Class power at different levels [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Saph

2007-10-21, 05:10 PM

Your groupings look reasonable at first glance. General rule is:

Levels 1-4: Fighter classes dominate over casters.
Levels 5-10: Fighter and caster classes are reasonably balanced.
Levels 11-14: Caster classes dominate over fighters.
Level 15+: Casters become hideously overpowered and almost unbeatable.

This is one of the reasons the majority of people play D&D around levels 5-10.

Remember that prepared caster classes get a power jump every odd-numbered level: a level 5 wizard/cleric/druid is much more powerful than a level 4 one.

Figuring out where skillmonkey classes fit in in this is much harder, because their primary contribution, out-of-combat skill use, can't be easily measured against what a fighter or cleric does. However, at high levels they also get outshined by the casters.

Monks are at the bottom of the power rankings at every single level, from 1-20.

- Saph

Edit: More specific criticisms:

- Druids should be at or near the top of the power rankings at all levels; there's no level at which a Druid is weak.
- Bards are significantly better than monks, especially at higher levels.
- Barbarians are generally stronger than fighters.

Spiryt

2007-10-21, 05:16 PM

Hey, why everyone keep forgeting about rangers and Pally's? (About Blanky's rating).

Saph rating is simple yet precise, I think.

deadseashoals

2007-10-21, 05:20 PM

Bards are really not that bad.

1-5:

1) Barbarian
2) Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
3) Rogue, Bard, Cleric
4) Monk, Sorcerer, Wizard

At this level, barbarians rule the roost. They hit harder and more accurately than the other fighting classes, move faster, have more HP, etc. Their primary disadvantage as compared to the other full BAB classes, their lack of AC, has not really come into play yet (not a lot of Power Attacking, rending monsters).

After that, the rest of the melee classes, plus the druid with his animal companion of death come into play. They have the endurance to go all day, and "hitting it really hard" is the correct play against many encounters.

Clerics are useful, but they don't really have the healing and other spells to keep going all day, so a lot of the time, they're just fighters without the bonus feats or BAB. Rogues and bards have a use in the party when it comes to skills, but a ranger does almost as well, and doesn't suck in combat.

Monks are terrible, and arcane classes haven't come into their own yet.

6-10:

1) Druid, Cleric
2) everyone else
3) Monk

Druid has Natural Spell, Cleric has the spell access and slots to start breathing fire. Everyone else is relatively well balanced, but the Monk continues to be utterly useless against everything and everyone.

11-15:

1) Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard
2) everyone else
3) Monk, anything with full BAB

This is where melee starts to become pointless, and by the upper end of this level range (14, 15) it's utterly pathetic, as attempting to position for a full attack against any monster will earn you a raise dead for your trouble.

KIDS

2007-10-21, 05:26 PM

My ranking, by 3 tiers (a, b, c) in each level category, including core only classes:
Legend: a = excellent, b = solid, c = poor

1-5:
a) barbarian, druid, cleric
b) paladin, fighter, ranger, wizard, sorcerer, rogue
c) monk, bard

6-10:
a) paladin, druid, cleric, rogue, wizard, sorcerer,
b) fighter, ranger, barbarian, monk, bard
c) none

11-15:
a) druid, cleric, wizard, sorcerer
b) paladin, barbarian, ranger, bard, rogue
c) fighter, monk

p.s. LIST! If we were to rate classes with a b or c or something between based on their ratings here and during the game on average, it would look like this (split equals the category with 2 results, 3 results equal middle):

A: Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer
B: Paladin, Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Bard
C: Monk

Matthew

2007-10-21, 05:32 PM

I agree with Saph.

kpenguin

2007-10-21, 05:34 PM

This is why wizards don't rule the world in DnD: most of them are killed off at low level.

Emperor Tippy

2007-10-21, 05:46 PM

Wizards have Save or Lose spells at every level. SO the yare never unable to contribute.

Levels 1-5:
Everyone except Monks contributes fairly well, fairly campaign specific one way or the other.

Levels 6-10:
Everyone still contributes fairly well, excepting Monks. Casters are gaining in power.

Levels 10-15:
Casters are solidly in the lead. They contribute more than other classes but those other classes aren't a hindrance and still contribute somewhat.

Levels 16-20:
The non casters are dead wait and actually weaken the party.

bugsysservant

2007-10-21, 06:29 PM

MONKS R TEH ROXXORS!!!1!! THEY R PUR PWNGE @ EVRY LVL!

Sorry, always wanted to do that. But, yeah, the general consensus has already been pretty much established so there really is no good reason for me to be posting. Anywho...

Orzel

2007-10-21, 06:38 PM

If we're talking about combat then a class' strength at a level is based on what types of attacks they have and the power of that attack at that level.

Normal Attack (normal standard attack)
Special Attack (sneak attack, smite evil)
Full attack abuse (flurry, twf, high bab)
Feat and (Ex) cheese (Leaping heedless two handed charge! +10 damage to X forever, pounce)
Buff To Win (CoDzilla, poly..)
Blasty spells (Fireball, CoC, Disintegrate)
Save or Die/Lose (roll Will save lol)

At 1-5, as my cousins says "weapons are pwn, spells are yawn". Spells are too weak or unreliable to win fights alone. Characters don't have the level for the cheesy feats. Special attacks are okay.

1-5
1) barbarian, druid, paladin, fighter, ranger
2) cleric, rogue
3) monk, bard, wizard, sorcerer,

6-10. By now you're character can get some synergy going. Their powers don't suck. And Buffs don't drop right after you cast them so buff monster can appear. Normal weapon swing start to suck. Blasting is still bad.

1) barbarian, druid, paladin, ranger, cleric, rogue, wizard, sorcerer,
2) bard, fighter,
3) monk

11-15. Spells begin to win. Full casters dominate. Half/partial/fake casters are okay. Non casters are near useless. Anything weapon related is bad useless you have spells or the enemy is dumb.

1) druid, cleric, wizard, sorcerer,
2) bard, paladin, ranger, rogue
3) monk, barbarian, fighter

15+: Spells. Have 'em or get out my party.

Sucrose

2007-10-21, 08:04 PM

All right, this has already been pretty well answered, but I'd like to add two lists: one of absolutely nothing but combat power, and one of utility outside of combat.

Levels 1-5
Combat:
A list: Barbarian, Fighter, Druid, Paladin
B list: Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Ranger
C list: Rogue, Bard, monk
Because a longsword at low levels is a save-or-die, and this is pretty much the order at which people can swing them. Exception for the druid, who has both his own decent ability and a strong animal companion.

Wizards or sorcerers are more effective than everyone else a few times a day, but lack the slots for several defensive spells, and are exceptionally squishy.

One should note that these tiers are actually pretty close together.

Out of combat utility:
A list: Rogue, wizard, sorcerer* bard,
B list: everybody else except
C list: Fighter and monk

*If the sorcerer actually has utility spells, then you should probably drop him down one on the combat effectiveness list, maybe two, if he has nothing truly devastating, and Charm Person doesn't mean that the enemy ceases attacking.

Skills are paramount for out of combat effectiveness, and Rogues rule the roost there. Arcane spells can also do many useful things, though only the wizard can really include them in his spell list without missing combat efficiency (though there are probably many things that you can do with illusions in both situations, so a sorc might have a chance there). Bards, of course, are also handy, both as diplomancers and with minor illusions.

If the situation is a wilderness one, druids, Rangers, and some barbarians are raised up a notch.

Monks can be athletic, and fighters can be athletic and train animals. Whoop-de-doo.

Levels 6-10
Combat Ability:
A list: druid, cleric, sorcerer*, wizard*
B list: all full-BAB classes
C list: bard, rogue
D list: monk

The full-casters are the winners here, though only if they happen to be good at choosing their spell selection. Arcanes now have enough stamina to last through most adventuring days, and are getting some powerful spells. Cleric has divine power-ups, and the druid is getting to know the joy that is wildshape.

Arcanes are on the low end of the A list, and frankly would do best, in this poster's opinion, to take advantage of the awesome buffs that they have to bring the fighter and the Rogue to A list fighting ability, but they can lay down some mean battlefield control too.

Full-BAB classes are still pretty close (with the paladin behind everyone else unless he's a chargadin), especially those that chose their feats well.

Bard is good for buffing people, has some decent combat spells, and can fight okay. Rogue's sneak attack dice are adding up, and thus he can be a threatening, if squishy, presence.

Monk sucks, getting small increases to his fist dice size, a bit of flurry action if he can full attack, and power attacked by most of the big things that start popping up at these levels.

Out of Combat:
A-list: Arcane casters
B-list: Divine casters, bard and rogue
C-list: everybody else

The arcane casters are getting some very useful out of battle effects now, and are starting to get things that make the bard and rogue redundant. However, the skill monkeys remain useful. The divine casters can be handy for healing wounds, but that's really about it. Fighting classes aren't really for anything but fighting at this point.
Levels 11-20
Same as before, but with the casters pulling way ahead of everyone else, and the arcanes being perfectly capable of soloing single major enemies.

Toward the end, as stated by above posters, the arcane caster is easily the most powerful in all situations, and only the divine caster can even keep up in combat (heavily optimized characters of other types can still contribute). Out of combat, the skillmonkeys remain useful.

The fighter and the monk cry themselves to sleep.

Please note that the above assumes reasonably optimized arcane spell selection. If someone plays a blaster caster, odds are that he'll be similar to the monk in terms of both combat effectiveness and out of battle usefulness.

Chronos

2007-10-21, 08:42 PM

The arcane casters are getting some very useful out of battle effects now, and are starting to get things that make the bard and rogue redundant.Yes and no... The way the rules work, a skill is typically actually better than the equivalent spell at high levels. For instance, you can tell approximately where an invisible enemy is with a DC 20 Spot check, but the Spot check for a character with a good Hide score can easily get up into the 40s. And going unseen isn't too useful unless you also go unheard, for which wizards don't really have very good spells (though the bard and, to a lesser extent, the cleric, do). So the casters never really make the skillmonkeys completely obsolete, at any level.

Skjaldbakka

2007-10-21, 08:53 PM

No arguments that hinges on magic items - they are not the focus of this discussion.

That pretty much prevents this conversation from being in any way meaningful, given that the Use Magic Device skill is an important part of the rogue's arsenal. Also the warlock, bard, and artificer. Anti-Magic Field, in particular, is much more potent in the hands of the UMDing rogue, as none of its class features are turned off by it. Doing things like sneak attacking a frost giant with a scorching ray from a wand, or a fire giant with a ray of frost from a wand are really effective strategies, because the sneak attack damage is treated as energy damage, and is thus x1.5-ed.

Not that many arguments spring up about the rogue's usefulness, or where it sits in the various tiers of class power.

Sucrose

2007-10-21, 09:00 PM

Yes and no... The way the rules work, a skill is typically actually better than the equivalent spell at high levels. For instance, you can tell approximately where an invisible enemy is with a DC 20 Spot check, but the Spot check for a character with a good Hide score can easily get up into the 40s. And going unseen isn't too useful unless you also go unheard, for which wizards don't really have very good spells (though the bard and, to a lesser extent, the cleric, do). So the casters never really make the skillmonkeys completely obsolete, at any level.

...Huh. I was always under the impression that Silence was a Sorc/Wiz spell, but it's apparently cleric or bard only. While I do think that an arcane caster could make a decent "Rogue-lite," I concede the point, both because of that and your point regarding the superiority of skills to spells that replace them. The Rogue and the Bard still have things that they can do better than the Wizard.

de-trick

2007-10-21, 10:56 PM

1-5)
a)barbarian, paladin, fighter, ranger (they can do damage and take a hit)
b)cleric, druid (a hitpoint or 2 can help when you max is 10)
c)sorcerer, wizard, ,monk, bard, rogue(not much hp to take even 1 hit from a bow)

Snadgeros

2007-10-21, 11:02 PM

Monk Defense Force is GO!

Before I begin, I'm willing to make a few concessions.

-Spellcasters beat monks, but then again, they beat everything.
-Monk do indeed have MAD (Str, Dex, and Wis, Con isn't ESSENTIAL with all of the saves you get, just don't go charging into front-line combat).
-In a 1v1 arena match, a monk will lose to most other classes (probably not bard or rogue or some non-core classes).

With that out of the way, I'd like to begin my counter-points to the usual anti-monk arguments.

Monks have lower BAB and damage than other melee combatants!
True, but that's a fair tradeoff for higher AC, evasion feats, and massive saves.
Monks are also not meant for frontline combat. You're misinterpreting their role. They are, and always have been, a support melee class. You're supposed to let your damage-sponging fighter charge in first, let him take the monsters head on, and use your tumble, dexterity, and high movement to pick them off guerilla style. Spring Attack and mobility are great for this.
Also, they're great mage-killers (on NPCs anyway). Run in (ethereal if need be), grapple, and use your ridiculous unarmed damage to take him out, completely bypassing mage armor and stopping all spellcasting. You'll be happy you got that spell resistance.:smallbiggrin:

A fighter can do everything a monk can and better!
Only partially true. You want to build an unarmed fighter? Sure, and he'll be better at it than the monk, but you can't make a fighter better at ALL aspects of the monk. You give him evasion, he still needs saves. You give him unarmed combat, he still needs AC. Sure you can just use magic items, but SO CAN THE MONK. You're wasting money and feats on stuff the monk gets for free!

Magic items for the monk cost way more!
Also true, but you're neglecting that you never buy ANYTHING ELSE. A monk can buy equipment at first level and never need any more for the rest of the adventure excluding magic items. For levels 1 through whatever, you're just saving all of that gold for that amulet of mighty fists you saw.

That's it for now. There are many more arguments I can couner, but I can't think of them at the moment. Blarg....too late at night for thinking.......:smallsigh:

Skjaldbakka

2007-10-21, 11:48 PM

I've seen better arguments for monk. Also, depending on what books are allowed, monks are not necessarily MAD.

EDIt- my bad, core only discussion. Monks are indeed MAD in core.

leperkhaun

2007-10-22, 01:17 AM

alot depends on the amount of fights per rest.

If you only have 1-4 fights before you can rest the wizard is still near the top of the list. Why is that? Spells like sleep and color spray, which means who ever fails the save losses.

In general, at low levels if you have few fights per rest, the wizard will probably still come out on top. After that as they get access to more spells per day they can basically go all day.

At lower levels its EASIER for a fighter/melee type to be comparable with a caster, but after that they just cant.

Now dispite that most groups automatically balance themselves.

1-5
All classes - Its pretty much balanced for my group at this level

6-10
Casters start to shine.

Rogues Sneakyness starts to greatly out pace NPC's ability to detect him. Sneak attack does enough that low HP (caster) NPC's need to worry

When the fighter can get close to an enemy he can dish out the damage nicely.

11-15
Caster on top without a doubt, melee is there to keep the enemy distracted.

15+
Casters - melee is a footnote.

My actual group balances ourselves out so we generally dont have this disparity. Alot of what we play is picked on RP, not power. We do optimize a little, but we also make sure we dont take over other peoples area.

Blanks

2007-10-22, 01:54 AM

- Barbarians are generally stronger than fighters.

Please state the argument, i have never played either :)
Rage benefit is 4 str ie +2 attack, +2 damage. Is that really that much? I know there are other benefits , but do they outshine all the feats the fighter gets?

Hey, why everyone keep forgeting about rangers and Pally's? (About Blanky's rating).
My bad :)

This is where melee starts to become pointless, and by the upper end of this level range (14, 15) it's utterly pathetic, as attempting to position for a full attack against any monster will earn you a raise dead for your trouble.
Why? There seems to be consensus regarding this, but i can't really see the argument. Then again I have never played much beyond level 10.

Regarding magic items:

That pretty much prevents this conversation from being in any way meaningful, given that the Use Magic Device skill is an important part of the rogue's arsenal.
Fair enough, i just wanted to avoid a discussion about which gear was best.

leperkhaun

2007-10-22, 02:10 AM

the reason there is that consenseus, is that by that time a caster has enough spells to basically go all day.

He can prepare enough save or loss spells that he will win, and if he cant, he can always teleport away.

Clerics can do a fighters job while maintaining full casting as can the druid.

Kantolin

2007-10-22, 02:20 AM

As a note, these comparisons also depend on the particular classes involved.

For example, if the wizard's two first level spells are mage armour and magic missile, the wizard will not be dominating anything. Comparably, if that same wizard prepares sleep, then that wizard will rather smash up a particular encounter. Also, the general consensus is that wizards who are essentially warmages tend to end up at the lower end of the curve on most levels.

Similarly, a fighter who has a relatively weak build is less likely to be as potent as other fighters, regardless of level.

Personally, extremely low-level games (1-3) tend to be poor analyses of classes, especially level 1. At level one, a fighter's 8+con hit points have to go against the enemy's 1d8+str damage. Throw in the fact that fighters tend to be up front, and you get very frequent deaths in either party.

Extremely low level D&D tends to be exceptionally fatal regardless of your class. The frequency of one-hit drops tends to, at least in my experience, make your defensive ability not terribly relevant there - you've got to be a dwarven barbarian to reliably soak one hit from an orc, and kobolds and the like come in groups or pairs.

Blanks

2007-10-22, 02:42 AM

attempting to position for a full attack against any monster will earn you a raise dead for your trouble.
This was the part i didnt get :)

Skjaldbakka

2007-10-22, 02:46 AM

This was the part i didnt get :)

I also don't find that to be the case. It isn't an issue of meleers are too weak, it is an issue of spellcasters are too strong. A cracked out barbarian can one-shot a freakin' balor, for crying out loud.

Saph

2007-10-22, 05:05 AM

Please state the argument, i have never played either :)
Rage benefit is 4 str ie +2 attack, +2 damage. Is that really that much? I know there are other benefits , but do they outshine all the feats the fighter gets?

A barbarian gets more attack bonus and damage (due to rage), more hit points, and damage reduction. This makes him better at the main thing fighter classes are supposed to do; stand at the front and hit things.

The barbarian also gets a bonus on Will saves and fast movement, which help cover two of his weaknesses (no point being a tank if you can't get to the battle quick enough). And then he gets a bunch of minor plusses like extra skills and skill points, uncanny dodge, and trap sense on top of that.

Against this the fighter just gets feats. Now it's true that if you pick your feats very carefully you can be effective - but only in a specific way. Barbarians require a lot less optimisation to be effective than fighters, and they're less specialised. You pretty much just buy a two-handed weapon and you're set.

alot depends on the amount of fights per rest.

If you only have 1-4 fights before you can rest the wizard is still near the top of the list. Why is that? Spells like sleep and color spray, which means who ever fails the save losses.

In general, at low levels if you have few fights per rest, the wizard will probably still come out on top.

Not really. Okay, your 1st-level wizard prepares two/three sleeps and colour sprays. You run into vermin and undead - immune to mind-affecting. Whoops, you're useless, and you've got an AC of about 12 and 5 or 6 hit points, so you're not only useless, but actual dead weight for the party to protect. It's even worse for sorcerers - say the 1st-level sorcerer takes colour spray and mage armour for his first two spells. He can't get a new spell until 3rd-level, even if he knows what's coming.

In a typical adventuring day you will not know the details of what you have to fight, nor will you be able to have every spell you want pre-cast when you run into them. (If you do know the details of exactly when and where and what you're going to fight, odds are it wasn't a challenging encounter in the first place.)

- Saph

Skjaldbakka

2007-10-22, 05:09 AM

You would think that the power curve would have favored the fighter (the class that gets lots of feats) with supplements, given that they all have feats, but somehow, that was not the case.

Saph

2007-10-22, 05:17 AM

You would think that the power curve would have favored the fighter (the class that gets lots of feats) with supplements, given that they all have feats, but somehow, that was not the case.

Well, it does, sort of. There are some very powerful feat chains you can take.

The trouble is it means heavily specialising your fighter, and you're likely to kind of suck at everything else. So you become dependent on the DM throwing certain types of encounters at you.

With the Barbarian this is less of a problem, since as long as you can get into melee there's just about nothing immune to Rage + Two-Handed Weapon + Power Attack.

- Saph

Kantolin

2007-10-22, 05:20 AM

To be fair, if your level 1 fighter has only a longsword and you fight enemies with damage reduction slashing, life sucks for him too.

Anyway, an extreme minority of units at CR 1 or less are immune to mind-effecting techniques, so if you absolutely have no idea what's coming, then sleep's actually still a good bet. This is assuming your DM just grabs a random CR <1 unit and plunks them at you.

So I suppose that's another feature of combat in general, but most frequently extremely low level combat when you don't have too many options - if the focal enemy of this encounter is a heavy armour and shield wearing hobogoblin who fights defensively, then pretty much all of the martial units will be useless.

Comparatively, if it's a fire elemental, then the wizard who has mage armour and burning hands will also be rather useless.

Ambushes, especially early game, favor the higher hit dice and armoured units, while ranged combat (enemy kobold up a bit away shooting arrows?) prefer magical save-ors.

So I suppose, at low levels when everyone's options are limited, a more accurate statement is 'more likely to win' as opposed to 'guaranteed to win' - there simply aren't enough options for anyone at that level to guarantee a win, especially if the DM is gunning for you.

Most DMs, I suppose, tend towards orcs, goblins, kobolds, evil humans, or other basic humanoids and animals (At least, in my experience).

Saph

2007-10-22, 05:26 AM

Ambushes, especially early game, favor the higher hit dice and armoured units, while ranged combat (enemy kobold up a bit away shooting arrows?) prefer magical save-ors.

Which save-or are you hitting them with?

If you cast sleep, it has a full-round casting time. Every kobold has a full round to say "Look! Magey! Kill!" and do target practice on your unarmoured body. Or they can just spread out. Or wake up comrades once they keel over. Or . . . you get the idea.

And colour spray has a 15-foot range.

Most DMs, I suppose, tend towards orcs, goblins, kobolds, evil humans, or other basic humanoids and animals (At least, in my experience).

True, but undead are pretty popular too, as are vermin. Although you probably won't start running into plants and constructs for a little while.

- Saph

Zincorium

2007-10-22, 05:27 AM

You would think that the power curve would have favored the fighter (the class that gets lots of feats) with supplements, given that they all have feats, but somehow, that was not the case.

That's because feats are (generally):

1. Fixed. You take a poor one, and that's the end of it.

2. Scale poorly, if at all. Those that do improve in usefulness (power attack is a prime example) see so much more use than those that do not.

3. Are limited in scope. You can't stop time with a feat, no matter how high level you are. Or cause a vast array of effects, as with wish. Spells just do more.

4. Deceptive in quality. Weapon specialization is lauded as a big thing for fighters, but it's really not good at all. Whereas power attack I remember was cited only as a pre-req for cleave when it was first introduced.

If you want to make feats good, addressing those will be a smart first step.

Orzel

2007-10-22, 05:42 AM

Kantolin

2007-10-22, 05:51 AM

If you cast sleep, it has a full-round casting time

Heh, I did mean sleep. I was actually thinking of a rather particular situation where the only ranged combat we had was our fighter, who wasn't a particularly good shot due to his lousy dexterity, and the mage's sleep spell. It then took us a bit of time to figure out how to get to the goblin to make him permanently go away, but hey. The general principle still exists.

Lvl 1-5, Charging greatsword works 99% of the time. And it "works good".

The trouble is that, especially at low levels, you have to connect - and being in melee with the opponent means they have an equivalent chance to connect with you. I mean, it is indeed a good idea and worthwhile, but everyone's so fragile at level 1 - the enemy orc with his equally as two-handed weapon can then also 99% of the time you good, and weaker things come in pairs (And tend to, irritatingly, have higher ACs).

Both are, indeed, generally dice rolls - but a textbook orc has a lower will save than armour class.

Either way, I'm more of the opinion that nobody is very reliable at extremely low levels - maybe from level 3ish things start to even out, as people no longer pop when glanced at, and start to have some options to do things. At level 1, no fighter likes being smacked for 1d12 + 4 damage anymore than an orc likes being smacked for 1d12 + 4 damage.

[Extremely] Low levels doesn't just suck for mages, [Extremely] low levels just kind of suck. :P

Kurald Galain

2007-10-22, 05:54 AM

The lack of options and large number of defenses is why Slasht + shoot is stronger than Spell + Coup. Weapons always work is a major theme of D&D.

Except that it's not.

There are lots of defenses against being stabbed with a piece of metal, including but not limited to damage reduction, insane armor classes, etherealness, movement abilities, and regeneration.

By contrast, in spite of your claim, creature type and alignment are rarely a defense against any kind of magic (except that a handful low-level spells work only on humanoids), spell resistance can almost always be overcome at will by a decent caster build, and the three saves aren't overlapping - rather, a good caster will be able to discern and target a victim's poor save.

Even at level 1-5, charging in with a greatsword can be a pretty lousy strategy at times, and "walk up and cast a SOS" is reasonably effective even then.

Snadgeros

2007-10-22, 08:56 AM

One other thing I'd like to point out and why I hate DnD "tier" discussions.

DnD is a game designed for teamwork!
Indeed, do you know all of those other people in your party? Yes, that's your party, not a group of commoner meatshields. Well, those people do a lot to help too! No matter how overpowered or cheesy a wizard/druid/cleric gets, he's still going to need the rest of the party to survive a campaign.

Sure, a wizard could dish out damage with the best of them and run away when things get rough, but in a battle situation, a fighter or barbarian sure would make a useful meatshield to keep the monsters away from you. What's Mr. Cleric to do when he finds himself in the middle of a trap-filled dungeon and no rogue around to help? How will the uber-munchkinned druid with a charisma dump stat talk to the people of town without his bard buddy?

Sure we could pit characters in 1v1 arena situations, but that's not what DnD is about. It's about roleplaying, working together towards a greater goal, and with combat thrown in to keep it interesting and more than just "I talk to the barkeep."

Now before you go all flamebait on me and start accusing like, "LOL! A wizard doesn't need a fighter! He casts THIS spell and he's invincible!" I'd just like to ask you one thing. If you could create one uber-character, a pun-pun wizard, and not need the rest of the party, would you really have any fun playing by yourself?

Kurald Galain

2007-10-22, 11:15 AM

One other thing I'd like to point out and why I hate DnD "tier" discussions.

DnD is a game designed for teamwork!
You're missing the point, which is that teamwork is the most fun if the various team members are at (approximately) the same power level. A team of four level-8 characters and one level-2 character is probably not fun for the latter (and this works vice versa, as well). Likewise, as Saph suggests, a team of a few top-tier characters and a few bottom-tier characters is, especially at high level, not much fun for the latter.

No matter how overpowered or cheesy a wizard/druid/cleric gets, he's still going to need the rest of the party to survive a campaign.
The underlying problem is that this statement isn't actually true, despite your wishing it to be so, and even without optimizing. I recently played a low-level dungeon module with a beguiler character, and as party members two rogues and a monk - and by the end of the module I realized that my character could have done everything on his own, without having needed the other three. I've heard similar stories about mid-level druids.

Arguably this was a poorly-designed module. But, in order to write better modules and adventures, the writers should realize what the Tiers are, and take that into account. Hence, this thread.

Blanks

2007-10-22, 02:37 PM

One other thing I'd like to point out and why I hate DnD "tier" discussions.

DnD is a game designed for teamwork!
Well yes actually, it is. Please see my definition of power in the original post. It regards power NOT as combat damage potential but as ability to help the group overcome obstacles.

A big point of this post was the fear that i had of an unbalanced party. I agree with Kurald Galain that a balanced party is more fun for all involved.
I usually play around 1-10 level so im save from most of the unbalancing it seems :)

jameswilliamogle

2007-10-22, 03:23 PM

I don't have a lot to add to the lists, but just wanted to point out that classes that remain good but not broken throughout are coming into favor. I'm thinking of the Binder, Incarnate, Factotum, in particular. I think part of the reason why they never really fall too far behind the most powerful classes at any given level is b/c they are capable of filling (almost) any role needed at any level, but not as well as a dedicated character at that level.

Artificers, I think, are "A" at 1st-5th, and remain "A" throughout.

Orzel

2007-10-22, 05:33 PM

Except that it's not.

There are lots of defenses against being stabbed with a piece of metal, including but not limited to damage reduction, insane armor classes, etherealness, movement abilities, and regeneration.

By contrast, in spite of your claim, creature type and alignment are rarely a defense against any kind of magic (except that a handful low-level spells work only on humanoids), spell resistance can almost always be overcome at will by a decent caster build, and the three saves aren't overlapping - rather, a good caster will be able to discern and target a victim's poor save.

Even at level 1-5, charging in with a greatsword can be a pretty lousy strategy at times, and "walk up and cast a SOS" is reasonably effective even then.

I was mainly talking about low levels. At low levels, spells are limited/weak and casters can only memorize a handful of combat spells. At low levels, you can run into lots of stuff that can cut your list of spells down by a lot.

But everything has HP and at low levels you only have a few. Most classes that specialize at beating you silly with a chunk of wood and metal do well at low levels because many of the decent creatures with the antiweapon stuff come after level 5.

It's not all that fun when you run into an half-elven cleric and his undead buddies and 90% of your combat spells are useless/limited. Once you get past the junk that is level 1-3 spells, you usually have enough good spells prepared to not stand in a corner feeling like a certain elf fighting a certain drow. I don't know about your games but I see it all the time whenever a low level party isn't fighting in a theme area.

horseboy

2007-11-07, 02:18 AM

What's Mr. Cleric to do when he finds himself in the middle of a trap-filled dungeon and no rogue around to help? He summons something, smacks it on the butt and follows it out.
How will the uber-munchkinned druid with a charisma dump stat talk to the people of town without his bard buddy?
What would a druid need from town? :smallwink:
Yeah, it's a nice concept, and SHOULD be true. If only and only if......

Dausuul

2007-11-07, 09:54 AM

I'm going to use four tiers here. Tier 1 means a top performer, the mainstay of the party. Tier 2 means a solid but not spectacular class. Tier 3 means the class can be useful, but requires skillful play and is subject to dangerous vulnerabilities. Tier 4 means the class is just a drag.

Levels 1-5
Tier 1: Barbarian, fighter, druid, paladin.
Tier 2: Cleric, ranger, rogue, monk.
Tier 3: Sorceror, wizard.
Tier 4: Bard.

At these levels, melee is king, and those who are good at melee rule the roost. BAB has not yet begun to seriously differentiate the melee classes, so the chief concerns are hit points, armor proficiency, and weapon proficiency. The barbarian, fighter, and paladin dominate due to their high Hit Dice, heavy armor and martial proficiencies. The cleric has worse weapons and lower hit points, but still gets heavy armor, and spells make up for much of the lack.

Rangers, monks, and rogues are all light fighters and suffer from the attendant limitations, particularly lack of armor and lower hit points. Eventually, they'll be able to compensate with skills (the ranger and the rogue will, anyway), but right now they have too few ranks for their skills to be reliable assets. Still, they can do reasonably well for themselves, even the otherwise pathetic monk.

Druids would normally be in tier 3 due to their so-so spell selection and their mediocre armor and weapons. However, the animal companion catapults them into tier 1. At these low levels, an animal companion is a very powerful ally and can easily become the star of the party's melee.

Contrary to popular belief, the sorceror and wizard can actually be contenders at these levels, but they have to be very cautious and conservative with their spell use, and they lack the capability to reliably defend themselves; an arcane caster who concentrates on self-defense in the 1-5 range won't have enough offensive magic left to pull her own weight. As a result, they are very dependent on the party melee specialists to keep them safe.

Bards are the ones who really suffer here. They haven't got the spells, the melee props, or the skills to do much of anything; to add insult to injury, they even have to ration their uses of bardic music. Their only role is "party face," and other classes can handle that just as well with a few skill ranks.

Levels 6-10
Tier 1: Druid, barbarian.
Tier 2: Cleric, ranger, rogue, fighter, paladin, wizard, sorceror.
Tier 3: Monk, bard.
Tier 4: Nobody!

This is, as so many have said, the "sweet spot" of D&D. Everyone has a place at the table, even the monk. The druid remains a top pick; the animal companion has lost a bit of its luster, but Wild Shape has stepped up to take its place. The melee-ers are no longer the unchallenged masters of the battlefield, but remain powerful contenders, especially the barbarian, who can now afford mithral full plate to cover his single disadvantage (lack of heavy armor).

Clerics are coming into their CoDzilla-ness, although they don't yet have enough high-level spells to do it every battle. Wizards and sorcerors are rapidly moving up, and now possess enough arcane power to handle their own defense in a pinch while still remaining useful to the party. Two-weapon rangers are on the outs, but archer rangers are becoming steadily more useful as flying enemies start to appear.

This level range is also the rogue's happiest time. The rogue's skills are now high enough that she can depend on them, and the casters have not yet begun the march to power that will put all skills in the shade. Sneak attack is strong, and melee is still plenty important.

Bards now have enough bardic music uses to confidently sing in every battle, and they are also becoming decent spellcasters, though not on the full-caster level. It still takes good management to make a bard effective, but it can be done. Monks are sinking but have not yet dropped below the "just plain useless" threshold.

Levels 11-15
Tier 1: Cleric, druid, wizard, sorceror.
Tier 2: Ranger, rogue, bard.
Tier 3: Fighter, paladin, barbarian.
Tier 4: Monk.

At this point, to nobody's surprise, the casters are moving into the position of dominance that they will occupy forever and ever from here on out. Clerics and druids are now in the fullness of their melee glory, while wizards and sorcerors are ravening Batmen. The bard, while not competitive with these powerhouses, remains a strong pick--even gimped caster progression beats no caster progression.

The melee masters of the lower levels are swiftly fading from the scene. Fighters, paladins, and barbarians are going, and monks are gone.

The ranger retains his place entirely due to his archery prowess (two-weapon rangers are in the toilet with the monk at this point); while he won't be contributing the way casters will, his machine-gun rate of fire makes him a force to be reckoned with. The rogue is hanging grimly on by dint of godlike skill ranks and the ability to Use Magic Device.

Levels 16+
Tier 1: Cleric, druid, wizard, sorceror.
Tier 2: Bard.
Tier 3: Ranger, rogue.
Tier 4: Fighter, barbarian, paladin, monk.

At this point, all that matters is the question: "Can you cast spells?" Those who can, win. Those who can't, suck. The ranger and the rogue can just manage to eke out a living thanks to archery and skills, respectively, but both of them are distinctly sub-par and will depend heavily on the casters for protection. The bard remains sturdy if not spectacular with his 6th-level spells, skills, and his now-potent bardic music. Melee specialists are worse than useless by this level; they have now become an active drain on the party, forcing the cleric to waste spells on healing and resurrection that should be going to destroying the enemy, and restricting the wizard's mobility and flexibility.

Closet_Skeleton

2007-11-07, 11:43 AM

DnD is a game designed for teamwork!

A good team is a team where everyone pulls their weight equally. This is not what happens if one member is more powerful.

A fighter can stay useful at high levels if the wizard casts spells on him. Even Logic Ninja's guide to being Batman mentions casting buff spells on your allies. But that just means that the fighter might as well be dropped. Those buff spells will be equally effective if caste on a summoned creature as they are if caste of a fighter.

A lot of the really good buff spells can only be caste on self though. Not that a Fighter has as much need for Tensor's Transformation or Divine Power, but a wizard or cleric with those spells has less need for a fighter.

If the fighter needs the wizard's help to win then it's really the wizard doing the work.

Which is why the classes end up being put into tiers even if you're using team work, since differant classes are contributing differantly. It's precisely because of teamwork that a monk is useless because a monk doesn't add anything to the team. If the wizard has to buff the figher to make the fighter useful then the wizard is still doing the fighter's job for him and pulling more weight in the team.

Blanks

2007-11-07, 01:49 PM

Being the original poster, i would just like to thank everyone for their lists, explanations and comments. This thread will be my reference for houseruling and guiding players in the future :)'

Oh yeah and offcourse:
Keep going :smallsmile:

Temp

2007-11-07, 02:11 PM

Post 41
I'd agree with most of this. Two tweaks, though:

...
Levels 1-5
Tier 1: Barbarian, fighter, druid, paladin.
Tier 2: Cleric, ranger, rogue, monk.
Tier 3: Sorceror, wizard.
Tier 4: Bard.

...

Rangers, monks, and rogues are all light fighters and suffer from the attendant limitations, particularly lack of armor and lower hit points. Eventually, they'll be able to compensate with skills (the ranger and the rogue will, anyway), but right now they have too few ranks for their skills to be reliable assets. Still, they can do reasonably well for themselves, even the otherwise pathetic monk.

...

Levels 6-10
Tier 1: Druid, barbarian.
Tier 2: Cleric, ranger, rogue, fighter, paladin, wizard, sorceror.
Tier 3: Monk, bard.
Tier 4: Nobody!

...

First, low-level Rangers are great. The base damage of a weapon is usually enough to kill or significantly harm an enemy and Rangers get the most attacks at the highest attack bonuses in the core game. Their ACs are usually good enough to manage well--almost all have high Dex scores and most take back-line archery roles--and their skillpoints are just as good here as ever for contested rolls (the focus of the Ranger list, really--Hide/Move Silently/Spot/Survival tend to be the Ranger's defining abilities).
So I'd put them up to Tier 1 at levels 1-5.

Then, at levels 6-10, the Bard has spellcasting about equal to the Sorcerer's. Better sometimes because his spells often belong to higher level-groupings on the Wizard/Sorcerer list. The difference in spellcasting progressions doesn't entirely leave Bards behind until the 11-15 range. Skills start to be pretty important here, so the Bard's skill list/points also becaomes a major boon.
So I'd bump them to Tier 2 here.

Frosty

2007-11-07, 07:02 PM

At high levels, fighter-types specifically built to disrupt spellcasters can play a good role. Increase your size by a category or two...wield a spiked chain, and get all the Mage Slayer tree feats.

Now, do you guys consider the PHBII Core as well? I'm interested in where you guys would place the Duskblade, Knight, Beguiler, and Dragon Shaman in all of this. Right now, I'm giving the Dragon Shamans in my campaign Fighter BAB and seeing how that goes.

CASTLEMIKE

2007-11-07, 07:08 PM

Using 25 - 32 point buy and core (Edit PHBII for Frosty):

At low levels 1-5:

A Multiclassing Human or Half Orc Barbarian (first class level), Fighter, Ranger levels to personal taste and general campaign demands with a level dip in Cleric for some minor spellcasting, low level turning, the various domain benefits for maintaining a Wisdom - 11 along with other options in game.

B Barbarian, (For PHBII Duskblade or Knight), Fighter, Druid with Animal Companion, Paladin

C Cleric, (PHBII Dragon Shaman, Beguiler) SRD Battle Sorcerer variant with Sleep, Color Spray and Mirror Image or Web

D Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Rogue

E Monk

Levels 6 - 10 Transitioning levels

A Multiclassing Barbarian/F/Ranger with a Cleric dip, Druid

B Barbarian, F, (Duskblade, Knight) Pal, Cleric, Ranger, (Dragon Shaman, Beguiler), Battle Sorcerer, Wizard starting to shine

C Bard, Sorcerer, Rogue

D Monk

Levels 11+ Legendary PCs

A Druid, Cleric, Wizard, (Beguiler)

B Everthing else (Including PHBII) but the Monk (classes generally fall out or shine according to each campaign).

C Monk

Dhavaer

2007-11-07, 07:18 PM

Now, do you guys consider the PHBII Core as well? I'm interested in where you guys would place the Duskblade, Knight, Beguiler, and Dragon Shaman in all of this. Right now, I'm giving the Dragon Shamans in my campaign Fighter BAB and seeing how that goes.

I'd put Duskblade and Knight as having approximate parity with the Barbarian, and the Beguiler with the Sorcerer. Not sure about the Dragon Shaman. Maybe with the Ranger?

Temp

2007-11-07, 07:28 PM

PHB2, eh?

Tier 1:Dominating Force, take the spotlight often
Tier 2:Contributing Force, fairly significantly add to overall party success
Tier 3:Not particularly useful, but occasionally have chances to shine
Tier 4:Useless, Inconsequencial

Levels 1-5
Tier 1:Barbarian, Druid, Duskblade, Fighter, Knight, Paladin, Ranger
Tier 2:Bard, Beguiler, Cleric, Dragon Shaman, Monk
Tier 3:Sorcerer, Wizard
Tier 4:

Levels 6-10
Tier 1:Barbarian, Duskblade, Druid, Knight
Tier 2:Beguiler, Bard, Cleric, Dragon Shaman, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard
Tier 3:Monk
Tier 4:

Levels 11-15
Tier 1:Beguiler, Cleric, Druid, Duskblade, Sorcerer, Wizard
Tier 2:Barbarian, Bard, Knight, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue
Tier 3:Dragon Shaman, Fighter
Tier 4:Monk

Levels 16-20
Tier 1:Beguiler, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard
Tier 2:Bard, Duskblade, Ranger, Rogue
Tier 3:Dragon Shaman
Tier 4:Barbarian, Fighter, Knight, Monk, Paladin

And to throw Psionics and ToB in for a few giggles:

Levels 1-5
Tier 1:Barbarian, Crusader, Druid, Duskblade, Fighter, Knight, Paladin, Ranger, Swordsage, Warblade
Tier 2:Bard, Beguiler, Cleric, Dragon Shaman, Monk, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife
Tier 3:Psion, Sorcerer, Wilder, Wizard
Tier 4:

Levels 6-10
Tier 1:Barbarian, Crusader, Duskblade, Druid, Knight, Psychic Warrior, Swordsage, Warblade, Wilder
Tier 2:Beguiler, Bard, Cleric, Dragon Shaman, Fighter, Paladin, Psion, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard
Tier 3:Monk, Soulknife
Tier 4:

Levels 11-15
Tier 1:Beguiler, Cleric, Crusader, Druid, Duskblade, Psion, Psychic Warrior, Sorcerer, Swordsage, Warblade, Wilder, Wizard
Tier 2:Barbarian, Bard, Knight, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue
Tier 3:Dragon Shaman, Fighter
Tier 4:Monk, Soulknife

Levels 16-20
Tier 1:Beguiler, Cleric, Druid, Psion, Sorcerer, Wilder, Wizard
Tier 2:Bard, Crusader, Duskblade, Psychic Warrior, Ranger, Rogue, Swordsage, Warblade,
Tier 3:Dragon Shaman
Tier 4:Barbarian, Fighter, Knight, Monk, Paladin, Soulknife

Note that Wilders are going to vary drastically depend on their players and build--far more than any other class. Also, they're generally at the dead bottom of their tiers.

Frosty

2007-11-07, 07:30 PM

I notice that in your list, the Beguiler follows the Cleric's rankings exactly. Do you see the Beguiler on that level of power/cheese?

Temp

2007-11-07, 07:38 PM

I don't think the Beguiler's as cheesy, but its use as a skillmonkey keeps it from dropping significantly below other full spellcasters.

CASTLEMIKE

2007-11-07, 07:39 PM

The Beguiler is such a well rounded class. An arcane spontaneous spellcasting skill monkey, based on Intelligence with D6 HD, 6 skill points a level, which can wear light armor, has some useful weapons and class specials and knows lots of useful spells (Each level has lots of known spells plus several spells that routinely make general sorcerer known spell list threads for utility and general usefulness).

Off topic but throw in an Arcane Discipline from Complete Divine or a feat like the Nexus method from dragon for a lot more versalitity or pursue the Ultimate Magus PRC really strong with the NarDemonbinder or Sublime Chord PRCs for augmenting spellcasting and fueling some metamagic.

Raum

2007-11-07, 10:02 PM

In a typical adventuring day you will not know the details of what you have to fight, nor will you be able to have every spell you want pre-cast when you run into them. (If you do know the details of exactly when and where and what you're going to fight, odds are it wasn't a challenging encounter in the first place.)

- SaphWhy wouldn't the party have some idea of what they're going up against most of the time? They may occasionally be mistaken, but they are the adventurers. They're going out into the dungeon / wild / whatever by choice more often than not, wouldn't it be smart to do some research to see what you might run into?

Maybe it's from too many years of Shadowrun, but any group not doing their legwork ahead of time deserves their fate...as ugly and painful as it may be.

-----
As for ranking the classes by combat power, here's how they fall out: Levels 1-4 A - Druid, Barbarian (Druids are essentially two combatants, one of whom has some minor healing.)
B - Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Bard
C - Cleric, Rogue, Monk, Sorcerer, Wizard Levels 5-8 A - Druid, Cleric, Wizard (Yes, third level spells and a smaller likelihood of running out of spells surpass the melee classes.)
B - Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Sorcerer, Rogue
C - Monk Levels 9-12 A - Druid, Cleric, Wizard (The gap starts to spread with fifth level spells, wildshape for the druid, and some nice self buffs for the cleric.)
B - Bard, Barbarian, Rogue, Sorcerer
C - Fighter, Paladin, Ranger Levels 13-14 A - Wizard, Druid
B - Cleric, Sorcerer
C - everyone else Levels 15+ A - Wizard
B - other full casters
C - everyone else
Mind, that's not how I'd rate them for playability, non-combat power, or fun. Full casters take the honors fairly quickly. There are simply too many overpowered or poorly written spells.

Temp

2007-11-08, 02:06 AM

Levels 5-8
A - Druid, Cleric, Wizard (Yes, third level spells and a smaller likelihood of running out of spells surpass the melee classes.)
B - Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Sorcerer, Rogue
C - Monk
I tend to disagree here.

In this range, the Druid is head and shoulders above the rest and the Monk's finally learning that just being a body on the battlefield isn't enough. Besides those two, the other classes are all contributing relatively equally:

The Wizards/Sorcerers/Bards are still casting buffs and debuffs rather than "Insta-wins." Confusion and Fear make their appearances a couple times a day, but the Fighters are actually doing the work.

The Melee Tanks are still able to hurt their enemies and are starting to have enough feats to pull their builds together. The Cleric can get Divine Power off a couple times a day, but doesn't actually pull ahead until he gets Quickened spells and Righteous Might.

And the Skill monkeys just keep doing whatever it is they do. They're always nice to have on-hand.

So to divide it into 3 tiers:

A.Druids
B.Everyone else
C.Monks

Blanks

2007-11-08, 04:11 AM

Originally this thread was about usefullnes NOT combat damage. Combat is often an important consideration but not the only one.

Eg: Rogues are very usefull, not for finding traps (find traps can do that), but for removing the traps.

Class power != damage pr. round...

OneWinged4ngel

2007-11-08, 04:57 AM

Am I the only one who finds this sort of comparative tiering ridiculous when people can't agree on sources and builds can make more of a difference than class choice? Seriously, you get a glot of popular opinion posts based on whatever class the best-performing or worst-performing player in their group was playing (or whatever they've been convinced of by the internets). I could easily place bards on top of the tier for low-mid level and completely justify it with evidence at least as substantial as the arguments others here have been making (for starters, great skills, optimized inspire courage awesomeness available from level 2-3 and up (this can totally be enough to make parties absolutely killer. The value of +3 or 4 attack and damage to all forms of attack at level 3 works out to be... well, incredibly valuable), some spellcasting, fascinate/suggestion brokenation at mid-levels slams through most encounters solo, easily fills the role of out of combat healer and can also grab up Trapfinding, and has pretty much the fastest diplomacy scaling to boot. And past low/mid... then he has all those lovely PrCs... like Sublime Chord giving him access to level 9 spells with a mere 2 level dip letting him contend right up to level 20 with the true full spellcasters). Or I could pick up a Cleric or Psychic Warrior and show you how fearsome he can be in melee straight off of low level. I dunno about you, but I'd be afraid of a level 1 guy who could pull a +7-10 attack bonus out of his arse without even taking the trouble to spend a round to buff and charge at me for 5d6+1d8+6 damage or so. Depends on what feats and spells you choose to use for exactly how it works out. Powerful Charge (Feat, ECS), Blade of Blood (Spell, PHB II), and Law Devotion (Feat, Complete Champion) are good things you can use towards achieving this kind of performance at level 1 with a cleric. No need to resort to things no sane DM would allow, of course. What about the level 1 Wizard with his cheap access to potentially awesome utility scrolls on a day's notice, area of effect save or loses, the potential for a high AC, a handy-dandy scout that potentially works better than the Rogue, 8d6 touch attacks on outsiders or undead, spells with very high potential when cleverly used to turn the tide of an encounter or even a session or plot (like Silent Image) and doubled up spot checks with one at a +16 bonus? (Ah, familiars, so underappreciated...) Is that somehow totally outclassed at level 1 by the others?

And heck, the Barbarian only gets to rage once per day. Poor guy. At least he runs faster than the Cleric. Unless the cleric has certain domains. Or certain scrolls. Darned cleric.

Or, you could just point out the power of a Rogue in given situations. Or maybe even a Rogue/Wizard? Oh no, things that happen in real games like multiclassing and PrCing? Can't tier those things.

I mean, come on, what's this obsession with tiering things up by level? Or at all? Obviously, different things will shine in different campaigns. At best, tiering can seperate things into fairly broad categories where significant differences in power generally exist. But do we really need 100 threads for that?

I mean, seriously, one of the main reasons otherwise seemingly lacking fighter types tend to do better at low levels is because at level 1 a hit from a longsword is a save or die every round. At level 2 a greatsword is. At level 3, a power attack will be. You see, the mere aspect of getting a MARTIAL WEAPON PROFICIENCY is good enough to make you a viable character class at low levels. You don't even really need any more class abilities than that to be useful.

On top of that, you get a lot of mileage just out of the capabilities of, say, investing in that 16 Strength (before you factor in class abilities).

Furthermore... more to the point of the ridiculousness of tiering by level... DIFFERENT BUILDS for the same class will perform differently at different levels. One build might be fantastic at low level but bad at high, and another great at high and bad at low. So, it doesn't really tell us anything useful if you decide to say "Wizard, tier 2" at level whatever, because the reality is that two different wizard builds will perform in totally different capacities at that level and thus cross over into different tiers.

I really don't understand the point of the effort to tier classes by performance at a given level, or how it can really come up with helpful results other than promoting some small-minded stereotyping of a class's potential to restrain and hinder future discussions.

Blanks

2007-11-08, 05:50 AM

Am I the only one who finds this sort of comparative tiering ridiculous when people can't agree on sources and builds can make more of a difference than class choice?
The agreement was core only, read my original post?

Seriously, you get a glot of popular opinion posts based on what players was doing the best in whatever campaign that poster played in. Yeah, well thats all im asking for, i asked for advice and i am glad for the good advice i got. I actually think people have argued quite well in favor of their lists.

I could easily place bards on top of the tier for low-mid level and completely justify it with evidence (great skills, optimized inspire courage awesomeness available from level 2-3 and up (this can totally be enough to make parties absolutely killer. The value of +3 or 4 attack and damage to all forms of attack at level 3 works out to be... well, incredibly valuable), some spellcasting, fascinate/suggestion brokenation at mid-levels slams through most encounters solo, easily fills the role of out of combat healer and can also grab up Trapfinding, and has pretty much the fastest diplomacy scaling to boot. I will remember that when a player suggests a house rule regarding bards :smallsmile:

And past low/mid... then he has all those lovely PrCs... like Sublime Chord No he hasn't, core only :smallsmile:

What about the level 1 Wizard with his cheap access to potentially awesome utility scrolls on a day's notice, group save or dies,
Scroll use is a good ability, but the discussion was specifically not around magic items.

Or maybe even a Rogue/Wizard? Oh no, things that happen in real games like multiclassing and PrCing? Can't tier those things.
Sure, lets have a discussion about good PrCs and multiclassing. But that is probably better to have in a separate thread...

Obviously, different things will shine in different campaigns. At best, tiering can seperate things into fairly broad categories where significant differences in power generally exist. But do we really need 100 threads for that? There are a thousand level20 by RAW threads, I needed advice on what would shine in my campaign and wether or not i would run into the batman wizard problem. If you think the thread is silly, just ignore it, i have found it immensely educational :smallyuk:

Just restating, adding emphasis:

If at all possible, give a brief argument in favor of your ranking. Please note that I have played 2E extensively but only recently shifted to 3E, so perhaps I will question your rankings out of curiosity/ignorance (actually that is the point of this thread)

OneWinged4ngel

2007-11-08, 06:12 AM

Scroll use is a good ability, but the discussion was specifically not around magic items. Dude, "Scribe Scroll" is a class feature wizards get at level 1, not a magic item. *Shakes head sadly.*

There are a thousand level20 by RAW threads, I needed advice on what would shine in my campaign and wether or not i would run into the batman wizard problem. If you think the thread is silly, just ignore it, i have found it immensely educational :smallyuk: Level 1 wizard I noted has all of those features when going core only, except for the 8d6 touch attack (which isn't even as good as the area save or loses or silent images, etc anyways).

To reiterate: A level 1 wizard can double up on skill checks, have 24 or so skill points to spread around, and can have things like a +16 spot check on his familiar which can fly around and scout for him (familiars can often be better scouts than rogues and the like early on). And he can use things like Sleep and Color Spray for area of effect save-or-loses. And he can use things like Silent Image creatively to accomplish amazing things. And he can cheaply craft scrolls of whatever he might need. And he can have a very nice AC (16-24 ain't shabby at level 1). And he can solve all sorts of utility issues.

And the thing is... he gets exponentially better by level. And the fighting classes get stuck remembering the good old days when Martial Weapon Proficiency alone was enough to make you a killah.

Lessee, druids... I don't usually count Wildshape as something a sane DM would allow (you said, sane material only), but hey, you're the one who wants core only... so there's not much choice...

Heh, seriously though, they'll rock the house at every level. The animal companion practically makes the druid worth two party members instead of one at low level.

___

Of course, if everyone's a noob coming from 2e or whatever and they don't know what they're doing, none of this tiering stuff matters at all. Wizards, for example, will actually be pretty tame unless they're in capable hands (they take intelligence to play well). There's a MASSIVE difference in the power levels between the Wizard played by the guy who uses Burning Hands over Color Spray or Meteor Swarm over Time Stop and the guy who, you know, knows what he's doing.

Goumindong

2007-11-08, 06:13 AM

Dont forget that the Bard gets Suggestion at level 6, with an average DC of at least 23-25 at that level.

With a couple feats this can become 28-30 average save.

Even with only 3 uses per day its really strong. Top tier until most monsters will start to have protections from mind affecting spells

Saph

2007-11-08, 08:25 AM

Am I the only one who finds this sort of comparative tiering ridiculous when people can't agree on sources and builds can make more of a difference than class choice?

I think so, yes. Of course builds make a difference, and player skill makes even more of a difference, and player attendance makes even more of a difference than that.

But the classes are different, and different classes as a group will show a drift towards being more or less effective at certain levels. The builds that buck those trends tend to be from the extreme ends of the optimisation bell curve and don't have much practical effect on games.

- Saph

Blanks

2007-11-08, 08:55 AM

Dude, "Scribe Scroll" is a class feature wizards get at level 1, not a magic item. *Shakes head sadly.*
When you said "awesome utility" i took it you didn't meant those he made himself with level 1 spells and caster level 1...

To reiterate: A level 1 wizard can double up on skill checks How? by a spell?

And he can have a very nice AC (16-24 ain't shabby at level 1). Armor spell or Shield spell+dex and?

Lessee, druids... I don't usually count Wildshape as something a sane DM would allow (you said, sane material only), but hey, you're the one who wants core only... so there's not much choice...
Core + sane DM, and the sane DM is me :smallsmile:

___

Of course, if everyone's a noob coming from 2e or whatever and they don't know what they're doing, none of this tiering stuff matters at all. Wizards, for example, will actually be pretty tame unless they're in capable hands (they take intelligence to play well).
So because i havent played 3rd much im stupid ? Asking others about their experience seemed kinda smart to me actually :smallyuk:

There's a MASSIVE difference in the power levels between the Wizard played by the guy who uses Burning Hands over Color Spray or Meteor Swarm over Time Stop and the guy who, you know, knows what he's doing. I read Logic Ninjas guide, and my players may have read something similar or they could stumble upon "a winning combination" by chance. I wanted to know which classes should be helped by house rules and which shouldnt.

Raum

2007-11-08, 09:03 AM

Originally this thread was about usefullnes NOT combat damage. Combat is often an important consideration but not the only one.

Eg: Rogues are very useful, not for finding traps (find traps can do that), but for removing the traps.Hmm, combat may be the only quantitative measurement, the rest depends on type of campaign. What type of campaign do you want to compare relative usefulness in? In a political game of intrigue the bard and rogue will be your power players with the monk and cleric well up there in the second tier...possibly even the first. In a trap filled dungeon crawl the rogue may be your primary archetype though wizards will be strong. In an overland adventure the druids and wizards shine while the rangers and barbarians are capable of relatively strong performances. When the zombies attack your cleric and, to a lesser degree, the paladin will dominate. I've left many out - there are too many possibilities to try and cover them all.

Class power != damage pr. round...QFT If it were, only classes with Power Attack and the ability to use full BAB would matter in combat.

Blanks

2007-11-08, 10:28 AM

Hmm, combat may be the only quantitative measurement, the rest depends on type of campaign. What type of campaign do you want to compare relative usefulness in?
I didn't specify since i wanted others to be able to use the knowledge generated but here is a few key points of my DM style/campaigns:

No shops for magic items
Core only (PHB for players), all characters checked before show starts :)
Powergaming discouraged
50-50 roleplaying and dungeon raiding
1 level /3-4 sessions more or less
low to medium magic level
focus on "realism" ie no jumping off towers with an umbrella :smallcool:

I always try to avoid railroading and we usually discuss my DM calls in the lunch break or after the session :)

Dausuul

2007-11-08, 11:27 AM

I didn't specify since i wanted others to be able to use the knowledge generated but here is a few key points of my DM style/campaigns:

No shops for magic items
Core only (PHB for players), all characters checked before show starts :)
Powergaming discouraged
50-50 roleplaying and dungeon raiding
1 level /3-4 sessions more or less
low to medium magic level
focus on "realism" ie no jumping off towers with an umbrella :smallcool:

I always try to avoid railroading and we usually discuss my DM calls in the lunch break or after the session :)

One thing to keep in mind is that magic level has a dramatic impact on class balance. A low-magic game with no item shops strongly favors casters, for three reasons:

First, casters are less item-dependent than non-casters. Warriors especially need a slew of magic items to provide for their core abilities (attack and AC); and all non-casters rely on magic items to let them keep up with a caster's utility magic. The ability to fly is particularly important at high levels.

Second, in a low-magic world, fewer people are aware of magic or count it as a threat. People in a high-magic world expect to face flying and teleporting wizards, invisible rogues, and mind control spells, and have defenses in place to compensate; people in a low-magic world often end up at the mercy of even low-level casters.

Third, casters can make their own items, while non-casters cannot. (This can be ameliorated somewhat if you allow non-casters to contribute XP to item creation; this makes casters more open to creating gear for their allies.)

mostlyharmful

2007-11-08, 11:34 AM

One thing to keep in mind is that magic level has a dramatic impact on class balance. A low-magic game with no item shops strongly favors casters, for two reasons:

First, casters are less item-dependent than non-casters. Warriors especially need a slew of magic items to provide for their core abilities (attack and AC); and all non-casters rely on magic items to let them keep up with a caster's utility magic. The ability to fly is particularly important at high levels.

Second, in a low-magic world, fewer people are aware of magic or count it as a threat. People in a high-magic world expect to face flying and teleporting wizards, invisible rogues, and mind control spells, and have defenses in place to compensate; people in a low-magic world often end up at the mercy of even low-level casters.

Third, casters with creater feats can produce what they want with enough down time and raw materials. Then you have the other classes begging them for the stuff they need to catch up to what the casters power level was before they started crafting.

Fourth, (similar to 2 but on a specific level rather than accross a whole worlds reactions) defensive measures of non-casters against caster power is all dependant on the availability of magic items, any noncaster BBEG needs substantial protections from a whole slew of SoDie and NoSave effects that the noncasters can't anticipate, protect against or replicate.:smallfrown:

Dausuul

2007-11-08, 11:37 AM

Third, casters with creater feats can produce what they want with enough down time and raw materials. Then you have the other classes begging them for the stuff they need to catch up to what the casters power level was before they started crafting.

Edit-ninja. :smallbiggrin:

mostlyharmful

2007-11-08, 11:47 AM

Edit-ninja. :smallbiggrin:

So did you Ninja me or did i ninja you?:smallconfused: I'm not entirely sure.

Dausuul

2007-11-08, 12:07 PM

So did you Ninja me or did i ninja you?:smallconfused: I'm not entirely sure.

I think we sort of ninja-ed past each other.

Raum

2007-11-08, 12:31 PM

No shops for magic itemsAs others have mentioned, magic items are extremely important for non-casters. You may want to consider using the ToB classes if you're making items rare.

Core only (PHB for players), all characters checked before show starts :)Non-core books don't really make any major changes to the core classes. Only a few of the options are really worth mentioning. It's the classes and prestige classes which make the biggest differences...and some of those actually help the "underpowered" archetypes. I'm not really advocating adding them though...IMO most supplements are made for the sole purpose of giving WotC a revenue stream. Actually all of them are...which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Powergaming discouragedPowergaming is a relative term...

50-50 roleplaying and dungeon raidingRoleplaying isn't dependent on mechanics. Some mechanics may help or hinder roleplaying immersion, but there is no class which is "more powerful" than another in roleplaying terms. As for dungeon delving, trapfinding and raw combat power are what tend to be most important. So you might bump the rogue up a step on the list but otherwise the combat power is what will be felt.

1 level /3-4 sessions more or less
low to medium magic levelSee comments on magic above.

focus on "realism" ie no jumping off towers with an umbrella :smallcool:You may want to look at systems with less intrusive magic if this is a goal.

I always try to avoid railroading and we usually discuss my DM calls in the lunch break or after the session :)Always a laudable goal.

Frosty

2007-11-08, 12:44 PM

For Fighter-types, how would of a difference do you think non-core feats like Shock Trooper make? Almost enough to make it go up a tier?

OneWinged4ngel

2007-11-08, 03:25 PM

For Fighter-types, how would of a difference do you think non-core feats like Shock Trooper make? Almost enough to make it go up a tier?

The Fighter can actually be very scary if you know what you're doing. It just takes some real effort. And it took pretty much the entire edition's worth of sourcebooks to give us this build (last I checked, the premier pure fighter build on the CharOp boards).

Check out Aelrynith's sweet Lockdown build! http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=883706

On the other hand, a Core Only Fighter will get wrecked a good deal more easily. But hey, core only is one of the worst points of balance you can use for your game out there. Anyone who thinks core is balanced and noncore is broken is... wrong.

silvadel

2007-11-08, 05:32 PM

Arcana Evolved by Cook -- it has different classes than the players handbook and slightly different rules in some cases (it is a lot harder to keep concentration against a high level fighter when casting defensively). I think it does a much better job of balancing the casters against the warriors in the mid-upper levels than standard.

Blanks

2007-11-08, 05:50 PM

OneWinged4ngel

2007-11-08, 05:52 PM

Frosty

2007-11-08, 06:02 PM

mostlyharmful

2007-11-08, 06:04 PM

Well yes, but the real world doesn't have magic.

That I can almost swallow, that magic alters the equation in encounters. But the spiked chain I mean, come on. there's no magic in that one, it's just seen as cooler so is given an arbitrarily higher mechanic than a friggn sword!

Raum

2007-11-08, 06:17 PM

I hate it when mechanics dictate players tactics. Spiked chain? nobody except one crazy monk ever used that! The sword on the other hand, just like a mace, spear and axe are known to have been used extensively by a lot of cultures. Why do we have so many builds with chains ?:smallfrown: Players should be able to play a knight with heavy armor, using sword and shield JUST LIKE IN THE REAL WORLD. What was very effective in the real world should at least be feasible...

sry, just needed to vent my anger at Wotc... :smalltongue:I agree, the spiked chain is a silly contraption which makes little sense even within the framework of a fantasy world. If they had to be magically animated to work I could agree with them. Think of Spawn... However, D&D has never done a good job of representing historical effectiveness of weapons. It simply wraps some fairly arbitrary mechanics around existing terminology.

As for mechanics dictating tactics, mechanics always dictate tactics. In a chess game it's the mechanics of how pieces move, in D&D it's the combat rules, and in real life it's physics. Mechanics always dictate tactics. The tricky part is finding a mechanical system which reinforces the type of tactical play you enjoy.

Temp

2007-11-08, 06:27 PM

Spiked chain? nobody except one crazy monk ever used that! The sword on the other hand, just like a mace, spear and axe are known to have been used extensively by a lot of culturesOne thing I have to hope for in 4E is an abandonment of the Martial Weapon Proficiency. Requiring seperate proficiencies in specific weapons wouldn't justify overpowering the ones that require a feat to use.

Thoughtbot360

2007-11-09, 08:45 AM

This is why wizards don't rule the world in DnD: most of them are killed off at low level.

But those that do survive can Polymorph Any Object dirt into gold.

Blanks

2007-11-09, 09:58 AM

As for mechanics dictating tactics, mechanics always dictate tactics. In a chess game it's the mechanics of how pieces move, in D&D it's the combat rules, and in real life it's physics. Mechanics always dictate tactics. The tricky part is finding a mechanical system which reinforces the type of tactical play you enjoy.
You are of course correct, but how come they chose to divert from the mechanics of the real world :smalltongue:
In 2E the most efficient weapon were long swords, composite longbows, maybe a bastardsword or 2handed sword and maybe a short sword for killing wizards. All weapons which have seen extensive use in the real world.

Dausuul

2007-11-09, 10:56 AM

I hate it when mechanics dictate players tactics. Spiked chain? nobody except one crazy monk ever used that! The sword on the other hand, just like a mace, spear and axe are known to have been used extensively by a lot of cultures. Why do we have so many builds with chains ?:smallfrown: Players should be able to play a knight with heavy armor, using sword and shield JUST LIKE IN THE REAL WORLD. What was very effective in the real world should at least be feasible...

Actually, my understanding is that once full plate was perfected, knights who could afford the stuff--which would include all PCs past the first few levels--more or less quit bothering with shields. The protection of a shield simply wasn't significant when you were already covered in steel plating from head to toe; it was far more useful to have that hand free to hold your sword with. (Particularly true if your opponent was similarly equipped. Since full plate was pretty much impervious to slashing attacks, a common way to get through it was to grip your sword partway up the blade and try to ram the point through one of the chinks in the armor.)

But yes, the spiked chain absolutely should not see more use on the battlefield than the sword.