Retiering the Classes: Home Base

[eggynack]

I'd put factotum in it. I mean people DO generally use them as pretty much literally the rogue's more competent big brother.

Yeah, it definitely makes sense. Gotta figure out a different third for bard+jester then. There's no law saying the minimum must be three, and jesters would make for plausibly engaging discussion (how much worse than a tier three can you be before you can't be a tier three anymore?), but three seems solid. Maybe there's a bard variant that's bad enough that it probably hits tier four.

[lylsyly]

@Eggynack;

Put a empty row between the users names and the maen, median, what not ..

then click on view = split

what is does is actually create a separate window, as long as the cursor is in the top window it will only scroll the top window.

[ryu]

Yeah, it definitely makes sense. Gotta figure out a different third for bard+jester then. There's no law saying the minimum must be three, and jesters would make for plausibly engaging discussion (how much worse than a tier three can you be before you can't be a tier three anymore?), but three seems solid. Maybe there's a bard variant that's bad enough that it probably hits tier four.

Maybe throw warlock at that one since it's sometimes debated it straddles 3 and 4?

[GilesTheCleric]

There might be a fair amount of debate about Factotum, so maybe it's best in a thread without too many other classes. Jormengand's thread just included some additional roguelikes please don't laugh iirc the Spellthief and... Something Spellthief.

[ryu]

There might be a fair amount of debate about Factotum, so maybe it's best in a thread without too many other classes. Jormengand's thread just included some additional roguelikes please don't laugh iirc the Spellthief and... Something Spellthief.

I'm sorry but I have to. The pun fits too well especially with how reliant classes like that tend to be on items.

[eggynack]

@Eggynack;

Put a empty row between the users names and the maen, median, what not ..

then click on view = split

what is does is actually create a separate window, as long as the cursor is in the top window it will only scroll the top window.

I don't think split is even an option under view. I'm tellin' ya, this program is weirdly restrictive. Honestly, the thing I actually want to do that I haven't figured out yet is getting all the names to consistently alphabetize as I insert them without also alphabetizing the mean and such. Actually, I don't think it lets you have things alphabetize automatically at all. You seem to need to apply repeated sorts no matter what.

Maybe throw warlock at that one since it's sometimes debated it straddles 3 and 4?

I could buy that. It feels like it lands in around the general scale of magic I'd expect, with a solid variety of things to do. Not sure what the title for that group is.

Edit: I am decently likely to call that skill monkey group roguelikes now. This is a thing that amuses me.

[Troacctid]

If you want to do a Rogues' Gallery next, you could start with a Complete Adventurer round with Ninja, Scout, and Spellthief. And Jester, Savant, and Mountebank could be a Dragon Compendium round.

Honestly, the thing I actually want to do that I haven't figured out yet is getting all the names to consistently alphabetize as I insert them without also alphabetizing the mean and such. Actually, I don't think it lets you have things alphabetize automatically at all. You seem to need to apply repeated sorts no matter what.

Highlight the area you want to be alphabetized, then go to Data > Sort Range by Column A. Make sure to select all the data in the other columns as well. And you will have to re-do it when you add more names though.

Edit: You may be able to do it automatically with the SORT function, but I've never used it so I don't know how it works exactly.

Also, you have my votes in the wrong row, I should be up one.

[Gnaeus]

Hey Eggynack, I'm enjoying what you are doing and how you are doing it. Would it hurt your feelings if I started some parallel threads with the same format but PF? Like a Derivative T1 thread but with witch instead of archivist and Artificer, discussing how different Druid is in PF, that sort of thing? Not sure I would, but considering it.

[eggynack]

If you want to do a Rogues' Gallery next, you could start with a Complete Adventurer round with Ninja, Scout, and Spellthief. And Jester, Savant, and Mountebank could be a Dragon Compendium round.

I think my general tendency for book rounds is to do them mostly when there's a thematic or mechanical link between the classes. So, ToB would be a definitely, MoI would be very likely though soulborn could get shifted by dint of its particularly lackluster attachment to the mechanics, and ToM is a maybe.

Highlight the area you want to be alphabetized, then go to Data > Sort Range by Column A. Make sure to select all the data in the other columns as well. And you will have to re-do it when you add more names though.

Yeah, that's what I've been doing.

Edit: You may be able to do it automatically with the SORT function, but I've never used it so I don't know how it works exactly.

Interesting. Worth a shot.

Also, you have my votes in the wrong row, I should be up one.

You sure I don't just have you down wrong for specifically fighter, because I put you down as 4 on the premise that we'd be unlikely to cover thug separately (especially now when we're unlikely to cover dungeoncrasher), and then didn't update you later when you stated an explicit 5 vote? I also did a lot of undos, so it could be changed now.

Hey Eggynack, I'm enjoying what you are doing and how you are doing it. Would it hurt your feelings if I started some parallel threads with the same format but PF? Like a Derivative T1 thread but with witch instead of archivist and Artificer, discussing how different Druid is in PF, that sort of thing? Not sure I would, but considering it.

Nah, that sounds reasonable. It's not a thing I'm liable to cover, cause it's so far outside my region of knowledge. What I have here isn't all that linked to me beyond the opening post and maintenance/moderation.

[OldTrees1]

Hey Eggynack, I'm enjoying what you are doing and how you are doing it. Would it hurt your feelings if I started some parallel threads with the same format but PF? Like a Derivative T1 thread but with witch instead of archivist and Artificer, discussing how different Druid is in PF, that sort of thing? Not sure I would, but considering it.

We already have 2 of these series going on. It might be wise/respectful to ration how much of the front page gets spammed by these threads. Eggynack is doing a good job so far of keeping it down to 4(the original thread + 3 of Eggynack's 4 threads).

[Gnaeus]

We already have 2 of these series going on. It might be wise/respectful to ration how much of the front page gets spammed by these threads. Eggynack is doing a good job so far of keeping it down to 4(the original thread + 3 of Eggynack's 4 threads).

I think I'd want to run them shortly after the parallel thread dies down, because if I did them months later, everyone would be fired up to have the same argument again. Like, I wouldn't mind a discussion of why Sorcerer>wizard because of bonus feats, or more spells known, or because now they can craft items effectively, but not just a straight up rehashing of the same fight we just had.

[GilesTheCleric]

I think I'd want to run them shortly after the parallel thread dies down, because if I did them months later, everyone would be fired up to have the same argument again. Like, I wouldn't mind a discussion of why Sorcerer>wizard because of bonus feats, or more spells known, or because now they can craft items effectively, but not just a straight up rehashing of the same fight we just had.

I think you might get the same arguments anyway. It seems to me that there's a decent number of folks that only interact with the Pf threads, and another group that only interacts with 3e threads. Yes, there's people that participate in both, but it means there's a high probability that it'll come up.

[Gnaeus]

I think you might get the same arguments anyway. It seems to me that there's a decent number of folks that only interact with the Pf threads, and another group that only interacts with 3e threads. Yes, there's people that participate in both, but it means there's a high probability that it'll come up.

You're certainly right, but I'd like to TRY to stay focused on the differences.

[Aimeryan]

You got any suggestions for these two definitions? They probably are indeed a bit off, but the specific ultimate structure is always tricky.

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I would preferably drop the "usual structure is..." sentences and instead just use the graphs, since I feel they are not as defining/restricting as words can be when used to describe a tier. Change the Tier 3 archetype to one of the Tier 3.5 gish classes. Maybe something like this:

Tier three: The archetypal tier three is the Swordsage. Again, we gotta sacrifice something compared to tier two; a possible graph state for Tier 3 might look like:

Tier 3

210 CP

Of course, that is just what I would do. If you wish to keep the sentence descriptions (in addition to the graphs) then maybe this:

Tier three: The archetypal tier three is the Swordsage. Again, we gotta sacrifice something compared to tier two; the usual situation is that you are very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more. Of course, there are other possibilities; for example, you might instead just be competent at solving nearly all problems. A graph state for Tier 3 might look something like:

Tier 3

210 CP

Edit: If you want to use the Tier 1 and Tier 2 graphs I posted with the Gamebreaking values left in (i.e., not capped at Strong) feel free to do so, although it might be wise to leave a disclaimer saying that Gamebreaking is not required to reach the those tiers if you do. I updated my very first post on page 1, so feel free to pull all the graphs from there.

[Troacctid]

You sure I don't just have you down wrong for specifically fighter, because I put you down as 4 on the premise that we'd be unlikely to cover thug separately (especially now when we're unlikely to cover dungeoncrasher), and then didn't update you later when you stated an explicit 5 vote? I also did a lot of undos, so it could be changed now.

It's fixed now.

[eggynack]

Snip

My thinking is getting the definition pretty close to your second one, particularly using swordsage cause that seems like a really good pick as the archetypal 3, and then having some kinda paragraph underneath the system introducing and linking the graphs. I'ma try editing it into that form, see how it looks.

It's fixed now.

Cool beans. That was a weirdly stressful couple of minutes back there, trying to figure out where the different data would be coming from and wondering whether everything else got screwed up.

Edit: Yeah, I think that looks cool.

[Calthropstu]

I spit upon your tiers and break the game with all classes.

Behold, my lvl 20 commoner with an item that lets him cast shapechange once per day granting him infinite wishes for 3 hours.

If you can't achieve godhood with infinite wishes in 3 hours, well you may as well hang up your D&D cloak and go play candy crush or something.

[Coretron03]

I spit upon your tiers and break the game with all classes.

Behold, my lvl 20 commoner with an item that lets him cast shapechange once per day granting him infinite wishes for 3 hours.

If you can't achieve godhood with infinite wishes in 3 hours, well you may as well hang up your D&D cloak and go play candy crush or something.

I'm assuming you read literally nothing about these threads. I am curious if you still believe fighters and casters are equal though.

[Calthropstu]

I'm assuming you read literally nothing about these threads. I am curious if you still believe fighters and casters are equal though.

Actually, I did read a fair portion. And I have argued about the tier system from day one. I put no stock in it.
Fighters DO have to work quite a bit harder to get to the same level that casters enjoy, but they CAN get there with good item support. Since any class can initiate actions to gain infinite money by gaining specific items, in theory any person with access to a few specific items, can generate infinite wealth and thus obtain every spell in the game via item creation cheese.

In short, the more optimized the game becomes, the more the tiers begin to coalesce into one giant mesh of T1's.

But, take away item support and gm tolerance for cheese, no the fighter and wizard are not on equal footing.

[eggynack]

Actually, I did read a fair portion. And I have argued about the tier system from day one. I put no stock in it.
Fighters DO have to work quite a bit harder to get to the same level that casters enjoy, but they CAN get there with good item support. Since any class can initiate actions to gain infinite money by gaining specific items, in theory any person with access to a few specific items, can generate infinite wealth and thus obtain every spell in the game via item creation cheese.

In short, the more optimized the game becomes, the more the tiers begin to coalesce into one giant mesh of T1's.

But, take away item support and gm tolerance for cheese, no the fighter and wizard are not on equal footing.

The vast majority of the area of our consideration takes place in the not ridiculous item cheese zone. Infinite loops are really really far off to the right side, and play play at the highest character levels is considered but not as heavily as more moderate character levels, where things are less singularity oriented. I think our analysis thus far, and our general guiding assumptions, have worked pretty well, and haven't fallen all that close to your cited issues.

[Coretron03]

Actually, I did read a fair portion. And I have argued about the tier system from day one. I put no stock in it.
Fighters DO have to work quite a bit harder to get to the same level that casters enjoy, but they CAN get there with good item support. Since any class can initiate actions to gain infinite money by gaining specific items, in theory any person with access to a few specific items, can generate infinite wealth and thus obtain every spell in the game via item creation cheese.

In short, the more optimized the game becomes, the more the tiers begin to coalesce into one giant mesh of T1's.

But, take away item support and gm tolerance for cheese, no the fighter and wizard are not on equal footing.

Thats fair, everyone can do wish loops and get infinite wealth but you generally have to ignore those kind of things because the game doesn't function if you use them (Unless your tippy level or equal I think) because then your class doesn't matter at all which isn't very useful in "rating classes" discussion. Wealth by level is very powerful and important to the game (level 20 no wealth fighter? good luck) and can be abused easily. The tiers were more for the versatility of the classes themselves, not infinite loops anyone can do. I'm not very food at explaining it though, so I might let someone else.

[Calthropstu]

The vast majority of the area of our consideration takes place in the not ridiculous item cheese zone. Infinite loops are really really far off to the right side, and play play at the highest character levels is considered but not as heavily as more moderate character levels, where things are less singularity oriented. I think our analysis thus far, and our general guiding assumptions, have worked pretty well, and haven't fallen all that close to your cited issues.

Which is fair. Most play falls into the realm of "GM says no to cheese." I have made it no secret that I personally don't allow cheese when I GM. And in my group, our casters are definitely not anywhere near optimized. The most optimized character in our party is played by another frequenter of these forums (though he won't say who he is) and he is playing a ranger in my campaign, and a kinetecist in our other game. He's able to pop out as much damage, in both cases, as the rest of the party combined in a single round with some decent setup. The characters playing T1s and T2s are thoroughly unoptimized (Ok, my psion is a LITTLE optimized but highly specified into a particular area of expertise) and don't do anywhere near the amount of damage.

If we go by what we have personally seen and done, and what is actually played at the various tables we frequent the answer will be much more varied than the tier system you guys are hoisting seems to indicate. I have watched an extremely optimized healer turn the tide of an entire battle by himself using nothing but healing spells and abilities. I've watched a dwarf fighter ride a rhinoceros into battle, toppling an entire fortress almost single handedly. (He DID get a windwalk and protection from arrows cast on his rhino from the party druid and wizard.) I have seen all t2/t1 parties get slaughtered where groups of t3s and t4s won the day.

So my experience refutes the tier system, and thus I must refute it... because the tier system simply does not match my experience.

[GilesTheCleric]

So my experience refutes the tier system, and thus I must refute it... because the tier system simply does not match my experience.

Okay, so how do you propose we change our assumptions to better represent what you see as more probable in play? Or, perhaps Eggynack's tier system does account for it, in that it's an averaging of builds, and you just need to place the weight closer to the lower-op end of the spectrum for it to be true to your experience? Also, please don't forget that we're not rating players here.

[Calthropstu]

Okay, so how do you propose we change our assumptions to better represent what you see as more probable in play? Or, perhaps Eggynack's tier system does account for it, in that it's an averaging of builds, and you just need to place the weight closer to the lower-op end of the spectrum for it to be true to your experience? Also, please don't forget that we're not rating players here.

Averaging builds means we take high op and useless builds. Which skews things considerably, because for every possible OP wizard build, I can build 5 useless wizard builds. The t1 chart, in particular, I disagree with... because I have never seen a wizard, cleric or druid build that was good at everything. No matter who the builder was, they always had several shortcomings... even those who made their characters as powerful as they possibly could.

The shortcomings of the wizard is his spell book. His most powerful tool is also his greatest weakness. For one, it's incredibly expensive. In order to "do everything" a wizard has to spend exorbitant amounts of money... money most GMs simply don't give out. A cleric is pretty much at the mercy of the GM. If a GM says "your god says no" you pretty much have to say "yes sir." The artificer, I honestly don't see as a tier one at all due to the extreme amount of game time they require. And the Druid, who everyone here seems to worship as the T1 of all T1s is pretty much outclassed in everything they can do by other classes. And since they have to heavily invest in one area or other in order to be good, it means they are just a weaker version of something with a few decent fallbacks.

I just don't see it. I do not see T1s as so far outclassing the T2s and T3s. The charts that have been drawn up seem to worship the T1s and... I simply just don't see it happening in any normal game.

[Lans]

I think my general tendency for book rounds is to do them mostly when there's a thematic or mechanical link between the classes. So, ToB would be a definitely, MoI would be very likely though soulborn could get shifted by dint of its particularly lackluster attachment to the mechanics, and ToM is a maybe.

I think putting the soulborn in with the paladin, divine mind and/or sohei would be appropriate.

[GilesTheCleric]

Averaging builds means we take high op and useless builds. Which skews things considerably, because for every possible OP wizard build, I can build 5 useless wizard builds. The t1 chart, in particular, I disagree with... because I have never seen a wizard, cleric or druid build that was good at everything. No matter who the builder was, they always had several shortcomings... even those who made their characters as powerful as they possibly could.

The shortcomings of the wizard is his spell book. His most powerful tool is also his greatest weakness. For one, it's incredibly expensive. In order to "do everything" a wizard has to spend exorbitant amounts of money... money most GMs simply don't give out. A cleric is pretty much at the mercy of the GM. If a GM says "your god says no" you pretty much have to say "yes sir." The artificer, I honestly don't see as a tier one at all due to the extreme amount of game time they require. And the Druid, who everyone here seems to worship as the T1 of all T1s is pretty much outclassed in everything they can do by other classes. And since they have to heavily invest in one area or other in order to be good, it means they are just a weaker version of something with a few decent fallbacks.

I just don't see it. I do not see T1s as so far outclassing the T2s and T3s. The charts that have been drawn up seem to worship the T1s and... I simply just don't see it happening in any normal game.

Holy cow, I'm getting some intense deja vu here. Did we already do this in Jomengand's thread?

I do agree with you, when these classes aren't allowed to use their class features (Wizard's spellbook, Cleric's spells), they're pretty useless.

[Calthropstu]

Holy cow, I'm getting some intense deja vu here. Did we already do this in Jomengand's thread?

I do agree with you, when these classes aren't allowed to use their class features (Wizard's spellbook, Cleric's spells), they're pretty useless.

It's not just not being allowed to use their class features...

In the case of the wizard, spell books are actually quite rare. First you have to either buy the scroll or pay a wizard to let you study from his spell book. It gets VERY expensive. And getting another wizard to give you 9th level spells? I liken it to a 3rd world nation coming to Russia or the US for nuclear technology. Or at the very least chemical warheads.
Most of you seem to be under the impression that writing 7th level spells+ into your spell book is a matter of walking into town and paying a wizard to teach it to you. It's that whole "adventuring mart" mentality.

But we're talking spells that can be used for massive devastation, supreme form manipulation, plane altering, nigh invincibility granting spells that can turn a war into a slaughter. Who in their right mind is going to give it to just anyone? There are GOOD arguments against wizards simply getting all the spells they want simply because they have gold and can pay. Even in most evil organizations, high level spells are guarded very carefully... trusted to only a very select few. And even then, many spells are never given out. Classic example is the cult of the dragon in faerun. Their wizards are constantly vying for position. Even within the organization, do you honestly see the grand wizard giving his 9th level spells to anyone else?

The Red Wizards MIGHT do something like that, it's arguable. However, I think they only give out scrolls to a certain level. And in a metropolis, the highest spell level you can purchase is 8th... so where do 9th level scrolls come from?
So for wizards, them "not having access to their class feature" actually... makes perfect sense.

As for Clerics, part of their class feature is "carry out the will of their god." So a god of say death and decay deciding not to grant his cleric a healing spell to heal his party members would make perfect sense. Especially if said party members had done something that went against that god's tenets such as saving a village from certain doom that other agents of his had enacted. Or a good god refusing to allow the use of a healing spell on the group's antipaladin. Or a lawful god refusing the use of spells to break the law.

[Troacctid]

It's not just not being allowed to use their class features...

In the case of the wizard, spell books are actually quite rare. First you have to either buy the scroll or pay a wizard to let you study from his spell book. It gets VERY expensive. And getting another wizard to give you 9th level spells? I liken it to a 3rd world nation coming to Russia or the US for nuclear technology. Or at the very least chemical warheads.
Most of you seem to be under the impression that writing 7th level spells+ into your spell book is a matter of walking into town and paying a wizard to teach it to you. It's that whole "adventuring mart" mentality.

But we're talking spells that can be used for massive devastation, supreme form manipulation, plane altering, nigh invincibility granting spells that can turn a war into a slaughter. Who in their right mind is going to give it to just anyone? There are GOOD arguments against wizards simply getting all the spells they want simply because they have gold and can pay. Even in most evil organizations, high level spells are guarded very carefully... trusted to only a very select few. And even then, many spells are never given out. Classic example is the cult of the dragon in faerun. Their wizards are constantly vying for position. Even within the organization, do you honestly see the grand wizard giving his 9th level spells to anyone else?

The Red Wizards MIGHT do something like that, it's arguable. However, I think they only give out scrolls to a certain level. And in a metropolis, the highest spell level you can purchase is 8th... so where do 9th level scrolls come from?
So for wizards, them "not having access to their class feature" actually... makes perfect sense.

And that's clearly not an issue for lower-level spells, which make up the vast majority of spells you will want to scribe, since there are more of them that you want and you have access to them for a longer period of time.

Anyway, in scroll/spellbook-poor environments, you can still spend downtime to just research the spells yourself.

If you could never under any circumstances scribe new spells into your book, ever, then Wizard would probably be T2. But that is not a reasonable assumption, since the rules are quite clear that that should not be the case.

[Lans]

If you could never under any circumstances scribe new spells into your book, ever, then Wizard would probably be T2. But that is not a reasonable assumption, since the rules are quite clear that that should not be the case.

What would be the dividing line between T1-2? If a wizard couldn't get scrolls, but had collegiate wizard and that elf racial substitution that gave more spells known, would he be T1? T2? T1.345?

[Calthropstu]

And that's clearly not an issue for lower-level spells, which make up the vast majority of spells you will want to scribe, since there are more of them that you want and you have access to them for a longer period of time.

Anyway, in scroll/spellbook-poor environments, you can still spend downtime to just research the spells yourself.

If you could never under any circumstances scribe new spells into your book, ever, then Wizard would probably be T2. But that is not a reasonable assumption, since the rules are quite clear that that should not be the case.

I'd argue t3 max under those conditions, but that's not what I am saying. I am not arguing that wizards and clerics et al are not T1. I am arguing that every t1 class comes with restrictions that t2 classes simply DON'T HAVE. What restriction does a psion, sorcerer, wilder, Oracle/Favored Soul etc have? They simply pick their spells and can cast them. They don't have to search, they don't have to research, they don't have to spend down time getting their power ready, they can't have their spell book stolen or destroyed, they don't have to answer to a god or have their powers taken away...

My argument is that T2 is simply NOT AS FAR BEHIND as you guys seem to imply with these charts, and all this talk of how wizards/clerics/druids etc are so much better than everyone else. They aren't, and I have stated my reasons why: they are completely and utterly at the GM's mercy. And most games seem to have a sense of approaching doom about them... there IS a story to tell after all. It's not like the BBEG is going to sit around waiting for you to finish crafting and researching.