[4e] Class Tier System

[Danin]

Hello there playgrounders. At the moment, I am unaware of any cohesive list of 4e class rankings available and was wondering if the infinite wisdom of the giantitp forums could help make that a reality.

I am aware that 4e classes are much more balanced relative to one another and the differences are more subtle, but I've seen the difference between an avenger and a ranger first hand. So, is such a listing possible? Would it be a worthwhile pursuit? And just how many tiers would be appropriate? Discuss!

[Gralamin]

Yes and no - Strikers and Defenders, for instance, are very easy to "rank", but none are really in a separate tier. Evaluating how well a leader contributes, or a controller contributes is much harder. Similarly, comparing between roles is pretty hard.

[Mystic Muse]

There's not really much point. As far as I can tell, the point of the other tier system is to show the potential power levels of the classes as well as a guide for DMs so that they know which classes might just break their game on accident. Each 4e class can work well with one another so I see no reason for a tier system for the classes.

[tcrudisi]

Hello there playgrounders. At the moment, I am unaware of any cohesive list of 4e class rankings available and was wondering if the infinite wisdom of the giantitp forums could help make that a reality.

I am aware that 4e classes are much more balanced relative to one another and the differences are more subtle, but I've seen the difference between an avenger and a ranger first hand. So, is such a listing possible? Would it be a worthwhile pursuit? And just how many tiers would be appropriate? Discuss!

Just out of curiosity, when did you see that Avenger played? A few months back they got a huge power boost; they are certainly no longer a weak striker, although in all fairness, Ranger is still the top.

However, Ranger is sooooo boring to play (if you go the Twin Strike route), so I never see any in play any more.

[Danin]

I saw them played around 3 months ago after they got their improvements. It was actually a marauder ranger as they didn't want to simply do the boring twin strike rout.

Ironically, I was hoping this would be a useful tool for DMs. I routinely run my players though encounters that are, well, above the suggested difficulty for them to say the least. I ran into a problem while running a one shot with an artificer, (unoptimized) rogue and fighter as they lacked the oomph that my players usually pack. I was thinking more in terms of a tier system based on their ability to perform their primary function with a reasonably high degree of optimization. This would allow DMs a quick reference to see if the party before them is going to work well together or if a certain role will be lacking.

[tcrudisi]

That's the real problem with trying to rank: the level of optimization.

It doesn't really help to have a standard list, because an optimized "worst class" will be better than a good "best class".

And, I find that the classes don't matter nearly as much as the group dynamics. Some groups work well together, others don't. If you have 5 Rangers, they aren't going to do nearly as well as a group that was designed together, even if that group is unoptimized.

/edit I have seen, on this forum even, a basic one made up, divided by role. However, even at the best level of optimization you will have disagreements about which one is the best within roles.

[WitchSlayer]

I could see a rank system of the different styles of classes, aka striker defender etc. But even then the ranks would be fairly minor distinctions.

[senrath]

/edit I have seen, on this forum even, a basic one made up, divided by role. However, even at the best level of optimization you will have disagreements about which one is the best within roles.


The one already posted was just the results of a series of polls. Seriously, it was just a collection of peoples opinions and bias, with no real attempt being made at an objective ranking system.

[Akal Saris]

How is that any worse than the 3.5 one, which is based on the assumptions made by JaronK? I mean, JaronK's a smart guy and I agree with most of his assumptions, but it's not as if the 3.5 list is any more objective than one based off a series of informal polls.

[senrath]

Because at least he tried to do it objectively, rather than just asking a whole bunch of people "Hey, is this class any good?"

[Kurald Galain]

Here you go. This is based on the WOTC charop forums and is reasonably objective. Note that (1) the difference between "strong" and "weak" is less than in 3E, and (2) this says nothing about how "fun to play" a class is.

{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]

And the results of a site-wide poll on enworld, below.
The question asked is, do you consider this build the best choice for its primary role.
{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]