Tier List: Class version

[Narga_Rocks]

What kind of class tier list takes individual units into account, exactly? If we do that, it'll just be the normal tier list, only generalised to the point where it's completely useless.

It was the decision of the dude running it. Make your own.

Let's start with... Lion above Tiger and Saint all the way down to the bottom. Valkyrie below Silver Knight, and Dark Archsage below Thunder Archsage. Whisper below Assassin.

So, if you ignore the individual units, does it become an endgame tier list? Lions aren't around before part 4, a bunch of other things, blah blah. I can't see how any basis of comparison could be agreed upon if you just look at classes. Do you use class basis and class growths? Then what? Create a generic character in 1-P and give it the availability of Ilyana and see how it performs? How do you deal with classes that don't have a tier 1?

Lions are almost never around. There's an epic tiger for a large amount of the game, but I suppose Kyza exists too. Even so.

Saints to bottom is utterly retarded. I shouldn't have to explain how being able to heal is so great. Or how being able to heal from the first tier is so great. Valkyrie > Silver Knight should also be glaringly obvious. Whispers are actually around.

Saints should probably go up, actually, if not for Oliver's existence.

Thunder Archsage above Dark I can agree with. But Thunder is already above. I'm thinking you meant you wanted dark above thunder, but since dark doesn't get access to fire forges I'll say no, even ignoring the pc units with those classes.

Back to what this tier list is actually about:

Cats should go up on the strength of Ranulf. It's inconsistent to have Marksmans so high based solely on Shinon but have Cats so low. Lyre and Lethe exist, sure, but cats should be near the top of low tier. Possibly near the bottom of mid. Cats above Chancellor, anyway, considering dude's never around.

Also, if Marksmans are getting much credit for double bow, keep in mind Cats have the best non-Eclipse mastery in the game. Barely beats out Luna, but still. Rend is just too good.

Rename Cat tier to Pelleas tier.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Anouleth]

This is designed to be a tier list that ranks the sum of all playable characters of a particular class (except dragons, who have been lumped into one dragon class.)

So Dragon Lord is 1 Top Tier + 1 Upper-mid Tier, while Vanguard is just 1 Top Tier, so Dragon Lord should be higher? And since Wolf is 1 Top Tier + 1 Upper-mid Tier as well, they should also be higher? And what about Whisper (1 Top Tier + 1 Mid Tier)?

Edited January 19, 2010 by Anouleth

[Narga_Rocks]

This is designed to be a tier list that ranks the sum of all playable characters of a particular class (except dragons, who have been lumped into one dragon class.)

So Dragon Lord is 1 Top Tier + 1 Upper-mid Tier, while Vanguard is just 1 Top Tier, so Dragon Lord should be higher? And since Wolf is 1 Top Tier + 1 Upper-mid Tier as well, they should also be higher? And what about Whisper (1 Top Tier + 1 Mid Tier)?

I have no idea whether he is doing average or total. Like, points for each character on the list or not. Also, if mid gives 0, upper mid gives 1, lower mid gives -1, etc, or if bottom gives 0, low gives 1, lower mid gives 2, etc.

I'd suggest average between the existing units, though, considering otherwise certain classes like Queen, Valkyrie, Assassin, etc get screwed by only having one unit.

[Fayt Zelpher]

This is designed to be a tier list that ranks the sum of all playable characters of a particular class (except dragons, who have been lumped into one dragon class.)

So Dragon Lord is 1 Top Tier + 1 Upper-mid Tier, while Vanguard is just 1 Top Tier, so Dragon Lord should be higher? And since Wolf is 1 Top Tier + 1 Upper-mid Tier as well, they should also be higher? And what about Whisper (1 Top Tier + 1 Mid Tier)?

I have no idea whether he is doing average or total. Like, points for each character on the list or not. Also, if mid gives 0, upper mid gives 1, lower mid gives -1, etc, or if bottom gives 0, low gives 1, lower mid gives 2, etc.

I'd suggest average between the existing units, though, considering otherwise certain classes like Queen, Valkyrie, Assassin, etc get screwed by only having one unit.

It's more along this line. Let's assume I get rid of every unit of a particular class. How much harder does the game then become? After that, I divide the total increase in difficulty for a class by the number of units in that class to arrive at a rough score. In other words, it's a lot about how good the units of one class are relative to the other units that are also in that group. Without Ike, the game is a lot harder, so he's top tier. If I get rid of all the swordmasters, the game gets a significant difficulty boost, but it's mitigated by the fact that Lucia and Stefan don't help a lot. If I got rid of all the pegasus knights, the game only gets a hair harder; hence, low tier. If I get rid of all the cats, the game probably gets easier, since I can replace Ranulf and never have to worry about Lethe or Lyre.

[Narga_Rocks]

This is designed to be a tier list that ranks the sum of all playable characters of a particular class (except dragons, who have been lumped into one dragon class.)

So Dragon Lord is 1 Top Tier + 1 Upper-mid Tier, while Vanguard is just 1 Top Tier, so Dragon Lord should be higher? And since Wolf is 1 Top Tier + 1 Upper-mid Tier as well, they should also be higher? And what about Whisper (1 Top Tier + 1 Mid Tier)?

I have no idea whether he is doing average or total. Like, points for each character on the list or not. Also, if mid gives 0, upper mid gives 1, lower mid gives -1, etc, or if bottom gives 0, low gives 1, lower mid gives 2, etc.

I'd suggest average between the existing units, though, considering otherwise certain classes like Queen, Valkyrie, Assassin, etc get screwed by only having one unit.

It's more along this line. Let's assume I get rid of every unit of a particular class. How much harder does the game then become? After that, I divide the total increase in difficulty for a class by the number of units in that class to arrive at a rough score. In other words, it's a lot about how good the units of one class are relative to the other units that are also in that group. Without Ike, the game is a lot harder, so he's top tier. If I get rid of all the swordmasters, the game gets a significant difficulty boost, but it's mitigated by the fact that Lucia and Stefan don't help a lot. If I got rid of all the pegasus knights, the game only gets a hair harder; hence, low tier. If I get rid of all the cats, the game probably gets easier, since I can replace Ranulf and never have to worry about Lethe or Lyre.

If Ranulf goes his position is gone. He's a required unit. I don't think you should consider an extra deployment slot if he's not around. If he's gone, nobody else can go in that slot, since it is Ranulf only. Hence, if Ranulf is gone, you lose a character that could have helped you. If you lose Lethe, have fun in 2-2. She's not nearly the best there, but she certainly makes it easier than it is without her.

Also, the pegs are kinda dragged down by Sigrun and Tanith, but Marcia is quite a help in her chapters and Sigrun/Tanith are still quite helpful in 3-11 and 4-3. Even 4-P they can do some things. They are pretty high in low, though, so it's probably fine.

[Fayt Zelpher]

Also, if Marksmans are getting much credit for double bow, keep in mind Cats have the best non-Eclipse mastery in the game. Barely beats out Luna, but still. Rend is just too good.

Rename Cat tier to Pelleas tier.

Marksmen are getting credit for their tank status and Shinon, primarily. However, even Rolf and Leo can be put to use, though Leo gets Str or Spd shafted too often to be of much good.

I'll accept an argument for moving cats up higher on the basis of their mastery (which, I agree, is better than everything not named eclipse), if you can show that cats will reach that level in a efficient playthrough.

Cats have been moved up to Bottom tier (no rank order difference). Cat tier renamed King Daein tier until further notice.

[Anouleth]

Also, if Marksmans are getting much credit for double bow, keep in mind Cats have the best non-Eclipse mastery in the game. Barely beats out Luna, but still. Rend is just too good.

Rename Cat tier to Pelleas tier.

Marksmen are getting credit for their tank status and Shinon, primarily. However, even Rolf and Leo can be put to use, though Leo gets Str or Spd shafted too often to be of much good.

I'll accept an argument for moving cats up higher on the basis of their mastery (which, I agree, is better than everything not named eclipse), if you can show that cats will reach that level in a efficient playthrough.

Cats have been moved up to Bottom tier (no rank order difference). Cat tier renamed King Daein tier until further notice.

Umm, how do Marksmen have 'tank status'? Shinon has good defense, sure, but Rolf is pretty mediocre defensively and Leo is horrible. And you don't want them getting hit anyway since they have no 1-range until Endgame.

It's more along this line. Let's assume I get rid of every unit of a particular class. How much harder does the game then become? After that, I divide the total increase in difficulty for a class by the number of units in that class to arrive at a rough score. In other words, it's a lot about how good the units of one class are relative to the other units that are also in that group. Without Ike, the game is a lot harder, so he's top tier. If I get rid of all the swordmasters, the game gets a significant difficulty boost, but it's mitigated by the fact that Lucia and Stefan don't help a lot.

Wait, that doesn't make sense either. If I take out Mia and Zihark, the game gets more difficult, moreso than if I just removed Ike. But for some reason, removing Stefan/Lucia/Edward only makes the game a little bit harder, so this is somehow a negative for Trueblades? Edward and Lucia still contribute in earlygame, so it's not like they make the game harder.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Anouleth

[Fayt Zelpher]

It's more along this line. Let's assume I get rid of every unit of a particular class. How much harder does the game then become? After that, I divide the total increase in difficulty for a class by the number of units in that class to arrive at a rough score. In other words, it's a lot about how good the units of one class are relative to the other units that are also in that group. Without Ike, the game is a lot harder, so he's top tier. If I get rid of all the swordmasters, the game gets a significant difficulty boost, but it's mitigated by the fact that Lucia and Stefan don't help a lot.

Wait, that doesn't make sense either. If I take out Mia and Zihark, the game gets more difficult, moreso than if I just removed Ike. But for some reason, removing Stefan/Lucia/Edward only makes the game a little bit harder, so this is somehow a negative for Trueblades? Edward and Lucia still contribute in earlygame, so it's not like they make the game harder.

Alright, I didn't explain it well. When I rank the classes, I am saying that I want the average contribution for each member of the class. If I removed Ike, the game may get 4 (arbitrary) units harder. If I removed all 5 TB's, the game may get 12 units harder. However, there are 5 TB's, so the average TB rank is only 12/5 = 2.4 units, putting them below Vanguards.

[Iced]

It's more along this line. Let's assume I get rid of every unit of a particular class. How much harder does the game then become? After that, I divide the total increase in difficulty for a class by the number of units in that class to arrive at a rough score. In other words, it's a lot about how good the units of one class are relative to the other units that are also in that group. Without Ike, the game is a lot harder, so he's top tier. If I get rid of all the swordmasters, the game gets a significant difficulty boost, but it's mitigated by the fact that Lucia and Stefan don't help a lot.

Wait, that doesn't make sense either. If I take out Mia and Zihark, the game gets more difficult, moreso than if I just removed Ike. But for some reason, removing Stefan/Lucia/Edward only makes the game a little bit harder, so this is somehow a negative for Trueblades? Edward and Lucia still contribute in earlygame, so it's not like they make the game harder.

Alright, I didn't explain it well. When I rank the classes, I am saying that I want the average contribution for each member of the class. If I removed Ike, the game may get 4 (arbitrary) units harder. If I removed all 5 TB's, the game may get 12 units harder. However, there are 5 TB's, so the average TB rank is only 12/5 = 2.4 units, putting them below Vanguards.

I have to assume that was a example and not the actual points, because if Vanguard is top-tier with 4 points there is no way true blades are that far behind.

[nflchamp]

I'm agreeing with Naggy here. This seems like a pointless exercise.

Though until that's addressed, I might as well say Chancellor should go down. Lehran is low for a reason. He does squat.

[Narga_Rocks]

It's more along this line. Let's assume I get rid of every unit of a particular class. How much harder does the game then become? After that, I divide the total increase in difficulty for a class by the number of units in that class to arrive at a rough score. In other words, it's a lot about how good the units of one class are relative to the other units that are also in that group. Without Ike, the game is a lot harder, so he's top tier. If I get rid of all the swordmasters, the game gets a significant difficulty boost, but it's mitigated by the fact that Lucia and Stefan don't help a lot.

Wait, that doesn't make sense either. If I take out Mia and Zihark, the game gets more difficult, moreso than if I just removed Ike. But for some reason, removing Stefan/Lucia/Edward only makes the game a little bit harder, so this is somehow a negative for Trueblades? Edward and Lucia still contribute in earlygame, so it's not like they make the game harder.

Alright, I didn't explain it well. When I rank the classes, I am saying that I want the average contribution for each member of the class. If I removed Ike, the game may get 4 (arbitrary) units harder. If I removed all 5 TB's, the game may get 12 units harder. However, there are 5 TB's, so the average TB rank is only 12/5 = 2.4 units, putting them below Vanguards.

I have to assume that was a example and not the actual points, because if Vanguard is top-tier with 4 points there is no way true blades are that far behind.

He did say arbitrary. But don't forget, Vanguard doesn't have any units holding it back. Trueblade has Ed, Stefan, Lucia.

Even if Mia and Zihark both get 4s like Ike, I can't imagine giving Lucia and Ed and Stefan any more than 4 to 6 total. Like, 2 each or less.

4 + 4 + 4 = 12, so 2.4 on average. Or 4 + 4 + 6 = 14, 2.8 on average. It's quite reasonable for Trueblades to be that far behind.

You could even argue Mia and Zihark get 3.5s each, so 7 total, and now if Lucia, Ed, Stefan get 2 + 2 + 1 = 5, that's 12. 12/5=2.4.

[Fayt Zelpher]

It's more along this line. Let's assume I get rid of every unit of a particular class. How much harder does the game then become? After that, I divide the total increase in difficulty for a class by the number of units in that class to arrive at a rough score. In other words, it's a lot about how good the units of one class are relative to the other units that are also in that group. Without Ike, the game is a lot harder, so he's top tier. If I get rid of all the swordmasters, the game gets a significant difficulty boost, but it's mitigated by the fact that Lucia and Stefan don't help a lot.

Wait, that doesn't make sense either. If I take out Mia and Zihark, the game gets more difficult, moreso than if I just removed Ike. But for some reason, removing Stefan/Lucia/Edward only makes the game a little bit harder, so this is somehow a negative for Trueblades? Edward and Lucia still contribute in earlygame, so it's not like they make the game harder.

Alright, I didn't explain it well. When I rank the classes, I am saying that I want the average contribution for each member of the class. If I removed Ike, the game may get 4 (arbitrary) units harder. If I removed all 5 TB's, the game may get 12 units harder. However, there are 5 TB's, so the average TB rank is only 12/5 = 2.4 units, putting them below Vanguards.

I have to assume that was a example and not the actual points, because if Vanguard is top-tier with 4 points there is no way true blades are that far behind.

He did say arbitrary. But don't forget, Vanguard doesn't have any units holding it back. Trueblade has Ed, Stefan, Lucia.

Even if Mia and Zihark both get 4s like Ike, I can't imagine giving Lucia and Ed and Stefan any more than 4 to 6 total. Like, 2 each or less.

4 + 4 + 4 = 12, so 2.4 on average. Or 4 + 4 + 6 = 14, 2.8 on average. It's quite reasonable for Trueblades to be that far behind.

You could even argue Mia and Zihark get 3.5s each, so 7 total, and now if Lucia, Ed, Stefan get 2 + 2 + 1 = 5, that's 12. 12/5=2.4.

That's correct. If Ike were to receive 4 points, I'd probably give Mia and Z each 3.5, Edward 2.5, Stefan 1.5 and Lucia 1, for an average of 2.4. Marksmen likewise have Shinon (3.5), Rolf (2) and Leonardo (1), for an average of 2.166. One more example might be Marshalls, who have Gatrie (3.5), Brom (2) and Meg (0.5), for an average of 2. Silver Knights, however have Geoffrey (1.5), Astrid (0.5) and Fiona (0), for an average of 0.666.

[Narga_Rocks]

It's more along this line. Let's assume I get rid of every unit of a particular class. How much harder does the game then become? After that, I divide the total increase in difficulty for a class by the number of units in that class to arrive at a rough score. In other words, it's a lot about how good the units of one class are relative to the other units that are also in that group. Without Ike, the game is a lot harder, so he's top tier. If I get rid of all the swordmasters, the game gets a significant difficulty boost, but it's mitigated by the fact that Lucia and Stefan don't help a lot.

Wait, that doesn't make sense either. If I take out Mia and Zihark, the game gets more difficult, moreso than if I just removed Ike. But for some reason, removing Stefan/Lucia/Edward only makes the game a little bit harder, so this is somehow a negative for Trueblades? Edward and Lucia still contribute in earlygame, so it's not like they make the game harder.

Alright, I didn't explain it well. When I rank the classes, I am saying that I want the average contribution for each member of the class. If I removed Ike, the game may get 4 (arbitrary) units harder. If I removed all 5 TB's, the game may get 12 units harder. However, there are 5 TB's, so the average TB rank is only 12/5 = 2.4 units, putting them below Vanguards.

I have to assume that was a example and not the actual points, because if Vanguard is top-tier with 4 points there is no way true blades are that far behind.

He did say arbitrary. But don't forget, Vanguard doesn't have any units holding it back. Trueblade has Ed, Stefan, Lucia.

Even if Mia and Zihark both get 4s like Ike, I can't imagine giving Lucia and Ed and Stefan any more than 4 to 6 total. Like, 2 each or less.

4 + 4 + 4 = 12, so 2.4 on average. Or 4 + 4 + 6 = 14, 2.8 on average. It's quite reasonable for Trueblades to be that far behind.

You could even argue Mia and Zihark get 3.5s each, so 7 total, and now if Lucia, Ed, Stefan get 2 + 2 + 1 = 5, that's 12. 12/5=2.4.

That's correct. If Ike were to receive 4 points, I'd probably give Mia and Z each 3.5, Edward 2.5, Stefan 1.5 and Lucia 1, for an average of 2.4. Marksmen likewise have Shinon (3.5), Rolf (2) and Leonardo (1), for an average of 2.166. One more example might be Marshalls, who have Gatrie (3.5), Brom (2) and Meg (0.5), for an average of 2. Silver Knights, however have Geoffrey (1.5), Astrid (0.5) and Fiona (0), for an average of 0.666.

If you don't care about Gender, Silver Knights also have Oscar.

[Fayt Zelpher]

If you don't care about Gender, Silver Knights also have Oscar.

I keep wanting to call him a gold knight since he's actually useful, but you're right. However, I did likely overstated Astrid and Fiona's score, so the 2.5 he'd get isn't going to raise them up a whole bunch.

[Narga_Rocks]

If you don't care about Gender, Silver Knights also have Oscar.

I keep wanting to call him a gold knight since he's actually useful, but you're right. However, I did likely overstated Astrid and Fiona's score, so the 2.5 he'd get isn't going to raise them up a whole bunch.

I still love something that was lost in the timewarp. I don't remember who said it, but someone was talking about training Kieran and another person said something along the lines of:

Yeah, but as a male gold knight he fails at life.

The only good gold knight is Titania. Renning, Kieran, and Makalov are all bad.

[The_Wolf_Prince]

"I decided that we should have a separate ranking for the classes themselves."

My idea, thank you.

Edited January 19, 2010 by The_Wolf_Prince

[Fayt Zelpher]

If you don't care about Gender, Silver Knights also have Oscar.

I keep wanting to call him a gold knight since he's actually useful, but you're right. However, I did likely overstated Astrid and Fiona's score, so the 2.5 he'd get isn't going to raise them up a whole bunch.

I still love something that was lost in the timewarp. I don't remember who said it, but someone was talking about training Kieran and another person said something along the lines of:

Yeah, but as a male gold knight he fails at life.

The only good gold knight is Titania. Renning, Kieran, and Makalov are all bad.

Renning is arguably a decent replacement character if most of your other characters die. Kieran has potential but is stuck as a CRK. Makalov is ugly, stinks as a unit, and is stuck as a CRK.

[Anouleth]

If you don't care about Gender, Silver Knights also have Oscar.

I keep wanting to call him a gold knight since he's actually useful, but you're right. However, I did likely overstated Astrid and Fiona's score, so the 2.5 he'd get isn't going to raise them up a whole bunch.

I still love something that was lost in the timewarp. I don't remember who said it, but someone was talking about training Kieran and another person said something along the lines of:

Yeah, but as a male gold knight he fails at life.

The only good gold knight is Titania. Renning, Kieran, and Makalov are all bad.

Renning is arguably a decent replacement character if most of your other characters die. Kieran has potential but is stuck as a CRK. Makalov is ugly, stinks as a unit, and is stuck as a CRK.

Makalov is horribly unlucky to be stuck as a CRK. His growths are good (75%SPD), but he has fail bases and bad availability (like all the CRKs), and his caps mean he can't take advantage of his great speed growth. If he had a 20 speed base like Oscar/Geoffrey/Kieran, he'd be pretty decent.

[Narga_Rocks]

Renning is arguably a decent replacement character if most of your other characters die. Kieran has potential but is stuck as a CRK. Makalov is ugly, stinks as a unit, and is stuck as a CRK.

Kieran. The guy with limited availability, a 20 spd base, 30% growth, 23 spd tier 2 cap, 31 spd tier 3 cap. "potential" is an interesting word for it.

Makalov is horribly unlucky to be stuck as a CRK. His growths are good (75%SPD), but he has fail bases and bad availability (like all the CRKs), and his caps mean he can't take advantage of his great speed growth. If he had a 20 speed base like Oscar/Geoffrey/Kieran, he'd be pretty decent.

This is why Mak(T) jumps so high in the tier list. He's actually quite good and comes out of 3-9 decently. And his 33 spd cap isn't so bad. Certainly better than 31. And being a gold knight he has access to Hammers and Wyrmslayers and will easily have the AS to double Generals even on HM in 4-E-1. Probably even get to 33 AS for doubling warriors in 4-E-2.

edit: and easy 32 AS for doubling thunder spirits in the last two chapters. Point is, coming out of the CRK chapters Mak(T) is way better than Kieran, and probably even better than Kieran(T). Only reason I'm not arguing for Mak(T)>Kieran(T) on the tier list is because of just how good Kieran(T) is likely to be in 2-3 and 3-9 compared to Mak. Kieran(T) could even possibly be worth crowning in 3-9. Not sure though. He's certainly not likely to have hit his 23 spd cap by the start of 3-9, though.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[Candlejack]

OH RIGHT that reminds me:

Assassins for up. Why they are below SAINTS is above me.

[Fayt Zelpher]

OH RIGHT that reminds me:

Assassins for up. Why they are below SAINTS is above me.

Maybe it's because Volke is gone for the first 90% of the game, and while he's awesome as a unit, the game's not getting harder without him. Laura and Rhys, on the other hand, actually contribute toward the completion of the game. They're around long enough such that if they don't exist, the game does get harder, especially for Laura, the DB's only healer for part 1.

[Zkirsche]

I thought a tier list on classes is based on class caps/masteries and stuff. Not based on grouping together the individual characters. I mean, we might as well rename the valkyrie class "Mist". And then when is the border between each character's usage? I mean, do we put negative utility into training pelleas to become a dark archsage? Heck, when do we consider these units helping out, as it's all quite arbitrary when they promote and stuff like that.

Anyway,

Saint < All archsages (even the dark archsage) as all the archsages have healing, but they all have better caps anyway, and thudner for dragons. Cat laguz < dark archsage. No healing, for starters, not as good against dragons etcetera.

Also, if we stick to the plan of grouping characters together, I propose Marshall > Marksmen (Gatrie > Shinon. Brom + Taur > Rolf + Leo.)

Edited January 20, 2010 by The Syobon

[ReformBlade]

Yeah, this isn't a "true" Class tier list... You're just lumping everyone together in the same class and then grading.

An example of how different this is has already been given, but I'd like to point out another thing. Peg Knights. The people in the class are mediocre due to availability issues and such, with Marcia able to pull out of it if you really care to try, but the class itself is pretty damn amazing. Sure, a bit weak for a tier 2, but in tier 3, it gains Stun...

Just throwing out my 5 cent piece of bread...

[Florete]

If you guys don't like the way the list is set up, make another one. Geez. It's not like this one can't work, it's just another way of looking at things.

[Narga_Rocks]

If you guys don't like the way the list is set up, make another one. Geez. It's not like this one can't work, it's just another way of looking at things.

Personally I like this one. A "class tier list" based on the classes themselves is impossible to adjudicate. Also I like this once since while it only lists the tier 3 versions of beorc classes, it includes their earlier incarnations as part of the judging.

As for a "proper" class tier list, I earlier stat it would be impossible to adjudicate. I've said it earlier in this topic, too. What are you going to do? Create a fake character with the class bases and growths and stick it in part 1? You can't make a list based off class caps and abilities since in general the classes won't be capped. Also, class growths aren't generally as good as character growths, though many characters have lower growths than their class in a couple of stats.

I'm just saying this particular class tier list can have an easily understood method of judging that can be pretty clearly defined. That's really all that is needed to make a good tier list.

Oh, and Marksman should drop to just above Sentinel. Danved is why Sentinel shouldn't be above Marksman. Marshall could maybe then go above Marksman, but Meg really hurts the class.