Retiering the Classes: Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Wilder

[remetagross]

If the Tiers are functioning correctly, opening new avenues of optimization shouldn't dramatically change evaluations. Nifft opted to include a PrC. If those are being accounted for, Warmages can become Rainbow Servants and Bards can become Sublime Chords. If the Wilder is in a higher tier than those classes, PrCs should produce a correspondingly more powerful build.

I do agree here. On the other hand, I think Nifft's Thrallherd Wilder is indeed more powerful than a Bard Sublime Chord or a Rainbow Warsnake (though I don't know if you disagree with that or not @Cosi). Which means I am comfortable ranking a Wilder at least at the same level as a Warmage, and above a Bard.

On the other hand, eggynack's prescription mentions the case of a single game object significantly altering the problem solving power of a class singlehandedly. In such cases, ranking the class with and without that one game object is the recommanded answer. While I am no Bard expert, I tend to believe that Sublime Chord is the one and only way Bards access tier 2, and that Sublime Chord all by itself lends sufficient power to the Bard for that, with no need to combine it with othe options or choices. As such, I would be hesitant to consider Bard + Sublime Chord as one of the many variations comprised within Bard, but rather as its own tierable class. What all of this boils down to for me is that I do not think we should rate the Wilder at the same problem solving level as the Bard, just because the Bard + Sublime Chord is as powerful as or more powerful than a Wilder.

With that said, the Wilder is the only class about which I have a modicum of experience. Hence I will only cast my vote for this one. I rate it at 2.5.

[eggynack]

Not sure if it's clear, but PrC's aren't really part of evaluation anyway. They briefly were in a minimal sense at the beginning, but the arguments against their inclusion were pretty convincing. Just noting this cause I wasn't sure whether the conversation was talking about this as a real rating object.

[mabriss lethe]

For wilder being T2:
-native access to the full psion/wilder list, including the power equivalents to Limited/Wish alongside analogs to other A list high level spells.
-native access includes psychic reformation, allowing the power list to be overhauled for a trivial amount of xp along with skills and feats. It also allows for the entire party to be overhauled in the same fashion. If someone in the party doesn't have the spell,skill, or feat that they need for a given adventure, 10 minutes of downtime will fix it.
-easy non-native access to off-list and otherwise exclusive powers via Expanded Knowledge.
-Large PP reserve allows for spamming said powers.

Against wilder being T2
-limited number of powers at any one time. (Trivialized to a certain degree via Psychic Reformation.)

[Sian]

IMHO Wilder shouldn't be considered the Sorcerer to the Psions Wizard, but rather the Paladin/Ranger to the Psychic Warriors Fighter.

You get fewer powers sure (which to a certain extent can be alleviated with Educated Wilder ACF, which trades their weakest feature), but they're from a stronger list (Psion/Wilder actually have a surprising amount of Gishy spells) and they have the PP so they can push them hard without running OOM faster than a low-level wizard, and have the ability to nuke much harder via Wild Surge. Sure, they're someway between low t2 to high t3, but other than a d6 as hd they have a very competent base for building a Gish.

[stack]

I suspect the question of how psychic reformation impacts tiering is of primary importance for any class that has native access to it. If you assume it will be used frequently, the day-to-day flexibility of the classes skyrockets.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I suspect the question of how psychic reformation impacts tiering is of primary importance for any class that has native access to it. If you assume it will be used frequently, the day-to-day flexibility of the classes skyrockets.

Even more so with an Expanded Knowledge wilder, given they have (albeit limited) ACF-granted access to every power in the game short of 9ths. Of course, psions get bonus feats as well, but no static class features, so average access is a bit more limited; then again, they have a much wider variety of "class features" to choose from as a result, so that probably puts them ahead again.

Also, judicious use of Linked Power + psychic reformation means any manifesting class with access to the combo can do a full feat/power rebuild within 1 round. So, there's that.

[Piggy Knowles]

I suspect the question of how psychic reformation impacts tiering is of primary importance for any class that has native access to it. If you assume it will be used frequently, the day-to-day flexibility of the classes skyrockets.

Came to say this. PsyRef alone makes psions feel out of place in tier 2, even if they are not quite at wizard level. Also unlike the wilder, they get enough powers known to really never have any reason to not have this on their powers known list, meaning they don’t have to resort to items or limiting their flexibility elsewhere in order to take it.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Came to say this. PsyRef alone makes psions feel out of place in tier 2, even if they are not quite at wizard level. Also unlike the wilder, they get enough powers known to really never have any reason to not have this on their powers known list, meaning they don’t have to resort to items or limiting their flexibility elsewhere in order to take it.

Given psychic reformation's massive ability to increase a wilder's extremely limited flexibility, they need it even more than psions do.

[Troacctid]

2 - Okay. Trivial build: Wilder 5 / Thrallherd 10 then into some other PrC for the last 5. Get mindlink via Hidden Talent.

Prestige classes are not considered here.

I think a full-on Wilder 20 can beat Warmage / Warblade / Bard by cherry-picking powers using feats... let me try:

Level 1: Hidden Talent (Psi Minor Creation)
- Crystal Shard

Level 2:
- Vigor

Level 3: Psicrystal Affinity

Level 4:
- Share Pain

Level 6: Expanded Knowledge (Astral Construct)
- Time Hop

Level 8:
- Psi Dimension Door

Level 9: Expanded Knowledge (Psi Suggestion)

Level 10:
- Psi Plane Shift

Level 12: Expanded Knowledge (Metamorphosis)
- Psi Disintegrate

You're behind what any competent Psion could have done, but I think you're ahead of most T3 classes, including the three listed. You've got a very solid tanking combo, plus you're well set up to exploit sharing a power with your pet rock (hello metamorphosis).

That's all from core. If we extend the build higher, I'd probably want to look at non-core power lists.

This is about what I'd consider a high-end power list, and by my estimation it's not substantially better than a Warmage. Crystal Shard requires you to augment it with a bunch of power points to get the damage that Chill Touch (or Lesser Energy Orb) offers in a single slot. Vigor keeps you alive, but eats your PP and doesn't directly help take down enemies or solve problems. At level 6, you can summon a beatstick or make a thing vanish temporarily, while the Warmage now has Stinking Cloud and Fireball and maybe even Charm Person. Dimension Door is of course amazing—but is it better than Black Tentacles, Wall of Fire, Blast of Flame, Phantasmal Killer, and all six Energy Orbs combined? Hard to say IMO. If it is, it can't be by much. Once you hit Metamorphosis, you can be about as effective in combat with buffs as the Warmage can be without them.

I'd say this list hits at a similar power level to a Warmage with a bloodline feat.

(Also, none of these powers are core because psionics is not core.)

Uh. That's actually a rather interesting challenge. I have no idea whether this can be pulled off, but let's see.
For one, Wilders gain 11 powers of the course of 20 levels (not 9) because they gain another one at level 2 and yet another one at level 20.

So...skimming the New, No-Nonsense Guide to Psions and looking at the purple powers...
Level 1: Entangling Ectoplasm, I guess? It remains useful for a long, long time.
Level 2: We have to pick another 1st level power. Maybe there we can mention Psionic Grease?
Level 4: Energy Stun takes great advantage of Wild Surge, and provides with a debuff in addition to damage.
Level 6: Dispel Psionics. Thanks to Wild Surge this will quickly reach the cap of dispelling bonus, so you'll be ahead of the expected caster level on opponent spells. Or maybe Time Hop for utility?
Level 8: Psionic Divination is an all-in-one divination power. Or Psionic Dimension Door?
Level 10: I guess Ectoplasmic Shambler provides with battlefield control.
Level 12: Psionic Disintegrate takes well advantage of Wild Surge, and can be used for a modicum of utility in addition to damage.
Level 14: Nothing seems too great here. Maybe Eyes of the Basilisk or Decerebrate for the save or dies, or Personal Mind Blank.
Level 16: I believe Bend Reality does not cost too much exp at that level and provides with a lot of utility.
Level 18: Dunno. Stygian Conflagration for debuff?
Level 20: That's when I'd take Reality Revision.

So, how does that look? I'd say the raw damage can beat the Warblade, what with Psionic Disintegrate. There's a modicum of BFC, maybe not at the level of a Warmage though. Psionics is ill-suited to buffing allies, so there's no rivalling that part of the Bard, but this power list contains a number of debuffs. Plus Psionic Divination and/or Psionic Dimension Door that can either account for the Bard's intel gathering ability or for those White Raven maneuvers that allow the team to reposition.


With the Educated Wilder it becomes better, though. The Expanded Knowledge you get can grant you Discipline-exclusive powers. How about:
Level 5: Astral Construct. It pairs really well with Wild Surge. Or Psionic Minor Creation, or Charm Person.
Level 9: Hustle, Ectoplasmic Cocoon, False Sensory Input?
Level 13: Schism, or maybe Psionic Dominate. There's also Metamorphosis.
Level 17: Fission, Mass Ectoplasmic Cocoon.

I do feel going from 11 to 15 powers known is a significant improvement in the Wilder's power...

In addition to that, Wilders have 4 skill points/level, are Cha-bases and have all the social skills, so maybe they can afford not to take Psionic Charm Person or Psionic Dominate and Diplomance their way through social encounters.

It's hard, right? You just have so few tricks. There's very little room for error.

That was out the top of my head, but sure, I'll try.

Spoiler: Power List

Show

Lv1- Psionic Grease / Entangling Ectoplasm
Lv1- Energy Ray
Lv2- Control Sound
Lv3- Telekinetic Force/Touchsight
Lv4- Psychic Reformation
Lv5- Incarnate/Major Creation
Lv6- Temporal Accelaration
Lv7- Mind Blank, Personal
Lv8- Bend Reality/Teleport, Psionic Greater
Lv9- Reality Revision
Lv9- Stygian Conflagration

Expanded Knowledge lv6 - Astral Construct
Expanded Knowledge lv9 - Concealing Amorpha, Greater
Expanded Knowledge lv12 - Metamorphosis / Schism
Expanded Knowledge lv15 - Dominate, Psionic / Clairtangent Hand / Second Chance
Expanded Knowledge lv18 - Astral Seed / Fate of One / Fission / Fusion

Looking at my own list, which is not at all perfect, I'd say the Wilder is a Tier 4.5 until and including level 5. At level 6, they rocket jump their way into Tier 2.5 and stay there until level 20. And that's for standard Wilder. Educated Wilder makes them significantly better.

You think Astral Construct and Telekinetic Force are enough to take a T4 class to T2? I'm skeptical (I don't think that's outmatching the Warmage or Warblade), but even if you're right, what if the Wilder takes some other powers instead? What percentage of Wilders are making it out of T3?

As far as single-class PCs are concerned, I like to think the power selection I've provided above holds it own relatively well when compared to the combined capacities of a Warmage, a Warblade and a Bard not beating any at his schtik but not being utterly outshadowed either.

That should put it in the same tier as them.

For wilder being T2:
-native access to the full psion/wilder list, including the power equivalents to Limited/Wish alongside analogs to other A list high level spells.
-native access includes psychic reformation, allowing the power list to be overhauled for a trivial amount of xp along with skills and feats. It also allows for the entire party to be overhauled in the same fashion. If someone in the party doesn't have the spell,skill, or feat that they need for a given adventure, 10 minutes of downtime will fix it.
-easy non-native access to off-list and otherwise exclusive powers via Expanded Knowledge.
-Large PP reserve allows for spamming said powers.

Against wilder being T2
-limited number of powers at any one time. (Trivialized to a certain degree via Psychic Reformation.)

First off, you can't just be burning xp constantly on everything. It's a real cost. Second, if your rating is highly dependent on a specific power, you have to take into account that most builds won't choose that power. We're tiering the class as a whole, not a specific build.

[Piggy Knowles]

Given psychic reformation's massive ability to increase a wilder's extremely limited flexibility, they need it even more than psions do.

I don’t disagree, but they also feel it eating up their fourth level power known slot in a way that psions really do not. It’s a bug, not a feature.

EDIT: Just wanted to expand on what I mean by this. A wilder absolutely appreciates having access to PsyRef because of their limited powers known, but they also hate it at the same time. Realistically, you're talking about levels 6, 7, 8 and 9 where your most powerful option is going to be a single third level power. PsyRef means you can change what that third level power is (at the cost of some XP, which can drag out these levels even further), but doesn't actually get around this issue. That's a really significant chunk of time. Based on my own experiences, in actual real-life playing time, that probably means 10-15 sessions and a time investment of several months. It may not look like that big of a deal written out on a build table, but dead zones like that suck in real life play, to the point where in all likelihood if I were playing one I'd probably rather just take something else as a power known and pray I can get my hands on an item of PsyRef down the road.

I know that tiering doesn't take into consideration how annoying something like this is in an actual game, but I'm just pointing out that PsyRef has some real drawbacks for a wilder in practice, whereas a psion basically never minds having its presence on their powers known list.

[mabriss lethe]

You should never have to be constantly burning exp. Just enough to make sure your build is right for the environment you find yourself in, and just enough tweaking per manifesting to get what you need. So, you'd burn about as much exp if not less as any other caster with a standard allotment of exp eating spells. But none of that is relevant.

To address a build vs. Class. This isn't a build. It's a single low level power readily accessible to the class in question that happens to make specific builds largely irrelevant at both the individual and party level.

Access to an ability, spell, power, etc that trivializes, ignores, or rewrites fundamental game mechanics is a hallmark of the T3/T2 divide. It's just one of several powers on the P/W list that falls in that category.

Simply put: If individual powers are capable of breaking the game and the Wilder can learn them, then it's a T2 class by default.

And as a comparison: If Sorcerer is still a T2 class based on their access to game breaking spells even if an individual build never takes them then a Wilder is as well.

[daremetoidareyo]

Im downgrading wilder to low tier 2. Say 2.8. It blows significantly more than psion.

So, in total:

Soulknife tier 5
Psywar tier 3
Psion tier 1.7
Wilder tier 2.8

[GrayDeath]

Lets throw in my ratings as well (for this I am ssuming the following Limitations: Psychic Reformation is limited to very few usages and assume no wild "One power into the other into the third" to skirt close to infinite loops).


Wilder: Lets go first with the Wilder, as I recently played one. Even with Education its a very very closely focussed class, but it is also VERY powerful in that small area.
For me THE Definition of lowest T2. Its a One Trick Dragon (sorry for the Pun^^). 2.5

Soulknive: Lowest possible T5. With Full BAB, D10 and a bit more (and earlier) flexibility to its weapon, or half the PsyWarriors Manifesting, it could be a great Class for "Poor" settings. ALas.....nope.
5.5

PsyWarrior: Middle T3. So much so I`d rate it as THE Martial T3 together with the Swordsage. 3

Psion: Under the abovementioned limits its as close to a Wizard as a Sorcerer can get, psionically speaking. Highest T2 to lowest T1, so around 1.6.

[Grim Reader]

Have you? Because it doesn't say anything about your list. It uses the phrase "a spell"

We could choose to believe that "a spell" always implicitly means "from your list", but that causes problems in other places. Consider the Warmage's Advanced Learning class feature:

Generally, we assume it means "From your list unless otherwise specified" You know, general rule being from your list, with a specific clause allowed to override it.

Yes, and I've tried to explain to you that "the feat has a restriction that's not in the text" is wishful thinking rather than a rule. I'm not sure why your failure to persuade me is relevant here, outside of an attempted appeal to groupthink.

Well, I got a bit of a problem taking that seriously as an argument. It strikes me as attempting to cast a spell with a dead (not undead) character because the rules do not specify that you cannot cast spells while dead. And other "the rules do not specifically prohibit it so it must be allowed" arguments.

Did you notice that when exchanging a spell for a different one when leveling, neither Bard nor Sorcerer actually specifies that it must come from their lists? So by that reasoning they can come from any list I don't think thats going to pass as rules.

Speaking of rules... arcane casting classes tend to have a line saying they cast arcane spells drawn from such and such list. They can't cast other spells with that class slots even if they know them. For example, a Cleric 9/Wizard 1 cannot use Cleric slots to cast Wizard spells even if they are in his spellbook and thus count as spells known.

[Troacctid]

To address a build vs. Class. This isn't a build. It's a single low level power readily accessible to the class in question that happens to make specific builds largely irrelevant at both the individual and party level.

Access to an ability, spell, power, etc that trivializes, ignores, or rewrites fundamental game mechanics is a hallmark of the T3/T2 divide. It's just one of several powers on the P/W list that falls in that category.

Simply put: If individual powers are capable of breaking the game and the Wilder can learn them, then it's a T2 class by default.

And as a comparison: If Sorcerer is still a T2 class based on their access to game breaking spells even if an individual build never takes them then a Wilder is as well.

The tier list isn't about breaking the game, it's about overall power level. Sorcerer is T2 because on average, it is more powerful overall than any of the T3 classes. Notably, it has substantially more known spells than the Wilder, which gives it a built-in versatility boost and more room for error.

[mabriss lethe]

From the tier list:

Tier 1 characters can BREAK THE GAME, litterally, all of them, that's why they are gods, that's why we are wary of the power we wield when we use them.

Tier 2 characters can BREAK THE GAME, just a tad less obviously, or in a more limited way.

I'm on mobile so I won't extensively quote right now. But in the definition of T2 it goes on to identify that the narrowness of the classes are a defining characteristic along with not showing the raw combat effectiveness and flexibility of a T3. ( They often play more like T4s in that respect but with a short list of T1 tricks up their sleeve. )

Wilder is at the very lowest end of t2 because it has access to the exact same game breaking tricks as a Psion. Many of which are often copypasta'd from the wizard list. Generally, if the psion can do it, there's a way to cram the essentials of the same trick into a Wilder.

[Troacctid]

From the tier list:



I'm on mobile so I won't extensively quote right now. But in the definition of T2 it goes on to identify that the narrowness of the classes are a defining characteristic along with not showing the raw combat effectiveness and flexibility of a T3. ( They often play more like T4s in that respect but with a short list of T1 tricks up their sleeve. )

Wilder is at the very lowest end of t2 because it has access to the exact same game breaking tricks as a Psion. Many of which are often copypasta'd from the wizard list. Generally, if the psion can do it, there's a way to cram the essentials of the same trick into a Wilder.

You probably want to read the OP again.

What are the tiers?

The simple answer here is that tier one is the best, the home of things on the approximate problem solving scale of wizards, and tier six is the worst, land of commoners. And problem solving capacity is what's being measured here. Considering the massive range of challenges a character is liable to be presented with across the levels, how much and how often does that character's class contribute to the defeat of those challenges? This value should be considered as a rough averaging across all levels, the center of the level range somewhat more than really low and really high level characters, and across all optimization levels (considering DM restrictiveness as a plausible downward acting factor on how optimized a character is), prioritizing moderate optimization somewhat more than low or high.

A big issue with the original tier system is that, if anything, it was too specific, generating inflexible definitions for allowance into a tier which did not cover the broad spectrum of ways a class can operate. When an increase in versatility would seem to represent a decrease in tier, because tier two is supposed to be low versatility, it's obvious that we've become mired in something that'd be pointless to anyone trying to glean information from the tier system.

[...]

Tier one: Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems. This is the realm of clerics, druids, and wizards, classes that open up with strong combat spells backed up by utility, and then get massively stronger from there. If you're not keeping up with that core trio of tier one casters, then you probably don't belong here.

Tier two: We're just a step below tier one here, in the land of classes around the sorcerer level of power. Generally speaking, this means relaxing one of the two tier one assumptions, either getting us to very good at solving nearly all problems, or incredibly good at solving most problems. But, as will continue to be the case as these tiers go on, there aren't necessarily these two simple categories for this tier. You gotta lose something compared to the tier one casters, but what you lose doesn't have to be in some really specific proportions.

Tier three: Again, we gotta sacrifice something compared to tier two, here taking us to around the level of a swordsage. The usual outcome is that you are very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more. Of course, there are other possibilities, for example that you might instead be competent at solving nearly all problems.

[eggynack]

From the tier list:

I'm on mobile so I won't extensively quote right now. But in the definition of T2 it goes on to identify that the narrowness of the classes are a defining characteristic along with not showing the raw combat effectiveness and flexibility of a T3. ( They often play more like T4s in that respect but with a short list of T1 tricks up their sleeve. )

Wilder is at the very lowest end of t2 because it has access to the exact same game breaking tricks as a Psion. Many of which are often copypasta'd from the wizard list. Generally, if the psion can do it, there's a way to cram the essentials of the same trick into a Wilder.

To build on what Troacctid said, the reason those aren't the definitions we're using is because they are, while well meaning enough as definitions go, pretty dumb. They do not function in any meaningful sense. What even is a game breaker? The obvious ones are obvious. Gate, wish, shapechange, planar binding, even teleport. But is color spray a game breaker? Alter self? Dispel magic? Black tentacles? These spells are what a wizard is for the first, say, half of the game. They basically never stop being what a druid is, for the most part. So, either we're calling color spray a game breaker, which is honestly pretty silly, or wizards are tier three for a lot of their run time.

This pushes us to a second silly aspect of this definition. Game breakers are typical of high level play, and they are part of the definitions of high tier classes, so the tier system must, logically, describe high level play exclusively. But that's not true. Even in the original tier system that's not true, because said system concerned itself primarily with mid-level play, as this one does. That's usually considered something like 6-15.

The only reasonable conclusion then is that the tier system primarily cares about low and mid level play, but just happen to have this arbitrary requirement at high level play. Getting shapechange at level 17 does not make a class good, and not getting it does not make a class bad. At all. It is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for class quality. The original tier system would assert that it is necessary, but why? Besides the fact that it is a descriptive truth of the high tier classes as originally conceived, what does shapechange really tell us?

That gets us to the ultimate problem, the one that contains all others, including ones related to other parts of the definition. The tier system is supposed to tell us which classes are more useful and powerful than other classes. If you would rank one class as more useful than another, but the definitions tell you to tier them in opposition to that, then that is the definitions failing. If someone is claiming that spirit shaman could be tier one or tier three, but never tier two, because the definitions line up that way, then that is the definitions failing. The game breaker thing is probably the silliest individual part, but it's symptomatic of a bigger issue, which is either definitions that were constructed to be too prescriptive, or people reading actually descriptive definitions in prescriptive ways.

In either case, don't do that. If the wilder is worse than some tier three classes, that should be all you need to know.

[Nifft]

In either case, don't do that. If the wilder is worse than some tier three classes, that should be all you need to know.

Hmm.

Sorcerer, the poster-child for T2, is significantly worse than some T3 classes in a variety of scenarios.

That's clearly NOT all we need to know. If it were, then the tier system would have been up-ended long ago. It wasn't, therefore you must be wrong about this.

[eggynack]

Hmm.

Sorcerer, the poster-child for T2, is significantly worse than some T3 classes in a variety of scenarios.

That's clearly NOT all we need to know. If it were, then the tier system would have been up-ended long ago. It wasn't, therefore you must be wrong about this.

If the sorcerer is tier two, it is because people think that, on average, across levels and optimization levels alike, the sorcerer is better than every singly tier three class. Not all the time, and not every time, but most of the time. Y'know, the thing that is plausibly measured. People's ratings don't have to be reliant on esoteric and silly definitions to be distinct from your own.

[Nifft]

If the sorcerer is tier two, it is because people think that, on average, across levels and optimization levels alike, the sorcerer is better than every singly tier three class. Not all the time, and not every time, but most of the time. Y'know, the thing that is plausibly measured. People's ratings don't have to be reliant on esoteric and silly definitions to be distinct from your own.

The thing is, the tier rating is not always about being strictly better or worse -- especially not when distinguishing between T2 / T3 / T4.

So, you know, your idea about "If X is worse than a T3, that's all you need to know" is kind of NOT all you need to know. In fact it's just plain misleading. Which is why I'm here, not talking about any esoteric or silly definition, but just correcting your over-reach.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

T2 in the original tier system for classes is an odd duck. The system progresses smoothly from T6 through T3, and T1 fits nicely on the far end of the spectrum, through both power and versatility. T2, though, is strange in that it's significantly more powerful than T3, while often being less versatile than both T1 and T3. It's not an absolute, especially when specific builds are involved, but overall, I think the factotum is more versatile than anything but an optimized, high-level sorcerer or psion, as an example of this.

[eggynack]

The thing is, the tier rating is not always about being strictly better or worse -- especially not when distinguishing between T2 / T3 / T4.

So, you know, your idea about "If X is worse than a T3, that's all you need to know" is kind of NOT all you need to know. In fact it's just plain misleading. Which is why I'm here, not talking about any esoteric or silly definition, but just correcting your over-reach.

You are mistaken. I dunno if I have to say much more than that. If you think the sorcerer is, averaging across all pertinent parameters, worse than at least one tier three class, then rank it tier three. It's pretty straightforward, and not remotely misleading.

[daremetoidareyo]

I agree with assessment that odd tiers are versatile while even tiers have more focus on a few aspects. Just because it stratifies that way doesn't mean that odd tiered classes can't gimp their versatility to meet the focus of the next lower even tier. A wizard that goes all melee buff gish can reach down to behave as fundamentally a tier two sorcerer. So it's not like the tier system is terrible, I mean, it does overvalue versatility, but considering how modular this game is, there is no way around that when comparing one class to another while considering the additional splat options.

[Nifft]

Sorcerer, the poster-child for T2, is significantly worse than some T3 classes in a variety of scenarios.

You are mistaken. I dunno if I have to say much more than that. If you think the sorcerer is, averaging across all pertinent parameters, worse than at least one tier three class, then rank it tier three. It's pretty straightforward, and not remotely misleading.

Well, that's not what I said, so I'm gonna nope your argument.


Anyway, back to my argument: only the tier extremities are about better & worse -- a T6 is worse than a T5 which in turn is worse than all the others.

T4 is not strictly worse than T3.

T2 is not strictly better than T3.

Sorry, your understanding of the tiers is too simplistic -- you're wrong about what the tiers mean, and that's obvious when you try to discuss them.

T2 in the original tier system for classes is an odd duck. The system progresses smoothly from T6 through T3, and T1 fits nicely on the far end of the spectrum, through both power and versatility. T2, though, is strange in that it's significantly more powerful than T3, while often being less versatile than both T1 and T3. It's not an absolute, especially when specific builds are involved, but overall, I think the factotum is more versatile than anything but an optimized, high-level sorcerer or psion, as an example of this.

Yeah.

Not sure about Factotum in specific, but there are certainly enough cases where T3 classes can out-perform an equally optimized Psion or Sorcerer -- and we should be familiar with how well an Uber-Charger can perform in combat, while remaining firmly T4.

[eggynack]

Well, that's not what I said, so I'm gonna nope your argument.

If that isn't what you said, then it's irrelevant. If the sorcerer is not, on average, worse than any tier three class, then it is likely tier two. If it's better than a single tier two class, then it's definitely tier two. Being markedly better than any tier three class is more than sufficient though.

Anyway, back to my argument: only the tier extremities are about better & worse -- a T6 is worse than a T5 which in turn is worse than all the others.

I admit that determining the outer boundaries of the tiers is non-trivial. The voting actually helps a lot with that though. We currently have some classes sitting right alongside most or all of the existing borders. We also just generally have a decent idea of how the tiers are shaped, which helps a lot. Bard probably isn't going to be breaking into tier two, for example, so if a class is worse than the bard, then that in itself is sufficient.

T4 is not strictly worse than T3.

T2 is not strictly better than T3.

Sorry, your understanding of the tiers is too simplistic -- you're wrong about what the tiers mean, and that's obvious when you try to discuss them.

I didn't say strictly worse. I said worse. Your understanding of the tiers is overly complex. The tiers are, at a basic level, a hierarchical ranking of power level. If your tier system is not hierarchically ranking power (where power is meant in the broader problem solving sense), then it has failed. If another part of the definition is causing you to hierarchically rank power worse, then that part of the definition needs to be removed until it stops doing that. Which ultimately renders those other parts of the definition useless.

[Nifft]

If that isn't what you said, then it's irrelevant.

I think that what I actually said ought to be relevant, since it's related to the topic of this thread.

The tiers are, at a basic level, a hierarchical ranking of power level. If your tier system is not hierarchically ranking power (where power is meant in the broader problem solving sense), then it has failed. If another part of the definition is causing you to hierarchically rank power worse, then that part of the definition needs to be removed until it stops doing that. Which ultimately renders those other parts of the definition useless.

No, the tiers never were just a hierarchical ranking of power level.

If that's been your understanding, you've failed to understand the tier system that JaronK laid down and which has been widely used and discussed ever since.

The tiers mean what they say they mean, and "raw power ranking" isn't what they say.

Here's what the OP of the thread says (with emphasis added):

What are the tiers?

The simple answer here is that tier one is the best, the home of things on the approximate problem solving scale of wizards, and tier six is the worst, land of commoners. And problem solving capacity is what's being measured here. Considering the massive range of challenges a character is liable to be presented with across the levels, how much and how often does that character's class contribute to the defeat of those challenges? This value should be considered as a rough averaging across all levels, the center of the level range somewhat more than really low and really high level characters, and across all optimization levels (considering DM restrictiveness as a plausible downward acting factor on how optimized a character is), prioritizing moderate optimization somewhat more than low or high.

What's a tier? Problem solving capacity.

Is that the same as power? Nope, not the same.

How do power and tier relate? At the extremes. A total lack of power usually accompanies a lack of problem solving capacity. In contrast, having a wide variety of high-power abilities will tend to grant a concomitant capacity to solve a wide variety of problems.

What about having some power, but not a wide variety of power? That's either T2 or T4, depending on the details.


Maybe @heavyfuel can chime in and let us know who is on track here.

[eggynack]

I think that what I actually said ought to be relevant, since it's related to the topic of this thread.

Your initial comment was in response to me, in a post where I had nothing about strictly better or worse whatsoever. Just regular better or worse. I suppose I assumed that you meant that the tiers aren't strictly a measure of better or worse, instead of the off-topic thing you said, which is that the tiers aren't a measure of strictly better or strictly worse.

Anyway, the reason it's irrelevant is that one of two things is true. Either the sorcerer is worse than at least one tier three class, in which case it's tier three, or it's not, in which case it's probably tier two. Not certainly, and here lies one issue, but honestly it's not an issue that comes up much.

No, the tiers never were just a hierarchical ranking of power level.

If that's been your understanding, you've failed to understand the tier system that JaronK laid down and which has been widely used and discussed ever since.

The tiers mean what they say they mean, and "raw power ranking" isn't what they say.

If the issue here is just that power needs to be meant in a general way that more closely aligns with problem solving, which kinda acts as a product of power and versatility, sure. That is what we're measuring. Glad I could clarify. If the issue is that the tier system does not hierarchically rank by whatever metric we're using, no. You are mistaken. Going by the original tier system the first goal is to: "1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PC classes in their group." No subsequent definition conflicts with this one.

What's a tier? Problem solving capacity.

Is that the same as power? Nope, not the same.

I agree that they are not the same thing. However, what I actually mean when I say "problem solving capacity" is that giant wall of text. "Power" is easier to write out. I literally put the problem solving capacity thing in a parenthesis in that text you just quoted. You are not correcting me.

Maybe @heavyfuel can chime in and let us know who is on track here.

No? I'm the person that developed this set of threads, including the definitions we're using. You're quoting me right now in order to argue against me. It's a bit silly, you must admit.

Edit: Seriously, this has to be the first time someone has used me as an authority to make an appeal to authority against myself.

[Nifft]

No? I'm the person that developed this set of threads, including the definitions we're using. You're quoting me right now in order to argue against me. It's a bit silly, you must admit.

Edit: Seriously, this has to be the first time someone has used me as an authority to make an appeal to authority against myself.

That's hilarious!

How did you manage to oversimplify your argument to the point that you're honestly not agreeing with your own definitions?

Your original definition seemed pretty decent. What happened to make you change your view to this other bad one ("a hierarchical ranking of power level"), and why should we prefer the new one over the one in the OP?

[eggynack]

That's hilarious!

How did you manage to oversimplify your argument to the point that you're honestly not agreeing with your own definitions?

Your original definition seemed pretty decent. What happened to make you change your view to this other bad one ("a hierarchical ranking of power level"), and why should we prefer the new one over the one in the OP?

That's easy. My view never changed. It's literally right there in what you quoted of me: "If your tier system is not hierarchically ranking power (where power is meant in the broader problem solving sense)..." Just cause I don't write out giant paragraphs every time doesn't mean they're not implicitly present. I mean, even the first post I made on this topic said both useful and powerful, not just powerful.