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

[Zanos]

Man, whatever, even a Cleric making spiderform with his domain is less of an issue, but really "Beguilers can't PrC because PrCs don't exist, but my Archivist has a non existent Geometer PrC friend who writes him scrolls."

Also, Archivists don't need access to PrC lists to be tier 1, so I'm not really sure why that argument even matters.

[eggynack]

There's a difference between taking a PrC that advances your primary class features (like Incantatrix, Mage of the Arcane Order, or Rainbow Servant on an arcane caster), and one that doesn't (like Eye of Gruumsh on an arcane caster). There are also PrCs that change dramatically based on what class is taking them, either relatively (MoMF is good for Wild Shape Ranger, but bad for Druid because Druid has casting) or absolutely (Rainbow Servant is only really good for fixed list casters).

That's kinda a separate factor that's just universally considered. As I said before, something like contemplative on a cleric is pretty close to a feat in terms of how we'd consider it. So, at that point, we inevitably have to ask how good contemplative is for a cleric, and how it is on the classes we're comparing it to, same as we would for any feat or item. If the prestige class is something we're not considering as much, we still do all that stuff but with some variety of modifier to represent that lesser consideration.

[GilesTheCleric]

That's kinda a separate factor that's just universally considered. As I said before, something like contemplative on a cleric is pretty close to a feat in terms of how we'd consider it. So, at that point, we inevitably have to ask how good contemplative is for a cleric, and how it is on the classes we're comparing it to, same as we would for any feat or item. If the prestige class is something we're not considering as much, we still do all that stuff but with some variety of modifier to represent that lesser consideration.

I think everyone already knows, but adding more domains to a cleric is a bit of a proposition in diminishing returns. Most domains are filled with spells that are already on your list, and of those spells that aren't, most will entice you toward a particular playstyle that's likely at odds with the spells from another domain. That is, the marginal utility of extra domains isn't all that high.

In terms of the general sentiment, I agree -- some PrCs are more about augmenting or slightly expanding a class's options than they are about changing the focus of the class entirely. Whether I would be comfortable rating those in? No, I don't think so. We're already a bit sticky on the points of "which books should we assume are in use" and "do skills or WBL count or not", so I wouldn't want to add PrCs to that.

Plus I can already see a huge point of contention -- if you get to add a bunch of PrCs to something like the Evangelist Cleric as part of its tier assumption, then there's a reasonable argument to be made that it qualifies for T1. So too then goes Beguiler, Dread Necro, and Warmage with their list expansions. At what point do we cut things off and say "well, lots of classes can get to T1 in all sorts of ways, WBL or no, because we're good at optimising"?

[Gullintanni]

Huh. I was going to check out, but seeing Morphic Tide actually bringing some reasonable optimization assumptions gives me hope. You can throw me in second on everything he said on the classes at hand (even if he's doing a couple other things wrong), except that Archivist doesn't get a pass from "allied casters" so it lands at 2 with the Wizard and Artificer, plus Sha'ir at tier 1. Because he's quite right: the thing that makes Wizards and Artificers "tier 1" is lots of DM leniency, cross-book optimization, and wacky spell access..."

Not to put too fine a point on this, but the Wizard requires nothing outside of core to be Tier 1. All you need is the spell list contained in the Player's Handbook.

What makes a Wizard Tier 1 is that the Wizard grabs extremely valuable spells every level, and can scribe scrolls into his/her spellbook. Arguably DM fiat is required to buy scrolls, and the argument is that if the Wiz can't buy scrolls then he's SOL and relegated to a lower tier.

The problem with that assumption is that you have to apply it universally in order to evaluate Tiers.

In that world, every Martial character is a tier six because he can't be assumed to have access to a magic sword. The game is built on the assumption that a character is going to be able to SPEND his or her WBL. If you throw that assumption out the window for Wizards and scrolls, then you've got to throw it out for everybody.

In which case, tiers change radically because only a handful of classes are viable when they're naked.

[Fizban]

Huh, fell asleep without hitting submit. Eh, nothing new.

It seems a lot to me like the wizard's "excuse" is that it can scribe scrolls and sometimes copy off of spellbooks, fully within the rules and guidelines of the game. There are workarounds if you can't do that stuff effectively, but those are less additional excuses, more ways to work around the occasional weirdness in the original "excuse". It's longer than the list for some classes, certainly, but it's not all that long by any means, and the higher echelons of power are incredibly high. And, as was noted, even in relatively low to the ground scenarios, you're still getting more spell variety and faster spell level access than a sorcerer. So, marginally higher floor, much higher ceiling.

My point being the flaw in the assumptions about the rules and guidelines of the game. As I brought up in the Warmage thread, the only challenges that are fully endorsed by the game (with CR, xp, and treasure tables rather than mild suggestions) are combat and traps, with only a few pages of traps to entire books of monsters. In order to make dealing with anything other than combat or traps a consideration, you have to impose that on the game, which you are doing so by ranking down classes for not having those effects. You are making assumptions about what the DM is doing which are not accounted for in your tiers.

Similarly, with Wizards and spellbooks, you are assuming that the Wizard does in fact have access to scrolls and other Wizards to copy from, which is actually several assumptions at once. For magic marts, even by the given city generation, you are assuming cities of a certain minimum size to support NPCs of the required level, who happen to have the spells the player wants, who happen to be willing to sell a scroll or allow copying to the given character. There are whole fields of DMs for which none of those assumptions are assumptions, it's not looking at the Wizard class: it's looking at the Wizard plus WBL and campaign based optimization.

Your response to Morphic Tide was literally, "how can you screw a wizard up, scrolls are right there," but having all the spells is not a native ability. Cleric and Druid have a drastic innate advantage that the Wizard can only overcome with WBL, the same problem that makes the Sorcerer inferior to the Wizard, the same problem everyone says the Warmage has compared to everyone. If Sorc can't count scrolls for utility spells, why does Wizard get to count them as spells known? Is the Wizards four, four innate spells known at each spell level really so mind-bogglingly awesome that it matches the entire Cleric/Druid lists? The Wizard is not incredibly good at solving all problems: it's only incredibly good at solving problems that match the spells in its book. If you want to argue that Wizard is better, you have to prove it via the spell efficacy, not their supposed spellbook size.

And this is where we hit my claim that you're going to need more tiers. If one actually considers the possibility that Wizard is lower tier than the Druid, That would drop the Wizard to tier 2. But then if Sorcerer must be weaker than Wizard, it drops to tier 3. But apparently Warmage isn't as good as Sorcerer, so now it drops to 4. But people still want at least two tiers worth of non-casters, so now you need 5 and 6, before even hitting the garbage tier at 7. And back to the Beguiler, how many extra problems does a Sorcerer need to solve to match it's raw ability, shouldn't the Beguiler be a tier higher too? Now we need another one.

You say that I'm arbitrarily limiting the Wizard, I say that you're arbitrarily favoring the Wizard. Until you define the starting position you can't really complain if I think the starting position should be somewhere else. Saying that I haven't convinced anyone doesn't change the fact that you've left it open to interpretation, making your tiers automatically wrong for someone who doesn't happen to already match your views, which you don't fully explain because. . . ? You want the voting average to represent the base assumptions of the DM, without explanation, even when some voters might not even be running them that way?

I'd also take another moment to heap some more on that "average of all wizards at all tables" comment. Really? You really think the average wizard across all tables is being played to Tier 1 Competency? Come on. You're explicitly counting player skill as part of that model, and with how easy it is to screw up a Wizard, the only way it's true is by assuming Wizard players are just better than non-Wizard players. You say that its just a theoretical model and rather than "some platonic average optimization version," but that is exactly what you're doing. Assuming a platonic ideal of a Wizard that picks a spread of spells that makes them extremely good at dealing with all "problems" and is both allowed to expand that spell list whenever necessary and does so to whatever extent is required to beat the class it's being compared to.

It's not that undefined. Tier two is better than tier three, worse than tier one. That's nearly all of what you need to know in order to tier. I think the warmage is worse than any class I'd consider tier two. That's a more important factor than any consideration relating to some precise definitions. It's not like people weren't indicating why they thought you were wrong about warmage. Not spontaneously agreeing with everything you say doesn't mean that people aren't listening to you and discussing things with you.

Yo, dawg, I covered this in the main thread with the posts that you haven't responded to. Other than "worse," you don't have any definitions of *how* worse something needs to be, or what it takes to be *good*, other than Wizard, Sorcerer, and Bard. You can't just keep sidestepping the issue by saying you don't want definitions. I'm not even asking for precise definitions, Troacctid literally already gave more of a guideline by quoting the 5e pillars of adventuring, but you have to say something more specific than "problems" if you want it to mean anything, because you're the one expanding the definition of "problems" from the game's given combat and trap encounters to whatever is is you consider a problem.

These threads have given your and Tide's input a massive amount of individual attention and discussion. This wizard for tier two argument has dominated a large quantity of this thread, and the same is the case for your warmage for tier two argument.

Yes, after which I realized we weren't on the same page and went back to the main thread to try and continue that discussion, which you dropped.

I've looked at them somewhat. Not ruling anything out, but I don't think there's that much consensus on an individual thing. The idea of adding the graphs is growing on me a bit, though I'm not quite there yet. This doesn't have to be super crazy action time. Even if/when I change the system, it's not going to place emphasis on something above comparison testing. It'd just better define the space for that testing, and give a better understanding of the lay of the land.

I hope you're not expecting consensus when you have both invited change and have participants who seem actively hostile to it. All I want is for you to acknowledge that your tiers are based on things not required by the initial game and give some indication of that with actual meaning besides "problems." It'd be nice to see the expectations in DM leniency and optimization actually laid down, but I doubt that will happen.

I wasn't laughing at you. I was laughing at myself for kinda prematurely including a class as benchmark that could theoretically become controversial. I don't expect the class to become actually controversial, because some classes are a lot more set in stone in the minds of folks than others (and for good reason, I'd assert), but if it does it'd be somewhat amusing that I'd have to change my definitions to match.

I will also point out the obvious in that voting will never produce a consensus and an unwillingness to change anything unless the majority says so will result in no changes. If all you want is to write down the shift in opinion/disagreements with the original tiers, well that's pretty much the stated goal I guess. But if all you're going to do is say "nah, you haven't convinced me, denied," why should we even bother presenting views we know you disagree with already? If my voice isn't heard for the tiering, or improving the definitions, why am I speaking?

They're not that undefined. I'd expect the problem field to be majority combat, with a solid chunk of various quantities of non-combat. Wizards happen to be really good at all of those things. And everything else, really. The problem field is rare that the wizard won't be great at. Kinda why they're tier one.

Yes, they are. What is non-combat and what does it take to be good at it? Sorcerer is constantly getting a pass for being able to have one or two spells related to a thing. Wizard is getting an A+ for the same thing but a few levels sooner (and their base 4 spells per level is just as brutal as the Sorcerer's without WBL). What is non-combat? How much do you need to go up a tier? You don't want to specify any of this, and that's why I thought my tiers actually lined up, because mine are structured so as to avoid these questions entirely.

Not really sure why, to be honest. I think I've given your position a fair shake. People just don't agree with you. Maybe we will after another ton of arguing, or maybe we won't, but really, failing to convince people is the default state in an argument. If people weren't already convinced of their own position, they probably wouldn't be arguing it, after all.

As above, I'm annoyed because you dropped the discussion of what other people wanted to see in the tier definitions in the main thread without accepting any input from those who found your tiers lacking. You say that adding any definitions other than what you have will somehow result in things being tiered wrong, but there are ways you could improve it without committing to anything specific enough to cause that. You don't even have the combat/non-combat distinction that you just used anywhere up there. Every time you give a reason why a class isn't good enough for a tier, you are revealing the definitions you refuse to actually write down.

At what point do we cut things off and say "well, lots of classes can get to T1 in all sorts of ways, WBL or no, because we're good at optimising"?

Apparently not until after spell choices and WBL use for Wizards.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Similarly, with Wizards and spellbooks, you are assuming that the Wizard does in fact have access to scrolls and other Wizards to copy from, which is actually several assumptions at once. For magic marts, even by the given city generation, you are assuming cities of a certain minimum size to support NPCs of the required level, who happen to have the spells the player wants, who happen to be willing to sell a scroll or allow copying to the given character. There are whole fields of DMs for which none of those assumptions are assumptions, it's not looking at the Wizard class: it's looking at the Wizard plus WBL and campaign based optimization.

It's a fairly good assumption, since an 8th-level scroll only costs 3,000 gp (barring scrolls of clone and other spells with XP costs), the GP limit for a Large Town (30% of all settlements, minimum population 2,001) is 3,000 gp, and

Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical. While exceptions are certainly possible (a boomtown near a newly discovered mine, a farming community impoverished after a prolonged drought), these exceptions are temporary; all communities will conform to the norm over time.

Yes, finding a 9th-level or high-XP 8th-level scroll requires a larger city size (which isn't an obstacle by the time you get to the level where you'd need that, since between divinations and teleport+plane shift finding and getting to such cities is easy), yes it's possible to create a low-wealth war-torn primitive setting with small settlements to go against all the wealth rules, and yes a DM can arbitrarily declare that the wizard can't find the scrolls he wants, but by the settlement and purchasing rules as they stand scroll access isn't nearly the problem it's made out to be.

And, of course, if the DM decides to ignore the wealth rules like that, well, the martial types are even more screwed because anything more than a +1 suit of armor or any magic weapon at all costs more than 3,000gp, meaning that where the wizard is mildly inconvenienced the fighter types probably die to big bruisers and definitely die to the first incorporeal creature they run into, so such a situation is unlikely to crop up without quickly being rectified (if unintentional) or being evidence of blatant DM meddling (if intentional).

[Jopustopin]

In any tier there are going to be classes that are at the top of that tier and at the bottom of that tier. There will always be some debate whether the bottom of tier 1 actually belongs in tier 2. But anyone who questions the validity of whether the wizard belongs in tier 1 (not talking placement within tier 1, just that it's somewhere in there) is probably someone who, if left to their own devices, would create a tier system completely outside the mainstream opinion.

I want to add, that a thread like this, is going to bring out the minority in droves who think, for whatever reason, that a wizard is not tier 1. I strongly suggest not seriously engaging with anyone who doesn't consider the wizard tier 1 and, in the future, discounting their advice on the rest of voting for everything else. It reminds me of someone who drinks gasoline and considers it in the same tier of "health" as water. Like, what use do you have in trying to define exactly what "health" means when they are including obviously non-healthy things to consume? It's a waste of time, energy, and is absolutely distracting to the purpose of this thread. I'd say the purpose here is twofold: To hit all our bases, and to engage in any surprise arguments. Like the artificer argument. That was a good use of this thread. The artificer is not a class we see in every campaign. I've only seen one, once. Limited exposure.

I do not mean to be inflammatory at all and for many classes there is a healthy amount of real debate to be had. But, I for one, do not think it's healthy to try to explain to someone why the wizard, who is obviously tier 1, why it's in tier 1. If they don't get it, they never will and their votes shouldn't count because either they are overthinking this whole tier concept (and need everything perfectly and rigidly defined which is not possible) or they are in total left field with their way of tier thinking and thus disqualify themselves.

The amount of classes I have this opinion on are basically Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Commoner. I just, imagine if someone was making the argument that the Commoner was tier 5; would you continue to engage them or just ignore them? There are extremes and trying to entertain someone who thinks an extreme is in the middle of the pact is insanity. I know the purpose of this thread is to get a community vote but there are probably over a thousand people who saw this thread and "yeped" it without saying anything. Then the .02% who want to vote "no" come in to argue their beliefs.

This post is for those engaged in a serious discussion with someone who thinks the wizard is tier 2. You are not going to change their mind, move on.

[GilesTheCleric]

I want to add, that a thread like this, is going to bring out the minority in droves who think, for whatever reason, that a wizard is not tier 1. I strongly suggest not seriously engaging with anyone who doesn't consider the wizard tier 1 and, in the future, discounting their advice on the rest of voting for everything else.

I strongly disagree with this. Without a good debate, we aren't going to move forward. Sure, T1 wizards are a very entrenched idea, and for good reason. But that doesn't mean we can't stop and look critically at them. I think it's definitely worth discussing how much we assume about WBL, GM permissiveness, optimisation floors, and equal comparisons. I might disagree with some folks about them, but debating it only helps to further my understanding, and possibly cement my opinion (based on both the new discussion and my previous experience).

[Jopustopin]

I strongly disagree with this. Without a good debate, we aren't going to move forward. Sure, T1 wizards are a very entrenched idea, and for good reason. But that doesn't mean we can't stop and look critically at them. I think it's definitely worth discussing how much we assume about WBL, GM permissiveness, optimisation floors, and equal comparisons. I might disagree with some folks about them, but debating it only helps to further my understanding, and possibly cement my opinion (based on both the new discussion and my previous experience).

Assumptions about WBL, GM permissiveness, optimisation floors, and equal comparison discussions belong in the main thread.

I look forward to hearing both sides of the wizard debate.

[Fizban]

It's a fairly good assumption, since an 8th-level scroll only costs 3,000 gp (barring scrolls of clone and other spells with XP costs), the GP limit for a Large Town (30% of all settlements, minimum population 2,001) is 3,000 gp,

The line is, "Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available." Some people read that as meaning that top level Wizards ship scrolls of every 8th level spell out to every town. Other people read it as anything under that limit, which can actually be justified is purchasable, and the assumption that Wizards ship 8th level scrolls of every spell everywhere is so obviously preposterous that it never even enters their minds.

So take your assumptions to the main thread and demand they be made part of the tier definitions.

And, of course, if the DM decides to ignore the wealth rules like that, well, the martial types are even more screwed because anything more than a +1 suit of armor or any magic weapon at all costs more than 3,000gp, meaning that where the wizard is mildly inconvenienced the fighter types probably die to big bruisers and definitely die to the first incorporeal creature they run into, so such a situation is unlikely to crop up without quickly being rectified (if unintentional) or being evidence of blatant DM meddling (if intentional).

Or maybe the Fighter is capable of using the loot they find. If you want to run the numbers on what percentage of random loot is scrolls the Wizard wants, then you can claim some objectivity. The random weapons and armor aren't great, but I do know they're weighted towards non-exotic weapons and full plate. It doesn't matter if unreliable magic marts can hurt everyone, because magic marts are not nearly as protected as you think they are, and lacking them takes this Wizard "class feature" and turns it into nothing.

You want an objective campaign assumption? Open up a bunch of premade campaigns and see how big the towns are, see what they're stocked with, see what their NPCs can make. Take a look at Forgotten Realms and the weeks-long travel times between the middle of nowhere (adventure!) and the cities with high gp limits. Said campaigns almost always include items the Fighter can use as rewards just for progressing the main quest, while scrolls and spellbooks the Wizard can copy are not guaranteed and not picked by the Wizard. Some popular campaigns include time limits that will cause failure if you take two weeks off to fetch a spell. So who's more dependent on DM allowance?

I strongly suggest not seriously engaging with anyone who doesn't consider the wizard tier 1 and, in the future, discounting their advice on the rest of voting for everything else.
This post is for those engaged in a serious discussion with someone who thinks the wizard is tier 2. You are not going to change their mind, move on.

I look forward to hearing both sides of the wizard debate.

These two lines do not match.

Edit: and yes, I got the joke. The funny part is that you're the one being so dogmatic you refuse to consider an alternate viewpoint.

Assumptions about WBL, GM permissiveness, optimisation floors, and equal comparison discussions belong in the main thread.

Then why aren't you talking about it there? If it's so obvious that the idea Wizard could be tier 2 is wrong, shouldn't it be easy to explain why as part of the main tier definitions? Take your assumptions to the main thread and demand they be part of the definitions.

[eggynack]

My point being the flaw in the assumptions about the rules and guidelines of the game. As I brought up in the Warmage thread, the only challenges that are fully endorsed by the game (with CR, xp, and treasure tables rather than mild suggestions) are combat and traps, with only a few pages of traps to entire books of monsters. In order to make dealing with anything other than combat or traps a consideration, you have to impose that on the game, which you are doing so by ranking down classes for not having those effects. You are making assumptions about what the DM is doing which are not accounted for in your tiers.

These aren't the only challenges that show up in games, first of all, even if the relevant systems are better developed. Second, these things that look on the surface like non-combat are secretly super combat oriented. Diplomacy helps grease the wheels on the way to monster fighting (and can get you allies, sometimes). Divinations tell you where and what the monsters are. Teleport takes you to the monsters. Stealth lets you get the drop on the monsters. Scouting gets you fancy tactical information. On the monsters. And, if the monsters are coming to you, then permanent structures can grant a big advantage there. These are all big advantages over just blasting and the occasional BFC, on top of a bunch of more direct in-combat advantages that these other casters have. Third, I'm not making an assumption about what the DM is doing. Some games have out of combat stuff. Some have way less. Both situations are accounted for, because they both take up the potential in-game problem space. You're the one assuming that every game is going to be pure hack and slash.

Similarly, with Wizards and spellbooks, you are assuming that the Wizard does in fact have access to scrolls and other Wizards to copy from, which is actually several assumptions at once. For magic marts, even by the given city generation, you are assuming cities of a certain minimum size to support NPCs of the required level, who happen to have the spells the player wants, who happen to be willing to sell a scroll or allow copying to the given character. There are whole fields of DMs for which none of those assumptions are assumptions, it's not looking at the Wizard class: it's looking at the Wizard plus WBL and campaign based optimization.

As was noted, scrolls are way way easier to access than you're implying. Also, that out-of-combat stuff you were disparaging is pretty helpful at making the hard to find easier to find. So you can kill monsters better.

Your response to Morphic Tide was literally, "how can you screw a wizard up, scrolls are right there," but having all the spells is not a native ability.

All the spells? No. The occasional spell found in towns of various size? Probably. Scrolls are assumed to exist by the system. Other wizards are assumed to exist as well. This isn't something that the occasional wizard does because they're optimizing. Just about every wizard with any access to additional spells whatsoever adds some spells to their book. Even the stupid NPC wizards in the books have more than the bare minimum of spells.

Cleric and Druid have a drastic innate advantage that the Wizard can only overcome with WBL, the same problem that makes the Sorcerer inferior to the Wizard, the same problem everyone says the Warmage has compared to everyone. If Sorc can't count scrolls for utility spells, why does Wizard get to count them as spells known?

The sorcerer can have as many scrolls as they want. Warmages can have scrolls too. It's kinda a lot less impressive when you have to spend money every time you want to cast this utility spell.

Is the Wizards four, four innate spells known at each spell level really so mind-bogglingly awesome that it matches the entire Cleric/Druid lists? The Wizard is not incredibly good at solving all problems: it's only incredibly good at solving problems that match the spells in its book. If you want to argue that Wizard is better, you have to prove it via the spell efficacy, not their supposed spellbook size.

The four spells probably don't match the cleric/druid. They're probably better than the sorcerer though. When you account in the plausible additional spells from the fact that scrolls are pretty inexpensive, and a ton of alternatives exist, the wizard absolutely does match those classes.

And this is where we hit my claim that you're going to need more tiers. If one actually considers the possibility that Wizard is lower tier than the Druid, That would drop the Wizard to tier 2. But then if Sorcerer must be weaker than Wizard, it drops to tier 3. But apparently Warmage isn't as good as Sorcerer, so now it drops to 4. But people still want at least two tiers worth of non-casters, so now you need 5 and 6, before even hitting the garbage tier at 7. And back to the Beguiler, how many extra problems does a Sorcerer need to solve to match it's raw ability, shouldn't the Beguiler be a tier higher too? Now we need another one.

I really don't agree. The beguiler might be a bit stronger than the sorcerer, but it's not outside the normal bounds of what you'd expect to exist in a tier. And I love druids, but the wizard list is amazing, very much enabling the wizard to surpass them in the second half of the game, kinda like how the sorcerer surpasses the beguiler in that stage.

You say that I'm arbitrarily limiting the Wizard, I say that you're arbitrarily favoring the Wizard. Until you define the starting position you can't really complain if I think the starting position should be somewhere else. Saying that I haven't convinced anyone doesn't change the fact that you've left it open to interpretation, making your tiers automatically wrong for someone who doesn't happen to already match your views, which you don't fully explain because. . . ? You want the voting average to represent the base assumptions of the DM, without explanation, even when some voters might not even be running them that way?

When your baseline is lower than that of a source that tries to push the druid into scimitar fighting, I don't consider it particularly worthy of consideration as the game's normal. As the super low end? Maybe, but again, druid scimitar fighting.

I'd also take another moment to heap some more on that "average of all wizards at all tables" comment. Really? You really think the average wizard across all tables is being played to Tier 1 Competency? Come on. You're explicitly counting player skill as part of that model, and with how easy it is to screw up a Wizard, the only way it's true is by assuming Wizard players are just better than non-Wizard players. You say that its just a theoretical model and rather than "some platonic average optimization version," but that is exactly what you're doing. Assuming a platonic ideal of a Wizard that picks a spread of spells that makes them extremely good at dealing with all "problems" and is both allowed to expand that spell list whenever necessary and does so to whatever extent is required to beat the class it's being compared to.

I think low end wizards compare reasonably to low end not-wizards. Fireballs don't compare particularly unfavorably to weapon focus, and the flexibility associated with the capacity to add spells enables even a lower optimization player to sometimes do things that aren't fireball.

Yo, dawg, I covered this in the main thread with the posts that you haven't responded to. Other than "worse," you don't have any definitions of *how* worse something needs to be, or what it takes to be *good*, other than Wizard, Sorcerer, and Bard. You can't just keep sidestepping the issue by saying you don't want definitions. I'm not even asking for precise definitions, Troacctid literally already gave more of a guideline by quoting the 5e pillars of adventuring, but you have to say something more specific than "problems" if you want it to mean anything, because you're the one expanding the definition of "problems" from the game's given combat and trap encounters to whatever is is you consider a problem.

I think most people have a reasonable idea of what a problem is. Some kinda conflict or issue that you resolve through your various capabilities.

Yes, after which I realized we weren't on the same page and went back to the main thread to try and continue that discussion, which you dropped.

I didn't respond to like one post, which I kinda dropped the notion of responding to after you starting saying that your issues were more tied to all this other stuff in this thread.

I hope you're not expecting consensus when you have both invited change and have participants who seem actively hostile to it. All I want is for you to acknowledge that your tiers are based on things not required by the initial game and give some indication of that with actual meaning besides "problems." It'd be nice to see the expectations in DM leniency and optimization actually laid down, but I doubt that will happen.

People seem to be doing pretty well in working on the definitions, and figuring out what a problem is. The issue of what game states are like in a general sense is inevitably central to any tier system. No definition is ever going to solve that. The original system certainly didn't.

I will also point out the obvious in that voting will never produce a consensus and an unwillingness to change anything unless the majority says so will result in no changes.

We've literally already changed the tiering of three separate classes from the original system. You seem to be oddly defining a willingness to change things as a willingness to change things the specific way you want them to change.

If all you want is to write down the shift in opinion/disagreements with the original tiers, well that's pretty much the stated goal I guess. But if all you're going to do is say "nah, you haven't convinced me, denied," why should we even bother presenting views we know you disagree with already? If my voice isn't heard for the tiering, or improving the definitions, why am I speaking?

I've responded to the vast majority of your comments in what I consider a rather reasonable way, and a bunch of other people have as well. Even though I fully disagree with your reading of the tier system and at least a few of your tierings, your vote has counted just as much as anyone else's. What, do I have to respond to literally every comment you make? Do I have to automatically agree with everything you say in order to qualify as hearing you? Your expectations of me and this thread, threads in general really, are thoroughly unrealistic. I do my best to respond to people, and give positions as fair a shake as is possible, but I'm not perfect.

Yes, they are. What is non-combat and what does it take to be good at it? Sorcerer is constantly getting a pass for being able to have one or two spells related to a thing. Wizard is getting an A+ for the same thing but a few levels sooner (and their base 4 spells per level is just as brutal as the Sorcerer's without WBL). What is non-combat? How much do you need to go up a tier? You don't want to specify any of this, and that's why I thought my tiers actually lined up, because mine are structured so as to avoid these questions entirely.

I think people have a reasonable idea of what non-combat is. Social situations, information gathering, really anything that isn't directly combat oriented on the niche ranking system for classes. Sorcerer isn't just getting a pass. They're genuinely capable of some solid out of combat stuff.

As above, I'm annoyed because you dropped the discussion of what other people wanted to see in the tier definitions in the main thread without accepting any input from those who found your tiers lacking.

I've responded to some of the input and thought some of it was solid. Just not necessarily sure if I want to port in big graphs yet, or precisely how I'd want to frame it.

You say that adding any definitions other than what you have will somehow result in things being tiered wrong, but there are ways you could improve it without committing to anything specific enough to cause that.

Maybe, or maybe not. Definitions proved super problematic for the original system.

You don't even have the combat/non-combat distinction that you just used anywhere up there. Every time you give a reason why a class isn't good enough for a tier, you are revealing the definitions you refuse to actually write down.

For all its specificity, I don't think this is something that the original tier system ever concretely defined, and for all its other problems, I don't think people ever really struggled with questions of what qualified as a problem. The tier system was, if anything, less defined in this way, demanding that a class be able to do a... thing. What's a thing? Is being a crappy commoner a thing? Cause the commoner does that quite well. I don't think most people here are struggling with the question of what a problem is. Chasm between you and a castle? That's a problem. A crafty spy is the only one that knows details of where an artifact you're seeking is hidden? That's a problem. You need to schmooze your way into the good graces of royalty in order to refine their political system? That's a problem. Problems are necessarily broad. It's a broad game.

Edit:

These two lines do not match.

Yes, they do. You should probably watch the video.

[Malroth]

Even in a 100% all random encounters with random loot scenario more than 1/3 of all encounters will drop scrolls so Wizards and Archivists will, in the overwhelming majority of fair games have means to expand their spell access to some degree.

As to my rankings

Cleric Tier 1 if the player knows what clerics can do and takes feats appropiately. Tier 5 if they don't know about buffing or summoning and just try to be a fighter with heals.

Druid low Tier 1 when played well Tier 3 when played poorly. Becoming a Bear riding a T-rex is always possible but there are a lot of problems a druid needs to be creative to fix

Sha'Ir Tier 1 at high levels, lower levels you're plinking with a crossbow.

Wizard/Archivist. Tier 1 unless the DM is actively sabotoging you. Sheer number of spells means you're stumbling on a good combination even if entirely by accident.

Artificer. Entierely up to the table, Capable of being the strongest tier 1 when DM allows prep time and the player knows what he'd doing, Capable of being a very solid tier 2 with only a couple minutes prep time and no crafting at all, and capapable of being no better than expert when neither the DM nor the player gives the class what it needs.

[lord_khaine]

Kinda surprised about low end druid ending at 3 compared to clerics 5?
Cleric does have heavier armor, dancing around in hide with a scrimitar is not a pretty sight...

[eggynack]

Kinda surprised about low end druid ending at 3 compared to clerics 5?
Cleric does have heavier armor, dancing around in hide with a scrimitar is not a pretty sight...

Yeah, but they wear light armor cause it's classier. I dunno. The whole idea of basically minimum optimization is a weird one. If we're just assuming the classes don't use their features, all that should matter are things like BAB, hit die, and saves. It's hard to know what to count beyond that, if anything.

Edit: Oh, also mandatory features. Monks actually aren't the worst in such an environment. Fighters at least have to pick some feats, and what they pick could be useful. I feel a bit like assuming no spells is like assuming no hitting stuff though. The big cleric advantage might be domains, cause domain powers just are for the most part, though some are admittedly useless. The big druid advantage, meanwhile, might be the animal companion, which has to at least exist unless you trade it away, along with all those crap class features.

[Fizban]

You know what, let's try this again. I'll cut out the wizard stuff to put here, bump the main thread, and see if we can get any responses on the tier definitions in the tier definition thread.

As was noted, scrolls are way way easier to access than you're implying.

See ninja post.

The sorcerer can have as many scrolls as they want. Warmages can have scrolls too. It's kinda a lot less impressive when you have to spent money every time you want to cast this utility spell.

It's kindof a lot less impressive when you have to spend your own slots every time you want to prepare a utility spell too. It's kindof a lot less impressive when you have to go find a scroll because you don't know all the spells to begin with.

When you account in the plausible additional spells from the fact that scrolls are pretty inexpensive, and a ton of alternatives exist, the wizard absolutely does match those classes.

Plausible by who's definition? Yours, which you refuse to write down.

I really don't agree. The beguiler might be a bit stronger than the sorcerer, but it's not outside the normal bounds of what you'd expect to exist in a tier. And I love druids, but the wizard list is amazing, very much enabling the wizard to surpass them in the second half of the game, kinda like how the sorcerer surpasses the beguiler in that stage.

No, by what you'd expect in a tier. Clearly it's not what Morphic Tide would expect in a tier, or he wouldn't have suggested Wizards should go to 2. And clearly none of this is what I'd expect in a tier, or the Warmage wouldn't be so much lower. And since you refuse to define it in any way other than, and I quote, "The rest of my tier definitions is simply to clarify a reasonable notion of "better". Perhaps not a perfect notion of it, but it works to my mind."

Well it doesn't work to mine, or presumably Morphics, or anyone else who's suggested it's not sufficient.

When your baseline is lower than that of a source that tries to push the druid into scimitar fighting, I don't consider it particularly worthy of consideration as the game's normal. As the super low end? Maybe, but again, druid scimitar fighting.

You've completely missed the point? Set the bar wherever the hell you want, just freaking stop trying to tell me that leaving it completely undefined means you get to deem mine "unworthy of consideration," because it doesn't. It means you're dismissing people for not agreeing with something they have no way of seeing, dismissing those people who do in fact play at that low of an optimization level because their games don't count in your mind. You can be elitist all you want, as long as you admit it.

And while you're at it, stop trying to draw a line between the Druid playtester's incompetence and buying magic items. The two have nothing to do with each other.

I think low end wizards compare reasonably to low end not-wizards. Fireballs don't compare particularly unfavorably to weapon focus, and the flexibility associated with the capacity to add spells enables even a lower optimization player to sometimes do things that aren't fireball.

No, you think low end wizards compare favorably to low end not-wizards, else you wouldn't be claiming that with the same level of optimization the wizard is tier 1 and non-wizards are tier 2 or 3 or 4. Unless you mean just the Cleric and Druid specifically, which as already demonstrated have native advantages requiring zero optimization that the wizard cannot touch without using more. A truly low end wizard must spend resources to get out of the hole that a Cleric or Druid can reverse at no cost.

Your assumptions favor wizards. That's fine. Stop pretending they aren't assumptions and define them.

[eggynack]

It's kindof a lot less impressive when you have to spend your own slots every time you want to prepare a utility spell too.

Not really. Slots are rather plentiful. Especially when you're using an off hours list where time is less of an issue.

It's kindof a lot less impressive when you have to go find a scroll because you don't know all the spells to begin with.

Somewhat. The list being amazing helps though.

Plausible by who's definition? Yours, which you refuse to write down.

By the game's definition, for one thing. You don't necessarily have to expect every single specific scroll you're looking for to show up, but the game states that scrolls should show up. And, again, the game presents wizards that assume you're getting extra spells from somewhere.

No, by what you'd expect in a tier. Clearly it's not what Morphic Tide would expect in a tier, or he wouldn't have suggested Wizards should go to 2. And clearly none of this is what I'd expect in a tier, or the Warmage wouldn't be so much lower. And since you refuse to define it in any way other than, and I quote, "The rest of my tier definitions is simply to clarify a reasonable notion of "better". Perhaps not a perfect notion of it, but it works to my mind."

I'm not saying you think these things belong in the same tier. I'm saying that if you thought warmages were as mediocre as I do, and wizards as great as I do, then you would probably put them in the same tier. It was a comment on the size of tiers, not individual evaluation.

Well it doesn't work to mine, or presumably Morphics, or anyone else who's suggested it's not sufficient.

Most people seem to think it's mostly fine. I fully admit that it's imperfect, and improvements do exist, but the general structure of it strikes most as agreeable enough to work with.

You've completely missed the point? Set the bar wherever the hell you want, just freaking stop trying to tell me that leaving it completely undefined means you get to deem mine "unworthy of consideration," because it doesn't. It means you're dismissing people for not agreeing with something they have no way of seeing, dismissing those people who do in fact play at that low of an optimization level because their games don't count in your mind. You can be elitist all you want, as long as you admit it.

There isn't really a bar. That's the point of the whole multiple fixed optimization points thing. You're standing over there suggesting that most games with wizards don't feature said wizards buying any scrolls or adding spells in any way, despite the fact that the designers themselves assumed that not to be the case all over the place. This as a typical game state seems radically off the mark as a result.

And while you're at it, stop trying to draw a line between the Druid playtester's incompetence and buying magic items. The two have nothing to do with each other.

They have something to do with each other. The people who playtested the game generally optimized really badly. If people at this low optimization level were doing a thing, and doing it with high consistency, and if that thing is, y'know, good, then we can expect that thing to show up at higher optimization levels too, and thus most optimization levels. Basically, what I'm saying is, if your party's druid is doing better than scimitars, then we can expect the wizard to do equal to or better than some scrolls.

No, you think low end wizards compare favorably to low end not-wizards, else you wouldn't be claiming that with the same level of optimization the wizard is tier 1 and non-wizards are tier 2 or 3 or 4. Unless you mean just the Cleric and Druid specifically, which as already demonstrated have native advantages requiring zero optimization that the wizard cannot touch without using more. A truly low end wizard must spend resources to get out of the hole that a Cleric or Druid can reverse at no cost.

I did not mean favorably. Wizards can be just reasonable at some optimization levels as long as the comparison is favorable at a sufficient majority of optimization levels.

Your assumptions favor wizards. That's fine. Stop pretending they aren't assumptions and define them.

I disagree. Both that I'm biased in a way that's pushing wizards upwards, and that I should define things heavily. If you think wizards are tier two, that's fine. Vote that way, and then attempt to convince people of that. That's really all anyone can do. It's why we're here.

[Hurnn]

I don't think I will need to say much here so I will be brief.

Every class on this list is more or less SAD, which is great.


Archivist (HoH, 82):

Tier 1

Better base chassis that a wizard, D6 HP, INT + 4, and 2 good saves. Int based caster so they will be good at their skills. 9th level casting, and can learn every cleric and druid spell. I am certain with some shenanigans they can learn more than a few wizards spells.

Artificer (ECS, 29):

Tier 1*

6/6 casting of not a bad list. Is slightly MAD needs INT and CHA. Can make any magic item, but they can fail and waste all the time and gold, so maxing out UMD ASAP is a must. I could only figure out how to end up with +13 (15 if you know the infusion) at 1st level so there is a fail chance early. Later with items and Stat bumps It can be gotten rid of completely. * Now for the massive Caveat with this class. Down time, they need it and lots of it. If they can't get it they will definitely suffer and probably drop a tier or 2.
Cleric:

Tier 1

9/9 casting, almost as many spells per day as a sorcerer, 3/4 BAB, 2 good saves, turning, Domains can expand your spell list into some arcane stuff. Divine meta magic. This class can do almost anything.

Druid:

Tier 1

9/9 casting, 3/4 BAB, 2 good saves, animal companion, after 5th wild shaping. In all honesty this is probably the most powerful class in the game for the first 6 levels, falls off a bit in the early teens, and makes a come back late. Also one of very few classes that you are better off sticking in 1-20.

Sha'ir (DrC, 51):

Tier 1

Seams really awkward early, will be good in the middle, and amazing late. Clearly a tier 1 caster but I think it has been oversold a bit based on how good they are late. The ability to get any wizard or sorcerer spell actually has a caveat, and cleric is restricted to certain domains, and are harder to get. For half your carrier you are going to have to prepare spells 1 or 2 in advance and leave the rest of your slots open, and it is not a sure thing that you will get the spell you want. Over all I think they are at the bottom end of T1 behind wizard and cleric but ahead of druid.

Wizard:

Tier 1

King of the tier 1 full access to the best list in the game, and is probably one of the best candidates to PRC ASAP because they have most of the best ones available to them, and lose almost nothing for leaving and can gain insane power.

[ryu]

I don't think I will need to say much here so I will be brief.

Every class on this list is more or less SAD, which is great.


Archivist (HoH, 82):

Tier 1

Better base chassis that a wizard, D6 HP, INT + 4, and 2 good saves. Int based caster so they will be good at their skills. 9th level casting, and can learn every cleric and druid spell. I am certain with some shenanigans they can learn more than a few wizards spells.

Artificer (ECS, 29):

Tier 1*

6/6 casting of not a bad list. Is slightly MAD needs INT and CHA. Can make any magic item, but they can fail and waste all the time and gold, so maxing out UMD ASAP is a must. I could only figure out how to end up with +13 (15 if you know the infusion) at 1st level so there is a fail chance early. Later with items and Stat bumps It can be gotten rid of completely. * Now for the massive Caveat with this class. Down time, they need it and lots of it. If they can't get it they will definitely suffer and probably drop a tier or 2.
Cleric:

Tier 1

9/9 casting, almost as many spells per day as a sorcerer, 3/4 BAB, 2 good saves, turning, Domains can expand your spell list into some arcane stuff. Divine meta magic. This class can do almost anything.

Druid:

Tier 1

9/9 casting, 3/4 BAB, 2 good saves, animal companion, after 5th wild shaping. In all honesty this is probably the most powerful class in the game for the first 6 levels, falls off a bit in the early teens, and makes a come back late. Also one of very few classes that you are better off sticking in 1-20.

Sha'ir (DrC, 51):

Tier 1

Seams really awkward early, will be good in the middle, and amazing late. Clearly a tier 1 caster but I think it has been oversold a bit based on how good they are late. The ability to get any wizard or sorcerer spell actually has a caveat, and cleric is restricted to certain domains, and are harder to get. For half your carrier you are going to have to prepare spells 1 or 2 in advance and leave the rest of your slots open, and it is not a sure thing that you will get the spell you want. Over all I think they are at the bottom end of T1 behind wizard and cleric but ahead of druid.

Wizard:

Tier 1

King of the tier 1 full access to the best list in the game, and is probably one of the best candidates to PRC ASAP because they have most of the best ones available to them, and lose almost nothing for leaving and can gain insane power.

I would point out that you wanna stay in wizard until at least fifth level for spontaneous divination to qualify for versatile spellcaster. I mean technically you can still get into that feat by taking another feat, but spontaneous divination is the best of the possible pre-reqs.

[lord_khaine]

Yeah, but they wear light armor cause it's classier. I dunno. The whole idea of basically minimum optimization is a weird one. If we're just assuming the classes don't use their features, all that should matter are things like BAB, hit die, and saves. It's hard to know what to count beyond that, if anything.

Edit: Oh, also mandatory features. Monks actually aren't the worst in such an environment. Fighters at least have to pick some feats, and what they pick could be useful. I feel a bit like assuming no spells is like assuming no hitting stuff though. The big cleric advantage might be domains, cause domain powers just are for the most part, though some are admittedly useless. The big druid advantage, meanwhile, might be the animal companion, which has to at least exist unless you trade it away, along with all those crap class features.

Well.. i dont think its that hard of an idea to deal with. Class features i always assume are going to be used as straightforward as possible. And as for spells, then i look at those with the biggest numbers, either in healing or damage. Even someone completely new at the game should be able to do that. At least with core spells.

In such an enviroment i do think the cleric fares a lot better. There might be undeads to turn. And healing really is extremely important. Its almost impossible to run a party without having it from somewhere.
The animal companion meanwhile, can unfortunately be something as squishy as a bat, hawk, badger or dog. That gets killed within the first encounter.

[eggynack]

Well.. i dont think its that hard of an idea to deal with. Class features i always assume are going to be used as straightforward as possible. And as for spells, then i look at those with the biggest numbers, either in healing or damage. Even someone completely new at the game should be able to do that. At least with core spells.

In such an enviroment i do think the cleric fares a lot better. There might be undeads to turn. And healing really is extremely important. Its almost impossible to run a party without having it from somewhere.
The animal companion meanwhile, can unfortunately be something as squishy as a bat, hawk, badger or dog. That gets killed within the first encounter.

Wild shape is pretty sweet if we're talking crappy but rational. Bear form is kinda useful, and while wolf form, one of the other possible expected options, isn't as good, it does offer some utility. As do various big cats and dinosaurs. Similarly, while the animal companion can die, it's one of the easier of this kind of ability to bring back, and each time you have a shot at picking something straightforwardly reasonable like a bear. Also, spontaneous summoning naturally lends itself to a somewhat optimal line of play, if one diminished in quality by bad summons selection.

[Fizban]

Wizard stuff only.

By the game's definition, for one thing. You don't necessarily have to expect every single specific scroll you're looking for to show up, but the game states that scrolls should show up. And, again, the game presents wizards that assume you're getting extra spells from somewhere.

Yup, on randomized tables with a selection of PHB spells, and when the DM agrees they are most likely available for purchase.

There isn't really a bar. That's the point of the whole multiple fixed optimization points thing. You're standing over there suggesting that most games with wizards don't feature said wizards buying any scrolls or adding spells in any way, despite the fact that the designers themselves assumed that not to be the case all over the place. This as a typical game state seems radically off the mark as a result.

And you're standing over there suggesting that most games with wizards features said wizards buying all sorts of scrolls or adding spells, despite the fact that the designers themselves assumed that not to be the case all over the place. Where? Well, there's the language that doesn't guarantee magic item sales, or spell copying rights, the entirely random nature of found treasure (20-30% scroll chance, which is then only 70% arcane and rolls randomly off PHB only spells) and any module where a town has a shopping description more limited than "whatever you want," which is plenty. Thus your typical game state seems radically off the mark as a result. (Yes I see those statblocks in Enemies and Allies with extra spells in them, which tell us only about character creation and don't invalidate the DMs that think spell acquisition rules are meant as as a sign of limits to build upon rather than allowing easy access).

The "bar" is that you are making assumptions about what the average table does. I've never seen anyone actually present data on what the average table does. You're saying that any op below a certain point has a low enough share that it doesn't actually affect the tiers, and that point is based on your thinking that average optimization levels are significantly higher. Do I disagree? With no data my only response can be to make those assumptions plain because to claim that the truth is anything else would be a lie.

They have something to do with each other. The people who playtested the game generally optimized really badly. If people at this low optimization level were doing a thing, and doing it with high consistency, and if that thing is, y'know, good, then we can expect that thing to show up at higher optimization levels too, and thus most optimization levels. Basically, what I'm saying is, if your party's druid is doing better than scimitars, then we can expect the wizard to do equal to or better than some scrolls.

No, optimization levels have nothing to do with DM leniency, which is what you're relying on when you say that the Wizard can improve their power level beyond their initial picks.

[Efrate]

SNA for pure combat, as in hitting stuff and doing damage, comes out ahead of the SM line for a decent bit. You lose a lot of utility and SLAs but as a spell that makes a disposable thing to hit another thing to hurt it, SNA outperforms SM for a fair bit. Plus greenbound summoning FWIW, though that is a feat not a class feature.

Wizard and scroll rant

Spoiler

Show

I also fail to see the issue with wizards and scroll access. Sorcerers for example get a ton of mileage out of consumables for occasional utility spells, and will look to get as many as they can to shore up their limited selection, NPCs wizards know this and its a quick way to make cash. A wizard gets the consumable benefit and can add it, and going off DMG treasure chart alone a lot of scrolls will show up. Trade in all magic goods is a staple in any environment where they exist and random murderhobos adventurers will pay for them. The point of getting loot is to get better stuff for your character, by buying the items you actually want. No you do not want that +1 defending gnomish hammer, you want a +1 flaming longsword, are you arguing then that settlement X,Y, or Z might not have said item at all? Or someone who can make one? Or know someone who can? Might be the next town over, ok, but all you are doing is hamstringing one of the primary motivations for adventuring and the purpose of loot in general. You can only get what I saw, not what you want, is horrible DMing and almost directly against RAW. Occasionally yes, I can see it, but not all the time, not all the stuff you are supposed to be able to get when you want it.

If you take the view that specific magic items are hard to get, or at least harder than normal as the DMG states, then are all magic items similar? What if you never find a +1 weapon your party can use, and you face a shadow? Do you just TPK and laugh? Magic item access of all kinds is mandated by the game itself, you cannot play without magic past a certain point, the system knows this and has in place infrastructure to support this. Even the horribly statted NPC wizards have more spells than just from leveling and a selection of random consumables including scrolls. And because it makes sense for wizards who search for more arcane power and knowledge would make scrolls for themselves, or to trade with other wizards. Its a class feature, getting scribe scroll for free.

If you are running a game with hyper limited magic item access and you cannot get what you need despite RAW saying you should, I do not think you can count that particular setting for the purpose of general tiering, since its is a lot of assumptions largely against RAW, and definitely against RAI.

A wizard can only pick bad spells. True. So can a sorcerer. A sorcerer can change a few through leveling. A wizard can spend a bit of WBL in most any settlement and fix it. Since they pay a pittance, or since it used WBL at all, are wizards then worse then sorcerers? No, because they have a very easy way to fix their problems. Not as easy as a cleric or a druid. True, but still very easy. Unless you are taking a no cost approach is better, are paladin and ranger then better than a wizard since they know all their spells and can change load outs easier? No because even if they can the wizard list is so far superior and easily accessible that you can get what you need easily enough to overshadow them even with your "restriction." I don't know if you are playing devil's advocate or just trolling but I am having a hard time even attempting to take your comments seriously when one of the fundamental concepts of the game (get the loot you want) that you are expected to be able to do more or less at your leisure is removed from the equation.

[Aharon]

I want to reiterate that Artificer is Tier 1 even without downtime.
All the spell Lists ever is extremely powerful, and built correctly, the failure Chance is low to non-existent.

Concerning the scroll-debate: Of course a DM may limit wealth. A DM may also rule your cleric Fell and lost all bis powers. Should we also take that into consideration?

[lord_khaine]

Wild shape is pretty sweet if we're talking crappy but rational. Bear form is kinda useful, and while wolf form, one of the other possible expected options, isn't as good, it does offer some utility. As do various big cats and dinosaurs. Similarly, while the animal companion can die, it's one of the easier of this kind of ability to bring back, and each time you have a shot at picking something straightforwardly reasonable like a bear. Also, spontaneous summoning naturally lends itself to a somewhat optimal line of play, if one diminished in quality by bad summons selection.

Well yeah.. Bear shape more or less automatically turns you into a mediocre fighter. And Wolf can be really annoying if your a humanid. Though i really dont see it as the automatic win button most other people makes it sound like.
I guess survival of the fittest might eventually land you with a slightly more survivable animal companion.
Summoning though is something i have seen extremely few new players deal with. The casting time does not improve things either.

[Fizban]

Trade in all magic goods is a staple in any environment where they exist and random murderhobos adventurers will pay for them.

Adventurers and NPCs capabable of trading in magic goods make up a vanishingly small part of the economy, or rather population. Suggesting that you can walk into a "large town" of 2,000 people and buy an 8th level scroll of the spell you want is like expecting the liquor store to stock a bottle of wine that costs more than a house (literally, a basic house is 2,000gp). Almost no one who lives there could buy it at all, much less would buy it, and the supposed shop owner couldn't possibly afford keeping it around where someone could steal it. And you expect not just one, but more than one, the one the player just now announced they want even.

If you take the view that specific magic items are hard to get, or at least harder than normal as the DMG states, then are all magic items similar?

Your argument is predicated on your reading of the DMG being the only correct one.

What if you never find a +1 weapon your party can use, and you face a shadow? Do you just TPK and laugh?

If you're playing that hardcore of a game, yes. Only 12% of the common melee weapon table is exotic, looks like about half the uncommon, and none of the ranged, odds are if the DM has rolled even a single magic weapon your brawler can wield it. If you didn't bring someone who can wield martial weapons, that's your fault. Or rather you'd rely on the Cleric, who has turning as an automatic ability, and/or have the Wizard take Magic Missile. And if you didn't bring anyone who had any way of dealing with Shadows then that's your fault.

Or maybe the DM is running hard line magic items but choosing monsters that match up with the existing party, rather than letting the party choose items and then throwing hard line monsters at them.

Magic item access of all kinds is mandated by the game itself, you cannot play without magic past a certain point, the system knows this and has in place infrastructure to support this.

You do realize there's a difference between "you can't buy exactly what you want," and "omfg no magic items," right?

All you have to do to justify limiting magic item marts is to look at the NPCs in that city, and see that they don't have anyone who can actually supply that item. Any DM that thinks twice need look no further. Forcing the PCs to travel to places that can actually supply the goods they want is perfectly reasonable. The only thing unreasonable here is demanding that the PCs be able to buy whatever they want when the DMG explicitly gives the DM control over the rules of the world. The only thing that is even close to guaranteed is random treasure based on monsters defeated, and yes in fact there are people who have run games like that since the beginning.

Just because it doesn't match your ideal doesn't make it some crazy outlier you can ignore: if you want to ignore it, you have to define your system in such a way that makes it a official outlier. We currently have no such definition. So take your assumptions to the main thread and demand they be included in the definitions.

I don't know if you are playing devil's advocate or just trolling but I am having a hard time even attempting to take your comments seriously when one of the fundamental concepts of the game (get the loot you want) that you are expected to be able to do more or less at your leisure is removed from the equation.

I'm the guy who's willing to tell people to their face in exacting detail and line by line citations why their "proof" of the CR system being broken is garbage and their default optimization level is overpowered (at least one of those involved eggynack, and Cosi and I have already sniped at each other this time around). Pointing out that there are no guarantees of players getting the exact loot they want is nothing. You could say it's half devil's advocate, since I picked up a position I wouldn't use in my own game, but I am fully secure in my statements. Show me proof of these guarantees in either the rules or data on the average table, and I will accept it.

Or admit, as I do, that when you say PCs should be allowed a certain freedom in use of WBL that you're imposing that on the game yourself. Because I will fully agree that there are say, monsters, balanced around the assumption that the PCs can hire or otherwise obtain certain spells with their WBL-but when I make claims as to what they should be entitled to, I don't go any further than finding an NPC in a sufficiently large town who will cast the spell if they drag their afflicted party member back. I think it is the least assumption, but it is still technically an assumption.

Of course if all you have is suggested practices from later books then I can quote the actual PHB, not the SRD:

This fee is usually equal to the spell's level x50gp, though many wizards jealously guard their higher level spells and may charge much more, or even deny access to them altogether.

Yup, that totally guarantees copying spells from other wizards, and doesn't imply that higher level scrolls might be hard to find at all by extension. And exactly defines higher level as spells of X level or higher and not simply spells that are high level with regards to the guy you're asking, which would further limit you.

You are not guaranteed to copy spells from other wizards, and in fact the PHB suggests other wizards won't want to share anything of value. You are not guaranteed to be able to buy scrolls, and in fact even a cursory examination suggests that you ought not to be able to unless you have someone who can make it right there in front of you. If your DM is hard rolling random loot, you have a good chance of stumbling upon random spells from the PHB which you may or may not want. So once again, assuming the Wizard can expand their spell list in a useful way relies on DM lenience. Lead with your assumptions or fight with no ground beneath your feat.

[lylsyly]

I strongly suggest not seriously engaging with anyone who doesn't consider the wizard tier 1 and, in the future, discounting their advice on the rest of voting for everything else.

So my vote will only be counted IF I vote wizard has tier 1?

:bronxcheer:

[Gnaeus]

Or maybe the Fighter is capable of using the loot they find. If you want to run the numbers on what percentage of random loot is scrolls the Wizard wants, then you can claim some objectivity. The random weapons and armor aren't great, but I do know they're weighted towards non-exotic weapons and full plate. It doesn't matter if unreliable magic marts can hurt everyone, because magic marts are not nearly as protected as you think they are, and lacking them takes this Wizard "class feature" and turns it into nothing.

You want an objective campaign assumption? Open up a bunch of premade campaigns and see how big the towns are, see what they're stocked with, see what their NPCs can make. Take a look at Forgotten Realms and the weeks-long travel times between the middle of nowhere (adventure!) and the cities with high gp limits. Said campaigns almost always include items the Fighter can use as rewards just for progressing the main quest, while scrolls and spellbooks the Wizard can copy are not guaranteed and not picked by the Wizard. Some popular campaigns include time limits that will cause failure if you take two weeks off to fetch a spell. So who's more dependent on DM allowance?
.

Definitely the fighter is.
1. With only 2 spells per level, the wizard already gets more spells than a sorcerer. He can already engage cr appropriate encounters. He can do his job with a spellbook and component pouch. Fighters often can't. Not only do they need weapons but also tricks to deal with fliers, incorporeal etc.
2. Even if the scrolls available are bad, he can still build around them. Fireball or rage or deep slumber might not be the spells he wanted, but he can still mark them down as "melee buff" or "dex AOE" or "will disabler" and just pick different spells to fill other holes. A fighter can't choose a flight item on level-up. A wizard with 2 totally random spells per spell level + 4 chosen spells is likely way stronger than a wizard with only 4 chosen spells/level. Not too many spells are completely useless.
3. By 9th level, the wizard can make that 2 week journey in a few days, via multiple methods.
4. Wizard can use a bonus feat to craft items. He can coordinate with the cleric to make sure they have their item bases covered and the basic spells to make what they need. He can skip "resist elements" because he can take craft wands and make a wand with the cleric or Druid if he has to. Fighter is dependent on the goodwill of others.

[Lans]

Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical. While exceptions are certainly possible (a boomtown near a newly discovered mine, a farming community impoverished after a prolonged drought), these exceptions are temporary; all communities will conform to the norm over time.

Could 'anything' be read to mean scrolls are available as opposed to scrolls of X?

[lord_khaine]

Adventurers and NPCs capabable of trading in magic goods make up a vanishingly small part of the economy, or rather population. Suggesting that you can walk into a "large town" of 2,000 people and buy an 8th level scroll of the spell you want is like expecting the liquor store to stock a bottle of wine that costs more than a house (literally, a basic house is 2,000gp). Almost no one who lives there could buy it at all, much less would buy it, and the supposed shop owner couldn't possibly afford keeping it around where someone could steal it. And you expect not just one, but more than one, the one the player just now announced they want even.

Your acting though, like if not being able to buy a given level 8 scroll in a large town of 2000 people will have any noticeable impact on what makes a wizard tier 1?
All he needs are access to scrolls of level 4-5 and he is more or less covered for life. Those by the way, cost about 1/3 of what a level 8 scroll does. And its much more likely you can commision the crafting of one.

You do realize there's a difference between "you can't buy exactly what you want," and "omfg no magic items," right?

All you have to do to justify limiting magic item marts is to look at the NPCs in that city, and see that they don't have anyone who can actually supply that item. Any DM that thinks twice need look no further. Forcing the PCs to travel to places that can actually supply the goods they want is perfectly reasonable. The only thing unreasonable here is demanding that the PCs be able to buy whatever they want when the DMG explicitly gives the DM control over the rules of the world. The only thing that is even close to guaranteed is random treasure based on monsters defeated, and yes in fact there are people who have run games like that since the beginning.

Just because it doesn't match your ideal doesn't make it some crazy outlier you can ignore: if you want to ignore it, you have to define your system in such a way that makes it a official outlier. We currently have no such definition. So take your assumptions to the main thread and demand they be included in the definitions.

You do realise yourself though, that there are no need for magic marts or simular? All thats required is an arcane caster with more time than gold on his hands.

And since there are straight up rules and guidelines for what you can find in a given city, then we need to assume that its the given baseline.

Yup, that totally guarantees copying spells from other wizards, and doesn't imply that higher level scrolls might be hard to find at all by extension. And exactly defines higher level as spells of X level or higher and not simply spells that are high level with regards to the guy you're asking, which would further limit you.

You are not guaranteed to copy spells from other wizards, and in fact the PHB suggests other wizards won't want to share anything of value. You are not guaranteed to be able to buy scrolls, and in fact even a cursory examination suggests that you ought not to be able to unless you have someone who can make it right there in front of you. If your DM is hard rolling random loot, you have a good chance of stumbling upon random spells from the PHB which you may or may not want. So once again, assuming the Wizard can expand their spell list in a useful way relies on DM lenience. Lead with your assumptions or fight with no ground beneath your feat.

So.. your more or less basing all of this on a line of fluff? But you do notice that most people have not even talked about buying scrolls, but only the much more reasonable selling of scrolls?
And that if this was the case, then it should actually make it that much easier for wizards to trade scrolls of their own. Or get a much higher price for them than what the market would allow.

edit.

2. Even if the scrolls available are bad, he can still build around them. Fireball or rage or deep slumber might not be the spells he wanted, but he can still mark them down as "melee buff" or "dex AOE" or "will disabler" and just pick different spells to fill other holes. A fighter can't choose a flight item on level-up. A wizard with 2 totally random spells per spell level + 4 chosen spells is likely way stronger than a wizard with only 4 chosen spells/level. Not too many spells are completely useless.

Also as Gnaus says. Scrolls are fairly common. A wizard should at least get around 3-5 random spells from each level. Thats all they are going to need.
Unlike a fighter who can get stuck with a crappy weapon or no way to deal with fliers.

[Morphic tide]

Allow me to point out a few very important facts about how Wizards end up in low op:

In low op, the players can, quite reasonably, be entirely unaware of the fact Wizards can add scrolls to their spell list. Because this ability is what makes Wizards t1.

In low op, players will largely ignore save or suck spells because save or suck is such a large part of what defines higher optimization in combat spells.

In low op, Wizards will blow WBL on very bad picks, and that WBL ain't coming back. Meanwhile, four of the other five classes here need only a good casting stat and a good player to return to t1 in practice.

In low op, well, Wizards are infamous for having the second or third lowest optimization floor in core because of just how much you can screw up.

The true mark of a t1 class is that they must remain able to solve almost any problem at close to their optimization floor. A properly t1 class ought to be nigh-impossible to make t4, unless you are actively trying to make a build as bad as possible for the class. This is called negative optimization.

As for recovering from negative optimization, where a build is made to suck as hard as possible:

Wizard: SOL, hands down. Your WBL is basically gone, wasted on worthless items. Your spellbook is barely worth the paper it's printed on, with nothing but garbage situational spells. You probably lost a level to some form of Familiar suiciding. Your feats include precisely nothing useful to a Wizard.

Druid: Still t3, as long as you have Wildshape. T4, if you traded out Wildshape via AFC. Mind, this is with a Wisdom penalty, having a 12 in Wisdom is more than enough to reach back up to t1 with a play style change alone, because a +4 enhancement bonus to Wisdom come in a spell that you have guaranteed access to.

Cleric: T5, given their near-total lack of useful non-casting abilities, and the fact that negative op will have Wis penalties. A Cleric with with 12 Wis, meanwhile, can get 6th level spells, returning to t1 no matter what. Mind, the same goes for Wizards and Intelligence, but a Wizard might not have the spell while a Cleric or Druid always will.

Artificer: T3 at the very least, as long as they still have Infusions. Infusions let them recover from almost anything a player does without issues, so long as they can use the Infusions. Also, their ability to craft items never goes away, only the GP and skill checks to do so, so they can make garbage scrolls for gold to recover GP.

Archivist: Better off than Wizard, but not by much. A skilled player might be able to scrounge up enough good scrolls to recover using the spell lists accessable, but you're most likely not going to recover from negative optimization. After all, negative optimization means intentionally wasting WBL.

Sha'ir: From what I know, it's able to recover from almost any horrible choice with just a play style change, because they're very nearly an arcane version of the Cleric or Druid casting method. As long as you can find people to watch cast the right spells, you can fix yourself better than a Wizard or Archivist. Provided you have 12 Cha, anyway.

Really, the cutoff point is 12 in the casting stats, because that's where the +4 bonus spell is at. Archivist and Wizard are not going to have it after negative optimization, because it's a good optimization tool that can be missed.