Would this be tier 0?

[NichG]

I'd class the more rules-generous interpretations of Pun-Pun as Tier 0, because while a Tier 1 character can break the game in every way within the rules, the most generous Pun-Pun interpretations can write new rules at will.

Maybe the distinction should be 'a Tier 1 character can deal with any situation in the game at will' versus 'a Tier 0 character can change the definition of the game'.

[SinsI]

T0 is basically Theoretical Ops level, such as the Omniscificer or Pun Pun.

No, those are still Tier 1. Even DM fiat is Tier 1.

It's the usual "Win better" fallacy. If the class potentially has "I win" button for any and every encounter/campaign, the nature of that button doesn't matter - it is Tier 1.

[ryu]

No, those are still Tier 1. Even DM fiat is Tier 1.

It's the usual "Win better" fallacy. If the class potentially has "I win" button for any and every encounter/campaign, the nature of that button doesn't matter - it is Tier 1.

Wrong. Not only is there a tier 0, but also tiers -1, -2, and Pun-Pun. They are derived from the results of putting builds above tier one against each other in a natural extension of more highly optimized worlds. The fact that you aren't likely to meet more than a moderately competent wizard in-game doesn't mean there aren't things that straight-up find him quaint still buildable with PC rules.

[Flickerdart]

Wrong. Not only is there a tier 0, but also tiers -1, -2, and Pun-Pun. They are derived from the results of putting builds above tier one against each other in a natural extension of more highly optimized worlds. The fact that you aren't likely to meet more than a moderately competent wizard in-game doesn't mean there aren't things that straight-up find him quaint still buildable with PC rules.

The tier system isn't for builds.

[ryu]

The tier system isn't for builds.

Jarnok may have never bothered to take it that far. Others, however, did.

[NichG]

No, those are still Tier 1. Even DM fiat is Tier 1.

It's the usual "Win better" fallacy. If the class potentially has "I win" button for any and every encounter/campaign, the nature of that button doesn't matter - it is Tier 1.

I'd say there's still a distinction between the usual Tier 1 stuff and DM fiat. The usual Tier 1 stuff has an answer for every scenario (the 'win button'). DM fiat gets to change the question and redefine the scenario itself.

A Tier 1 character is still ostensibly responding to the things the world throws at them. They can make wide sweeping changes in a campaign setting in certain ways (e.g. Tippyverse) but they cannot decide spontaneously that the campaign is going to be about dance competitions between the lords of hell, and that the players themselves must sing in order to make attack rolls.

[gooddragon1]

Wrong. Not only is there a tier 0, but also tiers -1, -2, and Pun-Pun. They are derived from the results of putting builds above tier one against each other in a natural extension of more highly optimized worlds. The fact that you aren't likely to meet more than a moderately competent wizard in-game doesn't mean there aren't things that straight-up find him quaint still buildable with PC rules.

I was always under the impression that tiers above 3 represented flexibility while those up to 3 represented power.

The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force do 1 million points of bonus damage on any attack is still tier 3. The ability to cast from a small selection of spells (but more than warlock) of your choice is tier 2. The ability to cast from a large selection of spells of your choice is tier 1. I assumed that any spell from anywhere would be tier 0.

The tier thingy doesn't describe power past 3 though as I understand it. A wizard who deliberately prepares and casts no spells ever will likely lose a fistfight to a monk. There may be a tier -1 though which would be pun-pun with create your own abilities dm permission as that is absolutely anything ever.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Perhaps more importantly, Cooperative Metamagic/Metamagic Effect are hardly free persistent spells: they require a great deal of Spellcraft optimization. It's hard to reliably hit DC 39 Spellcraft checks (to persist a level 1 spell) at mid levels without using Item Familiar or a homebrewed Spellcraft booster item. Unless, of course, you have a spell like Improvisation or Guidance of the Avatar -- both of which this has, but Wizards don't.

Grey elf wizard 5/incantatrix 3.

Take 10, +11 ranks, +7 int, +2 synergy, +2 circumstance¹, + 7 untyped², + 8 competence³, +4 insight⁴ = spellcraft check of 51. The "cost" was a feat, two low level spell slots, and a google search.

Regarding cleric spells, UMD for wands for this wizard is +5 ranks, +0 charisma, +2 untyped², +4 insight⁴ = +11. Not rock-solid (yet), but can use the low level cleric buffs if he invests in a few wands.

1. Masterwork Tool
2. Moth Familiar, aiding another, after casting Share Talents
3. Loresong (the spell in dragon 335, not the ACF); there is also a precedent for spellcraft-boosting items, namely the Tome of Ancient Lore, which itself grants +5 competence.
4. Shape Soulmeld: Mage's Spectacles.

[amalcon]

Take 10, +11 ranks, +7 int, +2 synergy, +2 circumstance¹, + 7 untyped², + 8 competence³, +4 insight⁴ = spellcraft check of 51. The "cost" was a feat, two low level spell slots, and a google search.

This seems to prove my point that it's not exactly easy. You're specifying a race (Gray Elves are a decent race, but hardly head and shoulders above other Wizard races), using Dragon Magazine material twice, giving up resources worth 8 points of initiative (a Feat plus familiar selection, which if you use the Dragon Magazine issue with moths could be a hummingbird), assuming availability of some masterwork Spellcraft tool , and assuming that a Spellcraft check is the sort of thing your familiar can Aid Another with (Aid Another includes a DM arbitration clause, "In many cases, a character’s help won’t be beneficial..."). Sure, you managed, but by using basically every resource but homebrew and variant rules, and at significant cost (the +8 initiative delta).

Edit: For comparison, the Psycarnum Metamagic trick uses five feats (Wild Talent, Psycarnum Infusion, Midnight Metamagic, Improved Essentia Capacity, Easy Metamagic), one of which can come from race selection. Incantatrix costs one (Iron Will) plus a school of spells (more valuable than a feat) and the above optimization costs the equivalent of three (race, familiar, actual feat). Psycarnum Metamagic does come online a lot later, but it lets you make literally as many persistent spells as you like, so call that a wash.

[ryu]

I was always under the impression that tiers above 3 represented flexibility while those up to 3 represented power.

The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force do 1 million points of bonus damage on any attack is still tier 3. The ability to cast from a small selection of spells (but more than warlock) of your choice is tier 2. The ability to cast from a large selection of spells of your choice is tier 1. I assumed that any spell from anywhere would be tier 0.

The tier thingy doesn't describe power past 3 though as I understand it. A wizard who deliberately prepares and casts no spells ever will likely lose a fistfight to a monk. There may be a tier -1 though which would be pun-pun with create your own abilities dm permission as that is absolutely anything ever.

That's your benchmark for tier 0 huh? How about casting arbitrarily large and complex spell routines from all lists in the game at any given time, even if it's not your turn? Being hundreds of layers immune to death in contingencies, immunities, long term buffs, clones, replacements, and political power? Doing all this at the same time while maintaining the ability to prepare limitless damage applied in an instant to anything from stopped time? Pun-Pun is not the only thing well above a mildly optimized wizard.

[DMVerdandi]

No OP,
A deity with alter reality is tier 0.

[nedz]

I'm not sure Tier 2's definition is quite right. Tier 2 is commonly understood to contain Wu Jen and possibly Spirit Shaman. A better definition would be "can cast any spell from a broad list if you build for it or from a limited list with preparation."

No actually: It's never been clear what Tier a Spirit Shaman is. I've seen several quite long threads on this question and people normally split 50-50 between T1 and T2, with a few outsiders claiming lower tiers. Now I don't want to derail this thread into re-hashing this debate but this question is part of what led me to consider this view of the higher tiers

Casting any spell spontaneously is not meaningfully better than casting any spell with preparation. You are still in the category of "can break the game in any way you want" which is Tier 1. The fact that a wizard needs a day and this character needs an action to change loadout doesn't really make a difference for the ranking.

The only thing more powerful than being able to break the game in any way you want is DM fiat. Unless you are as powerful as the DM, you are not T0.

Tiers are about being able to meet challenges not break the game, which is why levels 5-15 are normally considered.
There are a number of challenges which being able to prepare spells in 24 hours, or even in 15 minutes, doesn't help with.
These include things like

• Encounters you couldn't predict and can't defer.
• Running out of resources, e.g. you had a spell prepared for this but have already cast it.

Also, do not confuse T0 with TO or Rule 0

[Segev]

You know, I think a more interesting exercise in theorycraft would be attempting to construct a "class" (much as the OP does) that achieves definite Tier-1 status with the barest minimum number of abilities (down to explicitly restricted spell knowledge).

While by far not likely sufficient on its own, I'm talking about something like "has Planar Ally as a spell-like ability N/day."

Just what is the barest minimum you can give a creature/class such that it will achieve T1 status in terms of sheer power and flexibility without anything extraneous at all? (I mention Planar Ally or Planar Binding because that IS an extremely versatile spell which is often used to snap the game all by itself in theoretical optimization discussions. But is it enough to be T1 all by itself?)

[Flickerdart]

Tiers are about being able to meet challenges not break the game

"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 well, can break a campaign..."

[Stella]

(By the way, the barbarian chassis isn't contributing much - they can't cast spells whilst raging and Divine Power gets you full BAB anyway.)

It does give you D12 Hit Dice and full BAB whilst inside an AMF. And illiteracy, which is tough to get otherwise. :)

Although I'd sacrifice the D12 HD for D10 HD and build it on a Fighter chassis for all the extra feats. Just because I'd be amused at what the build would look like at 18th level.

The build is horribly crippled by having to prepare spells, give them spontaneous casting with the ability to be quickened.

[gooddragon1]

You know, I think a more interesting exercise in theorycraft would be attempting to construct a "class" (much as the OP does) that achieves definite Tier-1 status with the barest minimum number of abilities (down to explicitly restricted spell knowledge).

While by far not likely sufficient on its own, I'm talking about something like "has Planar Ally as a spell-like ability N/day."

Just what is the barest minimum you can give a creature/class such that it will achieve T1 status in terms of sheer power and flexibility without anything extraneous at all? (I mention Planar Ally or Planar Binding because that IS an extremely versatile spell which is often used to snap the game all by itself in theoretical optimization discussions. But is it enough to be T1 all by itself?)

Now that would be something but somehow I doubt anyone would agree with anyone else on the interpretation.

Also, I think I might be wrong about my assignment of tier -1 as evidenced by ryu's post.

The build is horribly crippled by having to prepare spells, give them spontaneous casting with the ability to be quickened.

Actually, it can swap them out for any other at any time which is functionally like spontaneous but allows for prepared shenanigans as well.

[NichG]

You know, I think a more interesting exercise in theorycraft would be attempting to construct a "class" (much as the OP does) that achieves definite Tier-1 status with the barest minimum number of abilities (down to explicitly restricted spell knowledge).

While by far not likely sufficient on its own, I'm talking about something like "has Planar Ally as a spell-like ability N/day."

Just what is the barest minimum you can give a creature/class such that it will achieve T1 status in terms of sheer power and flexibility without anything extraneous at all? (I mention Planar Ally or Planar Binding because that IS an extremely versatile spell which is often used to snap the game all by itself in theoretical optimization discussions. But is it enough to be T1 all by itself?)

It's boring, but 'Wish as an SLA at will' is probably the simplest (in terms of characters of text) way to achieve this.

[nedz]

"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 well, can break a campaign..."

I can break a campaign with a level 1 Paladin, but that doesn't mean that Paladin is Tier 1.

[Shining Wrath]

Just as a thought for comparison.

Sorcerer with one little tweak: Can take 5 full turns per round.

I'd say that probably beats this guy.

[Renen]

You know, I think a more interesting exercise in theorycraft would be attempting to construct a "class" (much as the OP does) that achieves definite Tier-1 status with the barest minimum number of abilities (down to explicitly restricted spell knowledge).

While by far not likely sufficient on its own, I'm talking about something like "has Planar Ally as a spell-like ability N/day."

Just what is the barest minimum you can give a creature/class such that it will achieve T1 status in terms of sheer power and flexibility without anything extraneous at all? (I mention Planar Ally or Planar Binding because that IS an extremely versatile spell which is often used to snap the game all by itself in theoretical optimization discussions. But is it enough to be T1 all by itself?)

What makes a T6 class T1? GATE!!!!!!

[ddude987]

What makes a T6 class T1? GATE!!!!!!

lol Trunamer//Battledancer op

"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 well, can break a campaign..."

Tiers are singleton specialized builds that can break a campaign are not the same thing. As nedz pointed out, a level 1 paladin can break a campaign. Tiering classes should be viewed on a broader spectrum of comparison with equal optimization. A specific build may be able to hit a tier, such as level 1 wizards casting wish is probably something like tier -1, StP erudite with Rubik's find of no limit (removing the Ex thing and all that) is tier 0, as are optimized wizard builds. Tier 1 is the baseline for wizard without them purposely gimping themselves.

I suggest something like this...

Tier - requirement - example
-2 - Pun-Pun - Pun-Pun
-1 - Able to break the action economy or make it nonexistent, cast spells significantly ahead of its curve or cast spells with no limit a bit ahead of curve - Infinite action loops, wish at level 1
0 - Able to cast a wide range, most likely on multiple spell lists, with no limit on the number of castings or having a way to gain more castings per day, but being on mostly on curve with spellcasting. - StP erudite
1 - The ability to solve every type of encounter with little or no prep time. - Wizard/Cleric/Druid/RainbowWarsnake
2 - The ability to solve most types of encounters with little or no prep time, and the ability to contribute in a meaningful way to encounters not solvable alone. - Sorcerer
3 - The ability to solve one type of encounter very well, and the ability to contribute in a meaningful way to most other types of encounters. - Factotum/Beguiler

inb4hate/rage/annoyance/being ignore/"you contradict yourself"/"You're wrong"/et cetra

[Gullintanni]

I can break a campaign with a level 1 Paladin, but that doesn't mean that Paladin is Tier 1.

The tier system is not about what a level 1 Paladin with a wish can accomplish. The tier system offers a comparison between classes at equal levels of optimization.

Think of it as a bell curve. If optimization was measured on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being Pun-Pun and 1 being a Truenamer who'd taken no ranks of Truespeak, then the assumption is that if across all levels of optimization a given class is superior to another class, then it belongs in a higher Tier.

For example -- comparing a wizard and paladin, at optimization level 1, the paladin doesn't buy weapons or armor, and the wizard leaves his spellbook at home. Both classes are tier six. At optimization level 10, both classes achieve Pun Pun at some point in their career. At thresholds 2 through 9, the wizard can cast 9th levels spells and the Paladin, generally, can't. Ergo, the wizard belongs in a higher Tier.

Most classes, at the peak of TO (Or optimization level 10, for the sake of our thought exercises), can break the campaign in one way or another. Even UberChargers (Tier 4 by definition) can break the hit point dynamic with trivial effort. The Tier system isn't about TO or Non-OP, it's about the mean. The average Wizard stands head and shoulders above the average Paladin. The outliers are not particularly useful to the tier discussion.

As for the OP's character, Tier 1. At the end of the day, this character has more ways to break the game than a Wizard does, but the Wizard has enough tools in his tool box that no matter the situation, he'll be able to resolve the situation just as effectively as the character presented with trivial effort. Whether you have 100 or 1000 "I win" buttons, from a practical perspective, the results are the same.

If I were to offer a definition for Tier 0, I can't really think of one better than Pun Pun. Pun Pun doesn't resolve encounters by breaking the game. Pun Pun resolves the game, and leaves the encounters to those still struggling to optimize within the confines of a tier system.

[winter92]

I'm seconding the votes for tier 1+ instead of tier 0. Those are some nice "I'm better than a wizard" perks, but unless re-preparing spells can be done in mid-combat timeframes, it's still using about the amount of game-break a wizard is. It's actually a bit reminiscent of a much less foolish the lightning warrior (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...htning-warrior) - it's fancier than any normal base class, but shares their basic traits.

To me, the big "Tier 0" standard is the ability to break the game in some way that standard T1 casters don't have. Planar shepherd tricks, an abusive reading of Void Disciple's scrying, or Master of Many Forms + Assume SU Ability (Savage Species) grant abilities that are either much better than anything else, or simply have no in-game counters. T1 spells with spontaneous, full-list casting is grants near-arbitrary power. All are T0 to me, but I wouldn't declare even Urpriest or Iot7 to be T0.

I don't demand Pun-Pun sorts of power to apply the T0 label, but I do expect something either uniquely unstoppable, or uniquely versatile.

[Flickerdart]

I can break a campaign with a level 1 Paladin, but that doesn't mean that Paladin is Tier 1.

And this is what happens when you try to apply the tier system to specific builds.

[ryu]

And this is what happens when you try to apply the tier system to specific builds.

There is, in fact, a reason that he is ranked beyond tier -2. He is the most powerful entity the game is capable of creating.

[ddude987]

Master of Many Forms + Assume SU Ability (Savage Species) grant abilities that are either much better than anything else, or simply have no in-game counters

Shapechange does this, and that is accessible to t2 classes (I'm making an assumption that it is agreed sorc is t2). I agree with everything else stated, except T1+, I prefer going negative, but that's preference.


Can there be an agreement that specific optimized builds can reach tiers above the norm, however official classes (to-date) are not above tier 1?

[ryu]

Shapechange does this, and that is accessible to t2 classes (I'm making an assumption that it is agreed sorc is t2). I agree with everything else stated, except T1+, I prefer going negative, but that's preference.


Can there be an agreement that specific optimized builds can reach tiers above the norm, however official classes (to-date) are not above tier 1?

By that are you meaning that no class taken alone can reach above tier one, or that no base class reaches above tier 1 so long as they only put low to moderate effort into optimizing?

[Flickerdart]

tier -2

Still not a thing.

[Piggy Knowles]

Shapechange does this, and that is accessible to t2 classes (I'm making an assumption that it is agreed sorc is t2). I agree with everything else stated, except T1+, I prefer going negative, but that's preference.

Once you hit level 17 or 18, the tiers start breaking down. Shapechange tacked onto a commoner could arguably make it tier 1, and even things like the truenamer and the healer start tossing around gates in the high levels.

[ddude987]

Still not a thing.

For a class as a whole? It is not. Tiering an individual build, a potentially pointless yet doable exercise, very much in existence.