Updated 3.5 Class Tiers and Tiers for 4e

[Ice&Fire]

Has anyone ever made/seen an updated Tier system for the 3.5 base classes? I tried looking around on the interweb, because I remember seeing a few threads around, even one or two on this forum, that had what I'm after, but i can't find them now.

Also, is there a similar tier system for the 4ed classes?

[Mando Knight]

I don't have a link to the "final" tier list for 3.5, but creating a tier list for 4e is a little trickier.

I won't go so far as to say "tires don exists" but 4e tiers are definitely closer to each other than say 1st/2nd-tier 3.5 to 3rd or 4th tier 3.5. Furthermore, some classes have specific builds that move them up or down the tier list based on what you're looking for: a Pacifist Cleric is the best there is at recovering ally HP and not getting "aggro" if your DM goes by who deals the most direct damage, but the Tactical Warlord can't be beat in sheer buffing power. I wouldn't so much put them in tiers as give each role a ranking system (from S to E, why not... if I had the time) since Wizards are horrible as Defenders and Rangers don't make good leaders.

IIRC, the Strikers line up somewhat nicely:

Spoiler

Show

Ranger is top dog. Simple to optimize, simple to play. Ridiculous damage output, but boring unless you're ridiculously hotblooded enough to inject awesome RP.

Barbarian is roughly next. Stat synergy with most Defenders and Cha-lords helps, since they can grab the strikery feats and such from MC.

Rogue is roughly right next to the Barbarian. Dragon 381 supports Rapiers, and the Double Sword is still a decent weapon, if no longer far more attractive than Rapier & Parrying Dagger. Sneak Attack and many ways of grabbing CA make the Brutal Scoundrel a deadly threat, though the Artful Dodger can weave into position almost regardless of enemy defenses.

Sorcerer's spot depends on what you're looking for: they can't achieve the single-target damage output of any of the above Strikers (at least not as consistently), but can grab Rogue MC for dagger shenanigans and have the best area blasting of any Striker, followed by archer Rangers, stuff-throwing Rogues, and Whirling Barbarians.

Warlocks are horrible at damage output compared to the others, but have controller-like effects that can help pump up the ally/enemy damage-dealing ratio by shutting down the enemy, retaliating for damage dealt, and still dealing more damage than some in other roles (not Striker-Fighter, though).

Avengers are rock-bottom for the Striker list, except in attack accuracy (Oath of Enmity grants massive to-hit thanks to the rerolls) and AC shenanigans. Can combine with Pit Fighter to help correct damage output, or Daggermaster to get ridiculous crit frequency. Tempus helps, even with the nerfed RRoT. Even after the Armor of Faith nerf, Avengers are one of the few Strikers that can have Paladin/Swordmage-like AC (my count was around 51-53 at level 30 with just basic enchants).

I haven't played or seen enough of the Monk or Assassin to rank them, but I suspect they chill around with the Rogue in general. I'd put the Rogue as the baseline single-target Striker, and make Sorcerer the baseline for any more area-blasting Strikers. Obviously, this ranks the Barbarian and Ranger as better-than-average...

[Kurald Galain]

4E classes are hard to rank, because you first need to define what you're ranking them on (except for strikers, who can simply be ranked by damage-per-round).

The lines between "striker", "defender", and "controller" remain blurry at best, so one could easily argue that a fighter is a good striker. Even if we go by the book listings, is the "best controller" the one with the largest area effects, or the one with the most debuffs? Or perhaps with the best forced movement?

In my opinion, I would say that the best defender is the fighter (followed by shielding swordmage) because they can prevent attacks rather than punish them afterwards; whereas the worst defender is the paladin (because paladin marks are all-too-easily ignorable for several builds).

I would say the best leader is the taclord (because he buffs so well it's not even funny any more) and the worst leader is the shaman (because the spirit appears more gimmicky than actually effective).

In my opinion the best controller is the wizard (by far, although he depends on teamwork more than most classes) and the worst controller is the druid (because he's the jack of all trades, master of none).

And, as Mando already said, the best striker is the ranger, and the worst is the avenger (although I don't consider the warlock a striker, per se).

YMMV, of course, but if twenty other playgrounders chime in we'd have a pretty good notion of tiers.

[Mando Knight]

In my opinion, I would say that the best defender is the fighter (followed by shielding swordmage) because they can prevent attacks rather than punish them afterwards; whereas the worst defender is the paladin (because paladin marks are all-too-easily ignorable for several builds).

I challenge the reasoning behind this statement, especially with Divine Power. Fighters have as much trouble defending their allies against multiple targets as Paladins do: with the exception of Tempest Fighters, both Paladins and Fighters have trouble keeping more than one target marked at a time. Fighters also need to spend their only Immediate Action to retaliate against a shift, and don't auto-stop with that attack like they do with OAs, so an enemy can still shift out and charge or whatever else they had planned to do otherwise. Paladins and Fighters both get a good number of immobilization and dazing powers, which are about as good as marking their enemies.

Paladins now get Divine Sanction, which supplements Divine Challenge in a way that no other Defender's mark does: while it doesn't stick around as long (though, really, only Divine Challenge and Swordmage Aegis powers do), after activation it, like Divine Challenge, deals its extra damage as a non-action, meaning that several powers can draw entire groups to attack the Paladin rather than the other targets if they don't want to suffer auto-hit radiant damage. Call of Challenge, a level 2 Paladin Encounter Utility power, invokes DS on all enemies within Close Burst 3 for one turn. Contagious Challenge causes an enemy adjacent to the Paladin's target for Divine Challenge to get marked by Divine Sanction. Draconic Challenge allows a Dragonborn's Dragon Breath power to invoke Divine Sanction until its next turn. Mighty Challenge causes Strength Paladins' Divine Challenge to be as threatening as a Charisma Paladin's, and makes a balanced Paladin's Divine Challenge outright dangerous.

On the defensive side, Paladins grant the most powers that either heal their allies, boost ally defenses, or shift the focus of an attack onto themselves. Fighters can do the same, but with significant feat investment. (Boosting ally defenses is best done with a Sword & Board Fighter)

[Freylorn]

I'd have to agree on the difficulty of setting up tiers for 4e. Actually, truth be told, that was one of the main reasons I switched over to primarily 4e - the emphasis on class balance.

I'm the kind of player who enjoys making powerful characters - the point of leveling up is, after all, to become stronger. And it always seemed kind of odd to me that one would have to intentionally limit oneself in 3.5 to try and maintain balance with the rest of the group.

[Artanis]

I never liked the reasoning that the Fighter was the best because of its damage output and OA tricks simply because it seems to ignore everything that the other defenders have going for them. Even if the Fighter is still the best anyways, it annoys me that people ignore things like the Paladin's healing abilities that make a couple of the extra hits that get past him not matter

[Person_Man]

The Brilliant Gameologist thread on this was completed in 2008, after 3.5 was completed. They left out Incarnum classes (Totemist and Incarnate are Tier 3, Soulborn is Tier 5 or 6). They also under rate the Paladin and Knight, which IMO are Tier 4 or even Tier 3 classes if you know what to do with them.

[Ponce]

The Brilliant Gameologist thread on this was completed in 2008, after 3.5 was completed. They left out Incarnum classes (Totemist and Incarnate are Tier 3, Soulborn is Tier 5 or 6). They also under rate the Paladin and Knight, which IMO are Tier 4 or even Tier 3 classes if you know what to do with them.

Paladin? Ok. But, Knight?

[Oslecamo]

Paladin? Ok. But, Knight?

Awesome capstone ability kinda makes up for the remaining medium levels.

[Draz74]

The Brilliant Gameologist thread on this was completed in 2008, after 3.5 was completed. They left out Incarnum classes (Totemist and Incarnate are Tier 3, Soulborn is Tier 5 or 6). They also under rate the Paladin and Knight, which IMO are Tier 4 or even Tier 3 classes if you know what to do with them.

I agree that Paladin and Knight are solidly Tier 4, and that the Totemist is Tier 3. I'd personally put Incarnate at 4 rather than 3, though. I'm no expert on Soulborn, but I'd be surprised if it really sucks as hard as the Samurai so I'm guessing it's a 5 rather than a 6.

The thread there also leaves out the CPsi classes. Ardent is probably Tier 3, though I've seen a few people argue for Tier 2. Lurk is probably Tier 4. Divine Mind is ... like Soulborn, but without even Full BAB. Low Tier 5.

[Soranar]

I would bring warlock and bard up a tier or two as well

[Optimystik]

The thread there also leaves out the CPsi classes. Ardent is probably Tier 3, though I've seen a few people argue for Tier 2. Lurk is probably Tier 4. Divine Mind is ... like Soulborn, but without even Full BAB. Low Tier 5.

Ardent is Tier 2 with Dominant Ideal. Without it, it is Tier 3 (and fairly high at that, imo.)

[Draz74]

Ardent is Tier 2 with Dominant Ideal. Without it, it is Tier 3 (and fairly high at that, imo.)

Yeah, I can see that (although none of my Ardent builds have ever managed to fit much Metapsionics into their feat-starved selves ... but if I were using Dominant Ideal at all, I suppose I could have made room for that).

Without Dominant Ideal, some people still say it's Tier 2 just because it's a full manifester. I agree that it's kinda on the high end of Tier 3, but certainly no "higher" than the Beguiler.

I would bring warlock and bard up a tier or two as well

Warlock, hmmm. Maybe. "Dip a level of Binder and go Hellfire Warlock" might be too specific a build to figure into the Tier system. Without that, is the Warlock really Tier 3? It might be, with Eldritch Glaive and so forth ...

Bard, definitely not. Tier 3 is right where it belongs. Sublime Chord is not Bard.

[Tyndmyr]

No, no, paladin's suck too, from a power standpoint. The entire falling thing is horribly restrictive, and the tight alignment restrictions prevent plenty of the usual nifty tricks practiced by optimizers.

[Draz74]

Nah. If your DM is a jerk about falling, a 1000-gp magic item will at least give you a perfect warning system about whenever he's trying to screw you over. And you really don't need Chaos Shuffle or any of the other anti-Good optimization tricks to reach Tier 4 levels of power.

Paladins have gotten more "splatbook fixing" love than any other PHB class except maybe Bard. Battle Blessing and the Spell Compendium spells, alone, make them a whole lot better than they used to be.

[Tyndmyr]

Tier 4 is pretty underwhelming yes...and they might be that good. Definitely not tier 3 though.

I mean, you've got MAD issues, low skill points, frankly, you're basically like a fighter with a crappy divine class thingie tacked on instead of bonus feats. And fighters suck to begin with.

[Soranar]

you forget the paladin's all powerful mount

[Doc Roc]

Ardent is Tier 2 with Dominant Ideal. Without it, it is Tier 3 (and fairly high at that, imo.)

My experience indicates that with dominant ideal in place, I'd be comfortable suggesting that ardent is quite possibly Tier 1.

you forget the paladin's all powerful mount

No, we aren't. Paladins are mid to high tier four.

[Draz74]

My experience indicates that with dominant ideal in place, I'd be comfortable suggesting that ardent is quite possibly Tier 1.

Really!?! What Mantle has such diverse Powers in it that being able to abuse it with Metapsionics gets you all the way up to Tier 1? My next Ardent wants to specialize in that Mantle!

[Artanis]

There's other posts there explaining why each class is in its tier. The one for Tier 3 makes it pretty clear why Bards should not be bumped up a tier: they won't utterly destroy a campaign. Tier 1 and Tier 2 are partially defined by their potential to break the game into a million pieces, and Bards don't have that kind of ability. So Tier 3 is the highest a Bard can go.



Edit: Addendum

My experience indicates that with dominant ideal in place, I'd be comfortable suggesting that ardent is quite possibly Tier 1.

Does the Ardent fit the following definition?

"Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat"

[Oslecamo]

Honestly, anyone can breack up a campaign in a million pieces by being jerkish enough.

[Tyndmyr]

Honestly, anyone can breack up a campaign in a million pieces by being jerkish enough.

Yes, but that's not a class related issue. You measure the classes by determining what you can do with the classes and the power they grant.

[Person_Man]

Paladin? Ok. But, Knight?

Absolutely. Remember, Tier 3 isn't about being Batman. It's about doing one thing really well, and still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate. In this case, if you know what you're doing with the Knight, you're the king of aggro, a solid tank and battlefield controller, and have a respectable damage output.

I agree that Paladin and Knight are solidly Tier 4, and that the Totemist is Tier 3. I'd personally put Incarnate at 4 rather than 3, though. I'm no expert on Soulborn, but I'd be surprised if it really sucks as hard as the Samurai so I'm guessing it's a 5 rather than a 6.

Whereas the Totemist is mostly about offense, the Incarnate is mostly about defense and support. Incarnates get easy access to excellent AC, miss chance, Spell Resistance, Saves, Uncanny Dodge, and Evasion. You can also buff your allies several different ways, use a wide variety of Skills, make area of effect attacks, heal, and pull off several semi-unique team up combos. And unlike some other Tier 3 classes (ToB, Psychic Warrior, etc), you can change your powers every morning. So if you know you're fighting a particular type of enemy for an important battle (ie, you're bothering to listen to the DM as he describes the plot), it's easy to cherry pick the perfect combo to fight them.

Soulborn is just utter garbage. You don't get your first soulmeld until 4th level, your first point of essentia until 6th level, and your first chakra bind until 8th level. And your soulmeld list is the most limited. I've homebrewed a fix that works well though.

[Gametime]

Honestly, anyone can breack up a campaign in a million pieces by being jerkish enough.

As Tyndmyr pointed out, those are different ways of ruining the game. Anyone can ruin the game by virtue of refusing to play in a way that other players can cope with. Only certain classes can ruin the game by trivializing anything the DM throws at them.

[Gralamin]

I don't have a link to the "final" tier list for 3.5, but creating a tier list for 4e is a little trickier.

I won't go so far as to say "tires don exists" but 4e tiers are definitely closer to each other than say 1st/2nd-tier 3.5 to 3rd or 4th tier 3.5. Furthermore, some classes have specific builds that move them up or down the tier list based on what you're looking for: a Pacifist Cleric is the best there is at recovering ally HP and not getting "aggro" if your DM goes by who deals the most direct damage, but the Tactical Warlord can't be beat in sheer buffing power. I wouldn't so much put them in tiers as give each role a ranking system (from S to E, why not... if I had the time) since Wizards are horrible as Defenders and Rangers don't make good leaders.

IIRC, the Strikers line up somewhat nicely:

Spoiler

Show

Ranger is top dog. Simple to optimize, simple to play. Ridiculous damage output, but boring unless you're ridiculously hotblooded enough to inject awesome RP.

Barbarian is roughly next. Stat synergy with most Defenders and Cha-lords helps, since they can grab the strikery feats and such from MC.

Rogue is roughly right next to the Barbarian. Dragon 381 supports Rapiers, and the Double Sword is still a decent weapon, if no longer far more attractive than Rapier & Parrying Dagger. Sneak Attack and many ways of grabbing CA make the Brutal Scoundrel a deadly threat, though the Artful Dodger can weave into position almost regardless of enemy defenses.

Sorcerer's spot depends on what you're looking for: they can't achieve the single-target damage output of any of the above Strikers (at least not as consistently), but can grab Rogue MC for dagger shenanigans and have the best area blasting of any Striker, followed by archer Rangers, stuff-throwing Rogues, and Whirling Barbarians.

Warlocks are horrible at damage output compared to the others, but have controller-like effects that can help pump up the ally/enemy damage-dealing ratio by shutting down the enemy, retaliating for damage dealt, and still dealing more damage than some in other roles (not Striker-Fighter, though).

Avengers are rock-bottom for the Striker list, except in attack accuracy (Oath of Enmity grants massive to-hit thanks to the rerolls) and AC shenanigans. Can combine with Pit Fighter to help correct damage output, or Daggermaster to get ridiculous crit frequency. Tempus helps, even with the nerfed RRoT. Even after the Armor of Faith nerf, Avengers are one of the few Strikers that can have Paladin/Swordmage-like AC (my count was around 51-53 at level 30 with just basic enchants).

I haven't played or seen enough of the Monk or Assassin to rank them, but I suspect they chill around with the Rogue in general. I'd put the Rogue as the baseline single-target Striker, and make Sorcerer the baseline for any more area-blasting Strikers. Obviously, this ranks the Barbarian and Ranger as better-than-average...

A rank system sounds like a good idea, though what, exactly, would our criteria be? Damage Per round, implements, weapons, Buffs, marking, area of effect, debuffs? Or is that too general / I need more?

[Optimystik]

As Tyndmyr pointed out, those are different ways of ruining the game. Anyone can ruin the game by virtue of refusing to play in a way that other players can cope with. Only certain classes can ruin the game by trivializing anything the DM throws at them.

The problem isn't so much that they can't be challenged. The problem is that anything that challenges them, will absolutely wreck the lower tiers.

You can challenege a Tier 1 party, with a foe or foes far above their CR. Any Tier 3s and below along for the ride will be stomped quickly.

[Mando Knight]

A rank system sounds like a good idea, though what, exactly, would our criteria be? Damage Per round, implements, weapons, Buffs, marking, area of effect, debuffs? Or is that too general / I need more?

Everything. It would take enough of my time (if I were to do it myself) that if I were to keep it up to date I would charge good money for it rather than offering it for free here on the forums. I mean, I don't need it, but if you want me to do an analysis of class and race effectiveness, I'll need a research grant to pay for another year's subscription to DDI, more dice, more miniatures, a good stock of dungeon tiles... after all, you want me to do SCIENCE! with D&D, so I'll have to charge you like you would for any other service SCIENCE! provides.

[Doc Roc]

"Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat"

Yes for three reasons:
Substitution for Mantles. Admittedly, this is GM fiat, but it is backed by an ACF.
This leads to some really exciting and virtually miraculous stuff.

Dominant Ideal. Holy crap. This is just ten tons of win.

ML Based power selection. This is broken. You can lose four levels of Ardent and never even feel it.

Additionally:
Great power points pool.
Fantastic interactions with psychic reformation.
Wisdom is curiously easy to boost.
Small set of powers known is easily offset with Expanded Knowledge which can come from many sources.

[Gamerlord]

Everything. It would take enough of my time (if I were to do it myself) that if I were to keep it up to date I would charge good money for it rather than offering it for free here on the forums. I mean, I don't need it, but if you want me to do an analysis of class and race effectiveness, I'll need a research grant to pay for another year's subscription to DDI, more dice, more miniatures, a good stock of dungeon tiles... after all, you want me to do SCIENCE! with D&D, so I'll have to charge you like you would for any other service SCIENCE! provides.

Mythweavers- character sheet storer, no need to buy them or print them out.
Why would you need more dice?
Why do you need more than a room's worth of tiles?
Why more miniatures ?
Subscriptions are 10 bucks a month.
Note to self: try this sometime in spare time,

[Break]

Gralamin, the #giantitp channel, and I were working on something like tis a while back, and we figured that ranking the leaders - and, to a lesser extent, the controllers - would be difficult.

The preliminary striker tiers lined up pretty much with Mando's, and the defender tiers were something like paladin on top (due to radiantcheese, and excellent feat support for Divine Challenge that can make a -lot- of melee useless, or even weaken the target for that attack), fighter and warden roughly neck and neck in the middle, and swordmage on its own at the bottom due to poorer power selection, single-target focus with its aegises, and lacking assault aegis.

That's what I remember off the top of my head, but Gral and Edea will likely correct me on some point.