Looking for 4th ed tier list

[Kurald Galain]

For a defender, I would look at such things as:

Ok, but what you propose is not a metric yet, until you give reasonable point values for every category. Presumably you could make three to five categories for each role, then rate each class in these categories, and the sum of these scores indicates the class's tier.

What's good here is that there's a strong general agreement (not just in this thread) about what the best classes and the worst classs are, so you could calibrate e.g. your striker metric to run from Vampire at the bottom to Ranger at the top.

[Kimera757]

Ok, but what you propose is not a metric yet, until you give reasonable point values for every category. Presumably you could make three to five categories for each role, then rate each class in these categories, and the sum of these scores indicates the class's tier.

True. The metrics could be agreed upon in their own thread, before we calculate actual values for the classes.

[GPuzzle]

I will create said thread, with the metrics being:

Controller:
Wizard to Bladesinger.

Leader:
Warlord to Sentinel Druid.

Defender:
Fighter to Cavalier.

Striker:
Ranger to Vampire.

[Surrealistik]

Bladesinger when built not to suck is more of a striker actually (Intelligent blademaster/Dex melee training, charge + radiant/frostcheese or some variation thereof).

[GPuzzle]

Then Binder it is.

[obryn]

Yeah, one of the difficulties is that a lot of classes aren't purely one thing or another. For example, the Hunter, built well, is between Controller and Striker. A well-built Sentinel (yeah, I know) is a decent "fifth man" with elements of all the other roles, even though they're a tepid Leader.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah, one of the difficulties is that a lot of classes aren't purely one thing or another. For example, the Hunter, built well, is between Controller and Striker. A well-built Sentinel (yeah, I know) is a decent "fifth man" with elements of all the other roles, even though they're a tepid Leader.

In practice, that means that a hunter is a poor controller or a poor striker, and that instead of a sentinel, any class with a real role would be a better "fifth man". 4E is the kind of game that rewards being good at one thing over being mediocre at several.

[Daracaex]

Well, kind of, yeah. But you also just have things which straddle two roles in a way that's really fun to play. Like the monk. From the traditional striker perspective, they are really not great at the single-target damage thing. However, if you build them right, they can do tons of damage in blasts and bursts like controllers, or become pseudo-defenders with their high potential in defenses.

[GPuzzle]

That function is from the off-tank.

Generally, a good party composition is:

-Defender
-Striker
-Leader
-Controller
-Off-Tank

One deals huge damage, the other holds the bar, one gives buffs/actions/whatever to his teammates, one screws up with the enemies and one can deal damage and hold the bar.

[The Glyphstone]

Vampire is a race, a class, and a feat in 4e.

The Vampire Class is a Vampire straight from Hammer Horror Films. Turn into a bat, burn in sunlight, hypnosis, can pull massive feats of strength. Normally a bad accent as well. An absolute blast to play in a non-serious game but a weak class mechanically.

The Vampire Race (Vyrokola) is a somewhat more serious vampire. They are poor sods who happen to drink blood, but their identity is not bound up in being a vampire in the same way the Hammer Horror Vampire is. Instead they take their extended lifespan and use it to do something else, like become a wizard or use their preternatural strength to become a fighter.

The Vampirism Feat is some poor sod who got embraced and now drinks blood and has a bad sunlight allergy. It's the only one of the three that can be acquired in the course of play - and also allows characters like Iron Maiden - my warforged vampire brawler fighter. It's a character defining feat (that they are a vampire) but it's neither innate nor the most important thing about them. (I think there's also a more minor way of becoming a feat based vampire).

Can you combine these? I.e. be a Vyrolaka Vampire with the Vampirism feat/theme?

[Kurald Galain]

Well, kind of, yeah. But you also just have things which straddle two roles in a way that's really fun to play.

"Fun to play" is a completely different metric than power tiers. Certain low-power classes are fun, and certain high-power classes (notably the ranger) are not fun. The easiest way to find out which classes are fun is by having a lot of people vote on what their favorite classes are (as I recall, some people actually did that for 3E at some point). That would be an interesting experiment, but it wouldn't say much about the classes' respective power.

Generally, a good party composition is:

I would say the standard five-man party is one of each role and a second striker. Two defenders tend to interfere with each others' marks, two leaders or two controllers tend to overlap, e.g. providing more healing than is needed or dazing monsters that are already dazed.

[Epinephrine]

In practice, that means that a hunter is a poor controller or a poor striker, and that instead of a sentinel, any class with a real role would be a better "fifth man". 4E is the kind of game that rewards being good at one thing over being mediocre at several.

It's interesting how things can work out though; the party I DM has a pair of strikers who both have very solid defenses/are very tough to kill - they may not strike as well as some other strikers, but it means that less of the party resources are needed to keep the strikers going. In turn, the controller is more of a damage dealer (having optimised for damage), and the defender is a defender/striker hybrid, so both those roles are dealing more damage. If the strikers had been squishier, the other roles might have had to take less aggressive builds.

[GPuzzle]

I would say the standard five-man party is one of each role and a second striker. Two defenders tend to interfere with each others' marks, two leaders or two controllers tend to overlap, e.g. providing more healing than is needed or dazing monsters that are already dazed.

That's why Slayers, Barbarians, Monks and Avengers aren't as good as Strikers as others are but still are really good to the team in general.

[georgie_leech]

Can you combine these? I.e. be a Vyrolaka Vampire with the Vampirism feat/theme?

To my knowledge, yes. It is entirely possible to be a Vampire Vampire Vampire.

[squiggit]

I would say the standard five-man party is one of each role and a second striker. Two defenders tend to interfere with each others' marks, two leaders or two controllers tend to overlap, e.g. providing more healing than is needed or dazing monsters that are already dazed.

Two leaders work really well together if they're not the same type of leader. Mix an enabling warlord with a buffing bard, runepriest or artificer and you have a pretty nasty combination.

You can do the same with controllers. Stack attack penalties or have one guy throw down zones and slows while the other dazes, etc.

The biggest problem I've had with double controller groups is that they make things kind of boring. The last game I ran had a fairly decently optimized wizard and invoker pair and it was extremely hard to make encounter that could threaten them.

The other problem is that a Defender is basically tanky, short range controller in his own right, so a defender/striker/leader/double controller group is almost a three controller group really.

Though I find the best "fifth man" to be one of those classes that leans heavily on a second role. Warlocks, rogues, avengers, Seekers (ok maybe not seekers), etc.

Bladesinger when built not to suck is more of a striker actually (Intelligent blademaster/Dex melee training, charge + radiant/frostcheese or some variation thereof)

I'm still wondering why they thought making a class key off two stats pumpin the same NAD was a good idea. I mean it didn't work for Barbarians why would it work again?

Nevermind that "encounters as dailies" abomination.

[Daracaex]

To my knowledge, yes. It is entirely possible to be a Vampire Vampire Vampire.

Why be a Vampire Vampire Vampire when you can be a Werewolf Zombie Vampire?

(Werewolf theme, Revenant race, Vampire class, by the way)

[GPuzzle]

Revenant Rogue, past life as Warforged, Vampiric Heritage feat, Werewolf theme and Sword Coast Corsair as Pp.

Zombie Robot Ninja Werewolf Vampire Pirate.

[Kimera757]

On optimization, I think this should be measured on a slider. To use defenders as an example:

Weak out of the box and poor optimization: No examples that I know of.
Weak out of the box and good optimization: Battlemind, warden
Strong out of the box and weak optimization: Knight
Strong out of the box and strong optimization: Weaponmaster

[squiggit]

Strong out of the box and weak optimization: Knight

Knights are a bit weird in that regard: That's definitely true for heroic level play but in paragon/epic (where enemies with nonstandard movement are more common) it sort of inverses, an unoptimized knight is a clear bottom feeder while a high-op knight holds its own with the other mid-tier defenders.

[Kimera757]

Knights are a bit weird in that regard: That's definitely true for heroic level play but in paragon/epic (where enemies with nonstandard movement are more common) it sort of inverses, an unoptimized knight is a clear bottom feeder while a high-op knight holds its own with the other mid-tier defenders.

I recall there were a few other classes that were only strong in certain tiers. Perhaps we could call that category "growth"? I believe the non-AEDU Essentials classes fall into that category, except maybe the thief because sneak attack scales better than Power Strike.

Well, kind of, yeah. But you also just have things which straddle two roles in a way that's really fun to play. Like the monk. From the traditional striker perspective, they are really not great at the single-target damage thing. However, if you build them right, they can do tons of damage in blasts and bursts like controllers, or become pseudo-defenders with their high potential in defenses.

I disagree with this comment on monks. I don't see AoE damage dealers as controllers. They're still strikers. They just tend to get weaker as more enemies fall. So the monk is a melee AoE striker, not that different from a draconic sorcerer.

Controllers tend to do lots of AoE attacks, not because blasting minions is their role, but because putting status effects on two or more enemies is worth more than putting a status effect on a single opponent.

I will create said thread, with the metrics being:

...

Defender:
Fighter to Cavalier.

...

Is the cavalier that bad?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The warden just doesn't do a defender's job "out of the box" as well as a fighter (weaponmaster). In other words, the fighter doesn't have to optimize to do their job, while a warden must do that, and since both can optimize, the fighter is probably ahead.

+Stuff

.

So by our logic... If the Wizard was labeled a leader or defender when 4e came out it would have been unplayable because although it can totally wreck encounters it doesn't do the leader or defender job as well as other classes such as the Cleric or Fighter?

That is pretty wack.

Straight out of the Box the Warden is a beast (figuratively and literally sometimes) even without mid or high optimization. Sure the Fighter is the better defender (and class, love the Fighter) but that doesn't make the warden unplayable.

[Kimera757]

So by our logic... If the Wizard was labeled a leader or defender when 4e came out it would have been unplayable because although it can totally wreck encounters it doesn't do the leader or defender job as well as other classes such as the Cleric or Fighter?

All I would say is the wizard is a weak leader or defender and a strong controller.

Straight out of the Box the Warden is a beast (figuratively and literally sometimes) even without mid or high optimization. Sure the Fighter is the better defender (and class, love the Fighter) but that doesn't make the warden unplayable.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say the warden is unplayable. It just doesn't do its role as well. The vampire is unplayable. (Pretty much literally; it doesn't just suck in numerous ways, it can't even walk outdoors half the time.)

[NotAnAardvark]

Straight out of the Box the Warden is a beast (figuratively and literally sometimes) even without mid or high optimization. Sure the Fighter is the better defender (and class, love the Fighter) but that doesn't make the warden unplayable.

Beast? That's a bit of a stretch. The warden is hard to kill, but that's about all he has going for him. He's not very sticky, doesn't punish very hard and doesn't do a particularly large amount of damage on his own. In the end in a practical encounter his toughness means that it's best to simply leave him alone and kill everyone else in the group.

Optimized I suppose he's acceptable-ish. Maybe slightly worse than a battlemind and about on par with the essentials defenders ( not as bad as a berserker admittedly ).

Fundamentally the problem is that he requires a degree of optimization to even do his job, which isn't true for any other defender. A warden who picks the wrong weapon or the wrong D1 is going to be hard pressed to do his job post heroic.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say the warden is unplayable. It just doesn't do its role as well. The vampire is unplayable. (Pretty much literally; it doesn't just suck in numerous ways, it can't even walk outdoors half the time.)

Even the vampire can hit baseline expected damage with moderate optimization.

[Tegu8788]

The Warden can be screwed up. I had one in my game for a session, Str 17, Halfling, using a Warhammer. I had to nerf my Kobolds so hard to make her seem like she was doing anything useful. Fortunately, she graduated and ran home, but yeah, it's possible to screw up a Warden pretty easy.


But this shouldn't be considered too heavily. This specific lady had never built a tabletop character before, flat out ignored my advise, and would rather shout "BAM BAM" then actually hit an enemy.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

All I would say is the wizard is a weak leader or defender and a strong controller.



Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say the warden is unplayable. It just doesn't do its role as well. The vampire is unplayable. (Pretty much literally; it doesn't just suck in numerous ways, it can't even walk outdoors half the time.)

The original quote was from someone saying the Warden class was barely playable (which is to say unplayable).

Also I was saying that a class that can wreck encounters with low to mid op shouldn't be considered unplayable (or "barely playable") just because they were labeled a "defender" or "leader" and they don't perform in the role as well as a top tier class. Just because the Swordmage sucks as a defender and is great as a striker doesn't make it barely playable (i.e unplayable). It just means that the Dev's of 4e didn't think it all the way through when they made that class and classified it as such.

If the Warden couldn't be played and be an effective party member then sure I would be ok with it being called unplayable BUT with very little effort wardens work just fine.

A low to mid optimize Warden is very good, an optimized Warden is immune to anything with a save or can dish out a crap ton of damage. I fear that people haven't played the warden and are just going off what they see from the internet.

edit:

The Warden can be screwed up. I had one in my game for a session, Str 17, Halfling, using a Warhammer. I had to nerf my Kobolds so hard to make her seem like she was doing anything useful. Fortunately, she graduated and ran home, but yeah, it's possible to screw up a Warden pretty easy.


But this shouldn't be considered too heavily. This specific lady had never built a tabletop character before, flat out ignored my advise, and would rather shout "BAM BAM" then actually hit an enemy.

Oh yeah, Wardens can be made incorrectly, just like every other class.

I've seen wizards made incorrectly after all... It was quite sad.

[Inevitability]

Revenant Rogue, past life as Warforged, Vampiric Heritage feat, Werewolf theme and Sword Coast Corsair as Pp.

Zombie Robot Ninja Werewolf Vampire Pirate.

Add in the demigod epic destiny.
And replace vampiric heritage by vampirism and take deva heritage.

Zombie Robot Ninja Werewolf Angel Vampire Pirate God.

[GPuzzle]

I recall there were a few other classes that were only strong in certain tiers. Perhaps we could call that category "growth"? I believe the non-AEDU Essentials classes fall into that category, except maybe the thief because sneak attack scales better than Power Strike.



I disagree with this comment on monks. I don't see AoE damage dealers as controllers. They're still strikers. They just tend to get weaker as more enemies fall. So the monk is a melee AoE striker, not that different from a draconic sorcerer.

Controllers tend to do lots of AoE attacks, not because blasting minions is their role, but because putting status effects on two or more enemies is worth more than putting a status effect on a single opponent.



Is the cavalier that bad?

I wouldn't say that the Cavalier is that bad, but compared to all the other defenders (Fighter/Paladin/Warden/Battlemind/Knight), he is the worst of them. He's still good, the others are just better than him.

[Kimera757]

Just because the Swordmage sucks as a defender and is great as a striker doesn't make it barely playable (i.e unplayable). It just means that the Dev's of 4e didn't think it all the way through when they made that class and classified it as such.

No one is disagreeing with this. However the warden isn't just classified as a defender, its abilities are defender abilities.

I fear that people haven't played the warden and are just going off what they see from the internet.

I'm not going off the internet. In the Greyhawk campaign I'm in (player, not DM) we have a warden. They're not very sticky unless they use their sole daily (the one that knocks anyone that moves 2 squares away from them prone).

As a DM, I have a defending swordmage in my group. They can mark and nerf the damage of a single attacker. They're good at punishing, in an unusual way. However, they can't stand and fight, or more to the point, keep anyone from rushing past them and squishing the invoker, cleric, or sorcerer. (The sorcerer punishes anyone who attack him though.)

Oh yeah, Wardens can be made incorrectly, just like every other class.

I've seen wizards made incorrectly after all... It was quite sad.

That's one reason I talk about "out of the box". A class that is optimized out of the box, or has all the tools out of the box, is harder to screw up.

Funnily enough, my current PC (in Greyhawk) is a wizard. Fortunately I know what I'm doing there. I'm literally only using PH1 and Essentials 1 stuff.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

No one is disagreeing with this. However the warden isn't just classified as a defender, its abilities are defender abilities.

I'm not going off the internet. In the Greyhawk campaign I'm in (player, not DM) we have a warden. They're not very sticky unless they use their sole daily (the one that knocks anyone that moves 2 squares away from them prone).

As a DM, I have a defending swordmage in my group. They can mark and nerf the damage of a single attacker. They're good at punishing, in an unusual way. However, they can't stand and fight, or more to the point, keep anyone from rushing past them and squishing the invoker, cleric, or sorcerer. (The sorcerer punishes anyone who attack him though.)



That's one reason I talk about "out of the box". A class that is optimized out of the box, or has all the tools out of the box, is harder to screw up.

Funnily enough, my current PC (in Greyhawk) is a wizard. Fortunately I know what I'm doing there. I'm literally only using PH1 and Essentials 1 stuff.

Again though. Just because a class doesn't measure up to a role doesn't mean a class is bad. It doesn't matter if the Warden is sticky, the Warden can be a fine class even if it isn't the perfect defender.

I would have gave it a classification of "hunter" (or whatever) along with some other classes. They are like defenders in that the are tough and can cause damage but aren't sticky and are meant to seek and destroy the targets.

Wardens get teleportation and speed boost after all. They can do good damage. The opportunity attack problem is a failing of the system not really a failing of a single class.

The Warden doesn't take much optimization right out of the box. You may not make a sticky defender but you make a good class that can contribute to the team. Sure you can't make completely stupid choices, but you can't really make stupid choices for any other class.

[Mandrake]

As I read through what you wrote, and with some experience considering measuring things that are somewhat hard to measure, these are my suggestions:

(1)
Do not just "scale through" classes from weakest to strongest, especially because it is only an ordinal scale (the first and the second in a race might be seconds apart, with the third coming in after minutes), and because you cannot derive good specific measures for each role you mentioned from such a layout.

(2)
Decide whether you want out of the box or everything available concept and stick to it. I suggest you go for the second one: with everything available, which class is better.

(3)
Use multiple measures, as was the original idea that was also supported and enriched by Kurald Galain. Derive a specific number of qualities and rate them for every class on a scale of, say, 1 to 5. Sum up the measures, and you get your role quality, while you can still access specific advantages of a certain class.

(4)
Do not dabble in "party layout". You are rating class quality, not party quality. If somebody wants to do that, he would do it in another way, while he could still put your class ratings to use. This does not mean you cannot have a "synergetic" quality or something of the likes, meaning how easily this class functions with most other classes.

(5)
When you get the specific qualities, measure every class for every of them. Yes, you can have a set that is striker or leader specific, but it is still nice to see if a class is good at their secondary role (random example: a warlock is better at controllerish stuff than a ranger; don't know if it is true).

My suggestion is that you (we) start off by designing indicators of quality, specifics to rate the classes on, such as Buffing or Enabling or Nova Round Strength or Out of Combat Tricks or whatever. Then, we assign each to a role, and maybe leave some for two roles, and maybe have some assigned under "Other". When we do that, we can start doing some sort of a focus group here on the forum to discuss which class should get which rating.

Hope this will spur us to actually makes this, I'm rather excited and can't wait to hear what you have to say