume that the core books are available, as well as whatever book the class appears in.  Obviously, few people play a Dread Necromancer without Heroes of Horror.  For all other sources, I tried to count them based on how commonly used I thought they were.  For example, the Complete series of books are very often used, so I factored in the Barbarian's access to the Lion Totem with the assumption that it would usually be available.  However, 3.0 books like Book of Exalted Deeds are far less likely to be used, so I didn't really factor in the Healer's ability to cast Consecrated Spells out of that book much when ranking that class.  Usually this doesn't actually matter all that much (a Core Wizard is to a Core Rogue as an all books Wizard is to all all books Rogue), but for some classes it matters a great deal... these classes are listed separately (such as the Binder, which gains a TON of power with access to the online official WotC material, and is thus listed at both Tier 2 and Tier 3).

House Rules

The first time I posted this I was asked about potential house rules that might help balance out the Tiers a bit more.  This post will be on that topic.  First, some quick and dirty house rules that are easy to implement:

(click to show/hide)

JaronK

Why Each Class is in its Tier

Hopefully I'll eventually expand this post, but for now I can at least link this resource:  http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5070.0
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: JaronK on November 08, 2011, 10:13:45 PM
Additionally, here's a write up on the Factotum.
Here's how combat went the first time a friend of mine picked up a Factotum (never having played before). He was just released from being captured (plot point to get him into the game) and thus had absolutely no gear at all, just the mundane clothes on his back. If he was anything like a Rogue, he should have been unable to fight, but he was thrown directly into combat, and here's what he did, and note that this is an 8th level Tiefling Factotum:

First, he made a rediculously high Escape Artist check to get out of his bindings (he was supposed to be just waiting for us to rescue him). Then he sneaks down the hall. Coming around the corner, he saw a bad guy right in front of him at the opening to a courtyard where the rest of the party was battling. So, on his initiative (it was an ongoing battle) he gets a free standard action with his Factotum abilities and Alter Selfs into an Advespa, which he had learned about with a quick google search for "Alter Self Forms." This gives him 5 natural attacks, 7 Natural Armour, and a flight speed. Then he full attacks the bad guy in front of him, getting a little sneak attack in for good measure. Next round, as our party is cleaning up pretty good and the Sorcereress just glitterdusted the guy and an enemy near him, the guy ran, getting away around a corner... but the Factotum just used an extra standard action to get to the corner, then charged him and used sneak attack to finish him off.

Now, this is simply not something a naked Rogue does.

Now, you can call an 8th level character using Alter Self to gain natural AC and natural attacks TO, but since it was used in game, it's clearly not, nor is it even overpowered (it's still light duty Wild Shape). Yes, Wizards using Alter Self at level 3 to get +8 Natural AC for 30 minutes is overpowered. But Factotums can't do that sort of thing until 5, at which point the Druid already has Wild Shape, which is an equivalent ability at level 5 and continues to get far better, outpacing Alter Self dramatically as the levels increase

Meanwhile, there's the old Iajuitsu Focus thing. Yes, OA was updated for 3.5, and yes, Factotums have ALL skills as class skills, including Autohypnosis and IF. The ability to take extra standard actions and, when you need, add your Factotum level to your check once in a while makes this incredibly potent. You can draw a weapon (usually with the eager enchantment if you can get it, since generally speaking Factotums have a better place to spend feats) in the surprise round (gained through hiding, or casting invisibility, or whatever), partial action charge the enemy, and deal IF damage. Then, if you want, use an extra standard action to hit them again. Then, if you win initiative, use an extra standard action to sheath your weapon while you move up to another enemy, then draw it and full attack, dealing IF damage a second time (and if you want to add sneak attack damage, you could do that too). I don't know why some people don't think IF should count... that's exactly what the Factotum's forte is (using any skill he wants). And of course an item that gives Sapphire Nightmare Blade is exceptionally cheap.

And then of course there's the spellcasting. While he has few spells per day and they're way behind a Wizard, he's got four big advantages here.

First and formost, he can gain extra standard actions, and can do it a LOT if he takes the Factotum only feat that, well, he almost certainly will take. Saying that feat doesn't count because it's in a weird place is silly, since the Factotum itself is in a weird place so you're already looking through weird places, and the "weird place" is the Class Chronicals about Factotums anyway. That's not hugely weird. The result is that he can combo spells together, which can be extremely useful.

The second advantage Factotums get with spells is that unlike Wizards, they can use the entire list without needing a spellbook. That means that if a Factotum suddenly realizes he needs spell X, that's exactly what he's going to have ready for the next day... plus he doesn't have to spend tons of his wealth by level on a spellbook. This is huge in games like World's Largest Dungeon, or just games where the situation changes a lot.

And the third is that his spells are actually spell like abilities, meaning they always have a standard action casting time. He does have to pay component costs and can't use exp cost spells, but the standard action thing is VERY good with some spells, for example Major Creation or any other spell balanced by its slow casting time.

And fourth, he can ignore SR whenever he wants, starting from level 11. Just think about that one for a second.  Consider how many spells are balanced by the fact that at least SR can stop them, and then realize that when a Factotum does it, he can ignore that.  Cast Spectral Hand and Shivering Touch in the surprise round, touch attack the dragon with it, and ignore his SR for the purpose, which would be his only defense?  Sure.  And you've even got the Factotum's advantages in sneaking up on him, just stay out of the range of his Blindsense (unless you have Darkstalker of course).

So, another way a Factotum could fight (we've been through two already, turning into a powerful combat form and using Iajuitsu Focus for damage boosting) would be to combo useful spells together. One easy example is Cloudkill with Solid Fog, making a fog of death that enemies can't escape from quickly enough. And remember, you can cast the whole combo in the surprise round if you want. Very nasty. You could even cast Animate Dead in the middle of a battle if you so desired, due to the casting time decrease. No one ever expects the skillmonkey to pull that move off.  And the above mentioned combination of Spectral Hand with any potent touch attack.  All this and the ability to ignore SR whenever it suits you is pretty darn incredible.

The important point is that everything I've stated here is just a Factotum with a few Fonts of Inspiration. That's it. I haven't discussed gear other than the side note about using Sapphire Nightmare Blade, or race (though the Advespi thing only works if you're an outsider... that particular character happens to be a Tiefling... but you can use other forms if you're another race). And those were just some examples of what a Factotum can do (I haven't even gone into Turn Undead or his healing abilties or his ability to ignore DR, or his ability to eventually mimic any three Ex class abilities from 15th level characters... how about 10d6 sneak attack, 10d6 sudden strike, and full flurry of blows? Or would you prefer Pounce? You know what else is Ex? A Fighter's Bonus Feats, and you probably just gained 10 of them because you just gained the bonus feats ability of a fighter of your Factotum level. Now, technically spellcasting itself is Ex, but we'll ignore that for now). I haven't gone into his defense either... the ability to simply ignore any damage that would take him to 0 or less hitpoints for 4 Inspiration Points is pretty freaking awesome, as as Int to AC in any armour if he needs it (though his later version of the ability requires light armour). And who doesn't like the ability to add your class level to any save when you want it?

And of course, all of that was just combat. We haven't even gotten started on out of combat.

Out of combat you're much like a Rogue, except that unlike a Rogue you can pump Int without worrying (Rogues have to care about their Dex a lot more if they want to survive, and their poorer defense makes Con that much more critical). This means your higher int will make up for the skill point difference. Then you've got both Int and Dex (and both Int and Str) to skills that require Str or Dex, the ability to add your Factotum level once per day to any skill you've got a point in already, and of course the ability to cast nearly any Wizard/Sorc spell, though admittedly a few spell levels behind the big boys. This can mean scouting an area while Alter Selfed into a Whispergnome or Skulk for better hide and move silently, using Autohypnosis to automatically memorize every detail you see, and then sneaking back. Or just using a divination spell. You've got such spells as Knock and Silence to help out too. And that's just the scouting aspect.  Plus, while Rogues are constantly hoping to find useful gear to use with UMD, Factotums can actually do item crafting on their own if they want.

There's a reason Factotums are in Tier 3 in my system, and in fact they're pretty high in Tier 3. They've got so much innate flexibility it's obscene... inexperienced DMs thinking they're weaker could get VERY surprised but how much a Factotum can alter himself to suit a situation perfectly.  Put a Factotum in a group with a Rogue and that Rogue ends up looking like dead weight plenty of the time (any time where the situation calls for one skill monkey to do something). And the Fighter? The Factotum can often outclass him too, sometimes dropping whole encounters in the surprise round and start of the first round. And he can do all of it without warning, adapting on the fly to the situation in front of him.  Certainly, when I watch the one that's currently grouped with my Dread Necromancer (plus a Sorcerer, Cleric, Swordsage, and Paladin of Tyranny/Hexblade) there's no way he's the weak link.

So yeah, really potent, really flexible class that can REALLY surprise a DM.
Title: A more accurate Tier list for classes
Post by: SorO_Lost on November 09, 2011, 12:45:47 AM
I think a consolidated, corrected, version of this is handbook material.

Why?
The above write up is riddled with bias. The guy who wrote them did it as a rebuttal to why his favorite Classes are better than the rest and because of that, he flip-flops validations on just about every other Class. The Barbarian, despite being mathematically suppar to even the Fighter, is listed along Spellcasters because once per day the Barbarian can produce decent charge-based numbers. Examples are convoluted with specific Feats or ACFs like a Dungeoncrasher Fighter is listed above a Fighter despite dealing less than a standard charger and requiring more Feats to combine the damage with an normal attack than a charge+Trip combination that prevents full-attack retaliation of awards other party members to-hit bonuses. Exact Classes must be listed but several are or were unnoted (the monk in the original release) while his favorite is over talked about (the factotum is literately post #3 in sixteen paragraphs) to the point it's in need of being watched as much as a Cleric or Sorcerer (T1 & 2 per his own list). He also says the Paladin is capable of *only* doing one thing and very poorly at that. Which I guess is based on ignoring things like healing the party's aliments, buffing and protecting allies, supportive combat augmentation, and secondary combatant capable of flight. The whole thing is a load of bullshit that taints our forum to this very day.

Alternative Suggestion
The Tiers of D&D are based on Spellcasting and access too it. Since spells are better than anything else in the game - They allow you to warp, alter, and screw reality in various ways - measuring the amount of access allows for quick categorization of ACFs, PrCs, Feat combinations, odd Racial Traits and even entire builds on the fly almost instantly.

Tier Rankings
6: Skill based. Commoner, Expert, Samurai.
5: Mundane warriors. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk.
4: Partial casters. Artificer, Adapt, Hexblade, Paladin, Ranger, Spelltheif.
3: Focused casters. Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Martial Adapts, Warmage.
2: Full casters. Favored Soul, Psion, Sorcerer, Wu Jen.
1: Elitists. Cleric, Druid, Wizard.
0: Gods. StP Erudite, Illthid Savant, Pun-Pun, Rocks fall & you die.

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Soundwave on November 09, 2011, 02:31:30 AM
I prefer the more in depth explanations JaronK outlined. The list's purposes where outlined in the first few paragraphs. Your truncated list does not provide the same nor similar context. Nor does it provide a guide for its use.

A consolidated version of this would lack the tools to provide a constructive resource, instead providing exactly the opposite kind of message the thread sought to deliver.

I believe keeping the thread intact best supports the original intent and spirit of the material.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: SorO_Lost on November 09, 2011, 03:22:53 AM
I didn't say my sig based explanation was to replace things or be posted in Handbooks now did I?

I was talking about the original post(s) that you copied. You know, like dropping that entire section on Factotum. Maybe even fix errorous listings in classes (if T6 imperious command makes you T5?) and a couple Q/As could use revision like the whole power question is better fit as part of the tier explanation. If you're up for it you could deliver and explain the whole system without as much text yet still keep the context in it's entirety.

Oh, and instead of tossing into the board about optimizing a character, it can go into the board about articles helping players & DMs don't you think?
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Soundwave on November 10, 2011, 01:52:51 AM
Quote
If you're up for it you could deliver and explain the whole system without as much text yet still keep the context in it's entirety.


A consolidated version of this would lack the tools to provide a constructive resource, instead providing exactly the opposite kind of message the thread sought to deliver.

I believe keeping the thread intact best supports the original intent and spirit of the material.

Quote
Oh, and instead of tossing into the board about optimizing a character, it can go into the board about articles helping players & DMs don't you think?

Brilliant Gameologists Forum > The Thinktank > Min/Max It! > Tier System for Classes

The forum I copied the thread from, seemed best to place it in the same here.

If you would like to engage in a discourse about the rankings of classes within the tier structure by all means begin a dialogue. Always willing to discuss differences of opinion.

Beyond that though I'll consider your questions about the Tier list answered.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Bastian on November 11, 2011, 12:13:47 PM
Did you get permission from JaronK to bring this over? He's still active so its not like porting over LoP's old stuff.

Edit:For those just reading this, this post is addressed to Soundwave, who originally started this thread.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Soundwave on November 11, 2011, 12:47:04 PM
Negative. I followed this line on the board News:

"The old boards were full of junk! We're starting over! You CAN access everything on the old boards though at http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/, so copy/paste what you want on over. "

I dont have any method of contacting the creator, i did a search a few times for the name here but nothing yet. So far I've been trying to backup everything useful I can find on the old forums. Working on a complete copy of the previous forum so nothing will be lost.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Mooncrow on November 11, 2011, 12:54:15 PM
I know that he's still posting on GitP - I haven't asked him if he's coming over or not though.  I'm planning on starting with the older/abandoned handbooks and working my way up. 
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Soundwave on November 11, 2011, 12:59:19 PM
I found his tier list by complete accident the first time i read something on the Gitp forums. Led to me to BG and I've been a fan of his ever since :D I hope he does continue, if you know him would you mind asking about it? (thread and so on)
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: JaronK on November 11, 2011, 04:11:48 PM
Was going to copy this over eventually anyway, so thanks for doing the work for me!

JaronK
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: RelentlessImp on November 11, 2011, 04:17:27 PM
Oh goodie. It's back. Sure to be as valuable a contribution as it was the first time around.

If you would, remove the quote tags and bold the relevant parts, while making them a larger font size. It won't guarantee anyone reads them and takes them to heart, but it might help cut down on a few of the arguments.

Quote
the only balance that really matters in D&D is the interclass balance between the various PCs in a group

Quote
This post is NOT intended to state which class is "best" or "sucks."  It is only a measure of the power and versitliity of classes for balance purposes.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Prime32 on November 11, 2011, 04:35:28 PM
Was going to copy this over eventually anyway, so thanks for doing the work for me!

JaronK
If both of you agree to it, I can transfer the post to you.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: JaronK on November 11, 2011, 04:39:21 PM
I don't really care either way, honestly.  Your call.

JaronK
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Basket Burner on November 11, 2011, 04:39:29 PM
I think a consolidated version of this is handbook material.

Even if tier placement is disagreed on for your favorite shitty melee class and riddled with personal bias worse then Tony Stark talking about Ironman and/or his penis (see barb, dungeoncrasher, skipped the monk, huge block of text on factotum). The over all concept of tiers in D&D is generally similar enough that even with their wide use people understand what you mean.

I parodied this in my last signature, yet it's quite accurate.
Quote
Tiers break down into who has spellcasting more than anything else due to spells being better than anything else in the game.
6: Skill based. Commoner, Expert, Samurai.
5: Mundane warrior. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk.
4: Partial casters. Adapt, Hexblade, Paladin, Ranger, Spelltheif.
3: Focused casters. Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Martial Adapts, Warmage.
2: Full casters. Favored Soul, Psion, Sorcerer, Wu Jen.
1: Elitists. Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard.
0: Gods. StP Erudite, Illthid Savant, Pun-Pun, Rocks fall & you die.

I think he's onto something.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Soundwave on November 11, 2011, 04:42:44 PM
Im all for it prime, I try and make sure everything I copy has its author source anyway you might as well :D
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: SorO_Lost on November 11, 2011, 04:57:39 PM
Of course I'm up for it being in the handbooks, but you probably guessed that by now :p

Edit - Hey, what a minute, the post was moved to discussion. I suppose that works too.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Prime32 on November 11, 2011, 05:29:03 PM
*zaps posts*
Might want to edit out the start, Jaron. :p
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Maat Mons on November 14, 2011, 12:17:20 AM
If you would, remove the quote tags and bold the relevant parts, while making them a larger font size.

I'd favor an overhaul of the formating.  Something like this.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: wilconran13 on November 18, 2011, 12:30:13 AM
Like the Idea of tiers. Personally think that bards, monks and Paladin's are a few tiers too low, but that probably just my favorite classes.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Solo on November 18, 2011, 12:34:25 AM
Bard (tier 3) can't be tier 2 because it just can't compete with the other stuff that is in tier 2.

Likewise for monks and paladins.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: lans on November 18, 2011, 12:44:18 AM
The Monk has several ACFs and variants that can up it a tier or two when you stack almost all of them.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: TravelLog on November 18, 2011, 11:37:29 PM
For tier two it says "Eurdite" rather than "Erudite". Sorry to nitpick.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: SorO_Lost on November 19, 2011, 05:57:38 PM
The Monk has several ACFs and variants that can up it a tier or two when you stack almost all of them.
Is the Monk even on the list yet? :p

Tiers isn't a D&D exclusive term and JaronK's messed up list isn't the goto standard. And as the other board proved, it doesn't matter what the community debated on the ranking of a class, JaronK wasn't going to change it. For you that's probably a problem, for new DMs it's misleading, for me I updated the section that needed updating in as little as eight sentences, because really the class examples are not the big part and I got to highlight what magic can do for you. Everyone who has ever played a fighting game online (or in an arcade) is aware of tiers between large sets of characters, while specifically no one agrees on the ranking everyone at least agrees Shin Akuma is cheap, eer Wizards are powerful which makes the list understandable even if it is horribly inaccurate.

What is useful is an explanation of how the tiers would interact with the problems throw at them from the DM, and for each player to readily recognize the imbalance and settle into a gentleman's agreement with each other. And that's the reason it has stayed so popular, it delivers an explanation of what to expect. The concept really is spot on which simply is great, details could improve but they won't so just move on.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Soundwave on November 19, 2011, 06:37:00 PM
Quote
Is the Monk even on the list yet?

It's been on the list since before the first time you mentioned it.

Quote
Tiers isn't a D&D exclusive term

Irrelevant.

Quote
and JaronK's messed up list isn't the goto standard.

By most sources it is. Find me an alternative list with a larger view history or one thats referenced more often and I'll happily retract this statement.

Secondly,
Quote
And that's the reason it has stayed so popular, it delivers an explanation of what to expect.

So you are in fact aware of it being the "goto list" of tiers.

Quote
And as the other board proved, it doesn't matter what the community debated on the ranking of a class, JaronK wasn't going to change it.

Incorrect. Said list was updated and adjusted based on feedback given by the people participating in the thread.
Quote
Everyone who has ever played a fighting game online (or in an arcade) is aware of tiers between large sets of characters, while specifically no one agrees on the ranking everyone at least agrees Shin Akuma is cheap, eer Wizards are powerful which makes the list understandable even if it is horribly inaccurate.

Irrelevant and incorrect, The smashboards community had  and continues to have a widely accepted tier list.

Final NTSC Tier list for SSBM: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=294748
Current Tier list for Brawl(horrible game imo): http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=294748

Streetfighter: http://streetfighter.wikia.com/wiki/Tier_List

Infact most fighting games DO have tier lists to gauge the strengths and weakness of various characters or "classes" these serve MANY purposes for those of us involved in the fighting game community as well as those looking to understand the mechanics behind games in a more in depth fashion.

Not everyone is required to agree over time however a general consensus has been shown to arise. Threads just like this one are integral in those discussions.

You seem to be applying your concept of what a tier is for in direct contradiction to what the lists author wrote his intentions were.

See the introduction Here: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0

Am I the only one nonplussed by seeing these attempts to deliberately mislead people or derail topics to further a personal vendetta against the original poster? After reading through your post history on the previous board it just comes across as quasi ambulance chasing  :-\

Edited for sources and clarity.

Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: JaronK on November 19, 2011, 07:07:49 PM
For tier two it says "Eurdite" rather than "Erudite". Sorry to nitpick.

Fixed it. 

And I really should get around to rating the Monk ACFs, but I haven't played with them.

JaronK
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: ImperatorK on November 19, 2011, 09:53:47 PM
What would each of the tier 4 classes need to become tier 3?

(Should I make a separate thread for this question?)
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: SorO_Lost on November 19, 2011, 10:42:03 PM
<snip>I will argue with you over tiers in every thread possible. I am a devoted and loyal follower and I will highlight every mention of you saying this is useful and throw it in your face at any criticism you have.</snip>
Neat.

And I really should get around to rating the Monk ACFs, but I haven't played with them.
Is it bad that as much as I like the Dark Moon Disciple I still have yet to play one for it? >.>

Sucker someone into it over in the Play-By-Post.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Basket Burner on November 20, 2011, 07:39:12 AM
Tiers isn't a D&D exclusive term and JaronK's messed up list isn't the goto standard. And as the other board proved, it doesn't matter what the community debated on the ranking of a class, JaronK wasn't going to change it. For you that's probably a problem, for new DMs it's misleading, for me I updated the section that needed updating in as little as eight sentences, because really the class examples are not the big part and I got to highlight what magic can do for you. Everyone who has ever played a fighting game online (or in an arcade) is aware of tiers between large sets of characters, while specifically no one agrees on the ranking everyone at least agrees Shin Akuma is cheap, eer Wizards are powerful which makes the list understandable even if it is horribly inaccurate.

I'm going to have to agree with this. Jaron has his own ideas of how things work. Some of them are on target, others are incredibly off base. Such as freaking out about encountering at level creatures in their natural environments and them using said environments to their advantage. I have my own ideas as to how tiers work, but since it goes against the groupthink I suspect it will be a waste of my time to write it out.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: veekie on November 20, 2011, 08:17:02 AM
It remains a useful list of differentiation, and works just as well across game types as a means of quantifying power. Up to T4, its a simple matter of power, above that its a measure of versatility.
Of course, the actual metric isn't exactly linear, things do work in two axis after all.
Power's metric cuts off at T4, but it has a similar spread(just that +infinite damage is the same as +enemy health damage) in practice. You can say that T4s have enough power to solve a problem(namely a fight), that T5s do not have enough power to solve a problem, but theres no measure for having power in excess of solving the problem, and power in massive excess on their own.

Versatility's metric likewise, starts at T4 and goes up from there. T4s can deal with one issue, then T3s multiple, and T1s any issues.

Two axis is a bit hard to quantify though. You often see Power without versatility(just about every fighter 'fix'), but the inverse is more common in other games.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Soundwave on November 20, 2011, 10:34:45 AM
I would argue versatility in DnD at least in regards to combat IS power. The bigger the toolbox a class has access to the more versatile and the more likely one will have access to the correct tool at the correct time.

Thus the most versatile classes with the largest toolboxes are therefor the most powerful. Which brings us to a tier list such as the above.

@ BB: I've read many of your posts as well and would love to see a treatise of your own on the matter. Threads like these are an excellent place for exactly that kind of discussion. I'm certain any write up you put your attention to would be worth a read.

@Imperator: An excellent question, Can we as a group agree on some criteria for such a thing? As I see spell progression as a comparatively large toolbox of sorts I would posit that as a potential source but perhaps others might have suggestions as well?

Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: veekie on November 20, 2011, 01:39:43 PM
Naw, look at the Tiers again.

High Versatility, Low Power - Basic Truenaming, its flexible to be sure, but without effort put into optimizing your check you aren't going to be affecting much with it. If you lower Versatility to below average, you have the monk as well, it has a bunch of options but none of them do jack.
High Power, Low Versatility - Frenzied Berserker, its enormously powerful...at the one thing. And just that one thing. Reduce the power and you get the Fighter, which can be pretty good, but just at the one thing, and only just at that.
High Power and Versatility - T1s, especially the druid, cleric and artificer, with extremely broad day-to-day versatility, and generally stronger stats as well. Reduce versatility a little and you wind up with T2s. Reduce both to medium and you get T3s.
Low Power and Versatility - At the extreme end here you have the Samurai and Commoner, who can't do anything.

So both metrics agree on their extreme ends:
T5s and below have neither versatility nor power.
T1s and above require both versatility and power.
Some T5s have versatility, but not the power to back it up in any of their approaches. Jack of all trades without enough power at any trade.
Some T2s have power but not the versatility, sorcerors and the like have enough raw spell access to get a lot of bang, but not enough to get ALL of the bang.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: ImperatorK on November 20, 2011, 01:58:41 PM
I've made a topic to discuss what lower tier classes need to become higher tier. It's here (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1411.msg12467#msg12467).

@ Veekie
Your post says what are tiers about. I'm asking what a specific class needs to increase tier. To you it may be obvious, but I'm not that versed in D&D philosophy to come up with it myself, that's why I'm asking.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Basket Burner on November 20, 2011, 02:05:43 PM
It remains a useful list of differentiation, and works just as well across game types as a means of quantifying power. Up to T4, its a simple matter of power, above that its a measure of versatility.
Of course, the actual metric isn't exactly linear, things do work in two axis after all.
Power's metric cuts off at T4, but it has a similar spread(just that +infinite damage is the same as +enemy health damage) in practice. You can say that T4s have enough power to solve a problem(namely a fight), that T5s do not have enough power to solve a problem, but theres no measure for having power in excess of solving the problem, and power in massive excess on their own.

Despite my conflicts with Jaron, the concept of tiers is sound. Just he draws the dividing lines in the wrong places, for the wrong reasons, and comes to the wrong conclusion based on those tiers. 3 up is primarily defined by what it can do. 4 down is primarily defined by what it cannot do. The correct conclusion here is to stick to 3 up, not that anything works in the right game.

As for the lines between tiers themselves, 6 essentially can't do anything. 5 is either a one trick pony or those who can't do much (only not in 6 because 6 is the NPC class tier). 4 is the better one trick ponies, as the ones that try to do more than one thing here still don't work that well. 3 up you start encountering diverse characters.

In terms of specific entries, skills are overvalued by the tier system, and the lines between classes at 3 up are way off. If it's based on 1s having plenty of TO material, 2s having some and 3s not having any that's not true as there is plenty of TO to go around. If it's based on spells Beguilers have most of the same offensive and defensive options as Wizards, TO material excluded. Conversely, Duskblades have no special defenses and only damage for offense and Warblades aren't much better. If it's based on access to game breaking tricks anyone can get most of those if you're counting them as a valid metric.

As a short summary though, saying higher tier = more and better spells is generally accurate. Likewise, skills being low tier is also quite accurate, assuming that they are all you have. If not it's just a non significant part of your character.

Just look at what characters do. Now a Warblade is going to be a DPS character, same as many others. What differentiates him from his other, lower tier brethren is defense and support maneuvers so that he is somewhat less squishy. He is also better able to get off full attacks due to Sudden Leap, etc meaning he can better use the tools that he has.

A Beguiler is going to have a bunch of different save or loses. Many, but not all of these are mind affecting. They're also going to have an array of defensive spells. In short, they're not going to play that differently than a Wizard in combat, except that they have a better base casting mechanic, and they're not as good out of combat.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: X-Codes on November 20, 2011, 02:07:01 PM
Like the Idea of tiers. Personally think that bards, monks and Paladin's are a few tiers too low, but that probably just my favorite classes.
Paladins have a well-designed first 5 levels.  Beyond that, it goes to complete shit.  It's really so bad, that you kinda have to take an ACF for that terrible Remove Disease ability just to justify the Paladin as a Tier 4 class, otherwise it's extremely limited spellcasting makes it look more like a Fighter in terms of power level, especially since MAD is making their Strength/Constitution lower than a Fighter's.

I think the Divine Bard really should be put up for consideration as a Tier 2 class.  The Wisdom requirement to learn spells is a non-nerf, since Bards already want 15 Wisdom for Words of Creation, anyway and it still has bonus spells/spells per day based off Charisma.  Changing the spells from Arcane to Divine opens up the possibility for DMM: Persist, and makes it easier for the Bard to qualify for classes that grant domains, filling in a few holes in his spell list.  Also, the variant itself adds some real spectacular spells to his list, even if they are delayed compared to a Cleric, most notably is Commune (read: a significantly more powerful version of COP, but with a small XP component attached).

Monks are right at home at Tier 5, though.  Aside from Wildshape Monk (which is strong for the same reasons as Wildshape Ranger is strong) and Martial Monk (which is, frankly, still only good for a 2-level dip), none of the ACFs really give Monks anything that can't be done better by a Tier 4 class.  Even the highly acclaimed Dark Moon Disciple sub-levels, really the only thing that might make the Monk Tier 4, can be done better by picking up a Collar of Umbral Metamorphosis, or just plain getting the Dark template.

What would each of the tier 4 classes need to become tier 3?

(Should I make a separate thread for this question?)
Possibly.  I have some answers I could throw out there that would take many pages.

Quote
Psychic Warrior
YAY!
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Sinfire Titan on November 25, 2011, 12:26:35 AM
One of the things about the Tier system is that Tiers are subjective when in the presence of optimization skill, and this is one of the most common complaints leveled towards the system. I would like to start a project where we catalogue the "tier ranges", or how optimization affects an individual class' tier (before PrCs), in a way that people can understand that Tier 2 does not always mean Tier 2.

Would anyone be interested in helping out with this (as it will require reviewing each individual class and determining their spectrum)? I will explain more if there are enough voices wanting to pitch in.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: zugschef on November 25, 2011, 01:42:16 AM
there should be a tier list modeled after the following three questions:
1. is it easy to build?
2. is it easy to play?
3. is it easy to break?
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: veekie on November 25, 2011, 05:37:20 AM
Well, the metrics here are base tier power(played naive, sticking to the fluff suggestions), maximum power(which runs up against the issue of character vs class derived power and how much you could probably get away with in an actual game) and effort to gain ratio. Looks pretty hard to quantify into a neat numerical ranking. Theres also ease of actual play.

Though I guess a number and a letter might work. Number for the 'tier spread', anchored to the 'base' optimiality. Letter for the effort to gain ratio.
So for example cleric might be T3B2, as played naive(heal+buffbot) its going to be performing at T3, has one of the lower effort to gain ratios(effort involved: pick spells) and goes all the way to T1 when all effort is put in.

Seems to me it might be too complex to be easily digested though.
EDIT: Might make more sense to have the second number be the maximum tier and the first the minimum though. Easier to read.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Gavinfoxx on November 27, 2011, 08:39:25 PM
You should add some of the information in the 'base class reference and tier information' thread into this main version...
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: DavidWL on November 28, 2011, 01:51:06 AM
For the record:  JaronK has, I would argue, a very reasonable tier system, based on quite good (but not amazing) optimization.  He has be behaved both reasonably and intelligently.

If you have a problem with the placement of one of the classes in the tiers, google for it, and if it hasn't been addressed before, start a thread, and we can all discuss the specifics.

Best,
David
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: SorO_Lost on November 28, 2011, 05:13:36 AM
Well, the metrics here are base tier power(played naive, sticking to the fluff suggestions), maximum power(which runs up against the issue of character vs class derived power and how much you could probably get away with in an actual game) and effort to gain ratio. Looks pretty hard to quantify into a neat numerical ranking. Theres also ease of actual play.
The genius part is things don't change all that much.

For instance you rank the Cleric T3XYZ because it heals. Well, when? During combat wouldn't even validate that T3 mention once they have access to Heal which does out scale a monster's damage. Negating the entire attack sequence of a monster is virtually better than trying to use a debuff to the same effect since they could bring their SR or Saves into account. It's a far cry from the best option, but Clerics also naturally obtain Save or Die spells they can utilize during the first round, as well as summon spells and even dangerous Mark spells which can be precast on items and tossed (seen here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html)) or even carried in hand and dropped as a free action. And just what is it they do out of combat besides solve you're problems? Well conically, they are the only one who heals or raises dead other than the depreciated Healer. Pretty unreplaceable I'd say. So pretty much end back up exactly where they started, more useful than most other classes.

Take the Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, all they do is fight. Everyone has combat talent, even domesticated animals, D&D is a combat oriented game. They struggle to even preform their role too, ever seen a Barbarian forgo charging? Did he come close to the power of Strikes? How about non-attack/damage effects? Truth is, they still suck and have to optimize to keep up with the Druid's spellbuffed pet.

And things don't change all that much in maximum power either. Which one is "stronger", Wizard or Sorcerer? More spells vs knows them all and learns the a level sooner. No real contest. You'll find placement is again the same. A few nitpicks on certain classes could be found if you really got into the details, under any generalized measurement, but the average comes out to the same thing. If anything, the additional details prompt people to argue those points opposed to a more generalized description.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Kethrian on November 30, 2011, 07:02:07 AM
I'd still like to see Dragonfire Adept get added to the list.  Probably ranks the same as warlock, though the Entangling Exhalation feat vastly improves their BFC.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Gavinfoxx on November 30, 2011, 01:41:07 PM
The thing is, classes like Dragonfire Adept and other more obscure classes WERE added to this list... or at least a version of it:

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11714.0
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: jywu98 on March 01, 2012, 05:19:38 PM
What tier would the Psionic Artificer be?
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Prime32 on March 01, 2012, 06:01:27 PM
What tier would the Psionic Artificer be?
An artificer is Tier 1. A psionic artificer is an artificer who can also craft psionic items, without losing any of his existing abilities. So... yeah.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Basket Burner on March 01, 2012, 06:44:58 PM
What tier would the Psionic Artificer be?
An artificer is Tier 1. A psionic artificer is an artificer who can also craft psionic items, without losing any of his existing abilities. So... yeah.

Huh? I thought they crafted psionic items instead of magical ones. I completely missed that?
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: veekie on March 01, 2012, 09:39:12 PM
Psionic-Magic transparency, the only difference goes to the Infusions, which don't matter a whole lot to the Artificer's tier anyway.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: jywu98 on March 01, 2012, 10:13:39 PM
Psionic-Magic transparency, the only difference goes to the Infusions, which don't matter a whole lot to the Artificer's tier anyway.

Could you explain better? I'm not very familiar with it.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: veekie on March 01, 2012, 10:32:06 PM
Basically, any psionic effect can have a magical equivalent and vice versa.
While normally you would still need to find a suitable substitute power as prereqs, the Artificer bypasses the prerequisite with class features, so is able to create any magic item as their psionic equivalent. Differences do appear though, particularly with spell trigger/spell completion items(since theres not always an equivalent psionic power), which might lose mileage, but not enough to drop a tier.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: jywu98 on March 13, 2012, 10:35:57 AM
Isn't Rokugan third-party?
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Mooncrow on March 13, 2012, 07:10:03 PM
Isn't Rokugan third-party?

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to with your question, but the original 3.0 Oriental Adventures was published by WotC.  So, while all of the other Rokugan material is 3rd party, the first book is not. 
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: isinghar on April 09, 2012, 10:09:35 PM
into which tier is the Divine Mind ranked?
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: lans on April 10, 2012, 07:43:56 AM
I think its tier 5, but most people put it at tier 6
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Garryl on April 10, 2012, 10:53:40 AM
If the Paladin is T5 as anything other than a 2-5 level dip, then I don't see why the Divine Mind wouldn't be also. Less dippable, but comparable manifesting to the Paladin's spellcasting, and the mantle powers aren't too shabby. The auras are barely worth mentioning, but you get multiples later on so they can add up to something non-trivial. Not really strong or anything, but good enough that you won't want to forget them (at least, if your baseline comparison is the Paladin).

They also have one poorly written ACF that gets them lots of high level Astral Constructs as a PLA. A level 9 AC 1/day at level 10 will actually make up for a fair bit (my numbers may be off slightly since I haven't read the ACF in a while, but it's somewhere in that range).
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: SorO_Lost on April 11, 2012, 08:27:35 AM
Isn't Rokugan third-party?

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to with your question, but the original 3.0 Oriental Adventures was published by WotC.  So, while all of the other Rokugan material is 3rd party, the first book is not.
Same with Dragonlance, sort of. First book was published by WotC and the company that worked on it went on to publish their own, however they did have official WotC endorsement making it 2nd party like the Dragon Magazine.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Jackinthegreen on August 24, 2012, 09:06:20 PM
Has there ever been mention of the three Incarnum classes in the tier list?
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: lans on August 25, 2012, 11:07:10 AM
There is some debate on them
Soulborn is considred tier 5
Incarnate and Totemist are both considered either 3 or 4. I haven't seen a list put them both as 3 or 4, so it might be personal bias towards or against one.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Scottzar on October 07, 2012, 06:15:41 AM
This is a serious question: in a high CO, non TO game, isn't it agreed that a paladin should be routinely outperforming warblades and the like? Swift action spells + Standard time Wizard Casting + DMM shenanigans + good ACF's (e.g. MFK) are > manoeuvres as far as I know.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: InnaBinder on October 07, 2012, 08:42:19 AM
This is a serious question: in a high CO, non TO game, isn't it agreed that a paladin should be routinely outperforming warblades and the like? Swift action spells + Standard time Wizard Casting + DMM shenanigans + good ACF's (e.g. MFK) are > manoeuvres as far as I know.
That appears to be a matter of a specific build in a specific environment, rather than the paladin class in general, and has not been generally agreed, to my knowledge.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Jackinthegreen on October 29, 2012, 04:17:02 PM
This is a serious question: in a high CO, non TO game, isn't it agreed that a paladin should be routinely outperforming warblades and the like? Swift action spells + Standard time Wizard Casting + DMM shenanigans + good ACF's (e.g. MFK) are > manoeuvres as far as I know.

The tier list assumes decent/middling optimization, not high-end.  On the extreme high end of things a paladin can certainly perform to that level thanks to all the supplements.

For anyone reading that is curious what MFK is, it's Mystic Fire Knight from Champions of Valor.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: malonkey1 on February 21, 2013, 11:40:12 AM
From Magic of Incarnum, I'd say Totemist is solid Tier 3, possibly Tier 2, due to their obscenely huge number of natural attacks, and numerous other potent Soulmeld abilities.

Incarnate is probably Tier 3-4, has some decent abilities and versatility, but it isn't overpowering.

Soulborn is Tier 5, possibly Tier 6 if you're being really mean. They have some of the versatility of Meldshapers, but their Soulmeld list isn't very good, and they're pretty much only half-meldshapers. Like Fighters, they can be excellent at their specialization, but not a huge amount of good elsewhere.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: InnaBinder on February 21, 2013, 07:21:47 PM
From Magic of Incarnum, I'd say Totemist is solid Tier 3, possibly Tier 2, due to their obscenely huge number of natural attacks, and numerous other potent Soulmeld abilities.

Incarnate is probably Tier 3-4, has some decent abilities and versatility, but it isn't overpowering.

Soulborn is Tier 5, possibly Tier 6 if you're being really mean. They have some of the versatility of Meldshapers, but their Soulmeld list isn't very good, and they're pretty much only half-meldshapers. Like Fighters, they can be excellent at their specialization, but not a huge amount of good elsewhere.
Totemists don't really have anything that breaks the game, which is necessary for Tier 2 by my understanding.  That puts them squarely in Tier 3, I'd think, which is where I most often see them slotted.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: linklord231 on February 21, 2013, 07:28:25 PM
Keep in mind that if you think your class is Tier X, it's probably X-1.  Everybody optimizes their preferred class above what might be considered "standard."
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: veekie on February 22, 2013, 06:58:55 AM
From Magic of Incarnum, I'd say Totemist is solid Tier 3, possibly Tier 2, due to their obscenely huge number of natural attacks, and numerous other potent Soulmeld abilities.

Incarnate is probably Tier 3-4, has some decent abilities and versatility, but it isn't overpowering.

Soulborn is Tier 5, possibly Tier 6 if you're being really mean. They have some of the versatility of Meldshapers, but their Soulmeld list isn't very good, and they're pretty much only half-meldshapers. Like Fighters, they can be excellent at their specialization, but not a huge amount of good elsewhere.
Totemists don't really have anything that breaks the game, which is necessary for Tier 2 by my understanding.  That puts them squarely in Tier 3, I'd think, which is where I most often see them slotted.
A low-ish T3 actually, along with the ToB classes, while they have access to a variety of effects, they don't really do much more than hit people a lot of times with it. Higher T3 like the bard, dread necromancer or beguiler packs in a much wider variety of utility effects and alternate attack forms, whereas if something can deal with lots of natural weapons, it more or less is stumped.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: malonkey1 on February 23, 2013, 10:30:09 AM
A low-ish T3 actually, along with the ToB classes, while they have access to a variety of effects, they don't really do much more than hit people a lot of times with it. Higher T3 like the bard, dread necromancer or beguiler packs in a much wider variety of utility effects and alternate attack forms, whereas if something can deal with lots of natural weapons, it more or less is stumped.

You have a good point there. Totemist is low T3. Would that put Incarnate Tier 4 and Soulborn Tier 5?
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: lans on February 23, 2013, 10:49:12 AM
I put incarnates at high tier 4, they can do a wide variety of things, but tend to only be able to do one at a time, or not very well.

Soulborns are a little under paladins for the most part. Both get smites, necrocarnum zombie<=mount,  melds=<spells.

Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: linklord231 on February 23, 2013, 01:55:31 PM
I put incarnates at high tier 4, they can do a wide variety of things, but tend to only be able to do one at a time, or not very well.

Soulborns are a little under paladins for the most part. Both get smites, necrocarnum zombie<=mount,  melds=<spells.

Soulborns Don't get the splat support that paladins do though.  A Soulborn is a little worse than a core only paladin, but significantly worse than an "anything goes" one.  Maybe not enough to drop all the way to Tier 6, but I'd still put them mid Tier 5 at the highest. 
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: veekie on February 24, 2013, 12:20:07 AM
Actually, looking at the Incarnate and Soulborn, they would either be a very low T3 or T5. They don't meet the narrow domain effectiveness requirements to be classified as T4.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: lans on February 24, 2013, 08:52:14 AM
Actually, looking at the Incarnate and Soulborn, they would either be a very low T3 or T5. They don't meet the narrow domain effectiveness requirements to be classified as T4.
I disagree

Quote
Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining.

The incarnate can do a lot, just exceptionally well.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: veekie on February 24, 2013, 09:01:53 AM
The question is if it meets the reasonable competence condition I suppose.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Agita on February 24, 2013, 11:01:40 AM
The question is if it meets the reasonable competence condition I suppose.
It's up there, yes. It doesn't do its various things well enough to be up in T3 with the Factotum, but I'd put it at a solid-ish Tier 4. Soulborn goes a bit lower than Paladin, I think, since Smite optimization should still apply but a lot of other goodies don't, so I'd put it at a mid-T5 or so. It certainly doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the Samurai.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: ImperatorK on March 24, 2013, 08:57:43 PM
What tier would be Bard with access to Wizard/Sorcerer spell list for his spells known? I'm thinking about homebrewing/houseruling a Wizard that's at most a strong tier 3. Bard is tier 3, but it's not versatile enough to replace the T1-2 arcane casters. I'm afraid that the additional spell lists will bring him to T2.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Jackinthegreen on March 24, 2013, 09:07:24 PM
So long as you keep 6th level spells as the highest, it'll probably remain T3.  Remember, T2 is mostly about power that just nukes the crap out of versatility, and 7th through 9th level spells are the primary culprits in that.  There might be some outliers though, especially if one goes digging through splats, so be wary of that just in case.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: ImperatorK on March 24, 2013, 09:12:41 PM
Any suggestions for a divine T3 class? And please don't say divine Bard, I'd like the arcane and divine class to be more different from each other than just by their spell lists and magic type.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Jackinthegreen on March 24, 2013, 09:44:19 PM
What spell levels would you be alright with each class having?  If it's in the 5th or 6th range then using the bard's or duskblade's casting numbers (not necessarily spells of course) might work.  If you want 9's though you'll need to have a specialized list a la Dread Necro and Beguiler if you want it to stay T3.

And it might be better to split this off into a new thread now that it's not looking like it's about a curiosity of new spell access.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: ImperatorK on March 24, 2013, 10:01:26 PM
Here. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=9416.msg152031#msg152031)
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on March 24, 2013, 11:13:39 PM
Shugenja is probably a tier 3 divine class. Full casting but off a very limited list and doesn't get any of the really problematic spells (planar binding/ally, genesis, gate, etc.)
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: ImperatorK on March 24, 2013, 11:18:11 PM
That's counter to my goals.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Weaveshear2012 on May 12, 2013, 12:30:58 PM
Now , let's get back to psionics. In which tier should Wilder be ?
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Kethrian on May 12, 2013, 08:10:33 PM
Wilder should be tier 2.  Has access to those big game-breaking powers, but very small selection.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: malonkey1 on May 14, 2013, 01:35:24 PM
Wilder should be tier 2.  Has access to those big game-breaking powers, but very small selection.

Agreed. Psions get 36 powers while Wilders get 11, and get their high-levels at lower levels than Wilders, but they certainly outclass Psychic Warriors
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Demelain on May 16, 2013, 11:10:05 AM
What classes aren't on this list, anyway? Wilders (being discussed presently), Wu Jen, Shugenja, and Spirit Shamans come to mind.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Samb on May 18, 2013, 08:11:27 PM
If all you wanted was manifesting and reality bending then wilder would rank higher than wilder would rank higher than psions just due to wild surge granting more ML and PP recharge trick.

Is there a comprehensive list of the rankings so far?
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: veekie on May 19, 2013, 02:07:29 AM
The ranking isn't based on that, it's more focused on how well a given character can solve game situations. The wilder can trivialize a smaller set of situations than the psion due to a smaller set of powers known, as both already have enough 'oomph' to win through in terms of power.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Dromuthra on March 11, 2014, 03:04:19 PM
Wilder should be tier 2.  Has access to those big game-breaking powers, but very small selection.

Agreed. Psions get 36 powers while Wilders get 11, and get their high-levels at lower levels than Wilders, but they certainly outclass Psychic Warriors

Does this mean that Ardent should also be Tier 2?  It isn't listed either.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: eleazzaar on April 01, 2014, 08:13:22 PM
It occurred to me that another way you could even out power levels, relatively painlessly is by placing a level limit on problematic classes and PRCs.

For instance if you wanted a game to center around tier 3, you could making it know that the player couldn't take more than 6 levels of a L1 classes and nor more than 10 levels of any tier 2 classes.  I'm just picking those numbers out of the air, but it is less drastic that forbidding whole classes, still allows dips, and is pretty easy on the DM and players.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: MeanFightingGuy on April 12, 2014, 07:31:28 AM
Hello there, aaaaand first actual post.

I have a couple of questions regarding the character tiers.
If these questions are out of place, just point me in the direction where they aren't.

1) Pretty simple: The monk is usually considered one of the weakest classes. However, when I first had a look at the PHB, I considered a high level monk seriously overpowered in comparison to other frontline fighters (this means higher tier classes and their vastly superior versatility are taken out of this particular equation). Am I just misinterpreting things and the common stance on this is "well, on a larger scale, they're equally crappy, so who cares?" or is the (pure) fighter better in the end because he can come up with some serious business-combination of feats?

2) Just by browsing through the board, I've noted that it oftentimes is stated "don't take more than x levels in fighter (or whatever); if you want to play a melee character, you should rather take levels in [additional class from another handbook] or [prestige class from another handbook] and you probably may get up to t4 or t3 if you're lucky" - isn't it just seriously flawed game design if I need to grab as many sourcebooks as I can just to be somewhat competitive, and even then can't hold a candle to another core class? And what is there to do if someone did for whatever reason *not* have access to basically each and every source book?

3) Which leads to 3. Okay, my first impression from the PHB was that, in comparison to AD&D, some classes got seriously needed upgrades. The warrior got from a weaker ranger (albeit with weapon spec, followers and no alignment restriction) to a master of arms and weapon styles, the rogue got from a backstabber with some shady abilities to the undisputed master of skills on top of that etc. Okay, I neglected the stealth buff to casters (namely that they basically removed their spell level cap by practically guaranteeing them that they will always have the necessary primary stat value needed at any given level), but nevertheless, casters apparently have been vastly superior to non-casters for decades. How come the designers never seemed to bother that much about it?

4) Just out of curiosity - assuming I wanted to avoid having a character with access to (high level-)magic that is nevertheless somewhat competitive, and thereby allow creating non-magical gestalt classes. At what tier would you place a full warrior/rogue gestalt (warrior HP + BAB, rogue skill points, core skills, abilities and additional stats for both classes, armor restriction in regards to the usage of skill and dexterity bonus nevertheless applies)?

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: sirpercival on April 12, 2014, 07:52:29 AM
Hello there, aaaaand first actual post.

I have a couple of questions regarding the character tiers.
If these questions are out of place, just point me in the direction where they aren't.

1) Pretty simple: The monk is usually considered one of the weakest classes. However, when I first had a look at the PHB, I considered a high level monk seriously overpowered in comparison to other frontline fighters (this means higher tier classes and their vastly superior versatility are taken out of this particular equation). Am I just misinterpreting things and the common stance on this is "well, on a larger scale, they're equally crappy, so who cares?" or is the (pure) fighter better in the end because he can come up with some serious business-combination of feats?
What do you think makes the monk a better frontline fighter? MAD means their Strength is lower, which means less damage and attack; they have worse BAB than other frontline fighters; they have a smaller hit die than other frontline fighters, which along with MAD means fewer hit points; it's more expensive to equip them with appropriate gear thanks to the magic item pricing rules; and their class features are not synergistic.

Quote
2) Just by browsing through the board, I've noted that it oftentimes is stated "don't take more than x levels in fighter (or whatever); if you want to play a melee character, you should rather take levels in [additional class from another handbook] or [prestige class from another handbook] and you probably may get up to t4 or t3 if you're lucky" - isn't it just seriously flawed game design if I need to grab as many sourcebooks as I can just to be somewhat competitive, and even then can't hold a candle to another core class? And what is there to do if someone did for whatever reason *not* have access to basically each and every source book?
Yes, it's flawed game design. A lot of the homebrew fixes on this board try to deal with the imbalance between mundane classes like fighter and the spellcasting classes (or even classes that get real class features). If you don't have access to every source book, then look through the ones you do have and try to fin something that fits your character concept but has better performance than a fighter. Or, play in a group with lower-tier builds. Fighter is fine if he doesn't have to keep up with a druid in the same encounters.

Quote
3) Which leads to 3. Okay, my first impression from the PHB was that, in comparison to AD&D, some classes got seriously needed upgrades. The warrior got from a weaker ranger (albeit with weapon spec, followers and no alignment restriction) to a master of arms and weapon styles, the rogue got from a backstabber with some shady abilities to the undisputed master of skills on top of that etc. Okay, I neglected the stealth buff to casters (namely that they basically removed their spell level cap by practically guaranteeing them that they will always have the necessary primary stat value needed at any given level), but nevertheless, casters apparently have been vastly superior to non-casters for decades. How come the designers never seemed to bother that much about it?
Most of the designers have poor grasp of the numbers for their game. They paid no attention to optimization or appropriate use of resources.

I'm not answering 4 because I suck at tiering classes XD
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Kethrian on April 12, 2014, 08:03:21 AM
I'd just like to add that the monk and fighter classes share the same tier.  Neither is terribly more powerful than the other, both are pretty damn weak overall.  Also, monks suffer from a severe lack of synergistic abilities, such as high movement rate and flurry, where if you utilize one of those in a round you can't make use of the other.

And as for the fighter/rogue gestalt, I'd estimate it falling in the high tier 4 - mid tier 3 range, depending on build.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: MeanFightingGuy on April 12, 2014, 08:56:10 AM
What do you think makes the monk a better frontline fighter?
Just by looking on the baseline abilities. After all, the 7 attacks for 1d20 each somehow bugged me. But then again, I didn't take the fact into account that the warrior benefits a lot more from better gear back then.

Quote
Most of the designers have poor grasp of the numbers for their game. They paid no attention to optimization or appropriate use of resources.

They should seriously have tried to turn their game into an MMO and look how the different classes with their spells, feats and abilities would have panned out  :D
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: SorO_Lost on April 12, 2014, 11:04:00 AM
What do you think makes the monk a better frontline fighter?
Just by looking on the baseline abilities. After all, the 7 attacks for 1d20 each somehow bugged me. But then again, I didn't take the fact into account that the warrior benefits a lot more from better gear back then.
Gear is what makes Mundanes useful at level 1, it just doesn't scale very well and in a couple of levels no one cares.

You were right in your initial assessment the Monk is better than the Fighter, but they are both fundamentally on the same Tier.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: RMcD on May 09, 2014, 02:54:14 PM
Took me quite a while reading before I realised this was 3.5 and not Pathfinder, can anyone send me over to the Pathfinder list?
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Jackinthegreen on May 09, 2014, 03:25:26 PM
Took me quite a while reading before I realised this was 3.5 and not Pathfinder, can anyone send me over to the Pathfinder list?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pathfinder+tier+list
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Kethrian on January 01, 2015, 06:50:22 PM
Just noticed no one ever answered about what tier the spirit shaman should be.  That's actually quite easy, it's tier 1.  Sure, spirit shaman is a spontaneous caster, but they get to choose their list of spells known fresh each day, much like a mem caster can memorize their spells each day, giving the class the access to the entire druid spell list each rest.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Keldar on January 01, 2015, 09:58:14 PM
Agreed.  The Druid list may be the weakest 9 level list, but its still enough to get the druid to Tier 1, and the Spirit Shaman has it with the best casting arrangement in the game.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: linklord231 on January 02, 2015, 01:33:24 AM
Maybe, but I feel weird calling it Tier 1 when the Druid is so blatantly superior.  I think the Druid outclasses the Spirit Shaman to the same extent that a Wizard outclasses a Sorcerer or a Cleric outclasses a Favored Soul.  I'd put them at Tier 2. 
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Keldar on January 03, 2015, 01:18:37 AM
Class comparison is largely irrelevant for tiers.  Spirit Shamans get all sorts of campaign wrecking spells, and have all the versatility of any other tier 1 for spell access.  With the added advantage of spontaneous casting day to day.  Wildshape and Animal Companion are powerful as hell, but are largely irrelevant for what makes druid a solid tier 1.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Jackinthegreen on January 03, 2015, 03:03:01 AM
Yup, it's more about the casting mechanics.  Spontaneous with a limited number of spells known is going to be T2 at best unless there are ways to cast spells that aren't taken as spells known.  In PF that's Sorcerer or Oracle with Paragon Surge for example.

The way Spirit Shamans cast is unique and has its pros and cons...  Like if you know you only need one specific spell cast once in the day then having that single spell taking up a "known" slot can be a drag.  Then there's the metamagic stuff.  But not being so restricted with spell slots can be quite nice.

Still, I would agree with it being T1.  It's the flexibility of changing spells day to day that tends to make T1 more powerful than T2.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Nytemare3701 on November 03, 2015, 11:29:55 PM
As unwise as it is to poke Soro's pet peeves, I am putting in a nomination for Artificer as Tier 3 in a game that doesn't break WBL in any way. The reason is this wonderful little gem (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?427628-Disregard-Money-Acquire-Buff-Spells-Artificers-without-the-Artifice) I found on GiTP.

It's like a DMM Persist Cleric lite! And for once...it's a trick only artificers can do.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: SorO_Lost on June 08, 2016, 11:56:57 AM
It's like a DMM Persist Cleric lite! And for once...it's a trick only artificers can do.
There is nothing the Artificer's can do that no one else can't.

Technically speaking, once a real Spellcaster uses Wish to create a Minor Schema of Concurrent Infusions he can in turn produce all the Minor Schema of Metamagic Item he wishes or even more importantly per the MiC you can just buy them anyway as long as the city is large enough. And because Extend Spell & Persist Spell have no required Spellcasting, any Barbarian in turn can use Flaws to take the Feats, purchase some Schemas (6.4k for metamagic item plus wand/staff costs), and Persist his favorite array of buffs using a Staff or Wand the moment he can afford one without sacrificing anything other than the Flaw penalties/bonuses.

And to really get into it, you don't even need access to Eberron for that. Complete Mage has a Metamagic Wand Grip glove that functions three times per day and it can apply your Persist Spell Feat to any Wand, you just have to pay the additional charges. But cost per charge on Wands is the cheapest form of magic out there, far better than a Schema. For example at 630gp/day you can run around with Persisted Wraithstrike which is only a bit over a 2.5k investment for it to last until your next level per standard expectations (4 encounters day, 13 encounters to level). So the cost to access a Schema of Metamagic Item all by it's self is almost triple the cost of simply using Wands. And WBL pays out more than it takes to hit next level's wealth is specifically designed as a forgive-and-forget grace for some expendable resources whereas the renewing Schema is counted against you for as long as you own it.

And the fact is, both methods work without having to be a specific Class. The idea a Monk cannot use Wands is strictly tied to arguments trying to measure the value of one Class's Features over another, but in all actual game play you're going to grab whatever you like and can use. And in that, the Artificer only offers negatives but that's another story for another day.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Nytemare3701 on July 29, 2016, 06:13:39 PM
There is nothing the Artificer's can do that no one else can't.

Yes, I suppose you can replace almost any amount of functionality with enough magic items or castings of wish, but the point was that the artificer has actual class features other than crafting, that do something interesting and powerful at a reasonable level, with little to no investment. The class features/infusion list put it in the area of T3 without any items needed.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: SorO_Lost on July 29, 2016, 11:26:56 PM
Unlike Imgur, we don't have an upvote the worst post you can think of day here.

After you strip away crafting and the rest of the gp-to-item abilities such as Metamagic Spell Trigger/Completion, Retain Essence of the very literal Craft Homunculus your left with two limited Skill boosts, Trapfinding, and some Bonus Feats. Also, since Infusions generally have to be cast on an item, often a worn or currently in use one, the Artificer's Infusions logically target already powerful or useful items to begin with; because it'd be retarded to target mundane gear and change your fancy enchanted gear out for it.

You're overall point, a very poor dismissal that everyone can buy fancy stuff doesn't miswarrent the Artificer, in a broad stroke would be correct. But as your post clearly demonstrates, you have very little knowledge of the Artificer's Class Features and I find it very likely your knowledge of the Artificer's Infusion List to be just as, if not more, limited than your knowledge of it's Class Features. So please, before posting take the ten minutes to look on a D&D Tools mirror and answer some basic questions of like how does the Artificer summon, scry, mass CC, actually use save-or-dies against people that don't rely on using Dragonmarks, etc. If your only answer is "Spell Storing!" then you already failed to make your point before you even posted, because unlike you I've already gone there and had this argument multiple times with people that paid more attention to the details.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Sinfire Titan on July 30, 2016, 09:06:40 AM
SorO, we get it; You disagree with the Tiers entirely. Stop harassing people over it and start your own version of it to have these discussions.

@Nytemare: The Artifcer's infusions really do suck outside of a small handful, and even those aren't encounter-worthy (they are usually used as part of an infinite combo, IIRC). The class' power comes from 1) cheaply crafting any magic item in the game, allowing it to imitate the other Tier 1s in form if not power and 2) reducing crafting costs to the point where your WBL won't feel it when you make a Ring of Three Wishes.

They literally do nothing without the WBL.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: SorO_Lost on July 30, 2016, 10:38:02 AM
SorO, we get it; You disagree with the Tiers entirely. Stop harassing people over it and start your own version of it to have these discussions.
Psst, I didn't even mention the word Tier or imply it in that post or the one two months ago before that. It's simply been rebukes some of Nyte's inaccurate claims about the Artificer. But thanks for bringing up my disappointment with this thread for me, I can imagine how bad that could be for your implied goal so I hope your play works out for you.

Also I really want to leave this here, to primarily serve a observation of fact vs reality given the last few posts are really more about Nyte's concept of the Artificer Class instead of the factual version of the Class and maybe a quick shattering of ideals can pay out in the long run.
Quote from: http://alcyius.com/dndtools/classes/artificer/index.html
Costs are always determined using the item's minimum caster level or the artificer's actual level (if it is higher).
Technically speaking, the Artificer makes the most expensive Magical Items in the game. Doesn't that just suck if you listen to everyone else saying the Arty is the most item efficient Class in the game?
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Sinfire Titan on July 30, 2016, 10:53:26 AM
Quote from: http://alcyius.com/dndtools/classes/artificer/index.html
Costs are always determined using the item's minimum caster level or the artificer's actual level (if it is higher).
Technically speaking, the Artificer makes the most expensive Magical Items in the game. Doesn't that just suck if you listen to everyone else saying the Arty is the most item efficient Class in the game?

Feats reduce the costs. While a 20th level Artificer does have to craft the item at his actual class level, he's still reducing the price (plus who even crafts at that level? The campaign is over after a few more encounters).
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Nytemare3701 on July 30, 2016, 03:00:06 PM
@Nytemare: The Artifcer's infusions really do suck outside of a small handful, and even those aren't encounter-worthy (they are usually used as part of an infinite combo, IIRC). The class' power comes from 1) cheaply crafting any magic item in the game, allowing it to imitate the other Tier 1s in form if not power and 2) reducing crafting costs to the point where your WBL won't feel it when you make a Ring of Three Wishes.

They literally do nothing without the WBL.

I still dispute this. I've played artificers from ~lvl3 to ~lvl 20, and two of them were in games without crafting. They performed just fine in the role I chose for them (trapmonkey/utility caster)

Quote
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with..
Trapfinding, Int based, dungeoneering class skills. Infusion list has access to tools for dealing with niche combat challenges or general buffs. Sounds like a decent support/skillmonkey to me. Spell-Storing Infusion is a perfectly valid tool as well, as access to ALL spell lists spontaneously is definitely a unique skill.


@Soro. I AGREE with you that Artificers aren't amazing crafters. My Artificer handbook is made in the same style as Solo's truenamer handbook. It's a (rather silly) guide to using WBL and general crafting to reproduce other mechanics, with the Artificer slapped onto it as a thematic central point. Personally, I'd like for the illusion you are talking about (that artificer is broken as hell and shatters WBL) to die so I can play the class more often. Maybe I should remake that guide as a "serious" guide and remove the artificer from it entirely. Keeping the name though (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=11948.0).
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: SorO_Lost on July 30, 2016, 05:41:17 PM
Feats reduce the costs.
There is nothing in the rules supporting the concept that crafting an item your self has any changes on Wealth By Level. DMG 135 even tells you WBL is a basis for balance and suggests that you strictly control it and even the official Ask Wizard response (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070303a) that even brings up crafting items for a profit gets swept under the rug and you're told the only reason the crafting Feats even exist are to explain how magic items are in game and how you should read the Magic Item Compendium for the updates on Magic Item availability.

To me, what you're doing really isn't any different than  trying to push a case that the Fighter should be useful or that Toughness should be a great Feat. You want something useless to have some kind of value and feel that such a reason into it's self is it's own supporting point. Except I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have to listen to you drone on and on if we were talking about Toughness.

While a 20th level Artificer does have to craft the item at his actual class level, he's still reducing the price (plus who even crafts at that level? The campaign is over after a few more encounters).
Who said I was only looking at level 20? At level 2 any Spellcaster with Scribe Scroll can pay 12.5gp & 0.5xp to make a new Scroll but an Artificer must use CL2 has to spend 25gp & 1xp to make the same Scroll. By the 6th level when the Artificer gets Craft Wand (a wizard gets it at lvl 5 btw) if he were to make a Wand of each available Spell Level it'd cost him him 13,500gp & 540xp compared to any other spellcaster's 8,250gp & 330xp cost.

Even if cost-reducing Feats were houseruled to work they are not Artificer exclusive. Anyone can take them, and thanks to the MiC/PHBII an entire party can split the Feat tax on crafting your items, assuming the Arcanes just don't use Embrace/Shun The Dark Chaos, Gate, or some kind of Mental Pinnacle to Psychic Reformation to access and subsequently drop the required Feats when desired for maximum efficiency. Even free XP can be obtained by anyone willing to murder an Evil Humanoid on an Evil Alter which fits the well loved anti-hero cliche.

Quote
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with..
Trapfinding, Int based, dungeoneering class skills. Infusion list has access to tools for dealing with niche combat challenges or general buffs. Sounds like a decent support/skillmonkey to me. Spell-Storing Infusion is a perfectly valid tool as well, as access to ALL spell lists spontaneously is definitely a unique skill.
Fixed your quote for you through you need to understand that it's still a pretty flimsy argument. A Samurai occasionally has the mechanical ability to win a combat-based Encounter but according to the post you pulled your quote from that doesn't prevent the Samurai from being listed as T6.

Likewise if you like we can stick to JK's dart thrown placement and still say the Artificer doesn't do one job decently by looking at the Classes that appear in the T3 & T4 lists. The Factotum & Beguiler both get the same Int-synergy for Search & Trapfinding except one has full 9ths & stealth and the other gets Inspiration & Int-to-Disable. They also get 6 Skill Points per level opposed to the Artificer's base of 4, but with UMD being absolutely required even if you ditch the required associated Crafting Skills the Artificer gets three Skills.

Dropping an entire rung to T4 the "skillmonkey" Artificer won't even pull the points the Rogue does and even through you may like his Spellstoring Infusion for being a throw-X-at-Encounters ominous win button, the Spelltheif's Steal Spell/SLA can be just as ominous, specially when casting acquired Spells into Spell Storing Arrows (infusions cannot be stored so no arty parallel), without requiring any XP investment. There is also the no PrC rule of being an Artificer. Since Item Creation and the Spell Storing Infusion explicitly use your Artificer Level opposed to your Caster Level any reliance on it also means your example of debate forgos nearly all possibility of PrCing out. So while the Spelltheif looks at the Chameleon & Hellbreaker for swapable crafting Feats & a better alternative of using stolen Supernatural Abilities to win. These T4'ers are more comparable to the Artificer than the outright superior T3ers.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Sinfire Titan on July 30, 2016, 07:20:35 PM
Quote
There is nothing in the rules supporting the concept that crafting an item your self has any changes on Wealth By Level. DMG 135 even tells you WBL is a basis for balance and suggests that you strictly control it and even the official Ask Wizard response (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070303a) that even brings up crafting items for a profit gets swept under the rug and you're told the only reason the crafting Feats even exist are to explain how magic items are in game and how you should read the Magic Item Compendium for the updates on Magic Item availability.

The "ruling", if you want to call it that, talks about SELLING those crafted items for profit. It says jack shit about using them during a campaign. The DMG also only makes a suggestion; the only concrete rules are the chart and a statement: "No adventure meant for 7th level characters, for example, will require or assume that the party possesses a magic item that costs 20,000gp". This is something that falls outside of optimization's control: We cannot determine how the WBL will be regulated.

To me, what you're doing really isn't any different than  trying to push a case that the Fighter should be useful or that Toughness should be a great Feat. You want something useless to have some kind of value and feel that such a reason into it's self is it's own supporting point. Except I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have to listen to you drone on and on if we were talking about Toughness.

You knock that shit off right now. That is outright offensive.

Quote
Who said I was only looking at level 20? At level 2 any Spellcaster with Scribe Scroll can pay 12.5gp & 0.5xp to make a new Scroll but an Artificer must use CL2 has to spend 25gp & 1xp to make the same Scroll. By the 6th level when the Artificer gets Craft Wand (a wizard gets it at lvl 5 btw) if he were to make a Wand of each available Spell Level it'd cost him him 13,500gp & 540xp compared to any other spellcaster's 8,250gp & 330xp cost.

Are those numbers before or after cost reduction feats?

Quote
Even if cost-reducing Feats were houseruled to work they are not Artificer exclusive.

Artificers and Wizards are the only ones who can select them as bonus feats. Everyone else has to spend a normal feat or DCFS (if that's allowed). And if the DCFS is allowed the Artificer can still craft the items at a lower level (any CL5 item at 3rd level, so long as it doesn't duplicate a spell effect). This is a slew of items earlier than intended.

Quote
Anyone can take them, and thanks to the MiC/PHBII an entire party can split the Feat tax on crafting your items
,

Only if the items require a feat beyond the relevant item creation feat:

Quote from: MIC, 232
It's perfectly acceptable for two or more characters to work together to create a magic item, with each character supplying some of the prerequisites. The XP cost must always be paid by the character who supplies the item creation feat.

And there are no item creation rules in PH2. At all.

Quote
assuming the Arcanes just don't use Embrace/Shun The Dark Chaos, Gate, or some kind of Mental Pinnacle to Psychic Reformation to access and subsequently drop the required Feats when desired for maximum efficiency. Even free XP can be obtained by anyone willing to murder an Evil Humanoid on an Evil Alter which fits the well loved anti-hero cliche.

The sacrifice rules are in a chapter of a book titled "Variant Rules". They're as allowed as asking the DM to use Spell Recharge when no one else is. Using them assumes the DM allows the variant at all.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: oslecamo on July 30, 2016, 08:29:02 PM
Quote
There is nothing in the rules supporting the concept that crafting an item your self has any changes on Wealth By Level. DMG 135 even tells you WBL is a basis for balance and suggests that you strictly control it and even the official Ask Wizard response (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070303a) that even brings up crafting items for a profit gets swept under the rug and you're told the only reason the crafting Feats even exist are to explain how magic items are in game and how you should read the Magic Item Compendium for the updates on Magic Item availability.

The "ruling", if you want to call it that, talks about SELLING those crafted items for profit. It says jack shit about using them during a campaign. The DMG also only makes a suggestion; the only concrete rules are the chart and a statement: "No adventure meant for 7th level characters, for example, will require or assume that the party possesses a magic item that costs 20,000gp". This is something that falls outside of optimization's control: We cannot determine how the WBL will be regulated.

The text is pretty clear. The DM is expected to keep the player's power levels in check, and bling is power in D&D 3.X. That's why they give the WBL chart. And page 51 further points out that if the party ends with too much bling for their level, the DM is expected to cut it down.

How it's up to each DM, but it will still be cutting it down.

Your argument is the same that since the DMG doesn't specify what kind of monsters the party will face, then we cannot assume the party will face any monsters at all. All those random monster encounters and monster stat blocks? We cannot determine how they will be regulated! :rolleyes
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: SorO_Lost on July 30, 2016, 09:52:32 PM
Sin, I realize that you've thrown professionalism right out the door but must I hold your hand the whole way? I have my own reputation to uphold here you know.

Anyway,
Quote from: PHBII's Web Enhancement
The following article explores several game options for transferring XP costs when creating magic items. While it may be easy enough to simply say "the fighter pays the XP cost for their own sword" a few additional considerations are discussed below.
And covered within the document are simply rules for sharing XP costs, a Spell that can be used to rip XP out of other characters as long as they agree to make the item (who gets the item or profit afterwards isn't covered), a Wondrous Item version of the Spell, and a Feat that adds a couple rituals for sharing XP costs.

Also you erroneously listed Wizard & Artificer only as having Crafting-related Bonus Feats even through I already brought up the Chameleon which through his daily swapable Feat can craft any Magic Item. And we're not talking the Core-default like the Artificer is limited too, but all Gems, Constructs, multiple Graft types, Contingencies, Scepters, Skull Talismens, Schemas, Runes, Aboleth Glyphs, Portals, even Grellcraft items and everything printed in Dragon Magazine but I have never paid attention to. - Also minor errata to my previous post, while I mentioned Psychic Reformation I somehow totally forgot to mention Feat Leeching your Cohorts. - And when in doubt,
Quote from: Silver Marches p62
Finally, a student or fellow may use the college’s laboratories and libraries for creating magic items even if she does not have the appropriate item creation feat. The character must pay a special fee equal to 10% of the market price of the item she creates. The wizard must meet all other requirements of the item to be created. For example, a wizard who wanted to create a wand of lightning bolt despite the fact she does not know the Craft Wand feat could do so by using the college’s resources—at a cost of 1,125 gp, 10% of the wand’s normal market price.
For a +10% hike to the base price it still comes out cheaper than the Artificer's rate (the wand example becomes 8,250gp material + 1,650gp fee & 330xp for spellcaster vs the artificer's 13,500gp & 540xp, and added bonus using 1xp=5gp rescale the caster pays a 11,550gp total but even fully blowing the full 6th level craft reserve of 150 the artificer still pays out 15,450gp), you can simply bypass the Feats entirely.

A&E also offers a guideline for pricing Feat-granting items making most Item Creation Feats a wearable 10k~15k investment an entire cityhost can pitch in on. You can also Charm/Gate/Simulacrum or POA a chipmonk into a Midgard Dwarf whom has a number of Item Creation Feats as a Racial Ability which also gives you a cool XP pool to draw off of once you hit it with a negative level. You know, in case somewhere inside your post you tried claiming Sacrifice wasn't allowed and didn't see an alternative source of free XPs being posted once I got home and studied for my answer rigorously by taking a three hour nap after cooking supper.
And I know you did but here is the thing. I also knew you would before you even posted, I also have a pretty good guess at what comes next too and really Sin? *sigh*
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: Sinfire Titan on July 30, 2016, 10:36:44 PM
Sin, I realize that you've thrown professionalism right out the door and are borderline tempted to abuse the crap out of your moderation powers in an effort to drag MMX's moderation through the muck to continue your very obliviously biaist point that even Ols is calling you out on but must I hold your hand the whole way? I have my own reputation to uphold here you know.

My moderation tone was used because you get very hostile, condescending, and disrespectful when trying to prove a point. I told you to simmer down and the rest of my posts have been as a normal board member; any perceived abuse of my status is made-up on your end.

Quote
Anyway,
Quote from: PHBII's Web Enhancement
The following article explores several game options for transferring XP costs when creating magic items. While it may be easy enough to simply say "the fighter pays the XP cost for their own sword" a few additional considerations are discussed below.
And covered within the document are simply rules for sharing XP costs, a Spell that can be used to rip XP out of other characters as long as they agree to make the item (who gets the item or profit afterwards isn't covered), a Wondrous Item version of the Spell, and a Feat that adds a couple rituals for sharing XP costs.

Was not aware of this. That is markedly absurd, as it allows followers and cohorts to hoof the cost.

Quote
Also you erroneously listed Wizard & Artificer only as having Crafting-related Bonus Feats even through I already brought up the Chameleon which through his daily swapable Feat can craft any Magic Item.

That's semantics and you know it (never mind that they cannot do so until 7th level at minimum).

Quote
And we're not talking the Core-default like the Artificer is limited too, but all Gems, Constructs, multiple Graft types, Contingencies, Scepters, Skull Talismens, Schemas, Runes, Aboleth Glyphs, Portals, even Grellcraft items. And while I mentioned Psychic Reformation I somehow totally forgot to mention Feat Leeching your Cohorts. And when in doubt,
Quote from: Silver Marches p62
Finally, a student or fellow may use the college’s laboratories and libraries for creating magic items even if she does not have the appropriate item creation feat. The character must pay a special fee equal to 10% of the market price of the item she creates. The wizard must meet all other requirements of the item to be created. For example, a wizard who wanted to create a wand of lightning bolt despite the fact she does not know the Craft Wand feat could do so by using the college’s resources—at a cost of 1,125 gp, 10% of the wand’s normal market price.
For a +10% hike to the base price, which is then divided in half for material costs which really only makes it +5%, which still comes out cheaper than the Artificer's rate, you can simply bypass the Feats entirely.

Your knowledge of system abuse exceeds mine, I admit that.

Quote
A&E also offers a guideline for pricing Feat-granting items making most Item Creation Feats a wearable 10k~15k investment an entire cityhost can pitch in on. You can also Charm/Gate/Simulacrum or POA a chipmonk into a Midgard Dwarf whom has a number of Item Creation Feats as a Racial Ability which also gives you a cool XP pool to draw off of once you hit it with a negative level. You know, in case somewhere inside your post you tried claiming Sacrifice wasn't allowed and didn't see an alternative source of free XPs being posted once I got home and studied for my answer rigorously by taking a three hour nap after cooking supper.

This is what I'm talking about. That condescending attitude of yours causes problems. I was not aware of Shining South or the PH2's web enhancement. In fact, there's a lot of things about this system that I don't know by heart. Stop talking down to people because you know these details and you won't meet so much resistance or aggravation from people you try to enlighten.

And while we're on the subject: Feats are not a direct measure of power. It is possible, in 3.5-legal terms, to make a Fighter 20 capable of casting 9th level spells without multiclassing or UMD. Just through feats. The Artificer may not have unique class features, but it does have a capacity to imitate the class features of Tier 1s in a way that other classes do not hold up to. In encounters, the Artificer holds up as well as any Tier 2 (if not Tier 1) with even minor optimization.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: SorO_Lost on July 31, 2016, 06:39:56 PM
My moderation tone was used because you get very hostile, condescending, and disrespectful when trying to prove a point. I told you to simmer down and the rest of my posts have been as a normal board member; any perceived abuse of my status is made-up on your end.
You know a great fix to my "condescending" attitude that you perceive? Stop assuming you're right and posing a rebuttal that gets smacked down in the post before it and maybe try asking why I consider something the way I do and maybe without the perceived dickish attitude and assumptions drawn from ignorance or outright double standards present in a post I'm responding to and I may have an all together different theme.

And while we're on the subject: Feats are not a direct measure of power.
Also Bonus Feats matter when you tried moving to cost-reduction having some kind of bearing. Your intended follow up was the Artificer can take them in his normal slots while gaining item creation Feats for free opposed to another spellcasting having to take both. I never said the Feats were useful, I've been going on about how they are worthless. And this is also something that generally provokes me, I already covered this twice now and here I am still having to repeat my self >.>

Also this;
The Artificer may not have unique class features, but it does have a capacity to imitate the class features of Tier 1s in a way that other classes do not hold up to. In encounters, the Artificer holds up as well as any Tier 2 (if not Tier 1) with even minor optimization.
Nyte's failing to make a case it should even be T3 per JK's standards and you toss all of that discussion out the window and fluff it up to claim it's T2/T1 to push things. That's intended provocation.

Also that "mimic", all you're talking about is the Spell Storing Infusion. Without knowing exactly when an Encounter to happen at low levels it can time out before it's even used which is pretty detrimental seeing how your out on XP and the Slot either way. And seeing how generally most Infusions, Spell Storing included, takes a full minute to cast if you don't have AP to actually use your Infusions in combat, and then another round to actually cast the selected Spell in the case of Spell Storing, by "Encounter" you mean vs traps that are not currently killing you. And I'm pretty sure you knew that, otherwise. Well imagine the otherwise, a guy named Sin with no knowledge on the subject is purposely provoking another poster. There is a name for that and I'm sure you can imagine it.

Remember, it takes two to argue. Just because you feel insulted doesn't mean your not insulting someone else.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: oslecamo on July 31, 2016, 07:09:44 PM
I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that an artificer takes "minor optimization" to hold up to anything when it's basically the most number-crunching class in the game. You can't do anything without permanent items that need to be prepared beforehand converting limited treasure and exp and then you also need to juggle infusions and your special unique snowflake resource measured in hundreds/thousands of units and then you have to dumpster drive through everybody's spell list.

Artificer is the excell spreadsheet class. Your sheet is gonna have more stuff written on it than everybody else's put together to do anything useful in the campaign.
Title: Re: JaronK's Tier list for classes.
Post by: SorO_Lost on July 31, 2016, 08:09:38 PM
And seconded, it takes a lot of game knowledge & optimization to make an Artificer useful and that kind of effort when put into anything will produce the same results.