(4e) Arranging classes based on difficulty

[Blazen]

This is all the characters sorted into a list based on how easy they will be to play.

Beginner:

PHB1:
Ranger (Easiest character to use, if you can roll dice you can be a ranger)

Cleric

Fighter (Easy to learn to how to play, but he hides a complex, and varied system)

Rogue (great way to learn about positions, and flanking)

Paladin (Does a little bit of everything without complicating them, good way to learn about stat distribution, and specializing)

PHB2:
Barbarian (much like the ranger)

Warden (The barbarian equivalent for defenders)


Intermediate:

Leaders and controllers take significantly more thought to use properly, most of them fit properly here.

PHB1:
Cleric
Warlord

PHB2
Avenger
Shaman
Invoker
Sorcerer

Eberron:
Artificer

Other:
Seeker
Assassin (Not hard to figure out, but proper use of shrouds requires some extra strategy)


Hard:

PHB1:
Wizard
Warlock (deals less damage, but has many control type powers to use)

PHB2:
Bard
Druid (A controller that can also defend requires some careful thought)

Other:
Ardent, Battlemind, Psionic (The psionic classes use new features such as augmenting powers. I wouldn't allow new players anywhere near them)


Advanced:

Both the Avenger, and Swordmage have quite a bit of potential, but require careful optimization, and a very good understanding of the rules.

FR:
Swordmage

Other:
Hybrid (Too many options, and way too easy to screw up)


Feel free to suggest changes, offer opinions, or ask for clarification. The point of this list is to help players and DMs decide what characters to play/allow, so any help would be great.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I would bump the Shaman up to Intermediate. You control two characters, after all. That's a bit challenging for a novice to figure.

[RebelRogue]

I agree. I've found the shaman to be slightly confusing to new players as well. Cleric is what I'd recommend for a novice Leader player.

[Blazen]

Yeah, don't know why I did it the other way. Fixed it now.

[deathpigeon]

Warlock should probably be advanced, it is just as hard as Avenger to play well, and, unlike all other strikers, is a lurker, which requires a lot of thought to defense, rather than a skirmisher, which requires pretty much only moving, a brute, which is just a heavy front line hitter, or artillery, which attacks from range.

Also, I'd put Fighter in Intermediate because it requires more thought to weapons, and is complex to work. I'd also bring Warden to Intermediate, because I've found its marking system more confusing with two immediate actions it has to chose from, and it's forms are hard to work.

[Mando Knight]

Also, I'd put Fighter in Intermediate because it requires more thought to weapons, and is complex to work. I'd also bring Warden to Intermediate, because I've found its marking system more confusing with two immediate actions it has to chose from, and it's forms are hard to work.

Paladin's Intermediate, Fighter's Basic. With the Fighter, just look at the PHB1's recommendations for stats based on your favorite weapon, and choose the class feature that fits best with your fighting style. Paladin takes a bit more thought in order to function as a defender, since even though they're the most balanced (in terms of offense, defense, and healing) of the classes they'll find themselves failing their group role unless they think about how to make the marks count.

[rayne_dragon]

From what I've seen with my group (from people newish to 4e): paladin, ranger, and fighter are all fairly simple for someone to pick up and play. Rogue, Bard, and Invoker require a bit more work. Wizard seems to be tricky to play properly, although a blaster wizard is easier. Ranger is harder if a beastmaster ranger.

Shaman and Avenger both seem a little tricky to handle, but since they were played by the most experianced players in my group I'm not sure how they compare. I'm also not sure that they can really be rated easily, since certain builds are trickier than others and being a very tactical game making a class work its best can be challenging regardless.

[Katana_Geldar]

I'm not sure if a Bard shouldn't be hard or not, as a Bard is halfway between a buffer and the skill user, with a lot of their combat about assisting other players rather than directly attacking.

[Uin]

I play a Valourous bard right now, keeping an aye out for whenever my allies bloody or kill something, debuffing enemies with Vicious Mockery and Guiding Strikes and sliding people about with most of my attacks and heals. Its not hard for a veteran but most leader classes are more difficult than they are easy and the rest of the players are much newer than me.

Shaman (hard) is harder than Bard (hard > inter), is harder than Warlord (inter > hard), is harder than Cleric (inter).

I have also played Artificers (hard to classify, it has the least support) and Warlords.

[tcrudisi]

The Avenger is Advanced? Really? The only thing difficult about the Avenger is on the DM to not activate your bonus damage. Other than that, you pick a target and stick with it. I found the Avenger to be one of the easier classes.

The Wizard is definitely not Intermediate. In my opinion, it's the second hardest class (second to Swordmage) to do properly. Obviously, if you are just wanting to blast stuff, it's an easy class. But it also means that you are playing the wrong class (go to Sorc instead). If you are actually trying to control the battlefield, it takes a lot of tactics and strategy to do and quickly becomes an incredibly difficult class, even if you are good at strategy.

[Kurald Galain]

Imho,

Trivial: Ranger.

Beginner: Cleric (you've listed him twice but he's quite easy to play), Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Sorcerer (it's not hard, just point and things go boom).

Intermediate: Rogue (beginning players don't necessarily understand how to get CA consistently), Warlord, Bard, Invoker, Artificer, Warlock (not hard to use, really, but many people misunderstand that warlocks aren't primary damage dealers), Avenger (much easier to play than you claim, and this list is about difficulty not power level).

Hard: Wizard (a common complaint on forums is that wizards are a useless class; this stems from the fact that many people don't know how to play one properly), Shaman (positioning is not trivial), Druid, Swordmage (not as hard as you claim, but requires unusual tactics), Hybrid (pretty easy to screw up if you don't know what you're doing).

I haven't seen enough of Warden, Seeker, Assassin, or the psionic classes yet to place them on the list.

[tcrudisi]

... everything...

+1. I agree with almost everything. I would bump Avenger down to Beginner. Warden I would place in the Beginner category as well. As for Seeker, Assassin, or the psionic classes, I have no experience with them and cannot rank them either.

[Swordgleam]

You might want to divide up warlock based on pacts, since those change its complexity more than other classes' builds. Vestigelock, for example, is a lot more complex to play, whereas hellock can be a relatively straightforward blaster.

[deathpigeon]

You might want to divide up warlock based on pacts, since those change its complexity more than other classes' builds. Vestigelock, for example, is a lot more complex to play, whereas hellock can be a relatively straightforward blaster.

No, hellock isn't a strait-forward blaster. None of the warlock pacts are a simple striker, they all have an element of control, and to get a good amount of damage, you have to try really hard.

[Blazen]

I moved Bards to Hard, I was already on the fence about that.

Warlocks however, while they can be difficult to use are nowhere near as hard as Avengers, and SMs.

Wizards seem to be the easiest of controllers to use, and would be the one I recommend for beginning controllers, until you get into some of the AP stuff.

As for the Avenger, he appeals quickly to new players, but is actually a particularly hard character to play.

CA for Rogues is important, but they can gurantee themselves to have it through most of the encounter, even with weak builds.

[Kurald Galain]

Wizards seem to be the easiest of controllers to use, and would be the one I recommend for beginning controllers, until you get into some of the AP stuff.
No, that would be the invoker. Reason being, invoker powers are party-friendly, and wizard powers are not.



As for the Avenger, he appeals quickly to new players, but is actually a particularly hard character to play.
...how? What is so hard about it? You just pick a target and hit it until it dies,

[Talyn]

There is also a difference between "ease of play" and "ease of optimization." I will agree that playing a warlock to the full extent of its abilities is probably an intermediate-to-hard challenge, but they are really, really, easy to pick up and play.

In my group, we use archer rangers and infernal warlocks as the class we give to people who have never played before and aren't terribly involved (little brothers, I'm-just-here-to-humour-you girlfriends, and "I'm just trying this out" drop-ins). Infernal warlock is easy - curse, blast, move three squares for the defense bonus. If you are the closest player to the target, get your prime shot bonus.

Because of their enhanced survivability - leather armor, cloak of shadows, and about a bajillion temporary hit points - they are a great class to learn about D&D with.

[slyfox99]

My players are all newbies, but they seem to be catching on quickly. We only had PHB1 when they made their characters, so my gf plays a rogue, my 8 year old son plays a dwarf fighter, and my twelve year old daughter plays two characters, a cleric and a wizard.

My gf caught on quickly to the idea of flanking and CA and now jer rogue is quite the little murder machine. My son basically runs round trying to hit things with his war hammer, yelling "Tide of Iron" every round, but he is, after all, eight. Conversely, he is the best role-player in the group in non-combat situations and made up the most complete backstory for his PC.

My daughter's cleric is multi-classed as a fighter and takes the role of defending her wizard, (since her brother can't be depended on to do so), and does a good job of healing the party as needed. When we first started playing, her wizard was basically a "point and try to destroy" type of wizard, but since I got her her very own copy of PHB1, she has gotten into the idea of controlling the battlefield in a big way. (I should add that her IQ has been tested in the 150s). I gave her the PHB and the next week she came over (they live with their mom, who is a bog hag [just teasing]) with index cards jammed into every page of the book. She told me she knows every power her cleric is going to take up to 20th level.

I have played a warlock as an NPC to help them, but he died fast, as I tend to roll dice better for the monsters than I do for my own characters lol. I can't say much about the other classes.

[tcrudisi]

Warlocks however, while they can be difficult to use are nowhere near as hard as Avengers, and SMs.

Wizards seem to be the easiest of controllers to use, and would be the one I recommend for beginning controllers, until you get into some of the AP stuff.

As for the Avenger, he appeals quickly to new players, but is actually a particularly hard character to play.

CA for Rogues is important, but they can gurantee themselves to have it through most of the encounter, even with weak builds.

I've seen a 10 year old play a Rogue and get combat advantage almost every round.

Likewise, I saw the same 10 year old play a Wizard and not understand what he was supposed to do (worst character I've ever seen played). Also, I saw a 35 year old play a Wizard and not understand what he was supposed to do (second worst character I've ever seen played). And then I saw a 22 year old play a Wizard and stink it up badly (third worst character I've ever seen played)... until something clicked. I had created his character -- one set of spells that I knew he would like and another set that was great at control. I begged and prodded him to use the control spells. "Just try them out once." He did. Literally, as the DM, I could do nothing that combat. His use of the spells was perfect, his choices amazing. He worked with the party to use his character optimally, and they fully supported him after seeing what he could do. It became the best character I've ever seen played (combat-wise) at a table.

It took him a few months, but he evolved into that. The Wizard is tricky -- it's not quite what the SM is in terms of difficulty, but once that light gets turned on beyond point and shoot, the game completely opens up. It becomes all about strategy, figuring out where your talents are most needed and applying the right subtlety and force to lock down your foes. I've played in more than a few LFR/RPGA tables, ran a few, played in several home games... and this guy is the only one that truly understands what playing a Wizard really means. I've seen at least 20+ Wizards played at a table, and only one did so well.

Anyone can cast Fireball and try to maximize foes while minimizing allies targeted. That's not what the Wizard is about though, and it takes a lot of understanding of how 4e works as well as strategy to really do one properly. As such, it is the second hardest class to play.

I do not understand why people are saying the Avenger is hard. How is it hard? You pick a foe that's by himself and beat on him until he dies. The trickiest part is then on the DM to ensure that the monster is able to still fight effectively (ie - no incurring the Avenger feature, whether that be no running away or what-have-you). So then you've got to shift to a square where the only foe adjacent to you is your enemy? Big deal, Rogues do that kind of shifting all the time, except there's is to get flanking. Really, Avengers are easier than Rogues, and I don't think Rogues are particularly hard at all.

[Blazen]

I understand the arguments for Avenger and Wizard and moved them to Intermediate, and Hard respectively. Are those good spots, or would you guys really recommend they be beginner, and advanced?

[Blazen]

I played a Battlemind the other night at an RPGA session. I think I was too hasty to dump them in the hard category, since at level 1 you only have a couple more options than your normal defender, I will probably play it again next week, but could anyone else who tried out psionics give me their opinions.

[Grynning]

I played a Psion at paragon level using the pre-release material for a couple months, and didn't find it hard to play at all; I'd rate them as "Intermediate" on your list. They're a very party-friendly, fun controller, and deciding when to spend power points isn't really any harder than picking when to use an encounter power. The biggest problem I had was that the Character creator didn't list the augment abilities of a couple of my powers at the time so I had to hunt through the Dragon article online once a session to make sure I was remembering them right.

[Thajocoth]

I disagree with a LOT of that...

The following list is in order of what I think is the easiest to the hardest class, with breaks where I'd separate for difficulty categories.

Easiest

Barbarian - Absolutely nothing to keep track of
Battlemind - The psionics have less powers than other classes, mark effects
Ardent - The psionics have less powers than other classes, leader bonuses to remind allies of
Psion - The psionics have less powers than other classes, effects to remind the DM of
Avenger - Simple to set up and not too much to watch for, Divine
Assassin - A few little plusses and effects to remember, mitigated by godly mobility
Ranger - A few little plusses to watch for
Warden - A lot of ally bonuses to remember to remind people about
Warlock - A few little plusses to watch for, and lots of effects
Fighter - The wide range of options makes for difficult setup, though they play easy.

Rogue - Strategy gets hard unless your allies do a lot for you
Sorcerer - The randomness can make things easy or difficult
Monk - Power duality means more to remember (or read each turn)
Bard - Leader bonuses to remind people of
Seeker - Honestly, this is a pure guess based on reading the class
Invoker - Controllery effects to remind the DM about, summons, , Divine
Druid - Controller effects to remember to remind people of, slight initial setup complexity

Paladin - MAD, Divine
Swordmage - Difficult to strategize well, lots of controllery effects
Warlord - Leader bonuses to remember, but now in melee

Artificer - All the leader bonuses you expect, but with the effects and summons of a controller
Cleric - MAD with a lot of options that look good but are ultimately difficult to use, and a lot to remind people about, Divine
Shaman - Player/Spirit duality, with many powers and effects split between them
Wizard - Most complex power management, summons, controllery effects

Hardest

Note on Divinity: Divinity requires more adherence to one's deity, and it can be hard to figure out what Thor would do, and very often as a player you're likely to want to do something else entirely. Combined with Channel Divinity and Domains, that's why it's listed as a complicator.

[Grynning]

^ Based on what, exactly? And you left out Rogues.

[Thajocoth]

^ Based on what, exactly? And you left out Rogues.

Sneaky Rogues were hiding from me...

Still editing my post otherwise. It's based on how much you need to keep track of or watch for. The more you need to keep in your head, the more conditional bonuses, the more status effects... The harder a class is to play. Pally & Cleric got bumped up for being MAD as well.

[deathpigeon]

Warlock should be bumped up based on difficult set up.

[Thajocoth]

Warlock should be bumped up based on difficult set up.

Warlock setup is practically on rails. Once you choose your pact, you have incredibly few options that work well with your pact, and going cross-pact is usually not as good as staying within your pact.

[Blazen]

I am not sure about your list, small bonuses to keep track of are not what I would consider the hardest things about classes. I consider setup, ease of play, and strategy. For instance, all a ranger does more or less is twin strike, and other 2 hit attacks. Also, I would put MAD on the same level as pacts. If you give your Pally Str, then take the Str attacks, if you choose Cha, then take the Cha attacks. The only problem comes in the form of your Divine sanction being weaker if you are Str based.

[Thajocoth]

I am not sure about your list, small bonuses to keep track of are not what I would consider the hardest things about classes. I consider setup, ease of play, and strategy. For instance, all a ranger does more or less is twin strike, and other 2 hit attacks. Also, I would put MAD on the same level as pacts. If you give your Pally Str, then take the Str attacks, if you choose Cha, then take the Cha attacks. The only problem comes in the form of your Divine sanction being weaker if you are Str based.

It's not obvious to a new player to take one ability score or the other for Paladins and Clerics. A new player is likely to try to juggle them both, and being all "Was this +5 to hit or +7? I forget..." It IS fairly easy to see the divide for pacts.

Having a lot to keep track of means, for a new player, going down a checklist. "Is he bloodied? Am I the closest one to him? Are any of his allies adjacent to him? Is it Tuesday?" And, for someone as forgetful as I, no matter how long I play, I'll always need checklists. I had for a Daggermaster Rogue once 3 separate cards for what happens when I crit in different situations... And the one "impossible" situation I didn't think of came up and I had to figure out, with all my bonuses for crits... I wound up attacking, like, 7 times that turn or something so the added delay to the game was annoying people too, making it even harder to concentrate on it.

I explicitly avoid feats that say "+X to Y when Z" because I'm going to forget to watch for Z. Race/class features that do this generally assume a pretty constant watch for Z and consistent use of the abilities for balance purposes. Too much thinking... I just want to play, not hold up the game. Sure, a Ranger's decision to stand still and fire arrows with constant Twin Strikes may be easy, but remembering to add quarry damage, watching for who's the closest, and everything else can easily wind up taking the same time the Rogue takes in figuring out how to get himself some combat advantage. Thought => Time => Difficulty.

EDIT: A lot of this assumes "Difficulty for NEW players". For a more experienced player, the Psionic classes go up in difficulty for not being what they're used to, the MAD and Divine classes go down, chips cover most controllery effects reducing those, Wizards have a "usual preparation" set of powers, Swordmages know what to do, ect... The whole thing gets rearranged and you get a pretty straightforward trend of: Ranged Strikers < Melee Strikers < Defenders < Controllers < Leaders.

Ranged Strikers don't have an incredible need for strategy, as you've said, and Strikers in general don't really need to worry about anyone else. Defenders have to figure out where to best stand, Controllers usually worry about not hitting their teammates, and then Leaders still have to constantly remind all the players of their bonuses and decide who needs their help the most.

[Kurald Galain]

The following list is in order of what I think is the easiest to the hardest class, with breaks where I'd separate for difficulty categories.
First, I disagree that the notion that beginners would not know how to handle a MAD class, and yet would know not to mix warlock pacts. Second, I disagree with the notion that having many tiny things to keep track of makes a class hard to play: this assumes that it makes a big difference if you forget one of those tiny things, and it usually doesn't.

Barbarian has plenty of things to keep track of. So many things deal extra damage when you charge, or when this, or when that. Every barbarian I've seen played ends up going "I did 34 damage. Oh wait, that's 36. No, make that 37".

Psionic classes have to deal with three separate ways to use a power. That strikes me as a tough decision for beginners. Where other classes just go "I jump", the psionics ask you "how high?". On that matter, sorcerer randomness does not make the class harder to play, since it's not a decision you can influence.

Rogue strategy does not "get hard", really. Rogues have so many ways to get combat advantage that it's not even funny. Druid, on the other hand, does, since a druid can be several things if he wants, and it's easy to end up sucking at all of them.

And finally, it's not mechanically true in 4E that divinity requires adherence to one's deity, just like it's not mechanically true that fighters have to keep the Knight's Oath or get thrown out by the barony, or that wizards have to fast every thursday or be shunned by the librarian's guild.

[Thajocoth]

First, I disagree that the notion that beginners would not know how to handle a MAD class, and yet would know not to mix warlock pacts. Second, I disagree with the notion that having many tiny things to keep track of makes a class hard to play: this assumes that it makes a big difference if you forget one of those tiny things, and it usually doesn't.

Barbarian has plenty of things to keep track of. So many things deal extra damage when you charge, or when this, or when that. Every barbarian I've seen played ends up going "I did 34 damage. Oh wait, that's 36. No, make that 37".

Psionic classes have to deal with three separate ways to use a power. That strikes me as a tough decision for beginners. Where other classes just go "I jump", the psionics ask you "how high?". On that matter, sorcerer randomness does not make the class harder to play, since it's not a decision you can influence.

Rogue strategy does not "get hard", really. Rogues have so many ways to get combat advantage that it's not even funny. Druid, on the other hand, does, since a druid can be several things if he wants, and it's easy to end up sucking at all of them.

And finally, it's not mechanically true in 4E that divinity requires adherence to one's deity, just like it's not mechanically true that fighters have to keep the Knight's Oath or get thrown out by the barony, or that wizards have to fast every thursday or be shunned by the librarian's guild.

My experience says otherwise. Especially for Rogues. Every Rogue I've seen has needed someone else to set everything up for them. The Rogue I played was pretty much nullified because I didn't have that, so I'd be a "striker" dealing 12 damage at level 17.

Every beginner Cleric I've seen has made Str & Wis 16 and either 14 or 16 at character creation, could never hit anything, and ultimately decided they hate the game because they made bad character creation decisions.

Also, Druid is really a pact situation. You either cast or you stay in beast form. Juggling the two would be very difficult, yes, but it's pretty obvious not to do that. A power or two from the other side, maybe, but even the class features point you towards sticking mostly with one or the other.

Look at the rest of what I said about Divine classes. Channel Divinity, Domains, ect... It's more to look through to make a character, and a single power that you need to decide how to best use each encounter. It does complicate things.

Psionic Augments add something small. You do basically "this", almost every time you use the power. Occasionally you simply toss in some extra oomph to it. That's more like a Fighter deciding to Power Attack or not. A simple switch. On or off.

Barbarian has a few things that work on a charge... Like, you can charge with Howling Strike... That's just using a power though. That's not remembering any sort of bonus. Sure, there are always feats and gear you can get with things that happen in certain scenarios... But that's not part of the class. (Personally, I try to avoid those. A +1 to damage is worth more than a +20 to damage when bloodied, because I'll never remember to apply the damage when I'm bloodied, but the +1 will be added to the numbers on my card.)

I've also found that every encounter that ends with someone saying "Oh, I've been forgetting this bonus that normally never comes up..." Is generally a lot longer than any encounter that doesn't. Had a Psion in a group one time that forgot his attacks ignore insubstantial, and we were fighting ghosts. They CAN make a HUGE difference.

[Blazen]

With PHB 3 I am wondering how to best classify Runepriests. I am thinking hard thanks to almost every encounter, and at-will having all these extra effects.
Also, Thac, you make many good points, however I have seen that 1, or 2 situational damage is not as hard as deciding where to slide an enemy, managing bursts, and choosing what effect best suits the situation.