Tier list, classes balance and tips.

[Marcloure]

I'm coming back to 4th edition after some years, and I would like to know what the community figured out about balance and worth or not classes. Is there some tier list, like there is for 3.X? Also some general tips, like Essensials subclasses aren't good, just facilitates the game for beginners. What are the best classes within a role? Maybe the strongest races as well.
I used to think that 4th edition is pretty much balanced, and even the worst class isn't far behind the rest. Is that true? Well, I would like any tips about these kind of things.

Thanks.

[MwaO]

There really isn't a tier list per say. Some classes are easier than others and to a large extent, the problem is classes that by default are on the bad side.

The really bad ones are the Essentials classes that both lack a correct scaling feature & don't have encounter attack powers. They're generally solid in Heroic, but fall off a cliff in Paragon and there's no real way of fixing them - basically because they have 1 encounter power instead of 4 and their primary attack option isn't a multi-attack power of any kind. But that's still fixable via multi-classing/paragon path choice.

Cavalier as an example. It doesn't matter how bad Cavalier is - he can still MC into Fighter with Battle Awareness and take Shock Trooper. And then likely be stronger than average in a typical game. Simply because he can open combat with a triple-attack on a single target and the typical PC cannot. And then get an interrupt MBA to daze a target trying to shift away from it.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm coming back to 4th edition after some years, and I would like to know what the community figured out about balance and worth or not classes. Is there some tier list, like there is for 3.X?
Indeed there is. Last time we discussed it, most people agreed with the following list,

S: Fighter, Ranger, Warlord, Wizard
A: Artificer, Barbarian, Bard, Elementalist, Invoker, Paladin, Rogue, Swordmage, Warlock
B: Ardent, Avenger, Battlemind, Berserker, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Psion, Runepriest, Scout, Shaman, Skald, Slayer, Sorcerer, Thief, Warden
C: Assassin, Blackguard, Executioner, Hexblade, Hunter, Knight, Protector, Seeker
F: Binder, Bladesinger, Cavalier, Sentinel, Vampire

Note that (1) class power is unrelated to how "fun" a class is; indeed the ranger is one of the most powerful classes, but frequently considered boring; (2) player skill makes a big difference; and (3) difference between tiers is only marginal at low levels.

But yes, by the time you hit level 10 or so, the difference between a strong and a weak character is big enough that (in combat) the weak character might as well not be at the table for all the difference he makes.

[Marcloure]

Indeed there is. Last time we discussed it, most people agreed with the following list,

S: Fighter, Ranger, Warlord, Wizard
A: Artificer, Barbarian, Bard, Elementalist, Invoker, Paladin, Rogue, Swordmage, Warlock
B: Ardent, Avenger, Battlemind, Berserker, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Psion, Runepriest, Scout, Shaman, Skald, Slayer, Sorcerer, Thief, Warden
C: Assassin, Blackguard, Executioner, Hexblade, Hunter, Knight, Protector, Seeker
F: Binder, Bladesinger, Cavalier, Sentinel, Vampire

Note that (1) class power is unrelated to how "fun" a class is; indeed the ranger is one of the most powerful classes, but frequently considered boring; (2) player skill makes a big difference; and (3) difference between tiers is only marginal at low levels.

But yes, by the time you hit level 10 or so, the difference between a strong and a weak character is big enough that (in combat) the weak character might as well not be at the table for all the difference he makes.


I was looking for something like that, but I didn't know that the difference scales to such a point where a class becomes meaningless. And as I expected, Essential subclasses are indeed weaker.

[darkbard]

I would question the Warlock an the A list and the Sorcerer on the B list (flip these), but otherwise that seems fairly reasonable, though, of course, there is wild variability in individual builds, interactions with race, etc.

[Kurald Galain]

I would question the Warlock an the A list and the Sorcerer on the B list (flip these), but otherwise that seems fairly reasonable, though, of course, there is wild variability in individual builds, interactions with race, etc.

I agree that a sorcerer who's either a chain breather or heavily into recycling Flame Spiral will rank higher than that, yes.

[tiornys]

Would it be safe to say that a poorly built* top-rank class would perform worse than a highly tuned bottom rank class?

*: not anti-optimizing by dumping key stats or anything, but more like a "highly casual" build.

[Kurald Galain]

Would it be safe to say that a poorly built* top-rank class would perform worse than a highly tuned bottom rank class?

Worse than lowest rank? I think that's a bit of an overstatement. But worse than two ranks lower? Sure, I can see that happening.

It also depends on what class we're talking about. Strikers (other than the warlock) tend to be easiest to build (and/or hardest to unintentionally screw up). Controllers tend to be the hardest to build and play well. Indeed, in the first year of 4E, a lot of people thought that wizards were a weak class, simply because they hadn't seen a well-played wizard yet.

[NomGarret]

A lot of that is a factor of just how many more options some classes got than others. Fighters had the most powers by the end of the run, and they were built on a structure where they could easily use most of them regardless of build. They weren't gated behind V-class stat requirements like Paladin or Warlock. Now, this does give a wider range where your "highly casual" player will make some picks that look better on the surface than they do in practice, which could drop them a couple spots.

The lowest tier classes, on the other hand, invariably have the fewest options. Vampire wasn't even worded in such a way as to allow new powers in the future.

[Eldariel]

Indeed, in the first year of 4E, a lot of people thought that wizards were a weak class, simply because they hadn't seen a well-played wizard yet.

Amusingly, this seems to be a recurring trend in all of D&D. Be it Basic, AD&D, 3.X or 4E, new players seem to vastly underestimate the power of the class and read its relative physical fragility as a fatal flaw (though granted, that's far less pronounced in 4E than before), while it tends to inevitably rank near the top for experienced players. But it's basically always been a very low floor very high ceiling class.

[MwaO]

I agree that a sorcerer who's either a chain breather or heavily into recycling Flame Spiral will rank higher than that, yes.

A PHB-2 only Sorcerer who has a way to not provoke(Staff Expertise, but that's not until later in the edition) can easily do a 6 damage roll nova by 11th with 2 encounter powers with no setup. This is simply recognizing that Flame Spiral is the only multi-damage roll power at level 3 and then recognizing that there's only one paragon path(Demonskin Adept) that has a multi-damage roll power at 11th. Which happens to offer 3 chances at sliding a target next to you so as to deliver Flame Spiral's triple damage roll.

When someone who has no idea what they're doing can one-shot a standard at 11th with only PHB-options...If you're in a game where this isn't problematic, we're not talking about an average game. And again, we're talking about just using PHB 2 options and recognizing that those are the only two multi-damage roll attacks available by default at levels 3 & 11.


I was looking for something like that, but I didn't know that the difference scales to such a point where a class becomes meaningless. And as I expected, Essential subclasses are indeed weaker.

It doesn't. A highly optimized PC who has encounter powers with levels will outdo a PC who has roughly the same build, but doesn't pick the great powers/paragon paths available.

i.e. a highly optimized Vampire or Binder can outdo an optimized Ranger for roughly the same reasons that a Sorcerer is a top-tier striker - it will take a merely optimized Ranger 2 rounds to get to 6 damage rolls and the highly optimized Vampire or Binder a mere 1. They MC Sorcerer, use Novice Power for Flame Spiral, and take the Demonskin Adept Paragon Path. They don't get the free +42 or so damage that Sorcerer gets, but 6 damage rolls is 6 damage rolls and there are some straightforward ways to optimize around a nova turn. When you're doing say +24 per damage roll, it adds up fast(+3 implement, +3 shard, +3 item bonus, +3 feat bonus, +2 dual implement feat, +10 vulnerability from Sarifal Feywarden)

This doesn't of course mean that a highly optimized Ranger won't be stronger than a highly optimized Vampire as an example, but they could probably still sit at the same table given Vampire ought to have a very strong MBA and at a highly optimized table, the MBA granting leader will be able to take advantage of that.

Here's how I'd do that list - first off, eliminate S and F. There are a few A+ classes, but nothing's an S or an F simply because Paragon Paths exist and no A+ class has both the best set of powers and a top-5 paragon path. Bard can start to do that once it hits 16th via a range of poaching the best powers from Sorcerer, Wizard & Swordmage with Resourceful Magician, but that's usually late game - and if the Bard goes there at that point, the campaign likely ends.

The C- classes are really the ones without leveled encounter attack powers and only have access to a single attack as an at-will, where the damage doesn't quite go up fast enough &/or bad support.

A+: Bard, Fighter, Invoker, Sorcerer, Warlord, Wizard
A: Artificer, Barbarian, Berserker, Monk, Paladin, Psion, Ranger, Swordmage
B: Ardent, Avenger, Battlemind, Cleric, Druid, Elementalist, Protector, Rogue, Runepriest, Scout, Seeker, Shaman, Skald, Slayer, Thief, Warden, Warlock
C: Assassin, Binder, Hexblade, Hunter, Knight, Sentinel, Vampire
C-: Blackguard, Bladesinger, Cavalier, Executioner

[Kurald Galain]

i.e. a highly optimized Vampire or Binder can outdo an optimized Ranger for roughly the same reasons that a Sorcerer is a top-tier striker - it will take a merely optimized Ranger 2 rounds to get to 6 damage rolls and the highly optimized Vampire or Binder a mere 1. They MC Sorcerer, use Novice Power for Flame Spiral, and take the Demonskin Adept Paragon Path.

Before you start using this as a baseline, it's worth noting that triggering Flame Spiral multiple times like this is a controversial reading of the rules and probably won't fly on most tables (except if they are into heavy optimization).

Aside from that, options that every class can take have no bearing on a comparison between classes.

[MwaO]

Before you start using this as a baseline, it's worth noting that triggering Flame Spiral multiple times like this is a controversial reading of the rules and probably won't fly on most tables (except if they are into heavy optimization).

How is this at all controversial other than it is really powerful?

You're explicitly told that an opponent can only take that additional damage once a turn. That only makes sense if they can take it more than once period. It is not extra damage, so it is a damage roll. You're damaging them on your turn because they moved adjacent and on their turn with it because they start next to you. And possibly on your friends' turns.


Aside from that, options that every class can take have no bearing on a comparison between classes.

Sure it does for two reasons:
Not every class benefits equally from the available top-tier paragon paths. That's part of the comparison between classes. Ranger looks powerful as an example, but the top tier paragon paths available via MC'ing function on Charisma & Intelligence. And it has no top-tier Paragon Paths. It has some strong ones, but granting your entire party +Int to hit for 3 targets when you're a Bladesinger or +3 to hit when you're a Vampire is in another league.

You're not just arguing for a comparison between classes - you're drawing conclusions about whether or not optimization can fix the disparity. It can. To the point where a highly optimized Vampire can sit at a table with other highly optimized PCs.

[tiornys]

Ok, then I'm going to parse the answer to my question as a "yes". Options that any class can poach were precisely what I had in mind for pulling the lower tier classes up within range of poorly optimized versions of the top tier classes.

[Kurald Galain]

How is this at all controversial other than it is really powerful?

Because you're assuming that your interpretation of the rules is the only possible interpretation, and this assumption is incorrect.

[darkbard]

I don't see that there's any controversy around the power as written: it's a (potential) triple tap: the initial hit, potentially a second damage instance if the target is moved into another square within the area of effect, and then the final hit at the start of the opponent's turn.

Now, what has been taken to be controversial in the past is whether each square of the burst area counts as an additional damage instance, but that is not what MwaO is advocating (I don't think). Since the power specifically calls out that the target can only take the additional damage instance once per turn, each additional square should not count as an additional damage instance.

[MwaO]

Because you're assuming that your interpretation of the rules is the only possible interpretation, and this assumption is incorrect.

What's the alternative interpretation?

[MwaO]

I don't see that there's any controversy around the power as written: it's a (potential) triple tap: the initial hit, potentially a second damage instance if the target is moved into another square within the area of effect, and then the final hit at the start of the opponent's turn.

Now, what has been taken to be controversial in the past is whether each square of the burst area counts as an additional damage instance, but that is not what MwaO is advocating (I don't think). Since the power specifically calls out that the target can only take the additional damage instance once per turn, each additional square should not count as an additional damage instance.

Nope, I'm just counting the attack itself, getting slid adjacent to the Sorcerer, and then the target starts their turn adjacent to the Sorcerer.

[darkbard]

Uh, do you mean yep? 'Cause that's what I assumed you meant. Or are you saying, "Nope, what darkbard said"? Any other readings wouldn't make sense.

[MwaO]

Uh, do you mean yep? 'Cause that's what I assumed you meant. Or are you saying, "Nope, what darkbard said"? Any other readings wouldn't make sense.

Yes, agree fully with what you said.

[Kurald Galain]

What's the alternative interpretation?

That the secondary damage of FS applies once per enemy, or once per enemy per turn (because it doesn't say "each time an enemy enters...").

[darkbard]

Yes, agree fully with what you said.

Ah, good. For a moment there, I was beginning to doubt myself.... :smallbiggrin:

[MwaO]

That the secondary damage of FS applies once per enemy, or once per enemy per turn (because it doesn't say "each time an enemy enters...").

:smallbiggrin:

Wall of Fire:
"Any creature that enters the wall or starts its turn there takes 3d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage (a creature can take this damage only once per turn)"

Cloudkill:
"Any creature that enters the zone or starts its turn there takes 10 + your Intelligence modifier poison damage (a creature can take this damage only once per turn)."

Blade Barrier:
"Any creature that enters the wall or starts its turn there takes 3d6 + Wisdom modifier damage, plus ongoing 5 damage (save ends). A creature can take this damage only once per turn."

There are about 100 other attack powers(I think) that have roughly the same language, but I think those 3 powers ought to demonstrate the problem. If Flame Spiral can only do one damage instance, so do those three. And those are all AD&D 'get out of the area of effect if you want to live' powers.

i.e. This is the 'I don't like X because X is too powerful. And I'd rather make an arbitrary ruling that blows holes in the rest of the game than simply ask you not to be too powerful.'

And even if that reading is still used by a particular DM...Still minimum 5 damage rolls which matches up well to Ranger nova damage until 17th level and you're still giving a +3 to all allies to hit. Because Demonsoul Bolts is still 3 attacks. And because the DM is making rulings like that one, you're probably guaranteed that they're making similar rulings for whoever else gets out of hand in terms of power level.

[darkbard]

you're probably guaranteed that they're making similar rulings for whoever else gets out of hand in terms of power level.

This raises a question for me, and one which my limited experience with Paragon and Epic tier play cannot provide a solid answer: Are many of the "top tier" builds CharOp has devised over the years truly overpowered for typical games? If one pulls back a bit (like, for example, not going full Firegoat with Flame Spiral/Demonsoul Bolts), doesn't take every optimal feat and item for stacking damage, etc., don't such builds provide solid contribution in a game that uses MM3 math for monsters without necessarily dominating play and making every encounter a cakewalk?

This is to say, while I can see where a Firegoat build or Gray Ioun Stone Marker, etc. can really blow up a lot of tables, is every sorcerer (or other striker: Warlock, Rogue, etc. who multilcass for such a route) overpowered? Or are they simply at the upper limits for regular play?

[Kurald Galain]

And because the DM is making rulings like that one, you're probably guaranteed that they're making similar rulings for whoever else gets out of hand in terms of power level.
As somebody recently wrote, "4e is a specific vs. general system. You need to be told you can use an option multiple times. If it is at all ambiguous(and the use of 'a melee basic attack' is at best that), then you can't."


This is to say, while I can see where a Firegoat build or Gray Ioun Stone Marker, etc. can really blow up a lot of tables, is every sorcerer (or other striker: Warlock, Rogue, etc. who multilcass for such a route) overpowered? Or are they simply at the upper limits for regular play?
The question is, how are you going to ensure that the lower-tier classes take one of the few paragon paths (like demonskin) that they need to actually function at higher levels, while simultaneously ensuring that the higher-tier classes don't take these.

[MwaO]

As somebody recently wrote, "4e is a specific vs. general system. You need to be told you can use an option multiple times. If it is at all ambiguous(and the use of 'a melee basic attack' is at best that), then you can't."

'Any' when used as a determinant refers to every instance. "Any time I stick my hand into a fire, I get burned."

There's your 'you can use an option multiple times.'

Ditto for once per turn. If you can only use something once, there's especially no need for 'per turn' language.

Throw in the context that there are a ton of powers that behave similarly and are iconic for doing damage every single turn you're stuck in X?

It really isn't at all ambiguous.

[MwaO]

This is to say, while I can see where a Firegoat build or Gray Ioun Stone Marker, etc. can really blow up a lot of tables, is every sorcerer (or other striker: Warlock, Rogue, etc. who multilcass for such a route) overpowered? Or are they simply at the upper limits for regular play?

Depends a lot of the build. Up the damage mods to optimized level, things get overpowered. Don't go that far, they don't.

As an example of the why - if my PC has +8 damage bonus at 11th, 6 damage rolls = +48 damage. If he has +24, that's +144.

That's a difference...