Retiering the Classes: Home Base

[eggynack]

I mean if you make the concession to reality that they EXIST and, yes, can be taken you also have to realize that the vast majority of situations involving them won't be dipping. If you wanna talk prestige classes maybe make further threads in future with specific examples brought up, what you apply them to most regularly, and what tier THOSE are with no restriction aside from one prestige per customer. That's the best compromise I can find between acknowledging reality, and not turning this into a total flustercuck. Make no mistake that's what it would be. Trust my powers of divination. Trust them.

Y'alright. The impact of this mode of analysis probably wasn't that big anyway. Certainly not worth all this. If someone comes across a specific instance that would make a ridiculous amount of sense to consider for a number of reasons, we can talk about it then, but for now I'ma ditch the whole thing. The barbarian thing doesn't seem like that instance.

[Aimeryan]

I'm out then; I'm not interested in tiering based on arbitrary restrictions. I would understand if it just wasn't feasible, but when you consider a weighting system with every further non-class level taking a huge weighting loss it very easily becomes manageable. This is no different to how you handle different levels of optimisation and ACFs.

[eggynack]

I'm out then; I'm not interested in tiering based on arbitrary restrictions.

Impossible not to do that, really. The old way was absolutely based on some arbitrary restrictions. Fewer? Possibly, or maybe there were more but they were less impactful in total. Either way, there definitely were some arbitrary restrictions, and a system that included prestige classes even more would have some too. Cause that thing that we weren't doing where every class permutation is considered would require a whole hell of a lot of restrictions to operate in any kind of reasonable way. All we're doing here is finding the arbitrary restrictions that work and make sense.

Edit: I agree with you to some extent. The original loose consideration light weighting system has logic to it. But when several people I think of as pretty good at this kinda thing are saying they're not getting it, or that it just doesn't work (which means either they're missing something or I am, and neither outcome is good), that's a seriously bad sign. It means that if someone is coming into this thread, they're going to come away with the same exact kinds of misunderstandings, or perhaps even worse ones. Or they're going to understand perfectly well that it doesn't work.

[OldTrees1]

I'm out then; I'm not interested in tiering based on arbitrary restrictions. I would understand if it just wasn't feasible, but when you consider a weighting system with every further non-class level taking a huge weighting loss it very easily becomes manageable. This is no different to how you handle different levels of optimisation and ACFs.

This tiering project has the fewest arbitrary restrictions to date of all the tiering projects. Progress doesn't all happen at once, sometimes it take a few strides to reach the destination.

[GilesTheCleric]

I'm out then; I'm not interested in tiering based on arbitrary restrictions. I would understand if it just wasn't feasible, but when you consider a weighting system with every further non-class level taking a huge weighting loss it very easily becomes manageable. This is no different to how you handle different levels of optimisation and ACFs.

If you'd like to try and change the process here, you could argue for your position. I listed a decent number of reasons against your position that you could respond to, or you could write up an independent argument.

[remetagross]

I'm out then; I'm not interested in tiering based on arbitrary restrictions. I would understand if it just wasn't feasible, but when you consider a weighting system with every further non-class level taking a huge weighting loss it very easily becomes manageable. This is no different to how you handle different levels of optimisation and ACFs.

I agree with this idea of not taking dips into consideration, because I think that it still makes a lot of sense in how useful the tiering is. If someone, freshly arrived in the 3.5 optimisation world, takes a glance at Fighter, sees "Tier 4.5" and another at Barbarian, and reads "Tier 4" he will immediately understand that a small amount of Barbarian into a Fighter build averages out to something closer to 4 than 5. But if, in our analysis, we deem the Fighter to be of Tier 4.5 while taking into account the possibility of a dip, then someone who comes in and plays a Figther 20, expecting a Tier 4.5, ends up with a Tier 5.
Of course, the same could be said about ACFs, but we have stated out that ACFs powerful enough to warrant a tier shift by themselves would be tiered separately, which is something that simply can't be done with dips powerful enough in a similar fashion.
Thus, I think taking dips into consideration to a too greater extend makes things less clear to the eye of the newcomer, and that is something we don't want to. In that regard, I find this restriction not too arbitrary.

[eggynack]

Of course, the same could be said about ACFs, but we have stated out that ACFs powerful enough to warrant a tier shift by themselves would be tiered separately, which is something that simply can't be done with dips powerful enough in a similar fashion.

This is an interesting and probably true point. We theoretically could model dips the same way we model ACFs and feats, but the sheer quantity of possible dip arrangements that can represent a tier shift would overwhelm anything else we're trying to do. For example, I don't agree that a warrior with a barbarian dip is as good as a fighter with one, but I do think that the dip, especially the two level version, probably leaves the warrior in tier five. So, do we separately consider the barbarian warrior, and, because that logic generalizes well, the barbarian commoner and the barbarian aristocrat? Do we do the same with the cleric dip and the wizard dip? We could argue that the barbarian dip pushes all classes to the same place, so, unlike an ACF, this rising tide raises all ships. However, there is a trivial disproof of that, and it's that the barbarian itself exists, physically incapable of gaining additional utility. So, because we have a number of fixed points, there is at least some upward mobility.

To be clear, I don't think this completely invalidates my previously established model as workable. The average of commoner with barbarian and commoner without barbarian, heavily weighted towards no dips, is quite possibly still tier six. A sufficiently low weighting does, in fact, get rid of a lot of problems with tier shifts necessarily having separate consideration. But what it does do is reveal something of an inconsistency in how we read these two game objects within the system we're developing. Once we're separating out individual game objects (this is true for basically any game object with sufficient individual power, but the objects that tend to have that role are ACFs and feats), what's stopping us from separating out these game objects? And once we're doing that, why aren't we applying ToB to everything and considering every sufficiently low tier class like three times?

Prestige classes do still seem more plausible, incidentally. They're frequently restricted to a class, or to a class of classes, so we don't run into as many, "But what of commoners?" problems. They read a lot more like ACFs, in a sense. Not in all senses, of course, and analyzing them still produces some issues, but I think that, if we really wanted to, there could be a workable tier model that includes PrC's that isn't far outside of what we were already doing before.

[Troacctid]

I think you can totally tier standalone prestige classes like Chameleon and Ur-Priest, and ones with railroaded entries like True Necromancer, Demonbinder, and Lyric Thaumaturge. But that's a different project.

[Troacctid]

The spreadsheet is starting to get hard to read with so many classes taking up so much horizontal space! It's too bad Google Sheets doesn't let you turn cells sideways.

Perhaps it's worth adding a Summary sheet with the classes in the rows and their totaled-up tier votes in the columns.

[eggynack]

The spreadsheet is starting to get hard to read with so many classes taking up so much horizontal space! It's too bad Google Sheets doesn't let you turn cells sideways.

Perhaps it's worth adding a Summary sheet with the classes in the rows and their totaled-up tier votes in the columns.

Maybe, yeah. I'll try setting something like that up at some point. It's really weird how statically large these cells are. I can rearrange the data in them in a buncha ways, such that the information takes up way less horizontal space, but the cells are super obstinate.

[Troacctid]

Well, you can shrink the column widths, of course, but there's a limit to how narrow you can make them without making the text unreadable.

[eggynack]

Well, you can shrink the column widths, of course, but there's a limit to how narrow you can make them without making the text unreadable.

Weirdly couldn't find the way to do that until just now. Managed to shrink it enough so that you can see beguiler and wild shape ranger simultaneously without losing much in the way of column title knowledge. I think it looks reasonable. Probably won't in a few threads. Might be able to prolong the inevitable more later on by rotating the column text somewhat, though the distance from first voters to fancy data is a bit much already.

[eggynack]

I've just added the new retiering thread, covering bards, factotums, and jesters. Here it be.

[Lans]

What groups do you think the shugeja and soulknife belong in?

[ryu]

What groups do you think the shugeja and soulknife belong in?

I forget was soulknife just the kinda sad one or the crystallized essence of depression?

[eggynack]

What groups do you think the shugeja and soulknife belong in?

Not really sure. I could toss the soulknife into the next mundane category, but they're not quite mundane. I would make them an entry in a weird category of, "The crappy classes from otherwise solid books," alongside soulborn and truenamer, but I was planning to stick the former in the incarnum category (cause there are three of them then, and I want incarnate and totemist under that theme anyway), and the latter in some category with the warlock and maybe DFA (or put that in a book thing too). Shugenja is even trickier. Something involving death master, maybe? Otherwise uncategorized spontaneous casters? I kinda like the latter, sticking it with sorcerer and something else. Maybe straight up spontaneous divine, cause there's a ton of spontaneous divine.

[remetagross]

Soulknife could actually fit with the Monk, I think. They both have this array of somewhat class features adding up to a disappointingly low melee-potential class, with random abilities here and there. That could fit the Battledancer as well, I guess.

[Cosi]

Soulknife could actually fit with the Monk, I think. They both have this array of somewhat class features adding up to a disappointingly low melee-potential class, with random abilities here and there. That could fit the Battledancer as well, I guess.

You could do "classes that are super terrible" with Soulknife/Monk/Truenamer and maybe Soulborn/Divine Mind.

[remetagross]

I was thinking the Divine Mind would fit with the other half-casters like Ranger, Paladin and Sohei?

[eggynack]

You could do "classes that are super terrible" with Soulknife/Monk/Truenamer and maybe Soulborn/Divine Mind.

I kinda like soulknife+monk. I have the feeling that was a possibility I was considering at some point. Third class is more up in the air. Divine mind makes sense, cause it feels like most of the other classes that'd be categorized with it have other options. Soulborn, by contrast, would be orphaning the incarnum classes (either I get totemist+incarnate+something else, which is weird, or I leave them for a twofer, which is weird, or I put totemist and incarnate in separate groups, which is weird), and truenamer I think really wants to be with warlock, setting up a kinda at-will category. It's not precisely a super terrible class in my opinion, though it also obviously is on other metrics. This isn't an immediate concern, in any case. My next two planned sets are ToB and then maybe some or all of the NPC's. Though, I should ask, is there a good third aura class to put alongside marshal and dragon shaman? I kinda like those two and then a third on top

[Bucky]

Monk/Soulknife/Battle Dancer/Mountebank?

[eggynack]

Monk/Soulknife/Battle Dancer/Mountebank?

Yeah, that sounds pretty good as a kinda pseudo-magical melee thing.

[Canine]

CArc Wu Jen and OA Wu Jen make sense to review together with any leftover arcane casters. OA Shugenja and OA Shaman are both divine casters (spontaneous and prepared respectively), not sure where they should go. Ardent and Wilder are looking for a 3rd also.

Divine Mind would give you a 3rd aura class to go with the Marshall and Dragon Shaman. Paladin/Ranger/Sohei stand together well enough.

[remetagross]

How about Psions with Wilders and Ardents? And you got a case for Divine Minds with the other aura-based classes I suppose!

[Canine]

How about Psions with Wilders and Ardents? And you got a case for Divine Minds with the other aura-based classes I suppose!

That makes sense, I have no idea why I though Psions had already been ranked.

[eggynack]

CArc Wu Jen and OA Wu Jen make sense to review together with any leftover arcane casters. OA Shugenja and OA Shaman are both divine casters (spontaneous and prepared respectively), not sure where they should go.

Yeah, it's tricky. Interesting one is healer. Probably slots with this set of reasonable casty types somewhere. In a past version of the system, where we could expect healer at four or five, it'd make sense to divide adept and maybe magewright out of the NPC groups and do all of those together, but my personal opinion along with their last community voting result sticks them around a three, so they should probably go into a higher category. I have a feeling a lot of this stuff will work itself out over time. As we do more of these, there'll be fewer possible combinations, which will result in some less thematically cohesive but more necessarily in that state threads.

Divine Mind would give you a 3rd aura class to go with the Marshall and Dragon Shaman. Paladin/Ranger/Sohei stand together well enough.

Have to look at divine mind and sohei more in the specific, but these could both make sense as categories.

How about Psions with Wilders and Ardents? And you got a case for Divine Minds with the other aura-based classes I suppose!

Yeah, some sorta mix of psion, wilder, ardent, maybe erudite or StP erudite, something like that. Psionic classes aren't generally a huge issue. They kinda want to hang out together, so you just have to construct the right divisions.

[Lans]

Monk/Soulknife/Battle Dancer/Mountebank?

I was kind of thinking Monk/Soulknife/ Expert/ Warrior

[Bucky]

The core NPC classes should all go in the same dedicated thread - Adept, Commoner, Expert, Warrior

[eggynack]

The core NPC classes should all go in the same dedicated thread - Adept, Commoner, Expert, Warrior

That's what I was thinking, though I'm either going to do them 3/3, with commoner, aristocrat, and warrior as the three classes classically considered tier six and the other three the usually higher tiered remainder, or all the NPCs as one bundle (I just checked and the full version fits on one thread title, which is a fundamental limiting factor to how things group). I'm likely to run either the tier six version or the full version after ToB, which I expect to start up the day after tomorrow. So, like, a week or so from now, depending on how engaged people are with yet more ToB talk. I'm interested in how people assess those classes when using somewhat different definitions.

[Troacctid]

Expert is T6 too.