Retiering the Classes: Bard, Factotum, Jester, and Savant

[ryu]

If over over 90% of common, cohesive build concepts a class has can solo entire encounters without any real risk of losing, the class is not the benchmark of level appropriate. I didn't say mailman because it's the only way I can think of to end entire encounters before they begin as a wizard. I said mailman because it's a simple word that everyone here will be entirely familiar with without elaboration. I would go on to say that if you can't think of literally dozens of plausible wizard builds at any given level to obviate most ''level appropriate'' challenges you just aren't trying very hard. That's part of the power of tier 1. No matter what you do, you can be manifestly superior to every not tier 1 in all situations within a fairly short time in-game. And no, you don't have to compare to this to be tier 3. Not even slightly.

[Fizban]

My suggestion was actually intended to closely model to the game world, not our world. The idea was that you are here, or you look like this, because of magic of some defined or undefined variety.

The "knowing more about magic makes you more vulnerable to magic" problem does exist, but the counter is that it's much easier to disguise or magically manipulate someone than it is to be forced out of your own form-within the range of 1st level spells that can almost be called common. If your guards are savvy enough to consider magic making the bluff more believable, they should be savvy enough to know that it's even easier to use magic to make that sound plausible and double down on following their existing orders.

I don't think they're the flaw you're identifying here.

Nope, just hammering on the limits of "almost too incredible" vs "too incredible" with longer arguments.

at least theoretically, believable. It can be believed, even if it perhaps shouldn't be believed.

Which isn't how Bluff is defined. It uses a simple statement of "almost too incredible," and statements like that are why the DM exists in the first place, to arbitrate when you've passed almost and just gone too far. "Theoretically believable" is a player's justification of why they think it should work, to which the DM responds with the answer based on the NPC, not based on the theory in a vaccum. The vast, blinding majority of (if not literally all) people have things they simply won't believe, ranging from philosophical to political to whatever, to everyday things that their logic will simply refuse to process as believable. I posit that even in a world with magic, unless you have actually set up reinforcing circumstances (or luck into them already existing), the "I'm actually your boss" bluff will simply bounce off that vast majority of NPCs as flat out too incredible.

Not that those circumstances are difficult to engineer, but the bluff on it's own should never be enough to get more than that 1 round of hesitation. Which is itself a seriously powerful effect.

I think that the skill roll skipping is pretty good on its own, and the ability to move from the normal area of the skill to the edges of it offers some expansion in terms of actual functionality, regardless of where the DM draws the specific lines on this stuff. Also, epic bluff for non-magic suggestion is kinda interesting. A person with limited sense motive would be within reasonable range of a mid-level bard investing into bluff. Not necessary, but quite good, from my perspective.

I shouldn't have said not good in the same section as roll-skipping, true. But there are other spells for skill bonuses and rerolls that could do roll smashing and other things which I'd prefer if I was making a social skills build.

I've never heard a single convincing argument that CR is broken.

My apologies, I do have trouble keeping track of everyone so I default to assuming any given individual will claim CR is broken based on the majority and forgot that you're one of those who doesn't (and have probably done so a couple times by now). We can fight/continue fighting about the Fighter's contribution some other time.

[Beheld]

If over over 90% of common, cohesive build concepts a class has can solo entire encounters without any real risk of losing, the class is not the benchmark of level appropriate. I didn't say mailman because it's the only way I can think of to end entire encounters before they begin as a wizard. I said mailman because it's a simple word that everyone here will be entirely familiar with without elaboration. I would go on to say that if you can't think of literally dozens of plausible wizard builds at any given level to obviate most ''level appropriate'' challenges you just aren't trying very hard. That's part of the power of tier 1. No matter what you do, you can be manifestly superior to every not tier 1 in all situations within a fairly short time in-game. And no, you don't have to compare to this to be tier 3. Not even slightly.

Well that's the point. Over 90% of the common cohesive build concepts don't do that. The ones that specifically rely on breaking the RNG do, and the ones that rely on breaking the, for lack of a better term, CR RNG, by having permanent minions today at the cost of spell slots yesterday along with all your spell slots today do, but those are the only ones.

If you are cohesive build who takes levels in Wizard and casts the best non minionmancy spells of every level, then you don't break the game, that's the point. This is part of the larger problem were people on this forum have this weird conception of level appropriate challenge that involves complaining CR is broken so you can't expect characters to live up to their CR expectation whenever that fits their current needs, and then to turn around and claim that all encounters are really easy (except the broken ones, which is all the ones that aren't easy) when that fits the narrative.

Wizards don't 100% the SGT, that's fundamentally the way the game works. Wizards and Druids and Clerics score slightly above 50%, and that's totally fine.

[ryu]

Well that's the point. Over 90% of the common cohesive build concepts don't do that. The ones that specifically rely on breaking the RNG do, and the ones that rely on breaking the, for lack of a better term, CR RNG, by having permanent minions today at the cost of spell slots yesterday along with all your spell slots today do, but those are the only ones.

If you are cohesive build who takes levels in Wizard and casts the best non minionmancy spells of every level, then you don't break the game, that's the point. This is part of the larger problem were people on this forum have this weird conception of level appropriate challenge that involves complaining CR is broken so you can't expect characters to live up to their CR expectation whenever that fits their current needs, and then to turn around and claim that all encounters are really easy (except the broken ones, which is all the ones that aren't easy) when that fits the narrative.

Wizards don't 100% the SGT, that's fundamentally the way the game works. Wizards and Druids and Clerics score slightly above 50%, and that's totally fine.

Name a level and and a CR appropriate encounter that doesn't randomly murder approximately 9 in ten parties. I'll name a either a single spell, or a combination of spells that can be cast without the enemy being able to take meaningful action that will either literally end the encounter or render it harmless and a certain win. Just for kicks I won't even use feats. Just spells. Nothing that summons a minion or creates one. This happens more than five times you're objectively wrong.

[Cosi]

A lot of my perspective is premised on the idea that factotums are usually mediocre but occasionally competent in combat (through the fact that your limited spells/day still represent combats where you're offering meaningful contribution), but really good out of combat. And not just really good out of combat in the sense that you can win social encounters through the use of the occasional spell for that purpose alongside skill use. Really good out of combat in an in-combat sense, weirdly. This was said, but it deserves repetition. The tenth level factotum can cast animate dead.

First, I don't think that "contributes outside combat, but not in combat" is good. Combat is a more important part of D&D than non-combat is by simple screen time. If you don't have something good to do in a fight, I don't think you can hit Tier Three. I don't think the reverse is (necessarily) true -- look at Sokka in Avatar.

Second, casting animate dead is good, but not super impressive at 10th level. A scroll of animate dead at CL 20 costs you 1,750 GP. At 10th level, that's about 4% of your WBL. I'm not 100% sure how a scroll of animate dead works for someone who doesn't have a caster level, but at the very least it works for anyone who does.

If it can get his damage to a reasonable level with natural attacks and jacked AC, and his bardic music over the course of the adventuring day then it might be a reasonable contribution

Possibly. I would like to see someone run numbers on it.

Edit I think most races you could choose from have good options to alter self to

I don't know. I never cared enough to figure out exactly how much power was nominally available via alter self.

Even if the factotum is getting them late, if they work, they work. It can get command undead at level 5, with a bit of luck he can start something there. I would only rule against actual game smashing things like chain binding

command undead is good when it works, but dead 99% of the time. That said, I'm generally unimpressed by minions because they're the one of the things most likely to get nerfed.

My basic premise is use SLA for 'two' encounters, UMD for 'one', and something else for the last. Facto doesn't have to be most important in all four encounters.

"SLAs" is doing a whole lot of work there. What is a 4th level spell and three 3rd level spells doing at 10th level? What spells are you casting that contribute to winning encounters more than a Barbarian smashing stuff?

Name a level and and a CR appropriate encounter that doesn't randomly murder approximately 9 in ten parties. I'll name a either a single spell, or a combination of spells that can be cast without the enemy being able to take meaningful action that will either literally end the encounter or render it harmless and a certain win. Just for kicks I won't even use feats. Just spells. Nothing that summons a minion or creates one. This happens more than five times you're objectively wrong.

The Same Game Test. In theory, you should beat five of those at each level with the same spell loadout.

[bean illus]

Are we still debating if Bard is T3? lol.

I think i'm still at:

Bard: high 3
Facto: low 3
Jester: T4
Savant: possibly 5. Needs real story support, party support, etc. Can't even limp through a real campaign and have something to do every encounter. NPC, lol.

... but if facto landed in 4 (or etc) i think i understand the reasoning better (a little).

[Dondasch]

Not sure about the other arguments, but mine have been pretty consistent with a single factotum. Single combat load out of spells, tailored to meet the situation if the possibility of that exists, and then you have this wide variety of out of combat support and power building things that are all accessible to any factotum regardless of build. I think you get a lot of out of combat utility from this stuff, alongside a set of out of combat tricks, increasing in quantity and quality alike at moderate to high levels, which serve to increase in combat power. It's a nice setup.

I find adventuring-day noncombat spells lackluster on a Factotum, because they are competing with your best option for combat over your very limited slots. I think we value off-day spells differently. The best of them are also the ones most likely to be nerfed by the GM. Plus, at many levels of optimization, these spells are unlikely to be used properly if at all. The same actually goes for some of the options being cited as good adventuring spells for them, like Alter Self.

As i said, your right about more than one thing. I just think it's enough for Tier 3 (and i almost stopped and checked my math before i posted. +10/11 is easier) My basic premise is use SLA for 'two' encounters, UMD for 'one', and something else for the last. Facto doesn't have to be most important in all four encounters.
But as i said, i usually think of it as a dip, and as we agree? DM style is important here.

When i think Tier 4, i think of someone who has nothing helpful to do several times a day. Facto is sorta a team player there, but should find something to do almost always.

See, the thing is that pretty much any class can find something to do, such as plinking with a (cross)bow when Ubercharging doesn't work, Aid Another in social encounters, etc. I'm just not convinced that the Factotum is bringing valuable actions most of the time. Even your arguments seem to be based on "1/encounter do something useful, spend rest of the encounter struggling to contribute", and that still leaves 25% of the encounters in a generic day where you are doing "something else", vague and undefined as your "1/encounter do something useful".



On Glibness: Remember, we need to consider how things will likely be ruled in play, not just by RAW. I generally side with Fizban here, but it's important to note that even if Bluff does work as eggynack believes, using it as such is likely to annoy the GM by trivializing a huge variety of situations.

[Fizban]

I think at this point I'm simultaneously disagreeing and agreeing with all four people at once with how twisted this argument is becoming, but off the cuff responses abound!

This happens more than five times you're objectively wrong.

You've got it backwards actually. Name a prepared list of spells for a certain level, then we provide standard encounters by CR. If that list of spells does not automatically win five or more times then you're objectively wrong. Oh look, Schrodinger's Arbitrary Challenge cuts both ways.

Except you were saying that in response to eggy saying that level appropriate abilities are actually a spectrum in response to Beheld using wizard levels as the standard for level appropriateness, which seems to track all the way back to eggy saying that wizards get their spells faster than is actually level appropriate in response to Beheld saying Bard casting is a non factor (in the same post where the ass flavored ass showed up, aha!) which seems to fall all the way back to Beheld putting the fixed list full 9 casters on tier 3 which must then push Bard down to tier 4, which answers that question.

So now I'm caught between the fact that wizard spells are more than level appropriate in power, while still not breaking the CR system. Thankfully that's why there are whole monster types immune to swaths of spells specifically to keep those effects in check, so I'm not actually contradicting myself.

The Same Game Test. In theory, you should beat five of those at each level with the same spell loadout.

Ignoring the (many) other problems, there's another one here: you've just told him in advance what all the challenges are so he can build the perfect character to match them. If you want an objective test they shouldn't be seeing anything before character creation, let alone scouting/divinations vs countermeasures. Also he's probably pulling the standard of 5 from the SGT, so you're basically just repeating his point, though that may have been your intent.

[Beheld]

Name a level and and a CR appropriate encounter that doesn't randomly murder approximately 9 in ten parties. I'll name a either a single spell, or a combination of spells that can be cast without the enemy being able to take meaningful action that will either literally end the encounter or render it harmless and a certain win. Just for kicks I won't even use feats. Just spells. Nothing that summons a minion or creates one. This happens more than five times you're objectively wrong.

I think this is going to rapidly become something of a tangent that should be addressed to a new thread, but for now, naming a few encounters theoretically isn't:

Level 6: Babua or Bearded Devil Haunts a cathedral at night, Chain Devil guards a room by staying in hiding on the 80ft high roof with his chains until someone enters who shouldn't, A Young Blue Dragon ambushes the party as they cross the Desert, A pair of wolves attack from invisibility on the road, one of them is a Raging, Enlarged, Bull's Strengthed, Werewolf, and the other is Bull's Strengthed Blinking Greater Bargest, how you doing on those knowledge ranks?
Level 10: Vrock or Bone Devil slaughtered a cult who summoned it after it broke free, and has taken up residence in their former cave complex, a Juvenile Red strafes a small village the nearby, presumably your party might feel bad and try to save them, you broke the rules and so a Zelekaut is hunting you down, you are probably unaware of that. He may or may not have a CR 7 ally he's lesser geased into helping him, as you travel in the underdark the path opens into a large cavern, suddenly rocks start raining from above because a couple Stone Giants (one an elder) start throwing them at you from up on ledges.

EDIT: Also Devourer at level 10, missing some sweet undead.

[Kurald Galain]

Well, it's all been said already, to reaffirm:

Bard - 3
Facty - 4
Savant - 5
Jester - unfamiliar with it but looks like a 3

[bean illus]

.................................................. ..

.................................................. ....

I really want to add, that i appreciate that folks even bother to address me (lol), thanks. Seriously.

For just plain politeness, this has been a great thread.

I still think DM style can bring factotum into low 3, but agree that without FoI (and a person who really thinks 'like a factotum')/etc it is much more underwhelming.

I think i will go see some of the other re-tier threads.... I kinda wonder what y'all think is the line between 1 and 2, if bard and facto are T4.

[Dondasch]

I think i will go see some of the other re-tier threads.... I kinda wonder what y'all think is the line between 1 and 2, if bard and facto are T4.

Well, I only think the Factotum is T4, but I'd say what gets you into T1 is being able to excel at things you didn't bother building for. Like how the Druid always has access to bear hordes, or Wizards just need to scribe the right spell into their book. T2 can still excel at pretty much anything, but you need to decide what will be "great" and what will be "really good" while building (some classes, like fixed-listers, effectively make these choices for you).

[bean illus]

Well, I only think the Factotum is T4, but I'd say what gets you into T1 is being able to excel at things you didn't bother building for. Like how the Druid always has access to bear hordes, or Wizards just need to scribe the right spell into their book. T2 can still excel at pretty much anything, but you need to decide what will be "great" and what will be "really good" while building (some classes, like fixed-listers, effectively make these choices for you).

Oh, i've read a dozendozen peoples definitions of what the tiers are, and feel we all sorta agree, yet there still seems to be some disagreement, lol.

[Zaq]

So when I posted last, I had pegged Bard at T3 and Factotum at T4. That still stands, I think. Bard is darn high at T3, but they have native access to significantly fewer game-breaking effects than the big-name traditional 9th level casters (both at mid levels and at high levels), so I think T3 is about where they belong, barring an unusually permissive GM.

Jester: Jester is really weird. It's basically a core-only Bard with less optimization potential.

The class features aren't awful, though I think the Bard's are better even without heavy ACFing. Jester's Performance is surprisingly decent early on, though I don't think it necessarily scales appropriately. Taunt has a lot of potential, though a pure-class Jester doesn't have all that many tricks geared towards actually surviving hard-aggroing something that's actually dangerous in the first place. (Works nicely on casting-type enemies if you can get past the Will save, though.) The 12th, 15th, and 18th level performances don't really seem to be level-appropriate, though the Bard's super-high-level music abilities aren't necessarily super hot, either. With no ACFs and no splat support, though, the performances don't have anywhere to go beyond their surface effects, for better or for worse. I don't think Audacity is a good trade for Bardic Knowledge, though, and even with Audacity, the Jester has a minor AC problem in that it doesn't have a "no ASF in light armor" clause like the Bard does.

The spell list is surprisingly robust. It's missing Glibness and does just have fewer options than the Bard, but it otherwise looks like a fair equivalent to the core-only Bard's list, and it does have a couple gems that the Bard lacks (Polymorph!). With splat support, the Bard obviously pulls ahead (Improvisation is amazing in the late game, for instance, and as a level 1 spell, it has a very reasonable cost), but if we count the Bard's spellcasting as being useful (and I certainly do), I think the Jester is at least decent, if not exactly overpowered.

So, time to put up or shut up. Where does the Jester fall? It's a toss-up between T3 and T4, but I'd be willing to call it a very low T3. It doesn't have the optimization potential of other T3 classes, and it just generally suffers from a low ceiling, but I think it's got a sufficiently tricky spell list to earn its share of the XP budget. I could still see an argument for high T4, since it's a little fragile and its combat contributions are a little bit enemy-dependent, but I think the spell list nudges it into T3.

Savant: What even is this class? I've looked at it before, but it's so good at not standing out that I basically forget about it whenever I'm not looking at it. It's like a parody of a character who multiclassed themselves into uselessness.

Okay, let's go one step at a time. All skills, so I guess it doesn't get better than that, and 6 + INT is respectable. A Savant can have whatever skill base you want, I suppose. They even get Trapfinding, if you feel like devoting about a quarter of your skill points to that sort of thing. Academic Knowledge is basically Bardic Knowledge that's slightly more difficult to boost (after all, there are several things that specifically affect BK, but nothing that specifically affects AK), and I do like BK, so that's good to start.

Skill Assistance is about the class's only unique ability, and it's a decent concept for making unskilled partymembers more skillful (and therefore opening up which skills can actually be used to affect the party's well-being), but the actual execution is a little bit timid. The range limitation seems downright unnecessary, and the ability seems difficult to use even under ideal circumstances. I've never seen a Savant in play, but listening to the testimony of those who have, this seems like an ability that is hamstrung by its own limitations. It also seems really obnoxious to adjudicate in actual play, since many of the skills on the list are movement-based, so you have to keep track of party movement (and therefore proximity to the Savant) as each character makes their own movement-based skill checks. And the fact that you get so few choices (both in terms of the list being small and the number of picks you get being small) doesn't help much. Good idea, but uninspiring execution.

Bonus feats are nice, but they aren't enough on their own to change a tier. A Savant's Sneak Attack might be useful for qualifying for something that needs exactly +1d6 SA (Craven, for instance), but it's already almost irrelevant by the time you get it, and the scaling is so poor as to be negligible.

So then we're left with the spells. I think we can safely ignore the divine spells, since they come so late (and so slowly after they even hit play) that they're functionally useless. The arcane spells are annoying in that you know spells (and don't have a way to expand the number of spells you know), but you still have to prepare them. Beyond that annoyance, the spells are fairly tame overall, and when you consider the fact that they come so late and still have a CL penalty, I'd trust a Rogue with halfway decent wand choice to be a magical problem-solver more than I'd trust the Savant to do the same.

I'm not sure what the Savant actually brings to the table. I feel like it's hard to place them above T5, since they don't actually bring any level-appropriate problem-solving abilities to the table. They have more in common with the Fighter than with the Rogue or even the Barbarian. I've seen a Savant used once or twice in an Iron Chef build as a way to qualify for something obnoxious (since it has whatever skills you want and a blank-check bonus feat early on), but as an actual class to take 6 or 9 or 16 or 20 levels in? Yuck.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Savant: What even is this class? I've looked at it before, but it's so good at not standing out that I basically forget about it whenever I'm not looking at it. It's like a parody of a character who multiclassed themselves into uselessness.

I think that's my new favorite description of the class.

Also, I haven't been following all of the discussion, but are people seriously arguing that the Bard can't be Tier 3 because its spellcasting is weaker than a sorcerer's?

[bean illus]

Also, I haven't been following all of the discussion, but are people seriously arguing that the Bard can't be Tier 3 because its spellcasting is weaker than a sorcerer's?

Yes, i think that's close.

[Beheld]

Also, I haven't been following all of the discussion, but are people seriously arguing that the Bard can't be Tier 3 because its spellcasting is weaker than a sorcerer's?

I think so far literally zero people have claimed the Bard is not Tier 3.

[Gnaeus]

Id list bard and factotum as T3. I haven't played with the others and don't have much of an opinion.

[ryu]

I think at this point I'm simultaneously disagreeing and agreeing with all four people at once with how twisted this argument is becoming, but off the cuff responses abound!

You've got it backwards actually. Name a prepared list of spells for a certain level, then we provide standard encounters by CR. If that list of spells does not automatically win five or more times then you're objectively wrong. Oh look, Schrodinger's Arbitrary Challenge cuts both ways.

Except you were saying that in response to eggy saying that level appropriate abilities are actually a spectrum in response to Beheld using wizard levels as the standard for level appropriateness, which seems to track all the way back to eggy saying that wizards get their spells faster than is actually level appropriate in response to Beheld saying Bard casting is a non factor (in the same post where the ass flavored ass showed up, aha!) which seems to fall all the way back to Beheld putting the fixed list full 9 casters on tier 3 which must then push Bard down to tier 4, which answers that question.

So now I'm caught between the fact that wizard spells are more than level appropriate in power, while still not breaking the CR system. Thankfully that's why there are whole monster types immune to swaths of spells specifically to keep those effects in check, so I'm not actually contradicting myself.

Ignoring the (many) other problems, there's another one here: you've just told him in advance what all the challenges are so he can build the perfect character to match them. If you want an objective test they shouldn't be seeing anything before character creation, let alone scouting/divinations vs countermeasures. Also he's probably pulling the standard of 5 from the SGT, so you're basically just repeating his point, though that may have been your intent.

Actually I was just going to use any number of spells that were useful, then proceed to demonstrate the ability to afford knowing literally everything used, and the divinations used to bring everything useful to where it's useful. You have the power to afford more spells than you'll ever care to know with a fraction of WBL. This is what it means to have the entire wizard list at your beck and call. You have the solution to all problems given any real amount of time or simple preparedness. Feats and magic items just make this more efficient, easy, and generally simple.

[Soranar]

I decided to do a quick rundown of the Savant class since a lot of people seem unfamiliar with it. I never bothered to really give it a look since it seemed too underwhelming

-it gets a low sneak attack progression (3d6 over 15 level, starting at level 3)
-it gets a low arcane casting progression (level 5+. half caster level, INT based)
-it gets a low divine casting progression (level 10+, half caster level, WIS based)
-it gets 3 bonus feats (any feat at that, which is obviously really good)

Medium BAB, 1 good save (will) 6 skillpoints per level, all skills

light armor, simple and martial weapons prof, all shields except tower shield (so exotic shields are in)

trapfinding

it does have a few gems on its spell list (alter self on the arcane side, divine power on the divine side) but you're better off using a wand of them since you get them so damn late (you get divine power at level 18!)

the one unique ability it has is to use it's own skill rank to replace that of allies that are close to him though it only works with certain skills and you only get to pick a few. You get 1 skill at level 1 and another at level 4 and then more at each 4 levels afterwards.

the obvious choice would be hide as your first skill and then move silently at level 4.

All in all this is a great class as a jump into a better prestige class (say a Chameleon). It can qualify for a number of difficult prestige classes due to its access to all skills and its limited spellcasting.

The problems with the class itself (if you intend to stay in it a while) is just the progression.

The sneak attack is ok at lower levels (1d6 is fine at level 3) but 3d6 won't get you too far at level 15.
Again, limited spellcasting still helps but it's too limiting to rely on it , you're better off with wands though you don't need to bother with UMD to activate alter self or divine power which is a plus

You are MAD as hell since you need physical stats to get stuff done and you need INT and WIS for spellcasting. In comparison a Factotum will use brain over brawns to compensate for his lower physical stats.

A Factotum will be better than you at basically everything (faster casting progression, higher level spells, stronger spells, better skill use)

A warlock with UMD can do almost everything you can do better than you, the same can be said of a bard or a rogue type

The one exception is the savant's ability to loan his skills but after you get hide and move silently, you don't really need anything else so dropping out of the class would make more sense. All in all it's a decent chassis to get into a stronger prestige class.

by level 5 you would get level 1 arcane spells, 1 bonus feat, 2 skill assistance (hide and move silently IMO) 1d6 sneak attack and trapfinding

Considering how difficult it would be to use this class well, I would put it in tier 4.

[Beheld]

-it gets 3 bonus feats (any feat at that, which is obviously really good)

So it's Tier 0 then, because it can take Epic Spellcasting right?

[Bucky]

What's Savant doing to get it out of tier 5?

[Lans]

What's Savant doing to get it out of tier 5?

Looking mighty fine standing next to the expert.

Use its 3 bonus feats for craven and assassins' stance. 5d6+15 sneak attack at level 15 isn't too shabby. That is with the weaker interpretation of the bonus feats.

The useful combat spells it gets at 5th level, like grease, and actually just grease.

[Soranar]

What's Savant doing to get it out of tier 5?

It can do 1 thing quite well : namely being a skillmonkey that helps the party do skillmonkey things

It's ability to help party members do hide and move silently checks alone should make that work (it's a fairly rare and unique ability that I could see use in every campaign)

Other than that it still has a little sneak attack so craven would pump it's damage output considerably as would knowledge devotion

It can also get a familiar through obtain familiar

The spellcasting is slow but it still has access to divine might (with no UMD roll) and alter self (again no UMD roll) which should be enough to keep it relevant at higher levels.

finally it has bonus feats (only 3 mind) that isn't restricted to any list so it's pretty versatile.

[Hurnn]

I think i will go see some of the other re-tier threads.... I kinda wonder what y'all think is the line between 1 and 2, if bard and facto are T4.

I think the practical difference between 1 and 2 is almost nil and certainly less that the gap between any tier except maybe 4-5. hell i think some tiers have power gaps between the top and bottom greater than the gap between 1 and 2.

I made a post not long ago about the idea of rolling 1 and 2 into a new tier one and stretching the others out a bit with a new tier 2, and I will eventually respond to the questions asked about that thought.....

[eggynack]

The "knowing more about magic makes you more vulnerable to magic" problem does exist, but the counter is that it's much easier to disguise or magically manipulate someone than it is to be forced out of your own form-within the range of 1st level spells that can almost be called common. If your guards are savvy enough to consider magic making the bluff more believable, they should be savvy enough to know that it's even easier to use magic to make that sound plausible and double down on following their existing orders.

I don't think the simple presence of bluff increasing spells can reduce the plausibility of a bluff to too incredible levels. Yes, it's a workable Occam's razor approach to someone telling you something really weird, but it's just an alternative to something that may or may not be already plausible, rather than something that discredits a whole class of bluffs on its own.

Which isn't how Bluff is defined. It uses a simple statement of "almost too incredible," and statements like that are why the DM exists in the first place, to arbitrate when you've passed almost and just gone too far. "Theoretically believable" is a player's justification of why they think it should work, to which the DM responds with the answer based on the NPC, not based on the theory in a vaccum. The vast, blinding majority of (if not literally all) people have things they simply won't believe, ranging from philosophical to political to whatever, to everyday things that their logic will simply refuse to process as believable. I posit that even in a world with magic, unless you have actually set up reinforcing circumstances (or luck into them already existing), the "I'm actually your boss" bluff will simply bounce off that vast majority of NPCs as flat out too incredible.

Eh, maybe. One interesting factor here that we've only barely delved into is that, "Almost too incredible," isn't actually an explicit limit on bluff. There's nothing saying that too incredible bluffs just don't work.

I shouldn't have said not good in the same section as roll-skipping, true. But there are other spells for skill bonuses and rerolls that could do roll smashing and other things which I'd prefer if I was making a social skills build.

Fair, I suppose. I think this discussion has gotten to a reasonable end state, personally. Especially because even Beheld is apparently not claiming tier four bards anymore. My initial stated perspective was a somewhat hyperbolic one in reaction to a hyperbolic claim in the other direction, that this spell could be described as sucking by the time 4th's and 5th's are coming online, rather than a fully accurate depiction of true play states.

Second, casting animate dead is good, but not super impressive at 10th level. A scroll of animate dead at CL 20 costs you 1,750 GP. At 10th level, that's about 4% of your WBL. I'm not 100% sure how a scroll of animate dead works for someone who doesn't have a caster level, but at the very least it works for anyone who does.

It's not a crazy thing, but when the alternative is the idea that factotums really lack combat potential, is strikes me as an important capability. It's a bit of a uniquely factotum approach to the problem, not in the sense that factotums are the only or best casters of animate dead, but in the sense that it compliments their few but high level daily spells.

I think i will go see some of the other re-tier threads.... I kinda wonder what y'all think is the line between 1 and 2, if bard and facto are T4.

One of the interesting things about having all this data in front of us is that the lines are positioned in a relatively clear way. When the thread is over, we'll be able to define some pretty solid tier dividing lines, places where anything below that line is probably in a lower tier. In fact, we can kinda do so right now. As it stands, going purely by the mean for each class (listing the floor for the top tier rather than the ceiling for the bottom tier, or both), the line between 1 and 2 is the spontaneous druid, with 1.31, the line between 2 and 3 is beguiler, with 2.28 (really weird that it's not the dread necromancer, but whatever), the line between 3 and 4 is factotum, with 3.35, the line between 4 and 5 is fighter, with 4.45 (both the fighter and ninja were once actually 4.5, but they've since moved over to 4), and the line between 5 and 6 is CW samurai, with 5.23 (it's the only class with a score below 5, which I expect to change at some point).

When we're done, we'll be able to get all kindsa data like that, stuff like median and standard deviation of tier, which classes have the widest score distribution (with an interesting metric for that being how many tiers people voted for for a given class), and, specifically because of that aforementioned line thing, we can use singular comparison classes for entry into a given tier instead of necessarily arguing over whether being better than this class over here actually merits a given position, or what class we should use for that discussion. Of course, I don't expect this to act as some kinda ultimate peacekeeper, because any tier list is going to be inevitably controversial, but there's some serious utility here that goes beyond a simple number. Oh, and thought I'd mention if it wasn't clear, all past threads are consistently open in terms of voting and discussion. So, if ya wanna do more than trawl through the already existing discussion, that's always an available option.

I think so far literally zero people have claimed the Bard is not Tier 3.

My impression was that you were, and that you just weren't voting that way because you never seem to vote on anything. Kinda had you in the same boat as Cosi in those non-voting personage terms.

[Schattenbach]

About the whole bluff issue ...

From the SRD ...

Two circumstances can weigh against you: The bluff is hard to believe, or the action that the target is asked to take goes against its self-interest, nature, personality, orders, or the like. If it’s important, you can distinguish between a bluff that fails because the target doesn’t believe it and one that fails because it just asks too much of the target. For instance, if the target gets a +10 bonus on its Sense Motive check because the bluff demands something risky, and the Sense Motive check succeeds by 10 or less, then the target didn’t so much see through the bluff as prove reluctant to go along with it. A target that succeeds by 11 or more has seen through the bluff.

Bluff Examples Example Circumstances Sense Motive
Modifier
The target wants to believe you. -5
The bluff is believable and doesn’t affect the target much. +0
The bluff is a little hard to believe or puts the target at some risk. +5
The bluff is hard to believe or puts the target at significant risk. +10
The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider. +20

The table only shows examples so circumstance modifiers beyond that might still be there (for example, someone who's highly suspicious or who's well-known for lying pretty much whenever that person says something would always get hit with some additional circumstances modifier, wouldn't that be the case? +10 or, in extreme cases, +20 to the DC as circumstances modifer because they don't want to believe the bluffer who's a well-known liar ... the same applies for highly suspicious people for some additional +5/+10/+20 depending on how suspicious they actually are ... so even if they're unknown, they have to face lack of trust due to people suspecting them to be untrustworthy/shady/ecetera or otherwise suspicious like because they sneaked into the prison at night). So if things are too risky ("puts the target at significant risk") to easily accept and "almost too incredible to consider" but "the target also wants to believe you", the circumstance modifiers should stack with each other just like usual, as long as they don't exclude each other, so ... yeah ... at least +25 to the Sense Motive DC/Sense Motive Check to beat (or +30 or higher if the bluffer is a well-known liar ((edit: or otherwise highly suspicious).

I still wouldn't say that something is too incredible to believe expect in cases like where there is absolute proof (i.e. intelligent construct that only follows the command of its creator ... if it isn't forced to follow those orders, then no matter how hard one tries to justify something, bluff doesn't work), though one (very reasonable way) to rule bluff is that it simply is the inverse-result of an failed sense motive check, i.e. it believes, at least for a short while, that the bluffer doesn't lie. One could also argue that the bluff and follow up-bluffs to make the entire thing more believable and to cover up loose ends in one's story are part of the original bluff check (though the rules for retries say pretty clearly: "Try Again: Varies. Generally, a failed Bluff check in social interaction makes the target too suspicious for you to try again in the same circumstances" so no retries to make the too hard to believe bluffs, but chaining bluff after bluff to keep the target from disbelieving the already made-up bluffs seems legit, but any excuses or inconsisty is bound to increase the circumstances modifier to some degree up to te point that the bluff is almost to incredible to believe or also putting the target into self-risk territory or making the target not want to believe you) so one could start the bluff with something quite a bit too hard to believe and patch up the holes with some follow up bluffs right after and, after the story has become sufficiently believeable, makes one bluff check for the whole thing (but that takes quite a bit of time, I guess).

Edit for the bluff related stuff ... that's something where social engineering (i.e. excellent RP and research put in beforehand) shines, I guess, as repeated bluffs (even within a single bluff check) might be able to improve several unfavourable circustance modifiers.

As for the topic on hand
... bard ... Low T2 (only in cases with reasonably early access to actual sorcerer spellcasting, though, which might proof difficult if one doesn't decide to take Sublime Chord ASAP, as the delayed access to potent spellcasting sucks quite a bit), High T3 otherwise.
... Jester seems like low T3 ...
... Factotum ... T4 ...
... Savant ... T5 ...

[eggynack]

... bard ... Low T2 (only in cases with reasonably early access to actual sorcerer spellcasting, though, which might proof difficult if one doesn't decide to take Sublime Chord ASAP, as the delayed access to potent spellcasting sucks quite a bit), High T3 otherwise.

I'ma put you down for three then. We're not really considering PrC's or other base classes in tiering.

[Beheld]

Especially because even Beheld is apparently not claiming tier four bards anymore.

...

My impression was that you were, and that you just weren't voting that way because you never seem to vote on anything. Kinda had you in the same boat as Cosi in those non-voting personage terms.

I haven't been voting, but literally my first post in this thread stated my position, let's see what it says:

I'm fairly certain Factotum belongs in Tier 4. I still have no feeling for Tier 3, but Bard probably is like, the very last person who belongs there (like the weakest Tier 3 who is still Tier 3) or maybe Jester if it's very close (too lazy to read up on it now) but if Jester can't provide a bunch of arbitrary bonuses of potentially RNG breaking amounts to his allies, then he probably belongs in Tier 4 with the Factotum.

HMMMMM. Am I changing my mind from my previous argument that Bard is Tier 4? Or did you just refuse to read what I actually said over and over and repeatedly assign an opinion I did not state or hold to me. Probably that second one.

If a class had only bard spellcasting and nothing else, it would belong in Tier 4, the Bard has something else, and belongs in Tier 3, as I said, the Jester who has similar casting, but (the impression I get is) worse other features is on the bubble.

But, as I noted elsewhere in my post, you didn't really have a good argument for lack of contribution from these spells. If we're asking whether this is level appropriate, it doesn't matter whether the spells can be gained by other classes at level one or level ten. All that matters is whether the ability itself is good.

Like I said, that's because I didn't think anyone was seriously going to contend that a level 1 Wizard is a really a level 4 character because Silent Image + Sleep + Alarm is what a level 4 character does.

I mean, if you are so committed I can do analysis of literally all the SRD CR 3-5 monsters and see how that goes.

Being pretty generous, I have Centuar, Large and Huge Animate Object, Ankeg, Juvenile Arrowhawk, Giant Eagle/Owl, Gargoyle, all 10 mephits, all 8 vermin, Ogre, all 3 Oozes, Pegasus, 3 Skeletons and 3 Zombies (as far as computing these, I usually just assign the ones that show up on d20 monster filter, since there are theoretically nearly as many of these as everything else combined, but people aren't going to use them to the exclusion) Ravid, and Spider Eater. Altogether, 39 of 153, or about 25%. Contributing equivalent to a 4th level character is 25% of 75% of encounters and (basically 100%) of 25% encounters, comes out to contributing at your level 43% of the time. That's not level appropriate, that's more than 50% of the time you aren't level appropriate. (This is, as I feel obligated to mention since you keep refusing to believe me when I say it, spellcasting alone.)

The second level spell is not 1/8th of the bard's casting contribution. If you don't include cantrips and assume second level spells hold equal value to firsts (why would you?), it's 1/4 of your spells/day, 2/5's of your spells known (not saying it's a great metric, just that it's a valid one that you could theoretically use that also doesn't lead to 1/8). Under the evaluation metric that's worst for the bard, where you count cantrips and evaluate all these spells as equal utility for some ungodly reason, you still get 1/7, or 2/11's by the weird spells known metric. It's never 1/8, as far as I can tell, and any reasonable analysis would find that you're replicating significantly less than the 1/4 I proposed, if you include the fact that glitterdust is presumably more valuable than 1st's to some meaningful degree.

Under the metric of "at least 8 rounds of combat a day" and the Bard being able to cast Glitterdust in only one of those 8 rounds, it follows that in 7 of the rounds he is using First level spells. (Hence why I assume such a character, Bard casting only, would use Silent Image a great deal, since that would allow him to stretch his 3 first level spells across 6 combat rounds in the three encounters he has each day without glitterdust.)

Why are we assuming the third first level spell is in any fashion useless? Grease is pretty useful, and scales up well.

Remember when I said "not level appropriate" that doesn't mean literally useless, it just means that you aren't level appropriate, and aren't contributing your fair share to encounters when you are using first level spells as your only input to an EL 4 encounter. Like, 25% of encounters contributing at level and 75% not at level contribution.

Also could be running the classic inspirational boost if we're running non-core.

Like I have said, bard casting. Not Bard.

As long as something is in the theoretical realm of possibility, it's not too incredible to consider. Besides which, bluff doesn't say anywhere that things that are too incredible to consider are automatically incapable of working

Those are both absolutely bat**** crazy interpretations that no one would ever make if they weren't committed to trying to weasel bluff into the most powerful thing in the universe. You are only advocating them because you want to defend bluff as actually crazy good, and you are willing to stab sense to death in a dark alley to do it.

You haven't really cited any new information in these cases. The king didn't present any information in their defense, in the example. They just kinda said you were wrong. And new information could just be met with an instant, "Nah, that information is false for whatever reason."

1) If you claiming to be king without evidence is new evidence, then him saying you aren't is also new evidence. If you have to present evidence for your claims, then you are up **** creak without a paddle, because the Bard never has evidence for any of his claims ever.

2) You can say "that information is false for whatever reason" and every time, the king can respond with "except it's true for whatever reason" and you are still trapped in the same inescapable loop of never being able to meaningfully convince someone for more than one round when they are in the presence of new information.

Eh, there might be defenses, but you don't necessarily have to go into a crazy defended kingdom. A deaf detect magic guy is such a weirdly specific defense too. Is that really expected to show up frequently? This isn't a perfect attack plan, in any case. If it were, jeez, this would be way way way better than a third level spell, as opposed to the just somewhat overleveled nature you're asserting. And I'm not even sure your assertion is correct. You could always make them doubt the veracity of the deaf guy.

1) I literally can't tell the difference between what you are saying here, and someone complaining that it's unfair that the enemy Wizard had cast Detect Scrying and responded to their Scry spell. You are mad that people respond to the abilities that exist in their world by protecting themselves against them?

2) No you can't, because literally by their nature, the veracity of the deaf guy is beyond question, and any attempt to doubt him is too incredible to consider, that's the point of procedures.

3) Please stop talking about the spell level. Glibness is an ability you get at 7th level. If it was a 4th level spell it would be an ability you get at 11th level. I mean, you might as well be talking about how Dispel Magic is way too good as a First level spell. Spell level only meaningfully effects Globe of Invulnerability and saving throw, so aside from being negated by Globe of Invulnerability placed in the right locations, it's spell level is meaningless in evaluating it's power, the relevant consideration is what level you get the spell. If you got the spell at level 11, that would be as singularly impressive as most of the other bard spells, instead of approximately nearly as good as what level appropriate casters are getting (but way fewer times per day).

Again, you can just paper over holes in your lies with more lies. If they demand a password, you can just bluff them further into thinking that the password is non-existent in some fashion. Defenses could theoretically proceed for a few layers, but 10 minutes/level is a lot of time to dig through them, and there are few things that can't be eliminated with a sufficiently audacious lie. I'm not even sure why they would ask for a password though. They believe completely that you're the boss.

"I'm not sure why my boss would expect me to follow proper procedures." Yeah, that might be your problem.

But really, if your argument is "my credibility is never affected by the fact that I've been wrong 100 times in a row" then sure, Bluff is godmode, but since in fact, credibility is affected by constantly being wrong, papering over your failed lies with more lies is a non-effective strategy. Whether this is evaluated as a single mega lie or a series of minor lies to cover for each previous lie being figured out as false, either of those things scales into "too incredible to consider."

First level wizards aren't great in fourth level situations, but their spells don't tend to lose their applicability much as you level. They tend to just kinda do the same things they always did. Greater levels increase the scale and potency, or offer completely new tricks, but they don't suddenly invalidate the old.

Except that the encounters do in fact scale with potency. First level Barbarians don't lose AB or damage as you level, they just face enemies with more HP and AC. It's the same thing. As evidenced by the 25% contribution rate of Bard with 3 spells and 3 spells known going into 3 encounters.

[Schattenbach]

As mentioned before, nearly unbelievable stuff (+20 circumstances modifier) that involves significant risks to those involved (+10 circumstances modifier) might mandate +30 in terms of circumstances modifiers to the Sense Motive Check in and itself and if the one in question is sufficiently suspicious and/or well known for lying, then possibly even more for that, too (up to +20 for being to unbelievable in terms of that that bluffer is actually telling the truth - so up to at least +50 in terms of circumstances modifiers to the opposing Sense Motive check - seems perfectly acceptable here, I guess), because the opposing party simply isn't willing to believe the character (three different circumstances here that apply based on the listed exampls alone) ... moreover, the listed circumstances modifiers in the SRD are example circumstance modifiers for example situations, so they don't exclude other circumstance modifiers, as long as they aren't more or less the same.