Its interesting you should say "if we stick to wbl" cause yes that works but...
There are many people who could write a treatise on eqipment optimization and make it seem as though any class it a tier or two higher that what it is.
I mean does anyone remember Sir giacomo's "joker monk" over at gitp?
When you start going off the items available you're not really measuring the class so much anymore, if the class need a very specific item to work or it doesn't "really work" then we should assume they don't get that item really unless it's written into the class.
We didn't rate paladin based on him having a holy avenger.
Though on some level I can see what you're saying its just so obvious sometimes to me what a class is or isnt doing on its own.
If you look at Surreals Handy links the Majority of optimization builds occur sans equipment optimization. Most of whats being optimized is class features/feats/prc combinations. With a very few exceptions.
So maybe thats why I feel the way I do about it. I don't personally hate the class or anything it just as a rule of thumb you can almost measure the suckiness of a class by, how much equipment does it need to do its job... at all...
Tier 1 doesn't really NEED anything (no a spellbook counts as a class feature for purposes of this argument.) and each tier decending have a higher and higher reliance on items. To the point that you get down to classes that don't work well without item optimization. Using the artificer in those arguments in is kind of mendacious because making items that do magic is his whole schickt plus he gets an experience pool to make items. Where as if we go off a strict "core" interpretation making an item should really put you behind the party, unless of course you're looking at experience as a river or whatever.
... sigh... long post is long.
