PDA

View Full Version : Class power rating



Charlie Kemek
2008-01-30, 08:12 PM
so i was wondering, on a scale of 1 star (low) to 25 stars (HIGH), which classes get what, since there isn't a thread on it.

Bag_of_Holding
2008-01-30, 08:16 PM
Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/class)'s a list of base classes (175 in total).


and this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/prc) would be the list of prestige classes (782 in total)


So, anyone up to the challenge?

Fax Celestis
2008-01-30, 08:19 PM
I usually break them into four tiers: Overpowered, Strong, Moderate, and Weak.

Tier 1: Overpowered
Archivist
Artificer
Cleric
Druid
Erudite
Sorceror
Wizard

Tier 2: Very Strong
Ardent
Bard
Beguiler
Crusader
Dread Necromancer
Factotum
Favored Soul
Psion
Psychic Warrior
Shugenja
Spellthief
Spirit Shaman
Swordsage
Totemist
Warblade

Tier 3: Strong
Barbarian
Binder
Dragonfire Adept
Duskblade
Incarnate
Lurk
Knight
Psychic Rogue
Shadowcaster
Warlock
Wu Jen

Tier 4: Moderate
Adept
Divine Mind
Dragon Shaman
Hexblade
Marshal
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Scout
Soulborn
Truenamer
Warmage
Wilder

Tier 5: Weak
Aristocrat
Commoner
Expert
Fighter
Healer
Monk
Ninja
Samurai
Soulknife
Swashbuckler
Warrior

Please note these are alphabetical within their tiers. Tier 2 is about where I aim to set my homebrew at.

Glyphic
2008-01-30, 08:23 PM
You also have to address the issue of which books are available to make these.. for instance, a ranger gets a decent boost if he has access to the spell compendium.

de-trick
2008-01-30, 08:24 PM
lets do it, or not

there is no true powerrating because of the DM you have and level can make the strongest class the worse and the worse class the best

Signmaker
2008-01-30, 08:27 PM
In the hopes that this thread won't be further assaulted with the obvious joke, let's get it over with now:

*Wizard!*
"Vegeta! What does the scouter say about his power level?"
"It's over nine THOUSAAAND!"

That being said, I think Fax made a pretty comprehensive list.

Aerogoat
2008-01-30, 08:29 PM
This is pointless. It all depends on player, build and situation.

A well-played Adept could out-do a poorly-played Cleric.
A well-built Warrior could outshine a poorly built Fighter.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-30, 08:31 PM
This is pointless. It all depends on player, build and situation.

A well-played Adept could out-do a poorly-played Cleric.
A well-built Warrior could outshine a poorly built Fighter.
Potentially, yes. But if we measure by "potential abuse", I think you'll find that more often than not the classes I've listed as "Overpowered" (and to a lesser extent, those I've listed as "Strong") are present in the majority of widely-accepted broken things in the game.

Nebo_
2008-01-30, 08:33 PM
lets do it, or not

there is no true powerrating because of the DM you have and level can make the strongest class the worse and the worse class the best

Oberoni Fallacy! Rule 0 does not mean that the classes as written are balanced with each other.

Frosty
2008-01-30, 09:05 PM
Wait, you put "Knight" in the "Strong" category? :smalleek:

Thrawn183
2008-01-30, 09:12 PM
Wizards tell physics to sit down and shut up. Knights have a limited ability to say the same to death.

PirateMonk
2008-01-30, 09:15 PM
Oberoni Fallacy! Rule 0 does not mean that the classes as written are balanced with each other.

But it does mean that, in actual play, the general trends of class power may not apply.

Nebo_
2008-01-30, 09:21 PM
But it does mean that, in actual play, the general trends of class power may not apply.

In that specific game. It does not effect the power of the class as it applies to everyone.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-30, 09:30 PM
Wait, you put "Knight" in the "Strong" category? :smalleek:

Yup. Knights are very good battlefield controllers with their Knight's Challenge ability and their minor terrain altering features. There's a lot of good Knight builds out there and a lot that could be improved by replacing a few other levels with Knight levels.

de-trick
2008-01-30, 10:48 PM
case about DM having control over the power levels, a DM who is very picky about spell components but a damper on spellcasters, and what type of monsters fought and the encounters per day

Lord Tataraus
2008-01-30, 11:04 PM
The problem with an absolute rating system is that there are too many factors. And that creates a lot of arguments. It is best to divide classes amongst a number of groups such as the tiers Fax posted. You might want to split the classes amongst a larger number of tiers, like maybe 10 tiers (splitting each tier into two or something), but you can't go too far with that without running into the same problem. Thus, I would suggest maybe taking Fax's tiers as a starting point and try to create more tiers. Alternately, make a number of groups based on generic function (such as tank, battle field control, etc.) and place each class in a tier within each group, give values of power for each group and create a rating system that way.

Draz74
2008-01-30, 11:36 PM
Fax's list is good. There are a couple classes whose placement I would question, but that's probably because Fax knows the game better than me and has a better idea of how to place them.

That said, there's definitely room for a couple more tiers of fragmentation than that. Psion and Shadowcaster in the same Tier is very strange to see.

In particular, Psion, Wu Jen, Beguiler, and Ardent seem stronger than most of the rest of Tier 2.

Barbarian, Incarnate, Knight, maybe Warlock, and especially Shadowcaster seem weaker than the rest of Tier 2.

Swashbuckler and Truenamer seem rather weak compared to their neighbors in Tier 3.

And of course Tier 4 has its own gradations, such as Commoner obviously being much weaker than everything else ... but does anyone really care, at that point?

Souju
2008-01-30, 11:39 PM
a smart and/or spiteful DM could really screw over a group of power players if he wanted to :)
unlike computer based games, PnP games have no true "overpowered" class

wadledo
2008-01-30, 11:46 PM
The starting point I believe would be deciding the most powerful base class, then going down to commoner.

Lord Tataraus
2008-01-30, 11:47 PM
Firstly, for any rating system you need to set down the conditions. So, let's start with that:

All classes are rated in power as determined by their full potential including cheese
All classes are rated in power based purely on RAW
All classes are rated in power with the assumption that all first-party sources are available
All classes are rated in power with the assumption that all non-first party content is ignored/unused (this includes homebrewed content, third-party sources, etc.)
All classes are rated in power with the assumption that it is played in a 4 character party in a campaign with equal combat and non-combat encounters in a variety of locations with all basic roles of the party covered.


Well, there is my start, anything to add or remove? Why?

Miles Invictus
2008-01-30, 11:52 PM
:smallsigh:

Balance revolves around the official rules. House rules are not official rules, and do not constitute balance. DM fiat is an arbitrary thing, and does not constitute balance.

Doesn't the fact that you need to make changes to the game suggest anything?

Chronos
2008-01-31, 12:10 AM
a smart and/or spiteful DM could really screw over a group of power players if he wanted to :)
unlike computer based games, PnP games have no true "overpowered" classA DM would have to go to an extraordinary effort to make soulknifes powerful. Likewise, a DM would have to go to a similarly extraordinary effort to make druids weak. The fact that, under almost all conditions, a druid is significantly more powerful than a soulknife implies that yes, a druid really is overpowered compared to a soulknife.

de-trick
2008-01-31, 12:12 AM
also we could put in the 4 basic groups
Tank/melee
Warrior
Samurai
Soulknife
Fighter
Swashbuckler
Marshal
Paladin
Ranger
Psychic Warrior
Barbarian
Crusader
Warblade
swordsage
Knight
Duskblade

skill monkey/sneak
Monk
Ninja
Expert
Rogue
Scout
Beguiler
Factotum

( i give up)

Indon
2008-01-31, 12:34 AM
Aside from some extreme examples, (Wizard is more powerful than Commoner!) describing classes on a one-dimensional metric is bound for failure. Classes in D&D have more than one function because there is not one single objective to D&D.

It may be viable to rate each class at skill at specific functions, though. That can be evaluated pretty objectively.

Voyager_I
2008-01-31, 01:19 AM
[Groupings]
( i give up)

Those groups look pretty off to me. For example, Duskblades are Gishes and Marshals are Support/Buffers, not full tanks. Of course, I get the feeling you're just trying to refute the concept of rating classes by power, despite the fact that it can be very easily demonstrated that all classes were not created equal.

Frosty
2008-01-31, 02:35 AM
Potentially, yes. But if we measure by "potential abuse", I think you'll find that more often than not the classes I've listed as "Overpowered" (and to a lesser extent, those I've listed as "Strong") are present in the majority of widely-accepted broken things in the game.

I guess I'm just surprised you grouped Knights, Warlocks, and Spellthieves in the same power neighborhood as Beguilers and Factotums.

Emperor Tippy
2008-01-31, 03:13 AM
I guess I'm just surprised you grouped Knights, Warlocks, and Spellthieves in the same power neighborhood as Beguilers and Factotums.

He had to put them somewhere and all 3 are in the top 25% of D&D classes power wise. You can make some down right nasty Warlocks and Spellthieves. And knights are a ToB level melee class.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-31, 04:31 AM
I guess I'm just surprised you grouped Knights, Warlocks, and Spellthieves in the same power neighborhood as Beguilers and Factotums.

Well, tier two is about twice as big as every other tier :) I suppose somebody could snip it in half by some criterion, but this may also boil down to personal taste. Overall, Fax's list is a solid answer to the OP.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-31, 12:46 PM
I guess I'm just surprised you grouped Knights, Warlocks, and Spellthieves in the same power neighborhood as Beguilers and Factotums.

Spellthieves are the uppper end of Tier 2. I almost put them into Tier 1. Warlocks and Knights are near the middle of Tier 2.

Frosty
2008-01-31, 12:48 PM
And knights are a ToB level melee class.

Now, I love the Knight class, but it is not near ToB levels at all. not even close. Maybe if it had more bonus feats or if its Knight's Challenges can work more than once per day on the same creature, it'd be better...

Crusaders can do almost eveyrthing a Knight can do, and do it better.

Draz74
2008-01-31, 12:56 PM
Spellthieves are the uppper end of Tier 2. I almost put them into Tier 1.

Fax sees Spellthieves a bit differently from the rest of us. :smallamused: On the other hand, he's proven several times that he has good justifications (i.e. builds) to support his views. That's why I didn't question the inclusion of Spellthief in Tier 2 like I did with Knight, Barbarian, Warlock, and Shadowcaster.

(He probably also happens to play in campaigns that are just right for Spellthieves; they're a somewhat campaign-style-dependent class.)

Saph
2008-01-31, 12:57 PM
Firstly, for any rating system you need to set down the conditions. So, let's start with that:

I'd rate simplicity higher than full potential, simply because almost no-one ever plays any class to its full potential. Most D&D players are not heavy optimisers, so a class which is powerful out of the box and doesn't require any splatbooks will in practice almost always outperform a class which requires heavy optimisation.

Also, if all cheese is allowed, then even a Commoner can be infinitely powerful. So you're comparing infinity with infinity. Which is kind of silly. I usually assume a certain limit on cheese when I'm coming up with characters, since that means I can actually use them in games.

- Saph

Talya
2008-01-31, 01:07 PM
a lot that could be improved by replacing a few other levels with Knight levels.


If you're going to use this as a factor, wouldn't that move fighter up a bit? Fighter is used in most optimized melee builds, at least to a 2-level dip extent. Heck, you've got Swashbuckler at Moderate and nobody ever takes more than 3 levels of it.

Frosty
2008-01-31, 01:08 PM
For example, diplomacy cheese never sees action in any game I've played in. We either use the skill only once in a blue moon, or we use the Giant's alternate version of it.

Fax, cn you post your spellthief builds? Maybe in my campaigns I just don't fight enough spellcasters...

sikyon
2008-01-31, 01:14 PM
Most D&D players are not heavy optimisers

Do you actually have any evidence for this?

Lord Tataraus
2008-01-31, 01:17 PM
I would agree that spellthieves are up there. They can really screw with casters and since casters are the most powerful, those that mess them up are too.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-31, 01:23 PM
Fax: Is there some reason Truenamers are in moderate instead of weak?

Saph
2008-01-31, 01:23 PM
Do you actually have any evidence for this?

Sure, just let me refer you to my universal survey of all D&D players in the world, ever. I keep it just here. :P

But if you're asking why I believe that, it's simple. I'm not all that heavy an optimiser; the characters I play aren't anywhere near the kind of stuff you'd find on the Wizards CharOp boards or some of the builds Person Man keeps around. However, in pretty much every D&D group I play in, my character ends up being the most combat-effective out of the party.

So either I live in an incredibly statistically exceptional area, and the worldwide fraction of heavy optimisers is 5000% higher than it is around my neck of the woods, or it's the Wizards CharOp types who are the exceptions. I think the second is more likely.

- Saph

GoC
2008-01-31, 03:46 PM
Fax: Are you sure Bards should be in the same category as crusaders?:smallconfused:

Fax Celestis
2008-01-31, 03:57 PM
Fax: Are you sure Bards should be in the same category as crusaders?:smallconfused:

You've never seen the Diplomancer, have you?

EDIT: Truenamers are Moderate instead of Weak because despite being poor spellcasters, they're still spellcasters and as such have a modicum of versatility that is out of reach of nonspellcasting characters.

EDIT AGAIN: The fighter is staying in weak because of it's relegation to being a dip-only class. I don't think I've ever seen anyone take more than four levels of fighter.

Frosty
2008-01-31, 03:59 PM
Can you do a re-order without taking Diplomacy into account? I'd be interested in seeing that, since in my games we're never in a situation where we can actually use/get to work a diplomancer.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-31, 04:03 PM
Can you do a re-order without taking Diplomacy into account? I'd be interested in seeing that, since in my games we're never in a situation where we can actually use/get to work a diplomancer.

Without Diplomacy, the bard still makes an efficient healer, buffer, and controller. He also still has a number of spells that are useful both in and out of combat.

My primary rating statistic on the Tiers is Versatility.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-31, 04:06 PM
Fax, cn you post your spellthief builds? Maybe in my campaigns I just don't fight enough spellcasters...

You might want to take a look at my Guide to Spellthieves.

Chronos
2008-01-31, 04:16 PM
Fax, cn you post your spellthief builds? Maybe in my campaigns I just don't fight enough spellcasters...To put spellthieves in perspective: The rogue is already a decent class. Even without any of their magical abilities, spellthieves have almost everything rogues have. So you're basically taking a class that's already decent, and then adding magic to it. Plus, there's the fact that what spellthieves do, nobody else can do. Any spell (and most spell combos) a wizard can cast, for instance, a sorcerer can cast, too. But nobody else can steal spells.

Personally, I would probably swap the barbarian and the rogue in the list, mostly due to their out-of-combat abilities. Out of combat, the barbarian can't do much other than smash stuff, while rogues can do more out of combat than any non-full-caster (and some full casters, too). But then, I think that most folks probably emphasize combat more than I do, and there's no denying that barbarians are better combatants than rogues.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-01, 04:57 PM
To put spellthieves in perspective: The rogue is already a decent class. Even without any of their magical abilities, spellthieves have almost everything rogues have. So you're basically taking a class that's already decent, and then adding magic to it. Plus, there's the fact that what spellthieves do, nobody else can do. Any spell (and most spell combos) a wizard can cast, for instance, a sorcerer can cast, too. But nobody else can steal spells.

Personally, I would probably swap the barbarian and the rogue in the list, mostly due to their out-of-combat abilities. Out of combat, the barbarian can't do much other than smash stuff, while rogues can do more out of combat than any non-full-caster (and some full casters, too). But then, I think that most folks probably emphasize combat more than I do, and there's no denying that barbarians are better combatants than rogues.
I would have but for the fact that nearly anything the rogue can do, a spell can replace. Knock, find traps, invisibility, any number of divinations...

Talya
2008-02-01, 05:00 PM
EDIT AGAIN: The fighter is staying in weak because of it's relegation to being a dip-only class. I don't think I've ever seen anyone take more than four levels of fighter.

So perhaps Swashbuckler should be moved to weak...i've never seen anyone take more than three levels of Swashbuckler.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-01, 05:02 PM
So perhaps Swashbuckler should be moved to weak...i've never seen anyone take more than three levels of Swashbuckler.

That's a possibility. I was keeping in Moderate because it's rather nice when you couple it with the Daring Outlaw feat. That is, however only one instance.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-01, 05:07 PM
Okay, altered a bit. Added a fifth tier.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-01, 06:23 PM
I'd rate simplicity higher than full potential, simply because almost no-one ever plays any class to its full potential.

That's a reasonable point. In terms of simplicity, I'd say the following:

Simple to build
Barbarian
Beguiler
Cleric
Druid
Paladin
Rogue
Warmage

Average to build
Bard
Duskblade
Monk
Ranger
Wizard

Hard to build
Fighter
Sorcerer
Warlock

By "hard to build" I refer in particular to the fact that it is very easy to make a completely ineffective character in these classes by picking the wrong feats, spells, or invocations respectively, and that it isn't easy to change those.



Simple to play
Barbarian
Beguiler
Duskblade
Fighter
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warmage

Average to play
Bard
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue

Hard to play
Cleric
Druid
Wizard

Orzel
2008-02-01, 06:35 PM
If I were to do it I'd make 7 tiers.

The middle tier would be classes that fill one combat role very well and has good out of combat ability like paladins and wilders.

Next up would classes that can fill one role well and partially fill multiple other roles like rangers and rogues.

Next up is full 2 and 3 role classes like the TOB and (good) psionic classes. Then the overpowered ones.

Down from middle is the one role classes that can't do much out of combat like fighters and warmages.

Down is the true 5th wheel classes like monks and ninja. Finally NPC classes.