(4E) Is there a tier system for 4E?

[TroubleBrewing]

Is there a tier system for the classes in 4E? I mean, it would be sort of pointless, given the fact that all the classes are pretty much the same... Still, it would be helpful to have a reference. The only reason I ask is that I'm starting a 4E game with my local group, and I'd like to know the basic power levels of the characters involved before I get too heavily into it.

As of right now, only 1 of the players has his character made up, and he's playing a human monk. I almost laughed when I heard the he wanted to play a monk, mainly because I've been playing 3.5 for my entire gaming career, but when I actually sat down and looked at the class, I was a bit shocked. I havent got anything bad to say about the class. Thoughts on this?

[WitchSlayer]

There's a thread down there somewhere with the class tiers, but, for example, Wizards and Psions are much better controllers than, say, Seekers

[vasharanpaladin]

All classes are equal. Except for Assassins, which can't do a bloody thing. :smallannoyed:

[Fuzzie Fuzz]

Not really. Like you said, the classes are too similar in power to make it worthwhile or meaningful. Some are slightly better than others, but none are as b0rkenly good as a 3.5 Druid or as weak as a Monk. If you don't try to make an unplayable character, they'll all be pretty decent.

[erikun]

Is there a tier system for the classes in 4E?
Not really, no.

If you think about it, there isn't really much sense in the tier system for 4e. The 3.5e tiers were a determination at how well a class excelled at their speciality along with how well they could adapt and cover other roles. In 4e, anyone with the appropriate skill training and the Ritual Caster feat can do whatever is required, regarless of if they are a Fighter or Wizard. The difference isn't in the class, but how you build the characters.

As for the classes, the Fighter is generally considered the best defender for locking an opponent down. The Barbarian generally does the most damage out of the strikers. The Warlord is generally the best leader for giving bonuses, and the Wizard is generally the best controller for AoE lockdown.

I'm not fully up to date on the PHB3/4.4e changes, so I could certainly be missing some options. Note that "best at X" does not mean the best in general. I've had several Paladins which aren't as good as the Fighter at keeping opponents in one spot, but they can generally heal well enough that it doesn't matter as much. And while the Warlock doesn't deal as much damage as the other strikers, the controller-y aspects are very useful on the class.

[Mando Knight]

Yes, there are class tiers. However, as of now they're a good deal more nebulous than 3.5's tiers, and focused almost exclusively on the class's primary role. Comparing a Paladin to a Ranger, for example, is like comparing apples to frag grenades.

The difference in tier levels is also a lot less noticeable than in 3.5. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids can't out-perform everyone else in everything just by waking up with the right spells; and Assassins, Avengers, and Seekers (4e's lower-tier Strikers and Controller) can perform their jobs well enough that the team isn't better off without them.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Is there a tier system for the classes in 4E? I mean, it would be sort of pointless, given the fact that all the classes are pretty much the same... Still, it would be helpful to have a reference. The only reason I ask is that I'm starting a 4E game with my local group, and I'd like to know the basic power levels of the characters involved before I get too heavily into it.

As of right now, only 1 of the players has his character made up, and he's playing a human monk. I almost laughed when I heard the he wanted to play a monk, mainly because I've been playing 3.5 for my entire gaming career, but when I actually sat down and looked at the class, I was a bit shocked. I havent got anything bad to say about the class. Thoughts on this?One thing to note is that "tiers" have existed far before 3.5, and JaronK's 3.5 tier list really only applies to 3.5. Most tier systems, including 4e tier systems, judge marginal differences, but because 3.5 is so wonky (I loves it) tiers measure qualitative differences in conceptual power. So if you want a tier list in the vein of JaronK, they're all Tier 4. Some will say they're all Tier 3, but the point is they're all in one JaronK tier.

Anyway, to answer your question, I believe there is at least one tier list. It's separated for each role (meaning a more hybridized class gets the shaft in the rankings), there isn't yet the same consensus as there is in 3.5, and new material/errata shifts the power balance one way or another.

Aaaaand, I found it http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171777

[Katana_Geldar]

It's more roles than tiers, and they're a rather good indication of party mark up.

There's strikers: Rangers, Rogues, Assassins, Sorcerers. They DO damage

There's defenders: Fighters, Paladins, Swordmagi and Wardens. They TAKE damage.

There's controllers: Wizards, Druids and Invokers. They coordinate the battle field in a good way against the enemies, kill a lot of the minions and generally give the DM a head ache.

Then there's leaders: Bards, Clerics, Warlords. They heal, buff and coordinate the battle field for the players.

Though this is just generally speaking. Some of the classes are better than others at what they do. Clerics are still your heal bot, with Bards and Warlords needing back up if you're going to healing with them. Invokers aren't really that good, to be honest.

You don't need to have all four of the roles to have a balanced party, but it is a rather good idea when you get to higher levels as 4E relies a lot on party cooperation and different specialities. You do however need a leader, or the party is going to take a pounding.

Leaders can be the toughest to play, as a lot of them hardly ever attack. Particularly clerics, they just stand in the back, hal buff and drag their allies out of harms way.

[khylis]

Meh, 4th Edition is much too focused on balance for there to be a significant tier difference between the classes. However, more powerful synergy builds still exist if you're building a party and not a single character.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Is there a tier system for the classes in 4E? I mean, it would be sort of pointless, given the fact that all the classes are pretty much the same... Still, it would be helpful to have a reference. The only reason I ask is that I'm starting a 4E game with my local group, and I'd like to know the basic power levels of the characters involved before I get too heavily into it.

As of right now, only 1 of the players has his character made up, and he's playing a human monk. I almost laughed when I heard the he wanted to play a monk, mainly because I've been playing 3.5 for my entire gaming career, but when I actually sat down and looked at the class, I was a bit shocked. I havent got anything bad to say about the class. Thoughts on this?
Don't worry about power levels or tiers.

The classes are by-and-large within a standard deviation of each other (with current Errata - get a DDI license for your group). If you're worried about Optimization Shenanigans just ban Dragon Magazine stuff (and Essentials) and you'll be fine.

You're not going to have to worry about Tier I arms-races and the like; just set up a story and design encounters around the guidelines presented in the DMG.

[Tengu_temp]

Your individual build matters much more than your class in 4e. For example, if you decide to be a generalist and start with as many 14s as possible (a valid strategy for some classes in 3.5), you will find yourself lacking in comparison to people focusing on stats that are actually important for their classes.

Unless you're playing a seeker. Seekers suck.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Your individual build matters much more than your class in 4e. For example, if you decide to be a generalist and start with as many 14s as possible (a valid strategy for some classes in 3.5), you will find yourself lacking in comparison to people focusing on stats that are actually important for their classes.

Unless you're playing a seeker. Seekers suck.
Heh.

Also, Hybrids are a trap. For first-time players, just ban them outright; anyone trying to build a character from scratch will do them wrong.

[Dimers]

Seekers suck.

I was thinking the same until I noticed the Reliable dominating effect that can be used as an RBA at 19th level. I also like the 13th-level encounter power than can force an enemy caster to charge your tank or striker, probably taking extra damage in the process. The class features aren't much to write home about, but there's a hidden 'feature': they're using weapons (+2 or +3 for proficiency) mostly against NADs, so they hit a little more often per attack than other controllers.

I'm not saying I'd take one over a wizard, mind you. :smallsmile: But personally, I'd rather have a seeker in the party than a druid.

@OP: Yeah, it's possible to have some meaningful 'tier' structure for 4E. JaronK's 3.0/3.5 criteria don't apply, though; excepting the bard and the classes that get freebie rituals, they're all about the same level of flexibility, and all have close to the same amount of brokenness available to them (after errata are out), and all meaningful answers ask the question "what else is in your party?" rather than looking solely at the single character.

[John_D]

Heh.

Also, Hybrids are a trap. For first-time players, just ban them outright; anyone trying to build a character from scratch will do them wrong.

Yeah, the biggest risk is spreading yourself too thinly. But by and large most new players can jump straight in and come up with something good - there are far fewer "trap" options than in previous editions.

[Tengu_temp]

I was thinking the same until I noticed the Reliable dominating effect that can be used as an RBA at 19th level. I also like the 13th-level encounter power than can force an enemy caster to charge your tank or striker, probably taking extra damage in the process. The class features aren't much to write home about, but there's a hidden 'feature': they're using weapons (+2 or +3 for proficiency) mostly against NADs, so they hit a little more often per attack than other controllers.

So they have some redeeming values? That's good. I still don't like the class, because the concept is way too specific and underrepresented in general fantasy at the same time - it's not common enough to make a whole class out of it. I'd forgive that if the concept was awesome enough, but it's not.



Also, Hybrids are a trap. For first-time players, just ban them outright; anyone trying to build a character from scratch will do them wrong.

Agreed. Unless they come up with something really simple, like cleric/fighter. But even making a seemingly natural hybrid concept such as wizard/fighter or wizard/rogue will end in a catastrophe when handled by a newbie.

If a player wants to play a hybrid because he wants to have more options, be more versatile, point out to him that normal characters have just as many options available in actual play. They just pick their powers from a single list, not two of them.

[kyoryu]

Yeah, the biggest risk is spreading yourself too thinly. But by and large most new players can jump straight in and come up with something good - there are far fewer "trap" options than in previous editions.

Also, it's harder to "trap" yourself by going with a straight-ahead build. You kind of have to go off into the weeds before you get on the Useless Express.

[tcrudisi]

The Barbarian generally Ranger with Twin Strike always does the most damage out of the strikers.

Fixed that for ya.


The Barbarian generally always does the most damage got screwed the hardest out of the strikers with the fairly recent errata to free action attacks.

Fixed that for ya again.

[Reverent-One]

If a player wants to play a hybrid because he wants to have more options, be more versatile, point out to him that normal characters have just as many options available in actual play. They just pick their powers from a single list, not two of them.

Which means that a hybrid character has more options than a non-hybrid. Granted, I agree that new characters shouldn't be messing with hybrids to begin with, since instead of just worrying about your prime stat, you have have to worry about prime stat + weapon/implements + armor.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Which means that a hybrid character has more options than a non-hybrid. Granted, I agree that new characters shouldn't be messing with hybrids to begin with, since instead of just worrying about your prime stat, you have have to worry about prime stat + weapon/implements + armor.
The real problem is that Hybrids don't have "more options" in the same sense as 3.x Multiclassing gives them. Rather than just stacking on abilities on top of abilities, the Hybrid actually sacrifices Class Features while still having the same number of powers per level as everyone else. This, in particular, makes Hybrids perfect traps for people coming from a 3.x mindset.

Also, for the OP: some Encounter Building Tips
(1) Start with LV+1 Encounters as your "One Encounter Per Day" Standard
LV+1 Encounters aren't going to cause a TPK (if constructed according to the DMG guidelines) and works as a good measure. If your PCs can steamroll a LV+1, start inching up until you find a good challenge threshold. Design all of your other Encounters from that baseline.

(2) Minions are worth 1/6 XP at best; use liberally
Minions are a great way to help introduce everyone to how 4E Combat works, and really help to fill out Encounters. Against a non-optimized party, count Minions as 1/6 XP apiece when calculating them as part of an Encounter budget. As your Players get better, you can start using them as seasoning - use a dash of them to spice up an Encounter, but don't bother counting them as part of the budget.

N/B. Ranged & Exploding Minions should be used sparringly.

(3) Brutes are easier than they look; Soldiers are harder
Brutes are not worth as much as their XP suggests; Soldiers are actually worth more. Use Soldiers sparringly - they make great "brute bosses" but can wreck a party if used in great numbers.

(4) Hold off on Elites & Solos until you get a handle on the system.
Elites are tough enough that they can either turn a tough Encounter into a trainwreck or an easy Encounter into a boring slogfest. They work best as "mini-bosses" - the sort of elite henchmen who coordinate things for the BBEG.

Solos are even trickier. Try not to send them alone (i.e. tack on minions or brutes) and make sure you use ones that can act twice per Initiative Pass (i.e. at Turn 20 and Turn 10 every round) or otherwise shrug off some debuffs every turn. A moderately competent party can lock down a Solo hard otherwise.
I look forward to hearing what the OP has to say about our advice thus far :smallsmile:

[Reverent-One]

The real problem is that Hybrids don't have "more options" in the same sense as 3.x Multiclassing gives them. Rather than just stacking on abilities on top of abilities, the Hybrid actually sacrifices Class Features while still having the same number of powers per level as everyone else. This, in particular, makes Hybrids perfect traps for people coming from a 3.x mindset.

If you're using a 3.X mindset in 4e, you're going to run into a lot more problems than just hybrids.

[Tengu_temp]

Which means that a hybrid character has more options than a non-hybrid.

During character building, yes. But in the actual play? They have the same amount of powers, less class abilities, and almost always less trained skills.

[Reverent-One]

During character building, yes. But in the actual play? They have the same amount of powers, less class abilities, and almost always less trained skills.

The more options during character building is the important part though, because not only do you have more choices, there's a lot more variety between the choices than if you were just restricted to one class's list of powers.

[Oracle_Hunter]

If you're using a 3.X mindset in 4e, you're going to run into a lot more problems than just hybrids.
Which is rather the point of this thread, would't you say? :smalltongue:

[Reverent-One]

Which is rather the point of this thread, would't you say? :smalltongue:

Yep, which means since we're pointing out the differences, we should be telling the OP that, while not being a good choice for just beginning players, hybrids aren't the trap he may think they are after looking at them. :smalltongue:

[Oracle_Hunter]

Yep, which means since we're pointing out the differences, we should be telling the OP that, while not being a good choice for just beginning players, hybrids aren't the trap he may think they are after looking at them. :smalltongue:
Like I said before - Hybrids are either broken or overpowered; they don't fit within the 4E paradigm at all. Yeah, you can probably make a not-overpowered build but you run into the same sort of self-nerfing issues that playing a Cleric or Druid in 3.5 had.

Seriously, I can make a 2nd Level Hybrid with effective perma-invisibility (the Shadowthief - a Warlock/Rogue); that is not a good mechanic :smallyuk:

In any case, it seems more trouble than it's worth. That said, some people seem to enjoy Hybrids - more power to you, but a troublesome and confusing sentiment to throw out in a thread for 3.5 to 4E players.

[TroubleBrewing]

I look forward to hearing what the OP has to say about our advice thus far

Well, here I go.


Also, for the OP: some Encounter Building Tips

These were EXTREMELY helpful. Thank you, Oracle.

All of this talk about hybrid classes has been unnecessary, but good to know for the future. The only player who has read PHB3 is the monk, and he's not using a hybrid.

Getting out of my 3.5 mindset is going to be difficult, and it won't be made easier by my optimization habits either. It's good to know that there aren't any classes that are really going to ruin my day (3.5 wizards, clerics, druids, etc.) or make players feel useless (3.5 monks, samurai, fighters, etc.).

Also, I've been looking through all of my books for this "Assassin" class, and I can't find it anywhere. Which book/supplement is it from?

[mikeejimbo]

Huh, this is strange. Everyone in this thread is saying things that I haven't found to be true in our games, like "Assassins and Avengers are lower-tier" and "Hybrids suck". We've had a few Avengers with Censure of Unity just tear into one enemy, since they all get bonus damage for allies next to the enemy. Our Avengers rarely miss and do respectable damage. Likewise, we have an Assassin pulling his weight (although a running gag is that the rest of the party doesn't know it, because they don't know he exists due to his insane Stealth). I myself am playing a hybrid Cleric/Avenger and am the only healer, yet still doing just fine in that respect.

[hamishspence]

Also, I've been looking through all of my books for this "Assassin" class, and I can't find it anywhere. Which book/supplement is it from?

it's currently online-only- Dragon Magazine, requires a subscription to get.

There will be a Heroes of Shadow book next year- but I'm not sure if the online assassin will be in it- maybe only an "assassin-type" class variant for an existing class, that works very differently from the online one.

[Reverent-One]

Like I said before - Hybrids are either broken or overpowered; they don't fit within the 4E paradigm at all. Yeah, you can probably make a not-overpowered build but you run into the same sort of self-nerfing issues that playing a Cleric or Druid in 3.5 had.

I disagree, while broken and overpowered builds can exist, it's also reasonably possible to remain in the standard 4e power level as well, I've made three so far (two of which also multiclassed!) and though I didn't get to play any of them for as long as I would have liked, they all seemed to be similar to a single class build.


Seriously, I can make a 2nd Level Hybrid with effective perma-invisibility (the Shadowthief - a Warlock/Rogue); that is not a good mechanic :smallyuk:

And you can still find some overpowered builds in standard 4e classes as well, ask Kurald, he's got a list.


In any case, it seems more trouble than it's worth. That said, some people seem to enjoy Hybrids - more power to you, but a troublesome and confusing sentiment to throw out in a thread for 3.5 to 4E players.

I was responding to a specific point about hybrids that someone else made and that I still believe to be false, to prevent the OP from misunderstanding them. That's all.


Also, I've been looking through all of my books for this "Assassin" class, and I can't find it anywhere. Which book/supplement is it from?

They're only in the Dragon Magazine, which you have to be a D&D insider to get.

EDIT: Aww, ninja'd on the actual advice.

[Oracle_Hunter]

And you can still find some overpowered builds in standard 4e classes as well, ask Kurald, he's got a list.
If he's got one that offers Paragon-level abilities at LV 2 I'll listen :smalltongue:

Still, glad to help out the OP.

BTW - what kind of "optimization habits" are you worried about? Most of the optimization you can do in 4E is straightforward enough - treat all classes as Tier III class and optimize accordingly :smallsmile:

[tcrudisi]

Everyone in this thread is saying things that I haven't found to be true in our games, like "Assassins and Avengers are lower-tier" and "Hybrids suck".

Of course there are other factors to consider. Yes, when optimized, the Avenger can truly soar. But without that level of optimization, it just won't hold it's own to a Ranger, Barbarian, Sorcerer, Rogue *insert darn near every striker class except Assassin*. Okay okay - I'm slightly joking. Avengers got a huge boost with a recent (okay, several months old at this point) Dragon article. They are now "mid-tier" as far as strikers are concerned.

Assassins? Well, they are one of the funnest classes to play. This makes them the exact opposite of the Ranger. The Ranger? Most boring class but highest damaging. The Assassin? Most fun class but lowest damage.

The problem with the Assassin is it's damage mechanic. It takes turns to put shrouds on the bad guys so the Assassin has to wait to get in his alpha strike. The strikers role is to do damage quickly to get monsters out of the fight. It fails to do this as quickly as the other strikers. Basically, it's better to do 100 damage in round 1 and 0 in round 2 than it is to do 0 damage in round 1 and 150 damage in round 2.


We've had a few Avengers with Censure of Unity just tear into one enemy, since they all get bonus damage for allies next to the enemy. Our Avengers rarely miss and do respectable damage. Likewise, we have an Assassin pulling his weight (although a running gag is that the rest of the party doesn't know it, because they don't know he exists due to his insane Stealth). I myself am playing a hybrid Cleric/Avenger and am the only healer, yet still doing just fine in that respect.

Awesome! Well, the point is that everyone is having fun. I think what you guys are seeing is that everyone's characters are a little bit below average in terms of raw power, so it looks balanced. (Which is fine - 4e doesn't require everyone to be optimized).

And I'll second (third? fourth?) the opinion that hybrids are not for beginners. It's really hard to make something that couldn't be done better and with less resources used as a single class. Of course, if you do know what you're doing, it's a great way to open up more options.

[Felhammer]

Basic rule: Seekers, Runepriests and Assassins are generally weaker than most other classes because the former two just do not have the variety of powers other classes have and the latter one is just kind of weird and also lacks a ton of support.