Class power rating

[Charlie Kemek]

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]

Here's a list of base classes (175 in total).


and this would be the list of prestige classes (782 in total)


So, anyone up to the challenge?

[Fax Celestis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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_]

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]

Wait, you put "Knight" in the "Strong" category?

[Thrawn183]

Wizards tell physics to sit down and shut up. Knights have a limited ability to say the same to death.

[PirateMonk]

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_]

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]

Wait, you put "Knight" in the "Strong" category?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The starting point I believe would be deciding the most powerful base class, then going down to commoner.

[Lord Tataraus]

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]

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]

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

A 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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.