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

[Efrate]

I see. So there is ways around it. I'll go t1 then, since the hoops are actually class features and nothing too crazy. I think the floor is a lot higher to do it well though. But I don't think that is something that keeps it out of t1.

[eggynack]

For the record, I have no idea what to do with asterisks. Can't even stick them in the sheet without screwing up the averaging thing. Planning to ignore them for the moment. I guess I could call it a fraction, but that could be further from true than just using the standard number. Oh, and Zancloufer, not sure what you're giving what scores, or what you're doing with the ones that don't get tier one, if they exist. I can guess, of course, but guessing isn't ideal.

[Aharon]

I'm not assuming anything crazy here. Just that the companion attacks the things you want it to attack. Pretty sure that aligns quite well with the rules. Animal companions rarely have associated high complexity tactics. Even a fleshraker just does all its stuff automatically.

That's a DC10 Handle Animal Check. Doable, but has a chance of failure at low levels. It's a free action for Druids and Rangers, but most DMs at actual tables probably won't give you unlimited tries.

Concerning the Artificer Debate:
Definitely Tier 1, for the reasons stated above by other posters.

[eggynack]

That's a DC10 Handle Animal Check. Doable, but has a chance of failure at low levels. It's a free action for Druids and Rangers, but most DMs at actual tables probably won't give you unlimited tries.

First, a bunch of tries is likely sufficient. You could theoretically miss ten times in a row, but that's a pretty low order problem. Second, failure is pretty close to impossible. I'd expect most druids to invest in handle animal animal for this very reason, so we're talking a baseline score of +3 or +4. The animal companion's link ability applies a +4, so we're already hanging out in +7 or +8 territory. Damage reduces that to a +5 or +6, but success is still really likely here. We're talking a 15-20% chance of failure, at most, and if you combine that with a reasonable quantity of repeated attempts, the chances of failure go down drastically. A single extra attempt gets us to a 4% chance of failure if we assume 8 charisma and first level. A third pushes us to .8%, and I'd expect that to fall short of unlimited tries. A 20th level barbarian will fail to succeed on a single attack against a first level commoner significantly more often. And this is first level. Further levels make the situation even better. By the time we hit fleshrakers, you should have +7 from skill ranks and +4 from link, meaning +11, reduced to +9 by damage, for automatic success. Finally, even if you can't closely guide the companion, I'd generally expect it to attack, even if its attack pattern is simply going after what's closest. This is your animal friend, after all, and your team is getting attacked. Is a DM really going to use their animal companion control to have said companion do literal nothing?

So, yeah, I'd fully expect the animal companion to successfully go after the exact enemy you want nearly 100% of the time, and the remaining almost 0% of the time they'd still be pretty great. Y'know, for one round. Then the next round you can presumably get it to attack your exact desired target again.

[thethird]

I'll show some love to artificers,

Optimization floor of classes is an important consideration. Most of the times I've seen tome of battle brought up in the boards as overpowered eventually we get to "tome of battles have a higher optimization floor than other martial classes but are not overpowered per se".

Eggynack has shown how high can a druid rise, but still a druid for example is not strongly reliant on build. Animal companion, wildshape, summoning spells (since they are spontaneous even new players will try them eventually) and spells to support them. The floor isn't really low there, even if the ceiling is high.

Someone playing a wizard and selecting spells that sound cool out of the phb will probably stumble unto something good (it's commonly agreed that most of the most broken spells are in the phb). But as good as that is it cannot be compared to how powerful a wizard can get with good and proper optimization (like learning spells from scrolls). The floor is lower than the druid, and I think the ceiling is higher.

What about the artificer? Looking at the floor of it it is a "conceited overblown NPC class" at the ceiling though it looks at the wizard/druid/cleric/psion/erudite/shadowcaster/whomever tricks and says that's nice I can do that too. Psionic artificer have been sometimes jokingly referred as tier 0. While I do not believe that tier 0 exists, or should exist, artificers can be really strong.

In my opinion they are tier 1 but are swingy and strongly dependant on optimization level. Is much harder as an artificer to stumble upon the good stuff that it is for other tier 1 classes.

Since you are bringing up tier 1 classes. And spellcasting, what about spirit shaman?

[eggynack]

Since you are bringing up tier 1 classes. And spellcasting, what about spirit shaman?

This thread is for "obvious" tier one classes. Spirit shaman I don't even think is tier one, let alone obviously so. I tend to consider it tier two, personally, and anywhere from one to three has been posited. One of the reasons I went with the tier one thread after the fixed list casters was because I thought the former thread would be debate heavy, and I wanted to follow it with something more laid back (and I think it is, even if we're having more discussion than I'd assumed we would). Spirit shaman is not laid back. Also, I already have six classes in this thread. I was thinking we'd have like three or four classes each thread, and six is around the maximum. Especially because I think adding the spirit shaman here exceeds the character limit for titles. My plan is to toss the spirit shaman into a thread with other "druid variants", so that the druid can act as something of a common touchstone for all of them. That means spirit shaman, urban druid, probably wild shape ranger, and maybe spontaneous druid.

Edit: On a somewhat separate note, I gotta say, I love the weird role of curator I've taken on regarding which classes go in which threads, and in what order those threads happen. There's some surprising depth to it. I just hope I don't get left with completely unrelated things at the end, cause I'm doing this all on the fly.

[Morphic tide]

My opinion is that, in practical play, Wizard and Artificer are t2 because of flaws everyone thinks are easy to bypass.

Wizards need to get spells into their spellbook, which is far from a sure thing. They get less spells than the Sorcerer automatically, while also having to prepare spells. They have the best spell list, but you have to get ahold of scrolls of a spell or have to be extremely careful in their spell picks. They are extremely dependent on having a Magic Mart to properly take off.

Artificers, as already stated, need unbelievable amounts of time(although the cost-reduction-restriction cheese also reduces time required, because it's a reduction of market price) and gold to get anything done. They bypass the least troublesome part of item crafting in 3.X, the part that the rules average out to be negligible, especially for Artificer.

As for Archivist, same issue as Wizard, but they can get spells from allied Druids and Clerics to fill their supply with large, juicy chunks of their spell lists, which is a much better position than having only the Wiz/Sorc spell list to draw from. So they are t1, in my opinion.

I have no clue what the Sha'ir is, so I have no comment.

Druid are firmly t1 to me. Yes, it's harder to find the broken SLAs on Nature's Ally lists than it is on the better-attended Summon Monster list, but you don't have to prepare any uses of the spell. You find a Nature's Ally healer that's worth using? You're almost a better healer than the Cleric, now, because you can Summon a replacement for that function. Or Summon an elemental beatstick. And you don't prepare the slot for it, either, you just do it. And Wildshape makes them almost a better Fighter than the actual Fighter, though using 3.0 creature types nerfs that quite a bit. Which was actually intentional, Wildshape was balanced for most of the good monsters being Beasts, not Animals.

Clerics are also firmly t1, but because of the much better spell list. Drawing on demigods and divine intervention for their theme is a big advantage over the Druid theme of "nature stuff," so you have considerably better spells to use. Domains also give an advantage, as does DMM, but whatever a Cleric has, they have most of the advantage made up for by the combat power of Wildshape and the utility power of Summon Nature's Ally, both reducing the need for preparing for combat on Druids by a lot.

Basically, Druids match Clerics by not needing to prepare any spells for combat, so they can focus on utility in practical play a lot harder. And the t1 game is defined by how much utility you bring to the table. Meanwhile, Clerics have much better spells and the bonuses of Domains and DMM, bringing them ahead in combat when preparing for it, as well as utility when focusing on it, but Druids have the advantage of being fully ready for combat with far fewer prepared slots than Clerics.

Meanwhile, the Archivist and Wizard are digging/begging for scrolls to add to their actually available spells. In practical play, I imagine that the Archivist gets a big advantage over Wizard due to plausible purchase of almost any 1st and 2nd level Cleric spell scroll by commissioning Clerics to make the scrolls with their full list access, which puts Archivist into t1 territory in more practical play situations.

[ryu]

My opinion is that, in practical play, Wizard and Artificer are t2 because of flaws everyone thinks are easy to bypass.

Wizards need to get spells into their spellbook, which is far from a sure thing. They get less spells than the Sorcerer automatically, while also having to prepare spells. They have the best spell list, but you have to get ahold of scrolls of a spell or have to be extremely careful in their spell picks. They are extremely dependent on having a Magic Mart to properly take off.

Artificers, as already stated, need unbelievable amounts of time(although the cost-reduction-restriction cheese also reduces time required, because it's a reduction of market price) and gold to get anything done. They bypass the least troublesome part of item crafting in 3.X, the part that the rules average out to be negligible, especially for Artificer.

As for Archivist, same issue as Wizard, but they can get spells from allied Druids and Clerics to fill their supply with large, juicy chunks of their spell lists, which is a much better position than having only the Wiz/Sorc spell list to draw from. So they are t1, in my opinion.

I have no clue what the Sha'ir is, so I have no comment.

Druid are firmly t1 to me. Yes, it's harder to find the broken SLAs on Nature's Ally lists than it is on the better-attended Summon Monster list, but you don't have to prepare any uses of the spell. You find a Nature's Ally healer that's worth using? You're almost a better healer than the Cleric, now, because you can Summon a replacement for that function. Or Summon an elemental beatstick. And you don't prepare the slot for it, either, you just do it. And Wildshape makes them almost a better Fighter than the actual Fighter, though using 3.0 creature types nerfs that quite a bit. Which was actually intentional, Wildshape was balanced for most of the good monsters being Beasts, not Animals.

Clerics are also firmly t1, but because of the much better spell list. Drawing on demigods and divine intervention for their theme is a big advantage over the Druid theme of "nature stuff," so you have considerably better spells to use. Domains also give an advantage, as does DMM, but whatever a Cleric has, they have most of the advantage made up for by the combat power of Wildshape and the utility power of Summon Nature's Ally, both reducing the need for preparing for combat on Druids by a lot.

Basically, Druids match Clerics by not needing to prepare any spells for combat, so they can focus on utility in practical play a lot harder. And the t1 game is defined by how much utility you bring to the table. Meanwhile, Clerics have much better spells and the bonuses of Domains and DMM, bringing them ahead in combat when preparing for it, as well as utility when focusing on it, but Druids have the advantage of being fully ready for combat with far fewer prepared slots than Clerics.

Meanwhile, the Archivist and Wizard are digging/begging for scrolls to add to their actually available spells. In practical play, I imagine that the Archivist gets a big advantage over Wizard due to plausible purchase of almost any 1st and 2nd level Cleric spell scroll by commissioning Clerics to make the scrolls with their full list access, which puts Archivist into t1 territory in more practical play situations.

There's literally dozens of ways of expanding your wizard's book that a DM has to individually veto one at a time before it can be called inefficient at which point I call some pretty big houserules are in effect. A few of which even work if you're literally the only magic user alive in the world.

[Morphic tide]

There's literally dozens of ways of expanding your wizard's book that a DM has to individually veto one at a time before it can be called inefficient at which point I call some pretty big houserules are in effect. A few of which even work if you're literally the only magic user alive in the world.

And I imagine that the catch is that they are mostly from the vast pileup of splats. If you go core-only, or have a policy of whitelisting splats in effect, both of which are rather reasonable means of restraining t1 classes and keeping the game generally manageable, then chances are that those methods will be cut down by a lot as a side effect.

Saying the DM has to individually veto stuff at all is kinda silly, when the optimization game is often reliant on drawing from half-a-dozen splats to get anywhere seriously better than core, or is reliant on inherently broken things to get far. You can't make Pun Pun without Serpent Kingdoms, after all. The DM need only restrict you to a set list of splats to cripple some tricks.

[eggynack]

Clerics are also firmly t1, but because of the much better spell list.

Dunno if this is the case minus domains. Still not as knowledgeable about the cleric list as I'd like to be, even after doing that favored soul analysis and poking at a list of all cleric spells, but the druid list is... surprising. Do you have any idea how long it took after hearing about how cool friendly fire is that I learned that it's a fourth level spell for druids as well as the more obvious wizards? I don't, but it was a lot. Knowing the druid list first gives access to things that other classes have that you wouldn't expect the druid to be capable of copying (took me even longer than the friendly fire thing to learn that protection from winged fliers is a solid facsimile of the mental protection part of protection from evil), and second gives access to things that other classes can't necessarily match (friendly fire in the cleric comparison, or master earth in the comparison to anyone).

[ryu]

And I imagine that the catch is that they are mostly from the vast pileup of splats. If you go core-only, or have a policy of whitelisting splats in effect, both of which are rather reasonable means of restraining t1 classes and keeping the game generally manageable, then chances are that those methods will be cut down by a lot as a side effect.

Saying the DM has to individually veto stuff at all is kinda silly, when the optimization game is often reliant on drawing from half-a-dozen splats to get anywhere seriously better than core, or is reliant on inherently broken things to get far. You can't make Pun Pun without Serpent Kingdoms, after all. The DM need only restrict you to a set list of splats to cripple some tricks.

Congratulations. We might actually be down to less than ten. You can houserule however you please in your games. Do keep in mind that short of houseruling, excessively might I add, wizard has more spells known than any other arcane caster.

[Morphic tide]

Congratulations. We might actually be down to less than ten. You can houserule however you please in your games. Do keep in mind that short of houseruling, excessively might I add, wizard has more spells known than any other arcane caster.

How many are in core, how many are in the Complete series and how many are in the basic setting books? Do keep the numbers separate for each of those three categories, just to keep it clear about where the concentration is.

Oh, and my issue with people saying Wizard is OP because of the spell variety is that said variety is so very, very hard to actually use. Meanwhile, Sorcerers need only one Psionic Power to completely replace their spells known altogether, and means of getting that as a uses per day ability are fairly cheap.

[ryu]

How many are in core, how many are in the Complete series and how many are in the basic setting books? Do keep the numbers separate for each of those three categories, just to keep it clear about where the concentration is.

Oh, and my issue with people saying Wizard is OP because of the spell variety is that said variety is so very, very hard to actually use. Meanwhile, Sorcerers need only one Psionic Power to completely replace their spells known altogether, and means of getting that as a uses per day ability are fairly cheap.

Well let's start with the simple ones shall we? The ones you pick at level one and never think of again? Domain wizards gain a free pile of spells from any of several good sets on top of more daily castings. Collegiate wizard is four more spells known per level. If you can't make a competent wizard list out of that without even getting into scribing of any kind you aren't trying.

[eggynack]

Oh, and my issue with people saying Wizard is OP because of the spell variety is that said variety is so very, very hard to actually use.

I don't see how spell variety is that hard to use. Even if you're just picking up enough spells to give you exactly as many as you have spells prepared, you're already gaining a significant versatility advantage over the sorcerer. And doing that is rather trivial. Buy a couple of scrolls each level, or find a friendly wizard or abandoned spell book, and you're doing really well for yourself. Go somewhat deeper, gaining a couple of spells for each spell prepared slot, and you can vary your daily approach to circumstance, or have spells that gain you power during your time away from adventuring. All of this seems classically within the bounds of rather low optimization games. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that more spells is more good, and neither does it take one to access the rather simple and straightforward mechanics surrounding spell addition. I'd trust a new player to figure out getting extra spells for some variety before I'd trust one to get their spells known list really great on the first try.

[Aharon]

Spoiler

Show

First, a bunch of tries is likely sufficient. You could theoretically miss ten times in a row, but that's a pretty low order problem. Second, failure is pretty close to impossible. I'd expect most druids to invest in handle animal animal for this very reason, so we're talking a baseline score of +3 or +4. The animal companion's link ability applies a +4, so we're already hanging out in +7 or +8 territory. Damage reduces that to a +5 or +6, but success is still really likely here. We're talking a 15-20% chance of failure, at most, and if you combine that with a reasonable quantity of repeated attempts, the chances of failure go down drastically. A single extra attempt gets us to a 4% chance of failure if we assume 8 charisma and first level. A third pushes us to .8%, and I'd expect that to fall short of unlimited tries. A 20th level barbarian will fail to succeed on a single attack against a first level commoner significantly more often. And this is first level. Further levels make the situation even better. By the time we hit fleshrakers, you should have +7 from skill ranks and +4 from link, meaning +11, reduced to +9 by damage, for automatic success. Finally, even if you can't closely guide the companion, I'd generally expect it to attack, even if its attack pattern is simply going after what's closest. This is your animal friend, after all, and your team is getting attacked. Is a DM really going to use their animal companion control to have said companion do literal nothing?

So, yeah, I'd fully expect the animal companion to successfully go after the exact enemy you want nearly 100% of the time, and the remaining almost 0% of the time they'd still be pretty great. Y'know, for one round. Then the next round you can presumably get it to attack your exact desired target again.

Forgot about the +4 from the link. Without it, the chance of failure is more significant at low levels.

[Cosi]

I see. So there is ways around it. I'll go t1 then, since the hoops are actually class features and nothing too crazy. I think the floor is a lot higher to do it well though. But I don't think that is something that keeps it out of t1.

Think about what you're saying. The Artificer is Tier One because if it gets a setting specific resource (action points), and takes three specific feats (Extend Spell, Persist Spell, whatever feat gives you fast infusions), and gets a specific spell form an obscure splat, it can do something cool. You know what a Wizard needs to do something cool? To take a spell that does something cool.

Artificers, as already stated, need unbelievable amounts of time(although the cost-reduction-restriction cheese also reduces time required, because it's a reduction of market price) and gold to get anything done. They bypass the least troublesome part of item crafting in 3.X, the part that the rules average out to be negligible, especially for Artificer.

Also, if you're doing massive cost reduction to bump stuff down to 10% or less of its base cost, couldn't other people be doing WBL loops to get 10 times their base wealth? The advantage the Artificer has here is a really weird one where his power has an obvious cap (he can't reduce infinitely, so he's still technically constrained), and is therefore less likely to get banhammered.

As for Archivist, same issue as Wizard, but they can get spells from allied Druids and Clerics to fill their supply with large, juicy chunks of their spell lists, which is a much better position than having only the Wiz/Sorc spell list to draw from. So they are t1, in my opinion.

Is the situation where the party has an Archivist and a Druid/Cleric with Scribe Scroll really more common than the one where they just have two Wizards?

[Gnaeus]

Archivist: Tier 1.

Artificer: Can't rank. I've never sat down and read through the class, much less played one.

Cleric: Tier 1

Druid: Tier 1

Sha'ir: See Artificer.

Wizard: Tier 1.

I'd like to cast my votes just the same as Gullintanni. I think Artificer is T1, but haven't seen one in play and the counter argument has convinced me sufficiently to not want to vote on it.

[Morphic tide]

Well let's start with the simple ones shall we? The ones you pick at level one and never think of again? Domain wizards gain a free pile of spells from any of several good sets on top of more daily castings. Collegiate wizard is four more spells known per level. If you can't make a competent wizard list out of that without even getting into scribing of any kind you aren't trying.

All of those things? The tier system does not care about any except the first. The tier system is about the base class's abilities. Not what feats unlock, not what AFCs do, not what anything other than the base class has.

Sorcerer is t2 because it has a hard limit on it's versatility in the base class. There's a lot of tricks to swap your Spells Known. One of them brings your feats along for the swap. Those tricks are not part of the tier of Sorcerer because they are not class features of Sorcerer.

Similarly, all the non-Core, non-base-class tricks for gaining spells in your spellbook are invalid for Wizard being t1. Otherwise, Sorcerer would be higher tier than Wizard because of access to tricks that turn the entire spell list into an accessable feature, instead of something you have to choose a fragment of.

I know what Domain Wizards are, I know about Collegiate Wizard, but I ignore them because they have no bearing on the Wizard class proper. Under your reasoning, Fighter would be t3 because Dungeoncrasher and other good AFCs exist. But those are actively considered separate thing from Fighter because they are not part of the base class and alter the capabilities enough to change the tier. If the Wizard can only truly match Druids and Clerics with the level of careful building that Sorcerer normally needs, then Wizard should not be t1.

That's the big thing here: Wizard can be permanently screwed up. Cleric and Druid? Nothing can make Druid 20 with 19 Wis incapable of outclassing everything that isn't t1 or t2. Wizard? Sufficiently bad spell picks make it incapable of keeping up with Druid 20 with only a change in playstyle. It's the same boat Sorcerer is in, it's just a better part of the boat.

Edit: It's possible to negatively optimize Wizard down to t3, or even t4, with nightmarishly bad building. With the same level of active effort put into crippling the class, the only thing a Cleric or Druid needs to keep to stay t1 in practice is to have 17 Wisdom. Because their spells alone can outclass the lower tier classes, and they always have their entire spell list.

You cannot destroy a Druid with 19 Wis to be worse than a Bard. You can, however, do such a thing with a 19 Int Wizard, because the Wizard has to choose their spell list access, while Druids always have spontaneous access to Nature's Ally and always have Wildshape and always have access to their entire spell list. You cannot remove these things from the base class.

[ryu]

All of those things? The tier system does not care about any except the first. The tier system is about the base class's abilities. Not what feats unlock, not what AFCs do, not what anything other than the base class has.

Sorcerer is t2 because it has a hard limit on it's versatility in the base class. There's a lot of tricks to swap your Spells Known. One of them brings your feats along for the swap. Those tricks are not part of the tier of Sorcerer because they are not class features of Sorcerer.

Similarly, all the non-Core, non-base-class tricks for gaining spells in your spellbook are invalid for Wizard being t1. Otherwise, Sorcerer would be higher tier than Wizard because of access to tricks that turn the entire spell list into an accessable feature, instead of something you have to choose a fragment of.

I know what Domain Wizards are, I know about Collegiate Wizard, but I ignore them because they have no bearing on the Wizard class proper. Under your reasoning, Fighter would be t3 because Dungeoncrasher and other good AFCs exist. But those are actively considered separate thing from Fighter because they are not part of the base class and alter the capabilities enough to change the tier. If the Wizard can only truly match Druids and Clerics with the level of careful building that Sorcerer normally needs, then Wizard should not be t1.

That's the big thing here: Wizard can be permanently screwed up. Cleric and Druid? Nothing can make Druid 20 with 19 Wis incapable of outclassing everything that isn't t1 or t2. Wizard? Sufficiently bad spell picks make it incapable of keeping up with Druid 20 with only a change in playstyle. It's the same boat Sorcerer is in, it's just a better part of the boat.

You seem to laboring under a misconception. Fighter is not t5 not because ACFs and feats specific to a class aren't considered, but because there are no fighter ACFs that actually do much of anything important. A carefully optimized fighter might be able to break into tier 4 of the old system, and that's a big might. If it's specific to your class it counts as a consideration for your tier. Period. Unless you'd like to argue with eggy about that.

[eggynack]

All of those things? The tier system does not care about any except the first. The tier system is about the base class's abilities. Not what feats unlock, not what AFCs do, not what anything other than the base class has.

No, it's not. This one isn't, anyway, and I'd argue that the original has more room for that kinda analysis than some may think. You shouldn't assume that every wizard is a domain wizard, but you should assume that's an available option. Anyway, I'm pretty explicit that we're considering ACFs that don't individually raise your tier, especially if said ACFs have meaningful substitutes, and feats are generally considered where they offer marginal advantage over other classes.

That's the big thing here: Wizard can be permanently screwed up. Cleric and Druid? Nothing can make Druid 20 with 19 Wis incapable of outclassing everything that isn't t1 or t2. Wizard? Sufficiently bad spell picks make it incapable of keeping up with Druid 20 with only a change in playstyle. It's the same boat Sorcerer is in, it's just a better part of the boat.

How could a wizard possibly be permanently screwed up? Scrolls are right there. If you suddenly realize all your spells are a pile of crap, it might take awhile along with some cash but you can swap out every single one of those. Granted, wealth is finite, but it's nowhere near this finite that permanent screwing up is going to be a common occurrence. Druids and clerics definitely adapt better to crappy building than a wizard does, but a wizard isn't completely inflexible.

[Morphic tide]

You seem to laboring under a misconception. Fighter is not t5 not because ACFs and feats specific to a class aren't considered, but because there are no fighter ACFs that actually do much of anything important. A carefully optimized fighter might be able to break into tier 4 of the old system, and that's a big might. If it's specific to your class it counts as a consideration for your tier. Period. Unless you'd like to argue with eggy about that.

Isn't t4 "good at one thing, and one thing only?" Because that's basically Fighter in a nutshell. They are good at Fighting, and nothing else. You don't need extreme optimization to do more damage than most Barbarians or Rangers, and even some Rogues who consistently land Feints to Sneak Attack constantly.

[Gnaeus]

You seem to laboring under a misconception. Fighter is not t5 not because ACFs and feats specific to a class aren't considered, but because there are no fighter ACFs that actually do much of anything important. A carefully optimized fighter might be able to break into tier 4 of the old system, and that's a big might. If it's specific to your class it counts as a consideration for your tier. Period. Unless you'd like to argue with eggy about that.

I agree with Ryu's main point, and while I disagree with his fighter comments that belongs in a later thread.

[Morphic tide]

I agree with Ryu's main point, and while I disagree with his fighter comments that belongs in a later thread.

How so? This thread is about retiering the Wizard, Artificer and Archivist, along with three others. I just used Fighter as an added example of where the idea that the tier system gives a damn about AFCs is wrong. I also used Sorcerer, which has multiple bypasses of the Spells Known mechanic to have functional access to the entire Sorc/Wiz spell list, as another example.

If AFCs, as well as feats and equipment that are not class features, effect the tier of a class, then several t2 classes are very, very easily t1 because their limitations that make them t2 have bypasses.

[ryu]

Isn't t4 "good at one thing, and one thing only?" Because that's basically Fighter in a nutshell. They are good at Fighting, and nothing else. You don't need extreme optimization to do more damage than most Barbarians or Rangers, and even some Rogues who consistently land Feints to Sneak Attack constantly.

No, because fighter isn't good at fighting. Fighter SUCKS at fighting harder than literally every single core class save perhaps monk unless we place arbitrary restrictions on non-fighters. Without ACFs the class is actually debatably not far off being compared to straight up warriors. They don't get bonus feats, but at least they have skill points and a less terrible class skill than Mr. blind, deaf, and generally awful. That's right. You can't even use baseline fighter as a competent guard dog. That's how much of a mockery of every other mundane they are just by existing.

[Psyren]

Sha'ir is T1 but tends to be weak at low levels because their preparation/retention mechanic has a rough start. Regardless, they're one of my favorite classes in 3.5.

They combo exceptionally well with Warlocks - Cha synergy, fluff synergy, theurge synergy, and eldritch blast + invocations save them from the "crossbow problem" early on too.

[Morphic tide]

No, because fighter isn't good at fighting. Fighter SUCKS at fighting harder than literally every single core class save perhaps monk unless we place arbitrary restrictions on non-fighters. Without ACFs the class is actually debatably not far off being compared to straight up warriors. They don't get bonus feats, but at least they have skill points and a less terrible class skill than Mr. blind, deaf, and generally awful. That's right. You can't even use baseline fighter as a competent guard dog. That's how much of a mockery of every other mundane they are just by existing.

Spot and Listen are not really needed for direct combat. Avoiding surprise rounds, somewhat, but not really for when you are actually in combat. Really, the only skills normally relevant mid-combat without piles of optimizing are Intimidate, Tumble and sometimes Balance.

How, exactly, is Fighter worse at fighting than "barely a caster" Paladins, who's only advantages in combat over a Warrior are Charisma to saves, the only thing people actually bother with the class for, a limited healing pool and a uses-per-day ability that's rather weak for how limited the uses are? Oh, and the mount.

I also bring back up Dungeoncrasher: I have never seen an argument for Fighter proper being a higher tier because Dungeoncrasher exists. I have always seen it listed separately from the Fighter proper. Same for other AFCs that alter tier, like STP Erudite.

I have never, ever seen tier arguments count AFCs as part of the base class for the tier rating. Every tier list I have seen lists STP Erudite as t1, with other Psions at t2. They've all listed Dungeoncrasher separately from normal Fighter.

Over and over again, I have seen AFCs listed separately from the base class. According to what's been said as retort, that's not supposed to be the case.

[eggynack]

If AFCs, as well as feats and equipment that are not class features, effect the tier of a class, then several t2 classes are very, very easily t1 because their limitations that make them t2 have bypasses.

These game elements both are and aren't considered. The simplest way to put it is that you determine what percentage of characters you'd expect would have the feat, and then consider the feat at that percentage. It's obviously a lot more complicated than that, especially because, first, that percentage is fundamentally unknown, and second, because considering something at a given percentage is a weird construct, but that's the general principle you should be holding in your mind.

Perhaps the fuller approach to this actually makes more sense, rather than less as one would expect of added complexity. Zoom in on a hypothetical random table where someone's playing a wizard, with the stipulation that this random wizard can't make much use of prestige classes or of specific high impact ACFs. Assess the tier of this wizard. Now zoom out and do the same to some other wizard. And a third, and a fourth, and so on until you've evaluated every wizard in existence. Now, kinda average all those tier rankings together. That average tier is what we're looking for, and you can do the same for sorcerers. By thinking about this overall structure, it's easy to take note of some of the things I mention in my base thread. For example, that feats are mostly just important when they give greater advantage to you than to the class you're comparing to. After all, if we spread a wizard-superior feat arbitrarily among the wizards and sorcerers, which might well be what is happening in real-space, then the wizard will do better in the comparison than before the feat was considered. If the feat is equally beneficial to both classes, then it's irrelevant to this comparison, but maybe relevant to a different comparison.


Edit:

I also bring back up Dungeoncrasher: I have never seen an argument for Fighter proper being a higher tier because Dungeoncrasher exists. I have always seen it listed separately from the Fighter proper. Same for other AFCs that alter tier, like STP Erudite.

I have never, ever seen tier arguments count AFCs as part of the base class for the tier rating. Every tier list I have seen lists STP Erudite as t1, with other Psions at t2. They've all listed Dungeoncrasher separately from normal Fighter.

Over and over again, I have seen AFCs listed separately from the base class. According to what's been said as retort, that's not supposed to be the case.

If dungeoncrasher does raise the fighter's tier on its own, which might well be the case, then we will indeed split it off and not consider it as part of the fighter for the purpose of tiering. However, with an ACF that does not individually raise tier, we will not wind up splitting it off, because splitting it off would just give us another class with the same tier (and ultimately force us to tier every single ACF in existence). These ACFs, that don't raise tier, are considered, because to not consider them would be to lose the information that is ordinarily recouped (with interest) through separate consideration. And, if these not individually tier raising ACFs exist in sufficient quantity, then the class might be increased in tier by the consideration of that whole group. A good example of this is the paladin, which has a ton of decent but not tier raising ACFs. The monk could fit this too, but it's possible that invisible fist is worth tier four on its own.

[ryu]

Spot and Listen are not really needed for direct combat. Avoiding surprise rounds, somewhat, but not really for when you are actually in combat. Really, the only skills normally relevant mid-combat without piles of optimizing are Intimidate, Tumble and sometimes Balance.

How, exactly, is Fighter worse at fighting than "barely a caster" Paladins, who's only advantages in combat over a Warrior are Charisma to saves, the only thing people actually bother with the class for, a limited healing pool and a uses-per-day ability that's rather weak for how limited the uses are? Oh, and the mount.

I also bring back up Dungeoncrasher: I have never seen an argument for Fighter proper being a higher tier because Dungeoncrasher exists. I have always seen it listed separately from the Fighter proper. Same for other AFCs that alter tier, like STP Erudite.

I have never, ever seen tier arguments count AFCs as part of the base class for the tier rating. Every tier list I have seen lists STP Erudite as t1, with other Psions at t2. They've all listed Dungeoncrasher separately from normal Fighter.

Over and over again, I have seen AFCs listed separately from the base class. According to what's been said as retort, that's not supposed to be the case.

The mount can threaten attacks of opportunity in squares the the paladin doesn't acting as pseudo area denial, the healing pool means that unlike fighter they can kiss their own inevitable melee booboos better, not to mention a host of buffs and spellcasting that will be in place to bolster melee combatant proficiency any time the party isn't caught unexpectedly. All of these are things fighters don't get. You wanna bring in ACFs the comparison gets even less kind.

[Gnaeus]

How so? This thread is about retiering the Wizard, Artificer and Archivist, along with three others. I just used Fighter as an added example of where the idea that the tier system gives a damn about AFCs is wrong. I also used Sorcerer, which has multiple bypasses of the Spells Known mechanic to have functional access to the entire Sorc/Wiz spell list, as another example.

If AFCs, as well as feats and equipment that are not class features, effect the tier of a class, then several t2 classes are very, very easily t1 because their limitations that make them t2 have bypasses.

We should be looking at feats to determine what a class can do. We have to use the lens of equivalent optimization of course, a rogue with darkstalker is not the same as a fighter with power attack, but it may be the same as a fighter pulling from ToB. ACFs are the same. We shouldn't assume that every barbarian has pounce, but we should assume that most barbarians in highly optimized tables do unless there is some good reason for them not to.

Gear is tougher. We have to include gear at some level or the system breaks down completely. We can certainly assume that a Fighter 10 can break DR magic unless he's been captured and stripped. I don't like assuming that classes have specific gear unless they can make it. Without endless debates on RAW of magicmart, I have certainly seen games where a fighter can't say "I want a +3 vicious spiked chain" and be sure to get one. In some games the rogue can get the precise weapon crystals he wants, in some he can't, depending on lots of campaign assumptions, but even if he can't get the wand of blink he wants, he will almost certainly have access to some wands, and UMD must be taken into account or we are mistiering. And classes that can make their gear or have special benefits as to using gear have to get points for that on the scale. I don't think it's fair to assume that my beguiler or DN has the exact runestaff he wants. But I do think that if that's an allowed sourcebook that they will usually be able to find/buy/commission/quest for a runestaff.

Tldr Some classes are highly dependent on certain specific gear to do their jobs and that should be held against them. Other classes have advantages in making/using gear and that is in their favor.

[Morphic tide]

These game elements both are and aren't considered. The simplest way to put it is that you determine what percentage of characters you'd expect would have the feat, and then consider the feat at that percentage. It's obviously a lot more complicated than that, especially because, first, that percentage is fundamentally unknown, and second, because considering something at a given percentage is a weird construct, but that's the general principle you should be holding in your mind.

Perhaps the fuller approach to this actually makes more sense, rather than less as one would expect of added complexity. Zoom in on a hypothetical random table where someone's playing a wizard, with the stipulation that this random wizard can't make much use of prestige classes or of specific high impact ACFs. Assess the tier of this wizard. Now zoom out and do the same to some other wizard. And a third, and a fourth, and so on until you've evaluated every wizard in existence. Now, kinda average all those tier rankings together. That average tier is what we're looking for, and you can do the same for sorcerers. By thinking about this overall structure, it's easy to take note of some of the things I mention in my base thread. For example, that feats are mostly just important when they give greater advantage to you than to the class you're comparing to. After all, if we spread a wizard-superior feat arbitrarily among the wizards and sorcerers, which might well be what is happening in real-space, then the wizard will do better in the comparison than before the feat was considered. If the feat is equally beneficial to both classes, then it's irrelevant to this comparison, but maybe relevant to a different comparison.

The more stuff I hear like this, the more I consider the tier system to be fundamentally nonsense. Because if you did that, Wizards and Sorcerers would be almost equal because most casual play has Wizards and Sorcerers make very similar choices. And you can't really consider stuff like this as a basis of a system without having extensive studies on it, in which case you run into the problem of high-op games having single tricks made extremely common by the nature of the game being played inverting some comparisons, like my stated example of the Sorcerers with access to the entire Sorc/Wiz spell list.

As a matter of fact, one such trick basically exactly matches the example of things that work better for one class than another. For Sorcerers and Psionic classes, it's overwhelmingly bull**** because it provides them effective access to their entire list of abilities. For most other classes, it only lets them swap out feats and skill ranks.