PDA

View Full Version : Tier sistem (For 4e)



n00b killa
2010-07-26, 11:26 AM
I was wondering if anyone has already done a Tier system for Dungeons and Dragons 4e. I mean Tier as in the list that, basically, says "Wizards and clerics are awesome! (Tier 1) and Monks and commoners are awful! (Tier 5)".

I do realize that 4e already has a very specific part of it already called "Tier" (Heroic, paragorn and epic tiers), I am looking specifically por the one that refers to classes relative effectiveness.

Thanks a bunch, playgrounders!

Yuki Akuma
2010-07-26, 11:38 AM
...Considering most classes are mechanically nigh-identical, I'm pretty sure there aren't enough differences in power for the same sort of tier system.

valadil
2010-07-26, 11:42 AM
...Considering most classes are mechanically nigh-identical, I'm pretty sure there aren't enough differences in power for the same sort of tier system.

At best you could probably divide it up into three tiers. Good, bad, and average. It's pretty much accepted that warlords are good and druids are crap. Not sure what's in between though.

Urpriest
2010-07-26, 11:45 AM
Warlocks are pretty low, Rangers are up near the top. Battleminds used to be low, it's harder to tell where they are now. Psions are badly designed, but high tier. Sorcerors are lower tier than Genasi Wizards. I'm not sure you could do as detailed a ranking as 3.5 did, but these are some baselines.

Kurald Galain
2010-07-26, 11:47 AM
Hm, that's a good question. Off the top of my head, subject to a bunch of IMHO and YMMV,

{table] |Strong|Average|Weak
Striker|Barbarian|Rogue|Avenger
|Ranger|Sorcerer|Monk
| |Warlock
Defender|Fighter|Paladin|Battlemind
|Warden|Swordmage
Leader|Warlord|Artificer|Ardent
| |Bard|Cleric
| |Runepriest|Shaman
Controller|Psion|Druid|Seeker
|Wizard|Invoker
[/table]

Specific builds vary. For instance, a PHB-only paladin is pretty weak, as is an assault swordmage. Also, certain classes have lost a lot of power in recent updates, notably the sorcerer and cleric.

valadil
2010-07-26, 11:52 AM
Specific builds vary. For instance, a PHB-only paladin is pretty weak, as is an assault swordmage. Also, certain classes have lost a lot of power in recent updates, notably the sorcerer and cleric.

It might make sense to rank each named build as a different class. Tactical warlords should be top tier. Bravura warlords I'm less sure about. Why clump them all into one class if they vary so much?

Mando Knight
2010-07-26, 11:58 AM
I'm not sure you could do as detailed a ranking as 3.5 did, but these are some baselines.

Actually, you'd need a more detailed ranking system. Not every class is assumed to need to fill every role, and each class fills a different set of sub-roles better. On top of that, some builds completely change what sub-roles the class fills.

Coidzor
2010-07-26, 11:58 AM
It might make sense to rank each named build as a different class. Tactical warlords should be top tier. Bravura warlords I'm less sure about. Why clump them all into one class if they vary so much?

I'd go with the term "Variant" over "Named Build" due to the whole feycharger thing.

NecroRebel
2010-07-26, 12:00 PM
I mostly agree with Kurald's assessment, though I will say that, often, the weaker classes are weaker because they try to branch out into different roles. For Example, Rangers make superb Strikers, and they're as close to pure Strikers as they come, and Monks are relatively weak Strikers, but they can spread their damage around more effectively than most.

All in all, though, the optimization floor and ceiling in 4E are relatively close together, so it's essentially impossible to get a group where one person has challenge-shattering power and another is a glorified packmule. At worst, it's more like one person in a group is Superman, and another is Batman; the latter is clearly weaker, but applied properly, those weaker abilities can mean far more than lazily-applied superpowers.

Moff Chumley
2010-07-26, 12:04 PM
In all of my 4e games, there has never been an obvious difference in power levels between characters... while I have no doubt that it's there, it's not worth detailing to the same level as was done in 3.5. Not that I think it shouldn't be done. :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-26, 12:11 PM
{table] |Strong|Average|Weak
Striker|Barbarian|Rogue|Avenger
|Ranger|Sorcerer|Monk
| |Warlock
Defender|Fighter|Paladin|Battlemind
|Warden|Swordmage
Leader|Warlord|Artificer|Ardent
| |Bard|Cleric
| |Runepriest|Shaman
Controller|Psion|Druid|Seeker
|Wizard|Invoker
[/table]
An excellent start.

As has been rightly noted, this can then be broken down into Variant Build Tiers - though the Variant Builds will need to be frequently updated as WotC nerfs Tier I Builds with a charming alacrity :smallamused:

Probably the greatest problem with ranking class/builds by Tier in 4e is that it isn't exactly clear what we're ranking. The most common metric is "best at Role" which, while obvious for Striker is less obvious for other roles - particularly Leader (Healing? Buffing?).

Heck, once you get right down to it, the task begins looking more like an awards show: "Best Defender at Crowd Control," "Best Single-Target Striker" and so on :smallbiggrin:

Meta
2010-07-26, 12:12 PM
At best you could probably divide it up into three tiers. Good, bad, and average. It's pretty much accepted that warlords are good and druids are crap. Not sure what's in between though.

I can think of a way for a summoning druid to get 6 attacks in a round, off the top of my head. With writhing henge and the right PP that's actually 48. If they nerfed writhing henge, my point on 6 attacks in a round stands and makes you look silly :smalltongue:

@kurald not bad, but if my comment:
The reason the barbarian and ranger are strong is multiattacks, and the monk has just as many as well, they simply hit other enemies rather than be focused. This is similar to warlock and sorcerer but more reliable so I see no reason it should be lower than those classes, if not higher.

Rogue's have a higher floor than avenger's but also a lower ceiling, so if you're measuring by a mechanically poor player, rogue's are better, if a good one, avengers are.

Paladin's and Swordmages are both better pure defenders than the fighter. They are both more competent at marking and will commonly have higher defenses. Although fighter's do more damage the shielding (assault is pretty crap now and ensnaring is meh but there's sadly no real reason to play those) SM has the best attack disincentive in the game and the paladin's can get pretty nasty as well. Move the Warden down

The warlord is a good leader and exceptional at augmenting the damage dealers, but his healing is lackluster. Cleric's make worse pure healers because of the nerf that's the reason you downgraded them for sure. It's a CharOp over-exaggeration. If you still want to play a pure healer, they are effective but not game-breaking. Cleric's hurt for buffs, but they are very strong debuffers and frankly that will often be very similar to a buff. Strong status effects too. Not bottom tier.

Druids are extremely well done, I give up

Doug Lampert
2010-07-26, 12:15 PM
I was wondering if anyone has already done a Tier system for Dungeons and Dragons 4e. I mean Tier as in the list that, basically, says "Wizards and clerics are awesome! (Tier 1) and Monks and commoners are awful! (Tier 5)".

I do realize that 4e already has a very specific part of it already called "Tier" (Heroic, paragorn and epic tiers), I am looking specifically por the one that refers to classes relative effectiveness.

Thanks a bunch, playgrounders!

The main POINT to the 3.5 tier system was that classes more than 2 tiers apart don't play well together. Broadly because anything that seriously challenges a well played tier N-1 will render irrelevant a tier N+1.

There isn't any power difference that large in 4th edition baring infinite loops, and unlike 3.5 where they never tried to close loopholes (because doing so would have required a comprehensive rewrite of the system), in 4th ed. infinite loops are relatively rare and typically get closed.

A corralary to the low tier classes being irrelevant in 3.x is that the high tier classes don't NEED the help. A well played mid to high level wizard can solo or avoid anything the fighter is a real help against, a party of 4 clerics or 4 druids is perfectly functional at all levels and doesn't NEED a rogue or fighter or any other low tier class.

A defining characteristic of tiers 1 and 2 is that they render any concept of "roles" irrelevant because they can do everything.

There's no class in 4th ed where I'd say you can build an entire party out of that class and be substantially stronger than a "traditional" four roles party. Thus there's no tier 1 or 2 classes.

Tier 4 and 5 are pretty well DEFINED as "mostly useless outside their specialty", with tier 4 having a specialty that's often useful, and tier 5 having a specialty that's rarely if ever useful and tier 6 being useless even in their specialty. And I don't think any 4th ed class is that limited.

So I'd tend to say they're all tier 3. That's certainly the goal. That doesn't make all classes identically powerful. Rangers are probably the best strikers, clerics the best leaders, and fighters the best defenders. It just means they're all so close togather as to be tier 3 in 3rd ed terms.

n00b killa
2010-07-26, 12:18 PM
Cleric's make worse pure healers because of the nerf

I wasn´t aware that clerics got nerfed, what did they change?

Meta
2010-07-26, 12:20 PM
I wasn´t aware that clerics got nerfed, what did they change?

Their surgeless healing took a hit. I haven't looked at the state of DnD in awhile so someone else can link the pdf. Its probably a few months old?

valadil
2010-07-26, 12:35 PM
I can think of a way for a summoning druid to get 6 attacks in a round, off the top of my head. With writhing henge and the right PP that's actually 48. If they nerfed writhing henge, my point on 6 attacks in a round stands and makes you look silly :smalltongue:


All the more reason why classes need to be broken up into variant. My mention of druid could have included the summoning variety or not.

Zovc
2010-07-26, 12:44 PM
I am of the school of thought that the 4e classes are too mechanically similar to have a tier list that resembles the 3.5e one.

You see, I'm pretty sure that this time around, Wizards has at least narrowed the gap in power between classes. 3.5 has "Can do what you specialize in better than you do it without specializing in it" all the way to "Can't do what it is meant to specialize in even if it specializes in it". I'm pretty sure 4e doesn't have this big a range of classes.

Then again, I've only skimmed through 4e books while working at a friend's hobby shop.

Mando Knight
2010-07-26, 12:55 PM
Their surgeless healing took a hit.

So their surgeless healing took a hit. They're still the best source of healing, with or without using healing surges.

n00b killa
2010-07-26, 12:59 PM
So their surgeless healing took a hit. They're still the best source of healing, with or without using healing surges.

That's what I thought.

Specially now that they have pacifist healer

CarpeGuitarrem
2010-07-26, 01:07 PM
Heck, once you get right down to it, the task begins looking more like an awards show: "Best Defender at Crowd Control," "Best Single-Target Striker" and so on :smallbiggrin:
The Academy Awards for 4th Edition?

I would LOVE to see that voted on and RP'd out.

Bagelz
2010-07-26, 01:13 PM
4e is pretty well balanced. All three of your tiers (good bad avg) are closer together than teir1 vs teir2 in 3.x

Tiki Snakes
2010-07-26, 03:56 PM
I think it would be more genuinely useful for people if instead of arbitrary tier rankings, the classes and possibly their variants were rated against the party roles.

That is to say, striker, defender etc. Though perhaps the roles would have to be broken up slightly also to really account for the range of ways of contributing?

Perhaps Stiker, Defender, Leader, Controller, and general Utility?

You could show the results as a 'Radar Chart', perhaps? Could be cool.

mobdrazhar
2010-07-26, 04:32 PM
I think that it should be done by working out which of the variants are easiest to most complex to use for each role.

pasko77
2010-07-26, 04:39 PM
Hm, that's a good question. Off the top of my head, subject to a bunch of IMHO and YMMV,

{table] |Strong|Average|Weak
Striker|||Monk
[/table]



NOOOOO! Not again!:smalltongue:
Why the monk is weak, this time?

Yuki Akuma
2010-07-26, 04:41 PM
The Monk isn't a weak class, it's just not as effective as other Strikers at being a Striker.

Gametime
2010-07-26, 04:45 PM
The role paradigm makes it easier to analyze classes from a standpoint of fairly strict specialization. This is basically the opposite of 3.5's tier system, where power was a consideration but sheer versatility and ability to respond to a variety of challenges was the main attribute measured.

Ranking classes abstractly is useless if you want to know what they're good at; ranking classes by role denies those classes that do a decent job of hybridizing the respect their versatility deserves. I'm sure there's some metric that provides a fair and accurate perspective on all the classes, but for the life of me I can't think of how to pull it off.

Vitruviansquid
2010-07-26, 04:49 PM
Although the classes in 4e are organized into striker, defender, leader, and controller, I find each class (really, each build) is capable of having its own niche and identity such that a tier system is really hard to order.

Throw in the fact that they're all expected to work as a group and synergize with the other party members, it's really hard to actually create a tier list based on versatility or usefulness, even if most people can agree, for example, that Rangers are better strikers than Warlocks.

Yuki Akuma
2010-07-26, 04:54 PM
I do think a sort of radar chart for each class would be a good way to go. Gauge each class's Strikeriness, Controlliness, Leaderiness and Defenderiness...

(Yes, those are words now.)

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-26, 05:02 PM
The role paradigm makes it easier to analyze classes from a standpoint of fairly strict specialization. This is basically the opposite of 3.5's tier system, where power was a consideration but sheer versatility and ability to respond to a variety of challenges was the main attribute measured.

Ranking classes abstractly is useless if you want to know what they're good at; ranking classes by role denies those classes that do a decent job of hybridizing the respect their versatility deserves. I'm sure there's some metric that provides a fair and accurate perspective on all the classes, but for the life of me I can't think of how to pull it off.
If I had to do it, I'd make a "stat line" for each Build:
- Primary Role Rank
- Secondary Defender
- Secondary Striker
- Secondary Controller
- Secondary Leader

Each category would have a letter rank in it (with a X for Primary/Secondary overlap):

A - Best Primary / Seconary Role on par with Primary Role
B - Good Primary / Strong Secondary
C - Fair Primary / Average Secondary
D - Poor Primary / Weak Secondary
E - Not a Secondary Role

It's a broad system with a lot of overlaps but it'll probably be helpful. It should identify classes that are the best of their primary (e.g. TWF Ranger = Primary A) while giving some idea as to which Secondaries a given Build is useful for.

Plus, each "Role Call" (patent pending!) entry would be compact... although the list would be very long.

Evard
2010-07-26, 05:20 PM
That's what I thought.

Specially now that they have pacifist healer

Pacifist Cleric was sooo much fun to play ... I played one as a player and one as a DM (against the party) and it was sooo much fun messing with them without dealing much damage at all...

Best power ever (that i think got nerfed) Targets do NO damage till they make a saving throw (add in some fun stuff and they take a hit to saving throws...) mwuhahahaha

true_shinken
2010-07-26, 05:28 PM
A tier system for 4e is useless.
The reason for a 3.5 tier system is that high tiers dominate the game and you useless.
This won't happen in 4e, unless you cheese some of the cheese the patches erratas have already adresses.