PDA

View Full Version : Class Tiers for 4th edition D&D



Kurald Galain
2010-10-13, 06:51 AM
Well. In the past, I have posted this table to show what (as far as I know) the various character building boards think of the respective power levels of the classes. Needless to say this should be taken with 1d6 grains of salt. Now, based on various polls on enworld, I can present the second "highly scientific (save ends)" table, which shows what percentage of people consider a class the best at their role. Enjoy!

Important notes
(1) The word "tier" has a common meaning (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterTiers) that is used here. The word has a highly specific meaning in a system for third edition outlined by JaronK; that meaning does not apply here.
(2) Tiers are a measure of potential. Obviously, such things as player skill, teamwork, luck of the dice, and DM intervention play a big factor in how much you'll live up to that potential. This also applies to tiers in e.g. Street Fighter or Magic the Gathering.
(3) Tiers can change over time. For instance, the paladin got a big boost in the Divine Power book, and the sorcerer got a big nerf in the errata. Again, this also applies to tiers everywhere else.
(4) Nobody is claiming that low-tier characters are not fun, or that they are useless. And this, too, applies to tiers everywhere else.
(5) Finally, certain classes may have to be split up into subclasses for accuracy. For instance, the Shielding Swordmage is generally considered better than the Ensnaring Swordmage.

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

{table]Buid|Rating
Wizard - Control |49.60%
Fighter - Guardian |36.03%
Warlord - Tactical |25.95%
Ranger - Two-blade |18.73%
Ranger - Archer |17.46%
Cleric - Devoted |15.45%
Warden - Earth |14.71%
Swordmage - Shielding |12.87%
Invoker - Wrathful |12.00%
Barbarian - Rageblood |11.97%
Bard - Valourous |8.75%
Artificer - Battlesmith |8.45%
Fighter - Battlerager |7.72%
Paladin - Protecting |7.72%
Psion - Telepath |7.60%
Bard - Cunning |7.29%
Wizard - Illusionist |7.20%
Rogue - Artful |7.18%
Sorcerer - Wild |7.04%
Shaman - Bear |7.00%
Invoker - Preserving |6.80%
Rogue - Brutal |6.76%
Cleric - Battle |6.71%
Avenger - Pursuing |6.06%
Fighter - Great Weapon |5.88%
Warlord - Inspiring |5.83%
Cleric - Shielding |4.66%
Sorcerer - Storm |4.65%
Wizard - War |4.40%
Druid - Guardian |4.40%
Sorcerer - Dragon |3.80%
Swordmage - Assault |3.68%
Druid - Predator |3.60%
Monk - Centered |3.24%
Fighter - Tempest |2.94%
Invoker - Malediction |2.80%
Avenger - Isolating |2.68%
Warlord - Resourceful |2.62%
Warlord - Bravura |2.62%
Paladin - Ardent |2.21%
Paladin - Virtuous |2.21%
Bard - Prescient |1.75%
Warlock - Dark |1.69%
Warlock - Infernal |1.69%
Wizard - Summoner |1.60%
Paladin - Avenging |1.47%
Swordmage - Ensaring |1.47%
Shaman - Panther |1.46%
Artificer - Tinkerer |1.46%
Warlock - Star |1.41%
Avenger - Commanding |1.41%
Warlock - Fey |1.27%
Warden - Wild |1.10%
Ranger - Beastmaster |0.85%
Rogue - Ruthless |0.70%
Barbarian - Thaneborn |0.56%
Sorcerer - Cosmic |0.56%
Warlock - Vestige |0.28%
[/table]

Emongnome777
2010-10-13, 07:19 AM
Interesting tables and I appreciate the effort. Most seem to line up with my perceptions (which means, well, nothing).

I'm a little surprised to see the cleric as a weak leader. Even with the recent nerfs, I thought their healing was top of the line. I'm curious to know your thoughts on why they are ranked there.

I've personally not gotten to play enough to gauge this list as accurate, even in a subjective way. And of course it should be noted that, while it may show the relative strengths of classes, how fun each of them is is entirely dependent on the player and this list should in no way discourage someone from playing a class (except the seeker :smallamused:).

Again, nice list and thanks for posting.

Coidzor
2010-10-13, 07:26 AM
Hmm.

Could have done with polling to allow a table per role for the percentages rather than it being a single table for all variants and classes and roles at once.

Though, that certainly is interesting as it is presented.

KillianHawkeye
2010-10-13, 07:31 AM
I'm a little surprised to see the cleric as a weak leader. Even with the recent nerfs, I thought their healing was top of the line. I'm curious to know your thoughts on why they are ranked there.

I guess there's more to being a Leader than healing?

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 07:32 AM
The 'tier system' in general is wasted on me, as I play what I want to play regardless of what 'tier' everyone else is. (I've never been one for crunching numbers to squeeze every point of damage out of a build, anyways. I just go with what 'feels right' for the character.)

But this does confirm my suspicions about Rangers and Wizards, and the Avenger was no surprise, either.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-13, 07:46 AM
I'm a little surprised to see the cleric as a weak leader.It's probably an overreaction based on the recent nerfs (which did hit the cleric and sorcerer pretty hard). I think it's fair to place cleric back in "average".

Tengu_temp
2010-10-13, 07:51 AM
"Buid", huh? Anyway, why are monks considered weak strikers? They have better damage potential than avengers or assassins, and are more reliable since they don't depend on enemies choosing to do something or stacking shrouds.


The 'tier system' in general is wasted on me, as I play what I want to play regardless of what 'tier' everyone else is.

Well, it's 4e, so the power difference between a strong class and a weak one is tiny anyway.

Thinker
2010-10-13, 08:15 AM
The 'tier system' in general is wasted on me, as I play what I want to play regardless of what 'tier' everyone else is. (I've never been one for crunching numbers to squeeze every point of damage out of a build, anyways. I just go with what 'feels right' for the character.)

But this does confirm my suspicions about Rangers and Wizards, and the Avenger was no surprise, either.

And you seem to completely miss the point of any tier system. You're not rebelling against any sort of system by playing what you want. No one is telling you to play anything. People rate things with similar levels of power for informative purposes, not to dictate anything. Taking a more powerful option, even while knowing it is more powerful or even because it is more powerful, isn't power gaming.

Holocron Coder
2010-10-13, 08:19 AM
Interesting stuff, though, I will note that some classes rocket from Weak to Strong depending on tier and paragon/epic destiny choice.

It's trivial to get an assassin who constantly deals his bonus 4d6+24 damage to one target for the encounter, and, upon dropping that target, is able to hit 4d6+24 per round again after applying all 4 shrouds to a new target.

Not that bad, though, IMO.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 08:25 AM
Well, it's 4e, so the power difference between a strong class and a weak one is tiny anyway.

Granted, but I was referencing the tier system for 3.x more than this one. The balace of power in 4e is much better than 3.x, IMO.

Kensen
2010-10-13, 08:26 AM
Now, based on various polls on enworld, I can present the second "highly scientific (save ends)" table, which shows what percentage of people consider a class the best at their role.


Emphasis mine. I'm curious as to whether only their primary roles were considered, or their overall usefulness? I'm no expert on 4e, far from it, but I've understood that many character classes have secondary roles. If we're talking about tiers in the 3.x sense, the overall usefulness should be gauged, not just their primary role.

Lord Raziere
2010-10-13, 08:28 AM
I hate tier systems, I don't see the point, especially in 4E, this is a new edition, where classes have been equalized and all are effective, why do we need something that is outdated? tier systems are for previous editions.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-13, 08:34 AM
Emphasis mine. I'm curious as to whether only their primary roles were considered, or their overall usefulness?
Their primary roles only.


where classes have been equalized and all are effective, why do we need something that is outdated?By definition, everything with multiple different options will have teirs, because some options or classes turn out in practice to be more equal than others.

Leolo
2010-10-13, 08:37 AM
Interesting stuff, though, I will note that some classes rocket from Weak to Strong depending on tier and paragon/epic destiny choice.

It's trivial to get an assassin who constantly deals his bonus 4d6+24 damage to one target for the encounter, and, upon dropping that target, is able to hit 4d6+24 per round again after applying all 4 shrouds to a new target.

Not that bad, though, IMO.

In fact such an assassin wouldn't be restricted to 4d6, and could easily do much more than this. But i think that nevertheless the judgment is ok - you have to bring more effort to optimize an assassin than other classes.

The Tier System was never a tool to show how a single character could compete with another character but to provide general guidelines.

Lord Raziere
2010-10-13, 09:01 AM
Their primary roles only.

By definition, everything with multiple different options will have teirs, because some options or classes turn out in practice to be more equal than others.

a tier system will only get in the way of fun as it makes people starting thinking "this is strongest and this the weakest", while its true, its not something anyone should focus on, I'm not objecting to whether it is true, I'm objecting to the fact of whether it is really needed. sure some are more equal than others, but its still equal and all the classes are effective at what they do, and if everyone is effective at their roles, does it really matter whether one is "more" equal?

there are no massive gaps worth pointing out, 3.5's tier system was put up because there was massive gap between broken, balanced and underpowered.
4E does not have those gaps, why should we even pay attention to this if the power difference is so small? its outdated I tell you, not because its not true, but because it isn't needed.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-13, 09:06 AM
Emphasis mine. I'm curious as to whether only their primary roles were considered, or their overall usefulness? I'm no expert on 4e, far from it, but I've understood that many character classes have secondary roles. If we're talking about tiers in the 3.x sense, the overall usefulness should be gauged, not just their primary role.

From my experience with 4e, well-rounded characters (as opposed to one-trick ponies built for one thing but doing it extremely well) work very good. Bear in mind, I don't mean a master of none who spreads himself too thin, focuses on too many ability scores and overall can't do anything right because of that - I mean characters who sacrifice a bit of their primary role to significantly increase their performance in other roles, for example a striker who trades some damage-dealing for much better defenses. You know, like monks - they don't have the DPR of rogues or rangers, but are much less fragile than them.

Mystic Muse
2010-10-13, 09:15 AM
What happened to Sorcerer's that nerfed them?

Sipex
2010-10-13, 09:33 AM
I agree with most of the sentiments implied by the table but under the condition that the seperation between Strong and Weak is a lot less drastic than it used to be (a weak character can still easily contribute to a party) and that this doesn't take into consideration of dual roles (ie: Those in the weak category are usually characters who work best playing two roles instead of one. Like Monk who is more of a Striker/Controller than a pure striker)

Kurald Galain
2010-10-13, 09:38 AM
What happened to Sorcerer's that nerfed them?
For starters, they can no longer use Enlarge Spell, Daggermaster, and the Frostcombo.

(edit) for another, an issue is that a wizard can actually match the sorcerer's damage output, while still having much better control on his powers.

Gametime
2010-10-13, 10:52 AM
a tier system will only get in the way of fun as it makes people starting thinking "this is strongest and this the weakest", while its true, its not something anyone should focus on, I'm not objecting to whether it is true, I'm objecting to the fact of whether it is really needed. sure some are more equal than others, but its still equal and all the classes are effective at what they do, and if everyone is effective at their roles, does it really matter whether one is "more" equal?



Does it matter? Maybe not. Does that mean no one should ever try to categorize the respective power levels of classes? I don't see why.

People who are attracted to the strongest available option will be attracted to the strongest available option whether or not they are aware of the tier system. What you are suggesting is achieving harmony in gaming by keeping such people ignorant of the actual power levels of each class, which is a dubious way to go about things.

If people really positively absolutely need to twink out their character, the tier system can help them do that. If people are curious about how effective different classes are, the tier system can tell them a rough approximation at a glance. For everyone else, it's not particularly useful, but it's not like it impedes anyone's gaming experience, either. If you don't like it, ignore it.

For that matter, if the balance in 4th is as good as you say, why should it matter if someone chooses the class they perceive to be the most powerful? They aren't going to break the game, so who cares if they chose it for power reasons?

Morph Bark
2010-10-13, 12:21 PM
The math on some of those percentages is a little off in totals.


Controller: 49.60 + 12.00 + 7.60 + 7.20 + 6.80 + 4.40 + 4.40 + 3.60 + 2.80 + 1.60 = 100.00
Defender: 36.03 + 14.71 + 12.87 + 7.72 + 7.72 + 5.88 + 3.68 + 2.94 + 2.21 + 2.21 + 1.47 + 1.47 + 1.10 = 100.01
Leader: 25.95 + 15.45 + 8.75 + 8.45 + 7.29 + 7.00 + 6.71 + 5.83 + 4.66 + 2.62 + 2.62 + 1.75 + 1.46 + 1.46
= 100.00
Striker: 18.73 + 17.46 +11.97 + 7.18 + 7.04 + 6.76 + 6.06 + 4.65 + 3.80 + 3.24 + 2.68 + 1.69 + 1.69 + 1.41 + 1.41 + 1.27 + 0.85 + 0.70 + 0.56 + 0.56 + 0.28 = 99.69



...what? I was bored.

And just meaning to be informative, just like the Tier system.

dsmiles
2010-10-13, 12:22 PM
The math on some of those percentages is a little off in totals.


MATH!


...what? I was bored.

I can see that. :smalltongue:

Elfin
2010-10-26, 08:33 PM
I'm not normally that into 4e, but I'm interested to know what people think of the new Essentials builds, power-wise.
In particular, how do you think the new builds compare with the same class's old builds?

Kurald Galain
2010-10-27, 04:35 AM
I'm not normally that into 4e, but I'm interested to know what people think of the new Essentials builds, power-wise.
In particular, how do you think the new builds compare with the same class's old builds?

Good question. I think they rank as follows:


Knight: does more damage by default than the fighter, but less versatile and not as sticky. Average tier.
Slayer: strong tier, especially if a warlord is in the party. Note that it's a striker, not a defender.
Thief: average tier due to lack of minor action or out-of-turn attacks, and being very vulnerable to daze/prone.
Warpriest: not very different from regular cleric, so still average tier.
Mage: doesn't differ much from regular wizard, so still strong tier. Its class features are slightly weaker than the wizard's if you like ritual casting, slightly stronger if you don't.
Assassin: much stronger than its 4.0 counterpart, strong tier

Grogmir
2010-10-27, 04:54 AM
a tier system will only get in the way of fun as it makes people starting thinking "this is strongest and this the weakest", while its true, its not something anyone should focus on, I'm not objecting to whether it is true, I'm objecting to the fact of whether it is really needed. sure some are more equal than others, but its still equal and all the classes are effective at what they do, and if everyone is effective at their roles, does it really matter whether one is "more" equal?

there are no massive gaps worth pointing out, 3.5's tier system was put up because there was massive gap between broken, balanced and underpowered.
4E does not have those gaps, why should we even pay attention to this if the power difference is so small? its outdated I tell you, not because its not true, but because it isn't needed.

QTF.

Reject the insidious nature of 3.5 - reject the 'character' builder game and start role playing again!


They aren't going to break the game, so who cares if they chose it for power reasons?

'Cause I want people to be interested in the character they create - not the power gap they can create between themselves and the others in the group.
No powergaming doesn't stop rollplaying - but it is indicative of a certain frame of mind.

Reis Tahlen
2010-10-27, 05:38 AM
Class tiers, or "We don't play fun, we play efficient".

The more I read these forums, the more I wonder if it's more a "video game" forum than "role playing" one.

Lev
2010-10-27, 05:42 AM
Class tiers, or "We don't play fun, we play efficient".

The more I read these forums, the more I wonder if it's more a "video game" forum than "role playing" one.
100% valid opinion of these forums.
My guess is 9/10 are opt.//minmax


That being said, I really enjoyed playing barbarian, squish squish squish!

Kurald Galain
2010-10-27, 06:06 AM
The forum doesn't create tiers. The system creates tiers. By definition, every rules-heavy system does. If you don't like the fact that a system has tiers, you can easily pretend they aren't there, or use a system that doesn't have them; but it doesn't help to tell the people here to "stop making tiers" because they aren't doing that. If you don't want a strong focus on mechanical character building, then why are you playing a system with a strong focus on mechanical character building?

Of course nobody is saying that tiers are all-important; they aren't in 3E either. But it is a valid and common question whether class X is stronger than class Y.

Hal
2010-10-27, 06:50 AM
It's probably an overreaction based on the recent nerfs (which did hit the cleric and sorcerer pretty hard). I think it's fair to place cleric back in "average".

Meh. I've played both a cleric and a warlord, and I really think they're just designed for different sub-roles, with clerics being the better healers but warlords being the better buffers.

I can understand some of the perception, though. Battle Clerics never really impressed me with their powers, and TacLords seem to be the ones with the greatest potential (thanks to their armor enchantment . . . unless that got changed when I wasn't looking).

Sir Swindle89
2010-10-27, 07:14 AM
From waht i read on forums i was pretty sure people thought Warlock was the worst striker in the game. But their votes say otherwise.

I also generally found them to be pretty bad strikers but they have enough control to make up for it.

tcrudisi
2010-10-27, 07:25 AM
Wooo boy, do I disagree with some of these rankings.

Avenger is still considered weak? I think they missed out on a Dragon article which places the Avenger solidly in the "Average" category.

Archer Ranger had 17% of the votes? Okay, I agree it's the second strongest (to the melee ranger), but that's what shocks me: it only lost by 1%. The melee ranger is clearly a higher DPR than the archer ranger, so I just don't know how the archer ranger got many votes. I mean -- it's accurate, I'm just wondering how.

Kurald and I disagree about the Sorc. Yeah, it got hit hard by the nerfs, but it's still a solid striker. Obviously, it's still in the average range. But I disagree about the Wizard being a better striker. Can the Wizard almost match a Sorc? Yeah, but he's giving up all his control to do it. This is a more appropriate thread for it; if this thread is still active in a week, I'll post some example builds at various levels demonstrating that the Sorc still trumps the Wizard for overall DPR.

MightyTim
2010-10-27, 07:39 AM
Having been a DM with a group of players who frequently change their mind and can't stick to a single campaign in 4e, I really think the difference between the tiers is pretty small. I've rarely had a player feel insignificant consistently. The only thing I could say for sure is that yes, the ranger and the barbarian can deal ridiculous amounts of damage.

I guess the good thing about D&D, as opposed to a video game is that if you find a PC isn't having much of an impact on a battle on a regular basis, the DM has literally endless possibilities to to buff their character in the way of magic items, tinkered house rules, and encounter specifics. Cleric not doing much damage? Undead creatures suck against radiant damage. Avenger feeling not so formidable? A neat magic item can change that pretty quickly.

Not to mention the possibility of including non-combat details that suit the character (If your rogue is feeling insignificant, you probably aren't using enough traps).

Kurald Galain
2010-10-27, 07:39 AM
The melee ranger is clearly a higher DPR than the archer ranger, so I just don't know how the archer ranger got many votes.
Perhaps it's the ability to target whatever he likes whenever he likes, and to stay out of melee most of the time.


But I disagree about the Wizard being a better striker. Can the Wizard almost match a Sorc? Yeah, but he's giving up all his control to do it.
I'd be interested in seeing your comparison. I believe that Enlarge Spell is a big factor all by itself (adding one more target is a big boost to your DPR) and that there are enough powers that offer both good damage and good control, such as Orbmaster's Incendiary and Stinking Cloud.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 07:41 AM
Having been a DM with a group of players who frequently change their mind and can't stick to a single campaign in 4e, I really think the difference between the tiers is pretty small. I've rarely had a player feel insignificant consistently. The only thing I could say for sure is that yes, the ranger and the barbarian can deal ridiculous amounts of damage.

This was mentioned earlier, either here, or in another '4e Tiers' thread. The power differential between tiers in 4e is minimal, as compared to 3.x. It's one of the reasons I like 4e so much.

Lev
2010-10-27, 07:43 AM
The forum doesn't create tiers. The system creates tiers.
But your honor, it's impossible for me to have killed her-- guns kill people, people don't kill people!

You just created a tier list, LOADS of people minmax on these forums. Nuffin to argue.

Surrealistik
2010-10-27, 07:54 AM
Kind of surprising; on the WotC official forums, Char Op places the Invoker almost neck and neck with the Wizard, while Psion basically never gets mention as being a competitor with the class (I agree that the telepath Psion is at least upper-mid tier though); personally I'm inclined to give their ratings the most weight when it comes to formulating tiers.


Mage: doesn't differ much from regular wizard, so still strong tier. Its class features are slightly weaker than the wizard's if you like ritual casting, slightly stronger if you don't.

No Orb of Imposition is some pretty epic fail. Save locking is what makes the Wizard in large part such a power house, and this allows you to do so quite well, especially with things like Sleep where the target can't afford to fail even one save. Of course there's also the Orb of Heightened Imposition, which makes the feature even more indispensable. While the Mage school specializations are nice (particularly the Enchantment apprentice feature), there's nothing I'd really give up OoI for.

RebelRogue
2010-10-27, 07:55 AM
But your honor, it's impossible for me to have killed her-- guns kill people, people don't kill people!

You just created a tier list, LOADS of people minmax on these forums. Nuffin to argue.
I agreee. Nature has spatial and temporal dimensions, but it takes a human to define a meter and a second as units of measurement.

Still, this is sort of interesting.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-27, 08:10 AM
The power differential between tiers in 4e is minimal, as compared to 3.x.
True, but note that D&D forums tend to severely overstate the differential between tiers in 3E.


You just created a tier list, LOADS of people minmax on these forums. Nuffin to argue.
Are you claiming that people didn't minmax before I posted that tier list? Because if not, then I really don't see why you're attacking me.

Morph Bark
2010-10-27, 08:28 AM
Are you claiming that people didn't minmax before I posted that tier list? Because if not, then I really don't see why you're attacking me.

I think that what he is getting at is that perceptions of the class mechanics and thus how people see the tiers in 4E are largely subjective, rather than objective (which you admit by going by percentages of people who think it is "the best at their role"; adding to that is that you haven't explained how exactly you got at those numbers in the first place).

As was said earlier: other forums have other tier lists for 4E. It is by and large definitely not as generally agreed on as the 3.5 tier list JaronK created.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-27, 08:33 AM
As was said earlier: other forums have other tier lists for 4E.
Please post a few examples for comparison, then. I'd be interested in seeing the similarities and differences.


It is by and large definitely not as generally agreed on as the 3.5 tier list JaronK created.
Not yet - but that is because 3E has been out for several years longer than 4E has. There is nothing about 4E that makes its tiers inherently more subjective than in 3E.

Talyn
2010-10-27, 09:11 AM
Regarding the new HotFL classes:
Thief and Slayer are average unless you have a warlord in the party - in which case they become high-Strong. Seriously, a Tactical or Resourceful warlord turns Thieves and Slayers into highly-accurate, high-damaging, and (for Slayers) hard-to-kill machines of death.

As for the other discussion - relative power levels, as per "tiers," varies dramatically with player skill. I've DM'd games where the Wizard was basically useless and the Avenger was saving the day left and right, simply because the players behind them had such widely varying levels of tactical skill.

Reverent-One
2010-10-27, 10:35 AM
Not yet - but that is because 3E has been out for several years longer than 4E has. There is nothing about 4E that makes its tiers inherently more subjective than in 3E.

Actually, the fact that any gap is power in 4e classes is far smaller than the gap between classes in 3.5 does make it harder to judge. Seeing the difference between classes on seperate 3.5 tiers is easier than seeing the difference between 3.5 classes on the same tier, which is about the scale the 4e classes are on. On top of that, you're not even using the same sort of criteria JaronK used for his tier system, so saying that because it works for 3.5 it should work for 4e just doesn't make sense because "it" is not the same.

Surrealistik
2010-10-27, 11:21 AM
One thing that I see, but cannot for the life of me figure out is the idea that the Monk is a low tier striker. In some respects I can understand; his single target damage isn't that great compared to most other strikers, but that aside, he's pretty much good at everything aside from leading: he can easily have the best defenses in the game, he can control (especially Centred Breath), and he can do some serious multitarget damage. Besides that, he also has an awesome skill selection including such heavyweights as Acrobatics, Athletics, Thievery and Perception. In an overall sense it is a very powerful class.

tcrudisi
2010-10-27, 11:32 AM
Kind of surprising; on the WotC official forums, Char Op places the Invoker almost neck and neck with the Wizard, while Psion basically never gets mention as being a competitor with the class (I agree that the telepath Psion is at least upper-mid tier though); personally I'm inclined to give their ratings the most weight when it comes to formulating tiers.


No Orb of Imposition is some pretty epic fail. Save locking is what makes the Wizard in large part such a power house...

True. There is a big difference between character optimization and party optimization. Considering a very typical party optimization (Radiant Mafia) utilizes the Invoker, I'd say that speaks volumes. Of course, that's only one build, but let's face it -- few parties are better than the Radiant Mafia.

I'm not as big on the Orb of Imposition since it got "le nerf bat". Yeah, it's still very powerful, but at least now it's not game-destroying. I'd say what makes the Wizard such a powerhouse is the dailies: with the properly Wizard daily power, the encounter is won.


One thing that I see, but cannot for the life of me figure out is the idea that the Monk is a low tier striker. In some respects I can understand; his single target damage isn't that great compared to most other strikers, but that aside, he's pretty much good at everything aside from leading: he can easily have the best defenses in the game, he can control (especially Centred Breath), and he can do some serious multitarget damage. Besides that, he also has an awesome skill selection including such heavyweights as Acrobatics, Athletics, Thievery and Perception. In an overall sense it is a very powerful class.

You answered your own question: when it comes to Striking it is not a great class. Since it is a Striker, it should be judged first and foremost on it's ability to do damage. The Avenger also brings those qualities to the table but it's considered low-tier on that chart. Really, they are just being judged on their primary roles, an area where the Monk falls a bit short.

It would be a lot harder to try and judge classes by an "overall" rating.

Surrealistik
2010-10-27, 11:55 AM
I'm not as big on the Orb of Imposition since it got "le nerf bat". Yeah, it's still very powerful, but at least now it's not game-destroying. I'd say what makes the Wizard such a powerhouse is the dailies: with the properly Wizard daily power, the encounter is won.

It's still markedly more powerful than any of the Mage features, particularly in conjunction with the (save ends) dailies and Orb of Heightened Imposition.



You answered your own question: when it comes to Striking it is not a great class. Since it is a Striker, it should be judged first and foremost on it's ability to do damage. The Avenger also brings those qualities to the table but it's considered low-tier on that chart. Really, they are just being judged on their primary roles, an area where the Monk falls a bit short.

It would be a lot harder to try and judge classes by an "overall" rating.

The thing is he still does multi-target DPR quite well, despite his single target being mediocre, in addition to his overall power. At least mid-tier when judged purely as a striker. Overall he's upper mid to top.

Reverent-One
2010-10-27, 12:28 PM
You answered your own question: when it comes to Striking it is not a great class. Since it is a Striker, it should be judged first and foremost on it's ability to do damage. The Avenger also brings those qualities to the table but it's considered low-tier on that chart. Really, they are just being judged on their primary roles, an area where the Monk falls a bit short.

It would be a lot harder to try and judge classes by an "overall" rating.

The thing is, if the we judge the classes soley on how they fill their primary role, the information is misleading, if not useless, in practice, since their actual use to the party could be far greater (or maybe lower).

kestrel404
2010-10-27, 12:31 PM
Wow. I haven't played 4th since it first came out, but this is highly amusing. Looking at your tables, I can't help but be ticked by the fact that, once again, Core (the first 3 books) is significantly more unbalanced than non-core.

Lev
2010-10-27, 12:31 PM
Are you claiming that people didn't minmax before I posted that tier list? Because if not, then I really don't see why you're attacking me.
Was preempted defense of his point, then you responded. Loaded gun debate.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 12:45 PM
Wow. I haven't played 4th since it first came out, but this is highly amusing. Looking at your tables, I can't help but be ticked by the fact that, once again, Core (the first 3 books) is significantly more unbalanced than non-core.

I don't really think that there is enough disparity in power levels between 4e 'tiers' to say that there is a 'significant unbalance.' Nowhere near as much as 3.5, at any rate. The difference in power between an optimized tier 1 and an optimized tier 5 is tremendous, the difference between an optmized 'high' tier and an optimized 'low' tier, while not negligible, is small.

Meta
2010-10-27, 01:22 PM
Wow. I haven't played 4th since it first came out, but this is highly amusing. Looking at your tables, I can't help but be ticked by the fact that, once again, Core (the first 3 books) is significantly more unbalanced than non-core.

The classes in core have been out the longest so they have had the opportunity to receive more support than other classes. The bard, avenger, warden, druid, invoker, and sorcerer are all solid classes but they trail behind just a bit as they came out a little later.

It's a very small power gap as I've played both an avenger and a druid and had huge (sometimes the largest) impacts on our encounters despite playing alongside 'stronger' classes.

Another thing to notice is that generally the easier to play classes are listed higher than more difficult ones. Poor vestige warlock

EDIT: Amusingly enough, I played a one shot with a Seeker|Avenger (weak|weak) and would argue that I had one of if the not the strongest character on the table

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 01:40 PM
Well, it's 4e, so the power difference between a strong class and a weak one is tiny anyway.

If 10 is average, 3.5 classes would range between 5 and 50 in overall effectiveness.

In 4e, it's closer to a range of 8 to 12. Yeah, the difference is still there, but it's just not as important. The removal of the 3.5 multiclassing rules also got rid of some of the combinatorial issues.


The classes in core have been out the longest so they have had the opportunity to receive more support than other classes. The bard, avenger, warden, druid, invoker, and sorcerer are all solid classes but they trail behind just a bit as they came out a little later.

Exactly. As an example, there are fighter abilities in core that are *in every way* made obsolete by later powers. Brute Strike, specifically, is a 3W+str daily... and since then there are powers that are 3W+str+mark til end of combat. More extra abilities = more good.

Doug Lampert
2010-10-27, 02:09 PM
Actually, the fact that any gap is power in 4e classes is far smaller than the gap between classes in 3.5 does make it harder to judge. Seeing the difference between classes on seperate 3.5 tiers is easier than seeing the difference between 3.5 classes on the same tier, which is about the scale the 4e classes are on. On top of that, you're not even using the same sort of criteria JaronK used for his tier system, so saying that because it works for 3.5 it should work for 4e just doesn't make sense because "it" is not the same.

Right: look at Jaron's definitions (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0), the tier system isn't as much about raw power as about how many things you are competent at and what you can do.

Paraphrasing:
Tier 1 is competent at everything and can break the game.
Tier 2 is competent at something and can break the game.
Tier 3 is competent at something and can contribute the rest of the time.
Tier 4 is competent at something but can't even contribute meaningfully the rest of the time.
Tier 5 is competent at nothing, but can contribute meaningfuly some of the time.
Tier 6 is competent at nothing, and can't even contribute meaninfully.

Fourth edition has a bunch of classes that are ALL tier 3. Trying to put them into separate tiers is like trying to break tier 3 into separate subtiers.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-27, 02:33 PM
Right: look at Jaron's definitions (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0), the tier system isn't as much about raw power as about how many things you are competent at and what you can do.
But tiers weren't invented for D&D, and aren't unique for D&D. JaronK's list is a highly specific tier system that only applies to third edition Dungeons and Dragons. That doesn't mean that everything else in the world (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterTiers) can't have tiers: indeed, the term exists outside D&D, and has a much simpler meaning there than it does in JaronK's list.

For instance, Marvel vs Capcom has tiers (Magneto is top-tier, Dan Hibiki is not). Magic the Gathering has tiers (Black Lotus is top-tier, Gray Ogre is not). And likewise, 4E has tiers (Ranger is top-tier, Assassin is not). That doesn't mean that Magneto, the Lotus, or the Ranger are "competent at everything" or that they "break the game", it simply means that they can be meaningfully compared to other characters/cards/classes, and are very powerful in this comparison.

Susano-wo
2010-10-27, 02:40 PM
The idea of a tier list in 4E seems to be kind of silly for several reasons.

1st, there is the consensus that 4E is much more balanced, and even a weaker class still functions, next to the stronger class.

2nd, classes can be vastly different when comparing different paths. Take CHA Barb VS CON Barb. Waaay, diffferent. And Cha barb seems weaker, unless you have another main melee-er. BUt maybe not. Still, they are pretty different, and might produce different result, so should be considered differently.

3rd, Party play is even more explicit, necessary, and designed for in 4E. 2 or 3 strikers in a 4 char party, for instance is a lot different than 1 of each role. Also, depending on how knee deep in corpses your strikerts like to wade, you might need more or less healing, and more or less other leader 'buffs,' etc.

4th, things are still going strong, with new options for classes aded all the time right now

5th, since power can be tied so heavily into powers, its quite easy to give a class *quite* a boost just by adding in a new at will, or a couple new encounters/dailies

also, as doug points out, Tiers are about everall capabilities, and the spread is too close in 4E to really create 'Tiers.'

The tier system in 3.5 is useful precisely because of the large power gap in 3.5 classes, as well as classes who are supposed to do x,y,or z, but don't. A tool in case you notice power differences, and wonder why, and a tool for making sure that people don't have to walk on eggshells to not make thier tier 1 or 2 godlike, or to know that they will probably have a hard time contributing to the party, mechanics wise if they are using a class that is lower.

That being said, I am interested to see what the consensus on the biards is about 4E classes, as far as who is stronger, and who is weaker. (also, is there a place for honorable mentions? from my admitedly limited experience, it seems like Artificers are agood 5th char, but aren't a substitute for a 'proper' leader. Has this been consistent with all y'all?)

Kurald Galain
2010-10-27, 03:02 PM
1st, there is the consensus that 4E is much more balanced, and even a weaker class still functions, next to the stronger class.
And so? Street Fighter and Magic are balanced games, yet they have tiers.


2nd, classes can be vastly different when comparing different paths.
All right, so it should be done by subclass, instead of by class (for some classes, at least; for others it doesn't matter).


3rd, Party play is even more explicit, necessary, and designed for in 4E.
It goes without saying that player skill (and party skill) is more important than tiers: if you play a $1000 Magic deck with all of the Power Nine best cards, and you don't know what you're doing, then you'll lose.


4th, things are still going strong, with new options for classes aded all the time right now
That only means that tiers can change over time. For instance, 3E's tiers may change if you add Pathfinder material. It turns out that most of them don't, though.


5th, since power can be tied so heavily into powers, its quite easy to give a class *quite* a boost just by adding in a new at will, or a couple new encounters/dailies
That's part of player skill. If you build a Magic deck with three expensive cards and sixty crap ones, you'll lose. If you play Street Fighter but never use your best moves, you'll lose.


also, as doug points out, Tiers are about everall capabilities, and the spread is too close in 4E to really create 'Tiers.'
No, "JaronK tiers" don't apply. Tiers in general, as the word is normally understood outside of 3E D&D, apply as much as everywhere else.

Simply put, the word "tier" doesn't mean that they're set in stone forever, or that player skill is irrelevant, or that a higher tier always wins; the word never meant that in the first place, and it doesn't mean it here, either. You are quite correct that those statements are incorrect - but those are not statements that I've ever made in this post.

Reis Tahlen
2010-10-27, 04:13 PM
I would like to apologize to Kurald Galain; I think my reply initated a debate which was not the goal of his thread.

I would like to point out that I am absolutely not criticizing him directly, and no one should - after all, it's a forum, and everybody has the right to express themselves.

My real critic goes to the overall forum, which bear little difference with the MMORPGs forums I also read: character templates, leveling strategies, combat options... . Sad thing for a true RPG on table.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 04:17 PM
And so? Street Fighter and Magic are balanced games, yet they have tiers.


You're confusing different definitions of the word "balanced."

Street Fighter is "balanced" in the sense that there are no "god" moves that are automatic-win buttons, and no single strategy that is an auto-win.

However, the characters are *not* balanced, which is pretty much exactly what the tier system represents. Give equal players, the assumption is that (apart from specific character matchup issues) that a player with a Tier 1 character will defeat a player with a Tier 2 player, most of the time.

When people say that 4e is balanced, they mean specifically that the classes are close enough in power that, all things being equal, any class can be relatively effective. That's a very different definition from the Street Fighter definition.

Susano-wo
2010-10-27, 08:55 PM
And so? Street Fighter and Magic are balanced games, yet they have tiers.


All right, so it should be done by subclass, instead of by class (for some classes, at least; for others it doesn't matter).


It goes without saying that player skill (and party skill) is more important than tiers: if you play a $1000 Magic deck with all of the Power Nine best cards, and you don't know what you're doing, then you'll lose.


That only means that tiers can change over time. For instance, 3E's tiers may change if you add Pathfinder material. It turns out that most of them don't, though.


That's part of player skill. If you build a Magic deck with three expensive cards and sixty crap ones, you'll lose. If you play Street Fighter but never use your best moves, you'll lose.


No, "JaronK tiers" don't apply. Tiers in general, as the word is normally understood outside of 3E D&D, apply as much as everywhere else.

Simply put, the word "tier" doesn't mean that they're set in stone forever, or that player skill is irrelevant, or that a higher tier always wins; the word never meant that in the first place, and it doesn't mean it here, either. You are quite correct that those statements are incorrect - but those are not statements that I've ever made in this post.

I feel like you are being pretty defensive. But I think that silly was poor wording on my part. How about we change that to unecessary/untennable?

Now, on with the points against the points against the points! :smallcool:

I'm trying to say that the power level is not great enough to create teirs. Tiers implies levels of power, not just that some are more powerful than others. 500watts is more powerful than 550watts, but its not necessarily in another 'tier'

I'm glad that we agree that 'subclass' seems like a more reasonable discussion. :smalltongue:

I'm not talking about skill influencing how poweful the class is, I'm talking about party composition changing the usefullness of a class entirely. Aside from making it hard for my Con Barb to get bloody and use my abilities that rely on it, I'm really glad to have our heal-tarded Cleric. He helps me stay standing when I rush to go toe to toe with the most powerful foe in sight :smallannoyed:
If I were a bit more cautious, or playing a build that promoted more caution, the Cleric might not be as useful as, say, a warlord (or whatever). The particular party dynamic is such that it makes evaluation of a class very hard(I think practically impossible), even when just focusing on its role.

Perhaps I was unclear on my 5th point. I meant that added abilities and class features in new suppliments can easily (much more easily than, say adding some spells) change the entire power level of a class, so it becomes so dynamic and flcuxuating as to not provide an accurate tool. TO put in another way, by the time the playtesting to figure out where a class stands has been done, there are probably new suppliments that invalidate those results (or could, at least)

Finally, Tiers are always about overall capability. the 3.5 tiers are based on ability to handle different encounters, etc. Doug used that Tier system to give what I thought was a good example of how the power levels seems to not be enough to warrant whole tiers (whereas they are in 3.x)

IN any case, I don't think its bad to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of classes and builds, evn if there isn't enough for classing out al lthe classes, though I do think what hte (sub) classes are good at, and the way they do what they are supposed to do, etc, is more productive than making 4e tiers. But hey, its your party, have a ball :P

Skorj
2010-10-27, 09:41 PM
My real critic goes to the overall forum, which bear little difference with the MMORPGs forums I also read: character templates, leveling strategies, combat options... . Sad thing for a true RPG on table.

I've never understood that viewpoint. D&D in all its editions is a combat-centric RPG. Real-life people in real-life combat-centric roles think a lot about optimization. Heck, that's probably even more true in sport, where you can afford to take more risk. A team coach or manager in just about any sport spends much of his professional time optimizing group builds. The phrase "first rate" cames from a real life tier system. It's quite natural and in character for someone "heroic" to try to be the best he can at whatever his does.

Few people on this forum set out to build a character simply for the sake of being as powerful as possible, except to find entertainment in that excercise itself (no one actually plays Pun-Pun). What I see quite commonly is starting with an interesting character concept, and then exploring different ways to realize that character concept. It's quite important in 3.5 (fortunately less so in 4.x) to build your character with an eye on the tiers, as there are many ways to e.g. realize the fluff of a warrior monk, but some of them are mechanically broken.

Caphi
2010-10-27, 09:47 PM
I've never understood that viewpoint. D&D in all its editions is a combat-centric RPG. Real-life people in real-life combat-centric roles think a lot about optimization. Heck, that's probably even more true in sport, where you can afford to take more risk. A team coach or manager in just about any sport spends much of his professional time optimizing group builds. The phrase "first rate" cames from a real life tier system. It's quite natural and in character for someone "heroic" to try to be the best he can at whatever his does.

Few people on this forum set out to build a character simply for the sake of being as powerful as possible, except to find entertainment in that excercise itself (no one actually plays Pun-Pun). What I see quite commonly is starting with an interesting character concept, and then exploring different ways to realize that character concept. It's quite important in 3.5 (fortunately less so in 4.x) to build your character with an eye on the tiers, as there are many ways to e.g. realize the fluff of a warrior monk, but some of them are mechanically broken.

People also seek less to "optimize" their roleplay. With a few exceptions ("My party hates me", "help me write quirks for this character"), for better or for worse, people roleplay how they want and no one gets hurt (again, with a few notable exceptions). Character effectiveness is much more concrete, and generally speaking, it takes less for a problem with it (usually a blatant power difference) to come to the notice of the player or his buddies.

tcrudisi
2010-10-27, 10:01 PM
...except to find entertainment in that excercise itself (no one actually plays Pun-Pun).

Yes, they do. I started playing in a new game and the guy was literally building towards the level 13 (or was it 11 or 12? I don't remember) version of Pun-Pun. I saw that and immediately left the game after warning the DM.

So yes, people DO play those characters. A lot of people? No, but there are some who do.

Tavar
2010-10-27, 10:08 PM
Let's rephrase that. Those who contribute to theoretical exercises don't intend to use them. It's just some math done for fun, something some people enjoy. Those that use their works in actual games are misusing the exercise, and really just being annoying.

Chambers
2010-10-27, 10:12 PM
QTF.

Reject the insidious nature of 3.5 - reject the 'character' builder game and start role playing again!



'Cause I want people to be interested in the character they create - not the power gap they can create between themselves and the others in the group.
No powergaming doesn't stop rollplaying - but it is indicative of a certain frame of mind.


Class tiers, or "We don't play fun, we play efficient".

The more I read these forums, the more I wonder if it's more a "video game" forum than "role playing" one.


I would like to apologize to Kurald Galain; I think my reply initated a debate which was not the goal of his thread.

I would like to point out that I am absolutely not criticizing him directly, and no one should - after all, it's a forum, and everybody has the right to express themselves.

My real critic goes to the overall forum, which bear little difference with the MMORPGs forums I also read: character templates, leveling strategies, combat options... . Sad thing for a true RPG on table.

I find these posts to be more than mildly insulting, both personally and to the community here. I enjoy both roleplaying and powergaming, but neither to the detriment of the enjoyment of the game. Don't tell me that the way I play the game is wrong because you don't like the way I play it.

Skorj
2010-10-28, 02:30 PM
Let's rephrase that. Those who contribute to theoretical exercises don't intend to use them. It's just some math done for fun, something some people enjoy. Those that use their works in actual games are misusing the exercise, and really just being annoying.

I'd just like to divert the somewhat hostile tone this thread is starting to take by saying how cool it is to have a forum where people understand that. For that matter, a forum where the phrase "math done for fun" is used is a cool place to be. :smallcool:

I have to say I'm impressed with the 4E class balance - from what I see here, the classes that people rate as lowest for their primary roles are actually that way because they cross roles. Nice.

Grynning
2010-10-28, 02:43 PM
4th ed. does require some skill at optimization in order to be fun once combat starts; if your character isn't pitching in like they should be, it IS noticeable and will make the game less enjoyable.

I think the "tiers" are a useful tool to let someone know what they're getting into when they pick a class, especially given how much 4th ed. limits you once you've set a build and class. People should know that if they pick an Avenger, they'll need to be using much stronger optimization than if they'd picked, say, a Ranger.

In response to some of those who disagree with the philosophy of optimization to facilitate fun role-playing:

http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/vv78/Sinsei55/HatersGonnaHatePanda.jpg

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-11-14, 03:08 AM
Monks may not be all that strong, but I can confirm that a Half-Orc Stone Fist Monk is OUTRAGEOUSLY fun to play. Had one in a game I was running, and god the player loved it -- and so did everyone else! Downed a kobold with the attack part of Crane's Wings and jumped RIGHT OVER THE HALFLING CLERIC at level 1 (thanks to the Crane's Wings boost, of course). Monks may not be the best strikers, but when you can have a Half-Orc leaping around like a goddamn spider monkey or something, you really don't care.

Psyren
2010-11-14, 12:09 PM
I hate tier systems, I don't see the point, especially in 4E, this is a new edition, where classes have been equalized and all are effective, why do we need something that is outdated? tier systems are for previous editions.

With all due respect, what are you doing in a class tier thread if you hate class tiers? :smallconfused:

Play what you want and ignore us number-crunchers in the corner here.

Tiki Snakes
2010-11-14, 12:45 PM
With all due respect, what are you doing in a class tier thread if you hate class tiers? :smallconfused:

Play what you want and ignore us number-crunchers in the corner here.

Because he has a valid opinion on class tiers?



I think it would be interesting, actually, to see an attempt to measure the 4e classes by something closer to the actual 3.5 tiers, where the primary thing being measured is actually the versatility of the character, rather than just the power, or how well it fills any one roll as such. Again, it would be pretty hard to differentiate, given the flexibility built in from the ground up, but interesting non-the-less.

Psyren
2010-11-14, 12:53 PM
Because he has a valid opinion on class tiers?

No, he doesn't. His entire post is an attempt to make us stop having fun in our own way, and he isn't the only person doing that in this thread.

"Stop making tiers!" is not a valid opinion, because we're not the ones making them.

Chambers summed up the offenders more eloquently than I can bring myself to anyway.

Tiki Snakes
2010-11-14, 01:01 PM
No, he doesn't. His entire post is an attempt to make us stop having fun in our own way, and he isn't the only person doing that in this thread.

"Stop making tiers!" is not a valid opinion, because we're not the ones making them.

Chambers summed up the offenders more eloquently than I can bring myself to anyway.

So, "Tier systems are not actually useful, and especially so for 4th edition given the widely acknowledged lack of significant difference in competancy between classes." is an invalid opinion?

Good to know.

Psyren
2010-11-14, 01:09 PM
So, "Tier systems are not actually useful, and especially so for 4th edition given the widely acknowledged lack of significant difference in competancy between classes." is an invalid opinion?

Good to know.

Don't put words in my mouth.

There is a difference between "tier systems are less useful in 4th edition" and "tier systems ruin roleplay OMG!!1!1" I have an issue with the latter, not the former.

Tiki Snakes
2010-11-14, 01:15 PM
Well, given that I just re-worded the post you quoted, I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from, then?

Psyren
2010-11-14, 01:20 PM
Well, given that I just re-worded the post you quoted, I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from, then?


I hate tier systems, I don't see the point

Transmission fuzzy, please try again

Kurald Galain
2010-11-14, 01:26 PM
I think it would be interesting, actually, to see an attempt to measure the 4e classes by something closer to the actual 3.5 tiers, where the primary thing being measured is actually the versatility of the character,

That would be interesting.

Some criteria that come to mind are (1) how bothered are you by status conditions; (2) can you handle flying, invisible, or insubstantial enemies; (3) do you get teleportation powers; (4) do you get out-of-combat powers; and (5) do you get a lot of skills.

Off the top of my head, the wizard scores very highly (especially with Tome of Readiness). The rogue is average to good. The fighter scores pretty low, and most 4.4 classes are also pretty low.

Susano-wo
2010-11-14, 01:46 PM
@psyren um, the post you are annoyed at is literally a month+1 old...maybe the time has passed>.>

@ the thread, does anyone have some data on the different Barbarian paths? I tried CHA barb, since it seemed focused on getting in there and throwing down, and that's what I wanted to do, but in the end, the stats weren't good for it, and I found CON barb ended up being better.

Is the CON barb more powerful than the CHA barb, and if not, how is a CHA barb best used?

(from looking at the powers, it looks like the CHA barbarian is best for being a mobile striker if you already have a heavy hitter type)

Tiki Snakes
2010-11-14, 02:00 PM
Transmission fuzzy, please try again

"I hate tier systems, I don't see the point"

ie -

"He dislikes Tier Systems in General, He believes they are Pointless"

OR

"Tier Systems are not actually useful." :smallsmile:

Surrealistik
2010-11-14, 02:10 PM
Monks may not be all that strong, but I can confirm that a Half-Orc Stone Fist Monk is OUTRAGEOUSLY fun to play. Had one in a game I was running, and god the player loved it -- and so did everyone else! Downed a kobold with the attack part of Crane's Wings and jumped RIGHT OVER THE HALFLING CLERIC at level 1 (thanks to the Crane's Wings boost, of course). Monks may not be the best strikers, but when you can have a Half-Orc leaping around like a goddamn spider monkey or something, you really don't care.

Besides being fun to play, Monks are all-round a solid class, but they are definitely not the best of strikers in terms of single-target damage, though their multi-targeting does help make up for that somewhat.

Psyren
2010-11-14, 02:19 PM
"I hate tier systems, I don't see the point"
ie -
"He dislikes Tier Systems in General, He believes they are Pointless"
OR
"Tier Systems are not actually useful." :smallsmile:

You see no difference between "I hate X!" and "X is not actually useful?" :smallconfused:

It's like posting in a 4e thread to say you hate 4e. Or posting in a metal thread to say you hate metal. Clearly the thread is not meant for you. There are many others to post in; that was my point.

EDIT: thanks for pointing that out Susano, I didn't have anything else to add anyway.