Class Tiers for 4th edition D&D

[Kurald Galain]

Well. In the past, I have posted this table to show what (as far as I know) the various character building boards think of the respective power levels of the classes. Needless to say this should be taken with 1d6 grains of salt. Now, based on various polls on enworld, I can present the second "highly scientific (save ends)" table, which shows what percentage of people consider a class the best at their role. Enjoy!

Important notes
(1) The word "tier" has a common meaning that is used here. The word has a highly specific meaning in a system for third edition outlined by JaronK; that meaning does not apply here.
(2) Tiers are a measure of potential. Obviously, such things as player skill, teamwork, luck of the dice, and DM intervention play a big factor in how much you'll live up to that potential. This also applies to tiers in e.g. Street Fighter or Magic the Gathering.
(3) Tiers can change over time. For instance, the paladin got a big boost in the Divine Power book, and the sorcerer got a big nerf in the errata. Again, this also applies to tiers everywhere else.
(4) Nobody is claiming that low-tier characters are not fun, or that they are useless. And this, too, applies to tiers everywhere else.
(5) Finally, certain classes may have to be split up into subclasses for accuracy. For instance, the Shielding Swordmage is generally considered better than the Ensnaring Swordmage.

{table] |Strong|Average|Weak
Striker|Barbarian|Rogue|Assassin
|Ranger|Sorcerer|Avenger
| |Warlock|Monk
Defender|Fighter|Paladin|Battlemind
|Warden|Swordmage
Leader|Warlord|Artificer|Ardent
| |Bard|Shaman
| |Cleric|
| |Runepriest|
Controller|Psion|Druid|Seeker
|Wizard|Invoker
[/table]

{table]Buid|Rating
Wizard - Control |49.60%
Fighter - Guardian |36.03%
Warlord - Tactical |25.95%
Ranger - Two-blade |18.73%
Ranger - Archer |17.46%
Cleric - Devoted |15.45%
Warden - Earth |14.71%
Swordmage - Shielding |12.87%
Invoker - Wrathful |12.00%
Barbarian - Rageblood |11.97%
Bard - Valourous |8.75%
Artificer - Battlesmith |8.45%
Fighter - Battlerager |7.72%
Paladin - Protecting |7.72%
Psion - Telepath |7.60%
Bard - Cunning |7.29%
Wizard - Illusionist |7.20%
Rogue - Artful |7.18%
Sorcerer - Wild |7.04%
Shaman - Bear |7.00%
Invoker - Preserving |6.80%
Rogue - Brutal |6.76%
Cleric - Battle |6.71%
Avenger - Pursuing |6.06%
Fighter - Great Weapon |5.88%
Warlord - Inspiring |5.83%
Cleric - Shielding |4.66%
Sorcerer - Storm |4.65%
Wizard - War |4.40%
Druid - Guardian |4.40%
Sorcerer - Dragon |3.80%
Swordmage - Assault |3.68%
Druid - Predator |3.60%
Monk - Centered |3.24%
Fighter - Tempest |2.94%
Invoker - Malediction |2.80%
Avenger - Isolating |2.68%
Warlord - Resourceful |2.62%
Warlord - Bravura |2.62%
Paladin - Ardent |2.21%
Paladin - Virtuous |2.21%
Bard - Prescient |1.75%
Warlock - Dark |1.69%
Warlock - Infernal |1.69%
Wizard - Summoner |1.60%
Paladin - Avenging |1.47%
Swordmage - Ensaring |1.47%
Shaman - Panther |1.46%
Artificer - Tinkerer |1.46%
Warlock - Star |1.41%
Avenger - Commanding |1.41%
Warlock - Fey |1.27%
Warden - Wild |1.10%
Ranger - Beastmaster |0.85%
Rogue - Ruthless |0.70%
Barbarian - Thaneborn |0.56%
Sorcerer - Cosmic |0.56%
Warlock - Vestige |0.28%
[/table]

[Emongnome777]

Interesting tables and I appreciate the effort. Most seem to line up with my perceptions (which means, well, nothing).

I'm a little surprised to see the cleric as a weak leader. Even with the recent nerfs, I thought their healing was top of the line. I'm curious to know your thoughts on why they are ranked there.

I've personally not gotten to play enough to gauge this list as accurate, even in a subjective way. And of course it should be noted that, while it may show the relative strengths of classes, how fun each of them is is entirely dependent on the player and this list should in no way discourage someone from playing a class (except the seeker ).

Again, nice list and thanks for posting.

[Coidzor]

Hmm.

Could have done with polling to allow a table per role for the percentages rather than it being a single table for all variants and classes and roles at once.

Though, that certainly is interesting as it is presented.

[KillianHawkeye]

I'm a little surprised to see the cleric as a weak leader. Even with the recent nerfs, I thought their healing was top of the line. I'm curious to know your thoughts on why they are ranked there.

I guess there's more to being a Leader than healing?

[dsmiles]

The 'tier system' in general is wasted on me, as I play what I want to play regardless of what 'tier' everyone else is. (I've never been one for crunching numbers to squeeze every point of damage out of a build, anyways. I just go with what 'feels right' for the character.)

But this does confirm my suspicions about Rangers and Wizards, and the Avenger was no surprise, either.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm a little surprised to see the cleric as a weak leader.

It's probably an overreaction based on the recent nerfs (which did hit the cleric and sorcerer pretty hard). I think it's fair to place cleric back in "average".

[Tengu_temp]

"Buid", huh? Anyway, why are monks considered weak strikers? They have better damage potential than avengers or assassins, and are more reliable since they don't depend on enemies choosing to do something or stacking shrouds.

The 'tier system' in general is wasted on me, as I play what I want to play regardless of what 'tier' everyone else is.

Well, it's 4e, so the power difference between a strong class and a weak one is tiny anyway.

[Thinker]

The 'tier system' in general is wasted on me, as I play what I want to play regardless of what 'tier' everyone else is. (I've never been one for crunching numbers to squeeze every point of damage out of a build, anyways. I just go with what 'feels right' for the character.)

But this does confirm my suspicions about Rangers and Wizards, and the Avenger was no surprise, either.

And you seem to completely miss the point of any tier system. You're not rebelling against any sort of system by playing what you want. No one is telling you to play anything. People rate things with similar levels of power for informative purposes, not to dictate anything. Taking a more powerful option, even while knowing it is more powerful or even because it is more powerful, isn't power gaming.

[Holocron Coder]

Interesting stuff, though, I will note that some classes rocket from Weak to Strong depending on tier and paragon/epic destiny choice.

It's trivial to get an assassin who constantly deals his bonus 4d6+24 damage to one target for the encounter, and, upon dropping that target, is able to hit 4d6+24 per round again after applying all 4 shrouds to a new target.

Not that bad, though, IMO.

[dsmiles]

Well, it's 4e, so the power difference between a strong class and a weak one is tiny anyway.

Granted, but I was referencing the tier system for 3.x more than this one. The balace of power in 4e is much better than 3.x, IMO.

[Kensen]

Now, based on various polls on enworld, I can present the second "highly scientific (save ends)" table, which shows what percentage of people consider a class the best at their role.

Emphasis mine. I'm curious as to whether only their primary roles were considered, or their overall usefulness? I'm no expert on 4e, far from it, but I've understood that many character classes have secondary roles. If we're talking about tiers in the 3.x sense, the overall usefulness should be gauged, not just their primary role.

[Lord Raziere]

I hate tier systems, I don't see the point, especially in 4E, this is a new edition, where classes have been equalized and all are effective, why do we need something that is outdated? tier systems are for previous editions.

[Kurald Galain]

Emphasis mine. I'm curious as to whether only their primary roles were considered, or their overall usefulness?

Their primary roles only.

where classes have been equalized and all are effective, why do we need something that is outdated?

By definition, everything with multiple different options will have teirs, because some options or classes turn out in practice to be more equal than others.

[Leolo]

Interesting stuff, though, I will note that some classes rocket from Weak to Strong depending on tier and paragon/epic destiny choice.

It's trivial to get an assassin who constantly deals his bonus 4d6+24 damage to one target for the encounter, and, upon dropping that target, is able to hit 4d6+24 per round again after applying all 4 shrouds to a new target.

Not that bad, though, IMO.

In fact such an assassin wouldn't be restricted to 4d6, and could easily do much more than this. But i think that nevertheless the judgment is ok - you have to bring more effort to optimize an assassin than other classes.

The Tier System was never a tool to show how a single character could compete with another character but to provide general guidelines.

[Lord Raziere]

Their primary roles only.

By definition, everything with multiple different options will have teirs, because some options or classes turn out in practice to be more equal than others.

a tier system will only get in the way of fun as it makes people starting thinking "this is strongest and this the weakest", while its true, its not something anyone should focus on, I'm not objecting to whether it is true, I'm objecting to the fact of whether it is really needed. sure some are more equal than others, but its still equal and all the classes are effective at what they do, and if everyone is effective at their roles, does it really matter whether one is "more" equal?

there are no massive gaps worth pointing out, 3.5's tier system was put up because there was massive gap between broken, balanced and underpowered.
4E does not have those gaps, why should we even pay attention to this if the power difference is so small? its outdated I tell you, not because its not true, but because it isn't needed.

[Tengu_temp]

Emphasis mine. I'm curious as to whether only their primary roles were considered, or their overall usefulness? I'm no expert on 4e, far from it, but I've understood that many character classes have secondary roles. If we're talking about tiers in the 3.x sense, the overall usefulness should be gauged, not just their primary role.

From my experience with 4e, well-rounded characters (as opposed to one-trick ponies built for one thing but doing it extremely well) work very good. Bear in mind, I don't mean a master of none who spreads himself too thin, focuses on too many ability scores and overall can't do anything right because of that - I mean characters who sacrifice a bit of their primary role to significantly increase their performance in other roles, for example a striker who trades some damage-dealing for much better defenses. You know, like monks - they don't have the DPR of rogues or rangers, but are much less fragile than them.

[Mystic Muse]

What happened to Sorcerer's that nerfed them?

[Sipex]

I agree with most of the sentiments implied by the table but under the condition that the seperation between Strong and Weak is a lot less drastic than it used to be (a weak character can still easily contribute to a party) and that this doesn't take into consideration of dual roles (ie: Those in the weak category are usually characters who work best playing two roles instead of one. Like Monk who is more of a Striker/Controller than a pure striker)

[Kurald Galain]

What happened to Sorcerer's that nerfed them?

For starters, they can no longer use Enlarge Spell, Daggermaster, and the Frostcombo.

(edit) for another, an issue is that a wizard can actually match the sorcerer's damage output, while still having much better control on his powers.

[Gametime]

a tier system will only get in the way of fun as it makes people starting thinking "this is strongest and this the weakest", while its true, its not something anyone should focus on, I'm not objecting to whether it is true, I'm objecting to the fact of whether it is really needed. sure some are more equal than others, but its still equal and all the classes are effective at what they do, and if everyone is effective at their roles, does it really matter whether one is "more" equal?

Does it matter? Maybe not. Does that mean no one should ever try to categorize the respective power levels of classes? I don't see why.

People who are attracted to the strongest available option will be attracted to the strongest available option whether or not they are aware of the tier system. What you are suggesting is achieving harmony in gaming by keeping such people ignorant of the actual power levels of each class, which is a dubious way to go about things.

If people really positively absolutely need to twink out their character, the tier system can help them do that. If people are curious about how effective different classes are, the tier system can tell them a rough approximation at a glance. For everyone else, it's not particularly useful, but it's not like it impedes anyone's gaming experience, either. If you don't like it, ignore it.

For that matter, if the balance in 4th is as good as you say, why should it matter if someone chooses the class they perceive to be the most powerful? They aren't going to break the game, so who cares if they chose it for power reasons?

[Morph Bark]

The math on some of those percentages is a little off in totals.


Controller: 49.60 + 12.00 + 7.60 + 7.20 + 6.80 + 4.40 + 4.40 + 3.60 + 2.80 + 1.60 = 100.00
Defender: 36.03 + 14.71 + 12.87 + 7.72 + 7.72 + 5.88 + 3.68 + 2.94 + 2.21 + 2.21 + 1.47 + 1.47 + 1.10 = 100.01
Leader: 25.95 + 15.45 + 8.75 + 8.45 + 7.29 + 7.00 + 6.71 + 5.83 + 4.66 + 2.62 + 2.62 + 1.75 + 1.46 + 1.46
= 100.00
Striker: 18.73 + 17.46 +11.97 + 7.18 + 7.04 + 6.76 + 6.06 + 4.65 + 3.80 + 3.24 + 2.68 + 1.69 + 1.69 + 1.41 + 1.41 + 1.27 + 0.85 + 0.70 + 0.56 + 0.56 + 0.28 = 99.69



...what? I was bored.

And just meaning to be informative, just like the Tier system.

[dsmiles]

The math on some of those percentages is a little off in totals.


MATH!


...what? I was bored.

I can see that.

[Elfin]

I'm not normally that into 4e, but I'm interested to know what people think of the new Essentials builds, power-wise.
In particular, how do you think the new builds compare with the same class's old builds?

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not normally that into 4e, but I'm interested to know what people think of the new Essentials builds, power-wise.
In particular, how do you think the new builds compare with the same class's old builds?

Good question. I think they rank as follows:

• Knight: does more damage by default than the fighter, but less versatile and not as sticky. Average tier.
• Slayer: strong tier, especially if a warlord is in the party. Note that it's a striker, not a defender.
• Thief: average tier due to lack of minor action or out-of-turn attacks, and being very vulnerable to daze/prone.
• Warpriest: not very different from regular cleric, so still average tier.
• Mage: doesn't differ much from regular wizard, so still strong tier. Its class features are slightly weaker than the wizard's if you like ritual casting, slightly stronger if you don't.
• Assassin: much stronger than its 4.0 counterpart, strong tier

[Grogmir]

a tier system will only get in the way of fun as it makes people starting thinking "this is strongest and this the weakest", while its true, its not something anyone should focus on, I'm not objecting to whether it is true, I'm objecting to the fact of whether it is really needed.

Spoiler

Show

sure some are more equal than others, but its still equal and all the classes are effective at what they do, and if everyone is effective at their roles, does it really matter whether one is "more" equal?

there are no massive gaps worth pointing out, 3.5's tier system was put up because there was massive gap between broken, balanced and underpowered.
4E does not have those gaps, why should we even pay attention to this if the power difference is so small? its outdated I tell you, not because its not true, but because it isn't needed

.

QTF.

Reject the insidious nature of 3.5 - reject the 'character' builder game and start role playing again!

They aren't going to break the game, so who cares if they chose it for power reasons?

'Cause I want people to be interested in the character they create - not the power gap they can create between themselves and the others in the group.
No powergaming doesn't stop rollplaying - but it is indicative of a certain frame of mind.

[Reis Tahlen]

Class tiers, or "We don't play fun, we play efficient".

The more I read these forums, the more I wonder if it's more a "video game" forum than "role playing" one.

[Lev]

Class tiers, or "We don't play fun, we play efficient".

The more I read these forums, the more I wonder if it's more a "video game" forum than "role playing" one.

100% valid opinion of these forums.
My guess is 9/10 are opt.//minmax


That being said, I really enjoyed playing barbarian, squish squish squish!

[Kurald Galain]

The forum doesn't create tiers. The system creates tiers. By definition, every rules-heavy system does. If you don't like the fact that a system has tiers, you can easily pretend they aren't there, or use a system that doesn't have them; but it doesn't help to tell the people here to "stop making tiers" because they aren't doing that. If you don't want a strong focus on mechanical character building, then why are you playing a system with a strong focus on mechanical character building?

Of course nobody is saying that tiers are all-important; they aren't in 3E either. But it is a valid and common question whether class X is stronger than class Y.

[Hal]

It's probably an overreaction based on the recent nerfs (which did hit the cleric and sorcerer pretty hard). I think it's fair to place cleric back in "average".

Meh. I've played both a cleric and a warlord, and I really think they're just designed for different sub-roles, with clerics being the better healers but warlords being the better buffers.

I can understand some of the perception, though. Battle Clerics never really impressed me with their powers, and TacLords seem to be the ones with the greatest potential (thanks to their armor enchantment . . . unless that got changed when I wasn't looking).

[Sir Swindle89]

From waht i read on forums i was pretty sure people thought Warlock was the worst striker in the game. But their votes say otherwise.

I also generally found them to be pretty bad strikers but they have enough control to make up for it.