@Gnaeus: as I mentioned in the barb etc thread, it might be a good idea to clearly state in the OP that JaronK's original Tier System has been tweaked and that people should read up on the new stuff before voting (provided you intended us to use the same system as in eggynack's 3.5 threads of course). That is, I believe it may impact the discussion and the voting depending on whether people are aware of the changes being introduced by this part of the 3.5 retiering voting instructions :

"A big issue with the original tier system is that, if anything, it was too specific, generating inflexible definitions for allowance into a tier which did not cover the broad spectrum of ways a class can operate. When an increase in versatility would seem to represent a decrease in tier, because tier two is supposed to be low versatility, it's obvious that we've become mired in something that'd be pointless to anyone trying to glean information from the tier system. Thus, I will be uncharacteristically word light here. The original tier system's tier descriptions are still good guidelines here, but they shouldn't be assumed to be the end all and be all for how classes get ranked."

At least in theory, what eggynack says in this post basically means that for example a hypothetical class that is extremely versatile and strong in basically all situations might be T2 despite not reaching game-breaking power within any one specific area. Likewise, I think the following (from the same post) is important to keep in mind:

"And problem solving capacity is what's being measured here. Considering the massive range of challenges a character is liable to be presented with across the levels, how much and how often does that character's class contribute to the defeat of those challenges? This value should be considered as a rough averaging across all levels, the center of the level range somewhat more than really low and really high level characters, and across all optimization levels (considering DM restrictiveness as a plausible downward acting factor on how optimized a character is), prioritizing moderate optimization somewhat more than low or high."

Quote Originally Posted by Gnaeus View Post
My Votes:
Sorcerer T1. I think the edition changes are enough to break the tier boundary. Specifically, crafting feats are now available, a lot more spells known per level if you include favored class, bonus feats and actual class features all help the sorcerer in the comparisons. Also, Paragon Surge is there if needed.

Oracle T1. (Although bottom). Exactly the same analysis as sorcerer. If you took the favored soul, made it SAD, almost doubled its spells known and let it convert to cures, added 6 powerful scaling spell likes and paragon surge, you get the oracle.
I really think these two, or at least the sorcerer, should be split into two entries depending on the human FCB and potentially some other choices (Lunar/Lore oracle?) which significantly increases power. Personally, I think for example a human sorcerer with Paragon Surge and a strong bloodline (like arcane) is T1, while say an elf sorcerer without Paragon Surge and with a weak bloodline is probably T2. And while you may try to nail down the theoretical average of the class, it wouldn't illustrate how much the real power of the sorcerer actually differs depending on one or two very specific choices. I'd like to wait on voting before split entries have been properly discussed as an alternative.

As for the two classes I'm personally more certain of:

Shaman: T1. Basically a treehugger-witch-ish prepared caster more versatile than either of its parent classes thanks to especially Wandering Spirit and changeable hexes.

Arcanist: T1. Do I really need to say why?

And finally, Psychic: ? Don't have any experience and IMO far from enough knowledge to vote.