Retiering the Classes: Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Sha'ir, and Wizard

[Morphic tide]

Ugh, look, I've already talked about this. If you allow an infinite wealth trick, you have to allow all of them. If you arbitrarily limit one infinite wealth trick to being finite, but still hugely large, then that same logic should be applied to other infinite wealth tricks.



No I'm not, I explicitly mentioned that in my post, under the 20% of wealth that comes in the form of gold. Most wealth comes in the form of magic items, 80%.

The Artificer method is adding two feats to a class feature and it ticks by at a rate measured in days, accelerateable only by adding further cost reducitons. The other methods tick by at a rate measured in rounds, with exponential growth being available to some of them.

And 20% WBL is enough to fuel the crafting reserve. Seriously, actually run the numbers, 20% of wealth by level is well above 12.5 times the Crafting Reserve. You need 250 GP to fuel the 1st level crafting reserve, for example.

It's reasonable, but I don't think it's at all guaranteed to work. We're assuming that the game follows a specific rules interpretation (Magic Psionics Transparency), and that you rule a specific interaction (limited wish/psychic reformation) works in the players favor. It would also be reasonable to say that limited wish is "emulating a spell" and thus does not potentially "affect psionics".

This falls under the "similar effect" clause. A Psionic Power is, by definition, roughly equivalent to a spell of equal level, so it falls under the clause.

[Morphic tide]

*Snip*

Okay, you can leave the thread now, Draco. Your attempt at making a point is unneeded here, as it's off topic. Go to the RAW thread to ask for rulings on Black Scar's components and start threads to help you improve upon Black Scar in a way that will face less backlash.

[eggynack]

Ugh, look, I've already talked about this. If you allow an infinite wealth trick, you have to allow all of them. If you arbitrarily limit one infinite wealth trick to being finite, but still hugely large, then that same logic should be applied to other infinite wealth tricks.

My issue with this reasoning, and your reasoning in your other response, is that I don't think this is an arbitrary limit at all. I don't use artificers, but other folks do, and my understanding is that those folks sometimes (but not always), make items for cheap using found gold, and never, or nearly never, engage in even a single step in this loop you're talking about. Crafting is a thing unto itself, distinct from this loop you're discussing. Candles for wishes are, well, not. You've suggested that any return from crafting above 2 is fundamentally broken because of this loop. That strikes me as a crazy limitation that does not match up well at all with games as they exist. People craft. People, in anything but insanely high optimization games, do not make use of these tricks you're talking about.

In creating this tier system, a core goal is to model it reasonably closely to the game and how it's played. Maybe some of this crafting stuff falls into this model but not all of it. Maybe none of it does. But that's a discussion unto itself, something that should be analyzed through the lens of crafting, not through the lens of candles of invocation. Because, whether crafting cost reduction is part of the model or not, candles definitely aren't in anything but the highest optimization games. To some extent, it's really as simple as that.

[Beheld]

My issue with this reasoning, and your reasoning in your other response, is that I don't think this is an arbitrary limit at all. I don't use artificers, but other folks do, and my understanding is that those folks sometimes (but not always), make items for cheap using found gold, and never, or nearly never, engage in even a single step in this loop you're talking about. Crafting is a thing unto itself, distinct from this loop you're discussing. Candles for wishes are, well, not. You've suggested that any return from crafting above 2 is fundamentally broken because of this loop. That strikes me as a crazy limitation that does not match up well at all with games as they exist. People craft. People, in anything but insanely high optimization games, do not make use of these tricks you're talking about.

In creating this tier system, a core goal is to model it reasonably closely to the game and how it's played. Maybe some of this crafting stuff falls into this model but not all of it. Maybe none of it does. But that's a discussion unto itself, something that should be analyzed through the lens of crafting, not through the lens of candles of invocation. Because, whether crafting cost reduction is part of the model or not, candles definitely aren't in anything but the highest optimization games. To some extent, it's really as simple as that.

I am absolutely certain no one has ever at any point played an Artificer with stacked crafting reductions to reach 1:10 ratios in a game that wouldn't have also allowed a Tainted Necropolitian Wizard or a level 2 Entry Beguiler/Rainbow Servant with spontaneous casting off the Cleric list at level 11, or arbitrarily large Planar Bound Armies.

[Zanos]

I am absolutely certain no one has ever at any point played an Artificer with stacked crafting reductions to reach 1:10 ratios in a game that wouldn't have also allowed a Tainted Necropolitian Wizard or a level 2 Entry Beguiler/Rainbow Servant with spontaneous casting off the Cleric list at level 11, or arbitrarily large Planar Bound Armies.

I'm pretty sure you're the only one throwing around 1:10 ratios as an example. 1:5 was the best ratio I proposed and I admitted that wasn't likely. 1:4 is pretty easily justifiable, though.

[eggynack]

I am absolutely certain no one has ever at any point played an Artificer with stacked crafting reductions to reach 1:10 ratios in a game that wouldn't have also allowed a Tainted Necropolitian Wizard or a level 2 Entry Beguiler/Rainbow Servant with spontaneous casting off the Cleric list at level 11, or arbitrarily large Planar Bound Armies.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. Maybe there's a lesser ratio that matches true play patterns. Maybe other people don't see that sort of reduction as as cheesy as you do, given the associated costs. Maybe, and this seems likely the truth, there is a wide range of possible ratios corresponding to various optimization levels, all the way from no additional resources used at the basic level, up through a couple of feats allowing for somewhat more efficient use of a major class feature, with 1:10 hanging around at the approximate optimization level you're talking about, or maybe a bit lower, depending on opinions. This, and not how this ability compares to candles of invocation, is what we're trying to figure out. It's what I've been saying you should focus on for a whole bunch of posts.

[Fizban]

I don't know the exact details of the build, but there was a campaign journal of McMishra, the artificer who was trying to play primary caster via scrolls. He was paying some ridiculously low amount for them, but found it unsustainable anyway. Of course if he'd actually used his class features to not-expend scrolls and cast Spell-Storing Item he probably could have kept it up for a while.

Anyone want to direct me to a link for how you're supposed to stack cost reduction? I'm fairly sure it relies on duplicates of the same feat from multiple books, but I've never actually looked it up.

[Karl Aegis]

Maybe you should define what actual play looks like because right now it looks like your wizard isn't using their familiar at all at the same time someone else is adding spells to their spell list with a Use Magic Device check.

[eggynack]

Maybe you should define what actual play looks like because right now it looks like your wizard isn't using their familiar at all at the same time someone else is adding spells to their spell list with a Use Magic Device check.

Really not sure who said that the wizard isn't using their familiar, aside from those mentioning ACFs. Either way, as I noted, we're trying to encompass a wide variety of play patterns here. Some wizards will learn a bunch of really mediocre spells and never see a reason to expand beyond them, and will indeed ignore their familiar. Some will procure a massive library of spells, and, indeed, use their familiar super efficiently. It's thus not precisely possible to say, "We're assuming that the wizard acquires X spells of Y spell level, and uses their other class features in Z way."

[Troacctid]

I am absolutely certain no one has ever at any point played an Artificer with stacked crafting reductions to reach 1:10 ratios in a game that wouldn't have also allowed a Tainted Necropolitian Wizard or a level 2 Entry Beguiler/Rainbow Servant with spontaneous casting off the Cleric list at level 11, or arbitrarily large Planar Bound Armies.

Artificers don't get 1:10 ratios. They get items at half price, and can further reduce that to like 37.5% with Legendary Artisan (or whichever one it is, I always get them mixed up). That's not 1:10.

I don't know what crazy string of feats you're taking to get down to 10%, but I expect it would be much simpler to take a single feat, Wand Bonding, and just spontaneously cast all the spells all the time.

No I'm not, I explicitly mentioned that in my post, under the 20% of wealth that comes in the form of gold. Most wealth comes in the form of magic items, 80%.

Then Artificers have a straight 20% more wealth than everyone else with no optimization required.

And it's only an infinite loop with an XP cost reduction feat that anyone can get. Wizards can, in turn, make this into infinite actual XP with a semi-obscure spell that copies the Artificer's Retain Essence feature, only giving actual XP instead of crafting reserve points. Granted, Artificers get this two levels sooner, so make of that what you wish.

The infinite loop here is with XP cost reduction and Retain Essence. Get rid of one or the other and it falls apart. But it takes vast, impractical amounts of time to get anywhere. 1,000 GP per day of crafting. That is the average number. There's ways to improve this, but whatever you do, you are measuring progress by 8 hour work days.

Retain essence is not a combo with XP cost reduction. "After one day, the item is destroyed and the artificer adds the XP it took to create the item to his craft reserve." So reducing the XP input also reduces the essence output.

[Cosi]

This falls under the "similar effect" clause. A Psionic Power is, by definition, roughly equivalent to a spell of equal level, so it falls under the clause.

The guidelines for a "similar effect" are way worse than psychic reformation.

I don't know what crazy string of feats you're taking to get down to 10%, but I expect it would be much simpler to take a single feat, Wand Bonding, and just spontaneously cast all the spells all the time.

That feat is exactly as available to Sorcerers, Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, or even Warmages. The Artificer has the advantage of crafting wands he wants, but the Beguiler has the advantage of knowing spells that are actually good on their own.

Then Artificers have a straight 20% more wealth than everyone else with no optimization required.

Giving a class with crappy casting (and let's be frank, infusions are crappy -- only spell storing item is close to good) 20% more wealth does not put it in Tier One. The highest I can see the Artificer is Tier Two. It's got worse versions of the abilities of a Tier One class (just like the Sorcerer) and its abilities can be optimized up to Tier One if you get the right options (like a Sorcerer using psychic reformation).

Honestly, it's probably worse than that, and people are assuming you'll optimize more because of how bad the class is if you don't.

[Schattenbach]

Voting is more or less done already, it seems, but well ... . Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Sha'ir, and Wizard all T1. At higher levels or without sufficient downtime, Artificer potentially drops out of T1 to T2 or even T3, though. Magic items is amazing, but so is native 7th level+ spellcasting (and epic spells for what it matters) and Dispell Magic (or, worse, Mage's Disjunction) aren't really helpful for the Artificer here. So if the things mentioned before (higher levels) are serious considerations, then my vote for Artificer is T2 (or T3 with lack of long downtime combined with the valid interpretation that that crafting homunculus doesn't allow to craft multiple items at once and/or the valid interpretation that Genesis isn't actually able to create Fast Time planes). It's up to Eggy to choose what consideration for the Artificer he's going to apply here as far as my vote is concerned.

[jywu98]

Where's the StP Erudite? If you put in Artificer I don't see any reason not to also include StP Erudite. Anyway here's my thoughts on the Tier 1 classes.

Cleric: 1st half of the monster that is CoDzilla. Hands down one of the most versatile classes in the game, and is completely able to break the game without the use of broken spells, simply by filling every role a party needs. Good chassis and a versatile spell list allows the cleric to function take on multiple roles depending on the spells prepared. The buffs available make a cleric a better fighter in many situations without needing to fully invest in combat abilities. The class has no weak levels and remains versatile throughout all 20 levels. Along with the druid, the cleric exemplifies what it means to be tier 1 - the ability to do anything, and do it well.

Druid: The Cleric's partner in crime, and perhaps the absolute strongest class in terms of practical gameplay. The druid effectively functions as 1.5 characters in the early levels due to the presence of an animal companion, a class feature that can be stronger than an entire class (Fighter). This allows the Druid to fulfill multiple party roles the most efficiently out of any class at low levels. Mid-levels the druid can easily keep up with the fighter due to wildshape, while also spewing out BFC and summons on par with Clerics and Wizards. At high levels the Druid falls off a bit due to melee combat losing effectiveness, but its spells are still strong, even if weaker than the Cleric and Wizard lists. Like the cleric, it breaks the game by simply being goddamn versatile.

Wizard: Posterboy of the tier due to the versatility and power of its spells, which contains not only combat and utility staples but also completely broken ****. It enjoys great splatbook support, but is easily tier 1 without it. Gives access to a decent amount of good PrCs, not that it really matters. A very versatile class, but has trouble picking up steam in the early levels. Full potential of the class is reached at high levels, but given most campaigns stop around mid-level the power of a wizard is a tad overrated as its versatility is nowhere near as strong as CoDzilla. Spellbook safety can be a bitch too if the DM doesn't pull punches.

Archivist: Best way to define this class is a divine wizard, with base access to the Cleric list, and a potential to access all divine spells - with shenanigans this means access to the Wizard list too. Considering the Cleric list only this class is honestly weaker than a Cleric - no potential DMM abuse, ****tier chassis, MAD, but considering access to ALL divine spells it easily can outshine the Cleric due to sheer versatility. A bit difficult to judge due to the class being dependent on how nice the DM is, but should be well within the limits of tier 1 if the DM allows some spells to be scribed in, as it is basically a prepared full caster with a Cleric spell list plus some.

Sha'ir: An overly complicated class that boils down to being an arcane cleric with limited access to divine spells, kinda like a reverse archivist. Honestly this class is ****ing problematic due to its spellfetch mechanics, which needed to be much clearer. Do spells fetched that expired without use count towards spells per day? Can you fetch more spells than you can cast? The world will never know. Mechanically this class runs into the same problems a wizard does at low levels, except it suffers more due to the spell expiry mechanic, which is also a pain in the ass for the DM to keep track of. The problem goes away in mid-levels, and arguably isn't even one because the DM will probably give up on trying to keep track of such a tedious ****ing mechanic. Once again, essentially plays out as a prepared arcane full caster with Wizard list plus some divine spells, and hence easy candidate for tier 1.

Now we come to the problematic classes.

Artificer: Like the Sha'ir, this class really has no business existing. Fluff-wise it's a ****ing glorified blacksmith. Crunch-wise it ranges from being party UMD'er (might as well be a rogue and save the shekels used to buy the fancy new splatbook) or ****ing Gilgamesh from F/SN, all depending on the DM's whims. The main problem really lies in the fact that the class itself does not play well with any version of the tier system so far as it has no class mechanic to call its own. The entire class is seems to be based around circumventing WbL limits and abusing magic items, which every class can do. It's just so that the artificer has the tools to do it better, but at the cost of almost everything else. The artificer's ability to "win" at the game is hinged on the fact that there is enough downtime to craft his ****. Compare this to a wizard that invests in crafting. The lack of downtime does not really hinder the wizard, as he can still function as a wizard, albeit with probably less metamagic abuse while the artificer needs his **** to function optimally. Scrolls-wise, the same problem that applies to the archivist applies here. Hence, the power variance of the class varies insanely, and hence it is ****ing difficult to grade. It really depends on your DM. That being said, the class is definitely tier 1 at character creation, as you can easily just craft your equipment in your backstory.

StP Erudite: The ultimate wet dream of CharOp, the most versatile class in the game. If the DM is stingy, this class is nothing but a ****ty psion. The StP Erudite can be considered an Archivist on steroids, with the only downside being a weaker base spell (power) list. This makes its core mechanic broken, like the artificer's, as it is hard to balance even among the tier 1 classes. Played at full potential it's tier 0, played at the baseline it's probably worse than a wilder. The problem is it is very hard to find a middle ground in the case of the StP Erudite. On a side note, one thing I do like about this class is lessened dependence on power augmentation due to the ability to manifest arcane spells as powers, which reduces the nova-like nature of psionic classes that further enforce the 5 minute workday. Once again, like the artificer, arguably tier 1, but also arguably useless.

[eggynack]

Where's the StP Erudite? If you put in Artificer I don't see any reason not to also include StP Erudite. Anyway here's my thoughts on the Tier 1 classes.

I was considering it, but was convinced to run it with some of the more casterish psionic classes, replacing that slot with sha'ir. It'll probably run in something like psion/erudite/StP erudite/wilder, or some other organization. Haven't come up with my precise psionic organization, but it shouldn't be too difficult. I suspect I'll wind up only running psionic classes with other psionic classes, in some reasonable partition of the whole set. Six is pretty much my maximum for considered classes, cause I don't want to overload these threads with too many simultaneous discussions, or have one dominant discussion blank out too many other possible ones.

[Geomancer8]

I could go off on the artificer for a while longer, but here's a challenge in general:

How good is the Druid, really? I mean, really really?

I've never seen a high level druid in play, but I've seen a lot of low level ones, and each time, I would have rather had a cleric in the party.

How many problems can the druid spell list and wild shaping really solve?

I challenge the Druid's Tier 1 status!

Druids are straight up broken once you hit lv. 5 (wildshape). The thing is, the only limits on a druid are creativity and a very annoyed DM. The wildshape based on knowledge nature gives basically free reign to exploit.. everything. It is like a built in multi tool. There are a lot of redundant spells, but so many (hail, lightning, fireballs) are just great, along with the luxury of switching in summons with no penalty. The wildspeak or whatever (summon as an animal) feat makes it even more insane.

Truth is, there is so much variance and exploitation that you cant properly prepare against it. Add in an elfen race, who has innate feats that boost it even more, and you are in trouble. My first battle as a lv. 5 druid ended up destroying an upper level NPC just because he had so much he could throw at the enemy.

Urban campaign? Heat/cool metal, summon swarms, etc. A nautical adventure? Warp wood..on every ship ever. And summon fireballs and elementals everywhere else. High fantasy? Come at me, bra. Howbouda. There are no barriers, once you get a good flow and the amount of spells and variance is just so exploitable.

[jywu98]

I was considering it, but was convinced to run it with some of the more casterish psionic classes, replacing that slot with sha'ir. It'll probably run in something like psion/erudite/StP erudite/wilder, or some other organization. Haven't come up with my precise psionic organization, but it shouldn't be too difficult. I suspect I'll wind up only running psionic classes with other psionic classes, in some reasonable partition of the whole set. Six is pretty much my maximum for considered classes, cause I don't want to overload these threads with too many simultaneous discussions, or have one dominant discussion blank out too many other possible ones.

Well you did title it the obvious tier 1 classes, and the StP erudite is the most wanked class along with the artificer.