Tier System for Classes

[JaronK]

Rubberduck: notice how I specifically stated you shouldn't play a powerful class in a party of weaker classes.  It's not saying "don't play a fighter" but rather "if the rest of your party is Druid, Wizard, Cleric, Artificer, being a Fighter would mean you'd be much weaker."  Take that information and use it as best you can.  It also means that if your party is playing CA Ninja, Healer, Monk, it would likely be rude of you to play a Druid, and you'd overpower your party.  After all, your doggie would be better than the monk, you'd out heal the Healer, and probably out scout the ninja too.

Originally, this game was designed with the idea that all classes had to work together.  Unfortunately, some classes don't need to work together.  The Wizard doesn't need meatshields once he can make his own (Planar Binding + Animate Dead, for example).  Rogues become far less useful when you've got a wand of knock, too.  Meanwhile, other classes absolutely need others... Fighters can't do much without someone to heal them up and handle the stealth things.  The point of the Tiers was to let people know what the classes could do so they could pick what's right for them.  If you want a cooperative game, Druid probably isn't a great plan, for example.  They don't need to cooperate much. 

The point is, if you want your cooperative game, great! Play weaker tier classes, and match your party, and you'll have to work together.  Fighter, Ninja, Healer, Warmage would be a fine party that would need to work together.  If you want to play a super powered game where everyone can do tons of stuff, fine... something like Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Artificer would do that nicely.  Or you could go somewhere in between... whatever works for you.  The system only tells you what power and versility levels you should expect from the classes... it certainly doesn't tell you what classes you should or should not play.  Heck, I'm running an all commoner game right now, and in one game I'm playing a Rogue while in another I'm playing a Dread Necromancer and in a third I'm a DMM Cleric.  Each is appropriate to the party they're with.

JaronK

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Or, if you have somebody new to the game who hasn't used the system before, giving them a wizard or druid with some advice on spells pretty much gaurantees they won't end up dead last of the party...

[JaronK]

True enough, the one thing I couldn't account for was player skill, so you can give stronger classes to newer players, and that often helps.  With that said, some classes seem to be a lot easier to get a feel for... Artificers seem hard for newbies, while Druids are trivially easy to max out. 

JaronK

[Sinfire Titan]

True enough, the one thing I couldn't account for was player skill, so you can give stronger classes to newer players, and that often helps.  With that said, some classes seem to be a lot easier to get a feel for... Artificers seem hard for newbies, while Druids are trivially easy to max out. 

JaronK

I think you noted this somewhere in the OPs, but I feel it needs to be highlighted. Player skill can make a huge difference in the tiers, as can a DM's own experience.

In example: My brother. I barely even need to mention it, but the fact is he's the worst player in our group. Even when he plays characters I made for him, optimized out the ass, he manages to fail. I once made a Chain Tripper Warblade for him, and he managed to fuck even that up (mostly by never using the trip option, and by only using either Steel Wind or Mountain Hammer, even when another maneuver would have helped more).

Compare this to any other player in my group, and he has the capability of dropping a class 4 entire tiers. The Sorcerer he played? Only competent when the party's Blackguard fed him to a 3-headed Fiendish Great Wyrm Red Dragon (Epic campaign, long story) as a peace offering.

Myself? Easily capable as a DM or a player. My own players get caught off-guard when I throw an actual threat at them (I typically let them walk all over combat, and try to encourage RPing between players, but they have enough combat to make up for it and I suck at RPing IRL). When I'm playing a PC, it isn't uncommon for me to be the power house of the group. Eisin, Thrasher, and a few others were complete bombs, and often served as the trump card of difficult encounters.

[Brainpiercing]

Heh, it IS a matter of perspective, too.

In one group I'm playing:
I was, or maybe still am, depending on what the party does, playing a semi-min-maxed knockback crashing pouncing charger. I mean, he had 14 Int, but only 16 con, that was possibly a mistake. However, he could deal a lot of damage, in fact so much damage, now thanks to our WoC Bard, that the DM said it's hard for him to give meaningful encounters. Ok, he liked to put down few strong crittes instead of lots of weak ones.

In that same group we had aforementioned WoC Bard, who is actually probably the greatest group contributor, because he just says "YOU never miss". Honestly my charger would... suck anytime he doesn't charge without this guy.

We also have a Warlock, who is... well, let's say he might be starting to come to his own, but at present he's not a good contributor, his output in combat is just lacking, and his utility use is mediocre, because he never fucking USES his ability. Like being able to fly. I think the DM scared him by charging him with a flying critter once, and now he does't want to do it anymore.

We also have an illusionist wizard. Uh... this character just comes off as PISS weak. Even though by now he's starting to get the right spells. First, he's NEVER ever prepared. Ok, this is due to our lack of scouting. A wizard with 30odd HP, no scouting, and no AC is just a drag. He's a single hit target, even for many monsters.

And then there's the DMPC, who is a Warforged Stalwart Battlesorceror, apparently with a Fighter dip, going into Abjurant Champion, and by all rights he is probably the strongest individual character there. He just can't match my damage output.

But who comes off as the strongest? It is, just due to my damage output, usually me. While this character sucks, really, he's an efficient glass-cannon, that's all, whereas the supposed Tier 1 Wizard is really subpar, WAY behind his possibilities.

[veekie]

High tier classes with a lot of their power based on variable options(spells, shapes) give you plenty of room to hang yourself with.

[carnivore]

just wondering ..... i notice that the Generic classes: Warrior and Expert are listed.... why not :

The Generic Spellcaster ... if anything it should be Tier 0 ..... you can choose Class skills, saves, get bonus feats that allow for Early qualification to PrCs, and can select spells known from the cleric, druid, and sorcerer/wizard spell lists.... and choose how they are casting spells(as Divine or as Arcane) and choose a casting Attribute

seems like they beat any Tier 1 class

 

[The_Mad_Linguist]

just wondering ..... i notice that the Generic classes: Warrior and Expert are listed.... why not :

The Generic Spellcaster ... if anything it should be Tier 0 ..... you can choose Class skills, saves, get bonus feats that allow for Early qualification to PrCs, and can select spells known from the cleric, druid, and sorcerer/wizard spell lists.... and choose how they are casting spells(as Divine or as Arcane) and choose a casting Attribute

seems like they beat any Tier 1 class

 

Because it opens the door to DM fiat, prevents any multiclassing/dips, and suggests that PrCs be dropped.  Generic spellcaster with no prcs< PrCed spellcaster.

And now you'll be fighting exclusively against generic spellcasters, which sorta defeats the purpose.

[Nanshork]

Warrior and Expert aren't generic classes, they're NPC classes from the DMG.

[Prime32]

Warrior and Expert aren't generic classes, they're NPC classes from the DMG.

*cough*

[Emy]

Warrior and Expert aren't generic classes, they're NPC classes from the DMG.

*cough*

The ones in this tier list are certainly the NPC classes.

Speaking of NPC classes, Magewright isn't listed

[jameswilliamogle]

You know, just for kicks, perhaps someone should add the Blue Mage and Lightening Warrior to the list...

[Tshern]

Lightning Warrior would be a strong tier 5 or a really low end tier 4. The lack of familiar and possibility of being a focused caster drop it straight to the nether regions.

[jameswilliamogle]

Lightning Warrior would be a strong tier 5 or a really low end tier 4. The lack of familiar and possibility of being a focused caster drop it straight to the nether regions.

(Its inevitable that someone brings that up at the mention of the class.)

Also, idea for a future rating system - easiest classes to play, both in terms of RP and mechanics.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Blue Mage: Solid Tier two.  Better spell list than the archivist, but far worse spells known.

[juton]

As to the generic classes, the Warrior and Expert are both Tier 4. They both get to choose thier class skills, and the class features they can take are good but not exemplary. The Warrior is better than a Fighter, but probably not as good as a Ranger, low Tier 4. The Expert can do pretty much everything a Rogue can, plus it can choose two strong saves, it's a high tier 4. This assumes PrCs are allowed.

The generic spellcaster is Tier 2. Sure, the spell list it can draw upon is awesome, but it only gets spells known as a Sorcerer. It gives a lot more flexibility to builds because you can choose your casting stat or being arcane or divine. That being said I'd probably choose a Psion over it if I was playing a spontaneous caster, with PrCs the generic caster is a strong Tier 2 but not teh Uber.

[Nanshork]

Warrior and Expert aren't generic classes, they're NPC classes from the DMG.

*cough*

The ones in this tier list are certainly the NPC classes.

Speaking of NPC classes, Magewright isn't listed

Thank you.

[DavidWL]

Also, idea for a future rating system - easiest classes to play, both in terms of RP and mechanics.

+1

[JaronK]

Really hard to do.  I've noticed some people just have an instinct for certain classes.  I mean some are clearly easier than others... I've seen far more people nail Druid without advice the first time than can be said for Archivists.  But at the same time, people just play classes they like better... I'm quite good with Factotums and they felt quite natural to me, and I've seen a number of new players go nuts with that class, while other players who at least seem experienced also seem incapable of making that class perform.

So, it's really quite hard to rank classes on difficulty/ease of play. 

JaronK

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Really hard to do.  I've noticed some people just have an instinct for certain classes.  I mean some are clearly easier than others... I've seen far more people nail Druid without advice the first time than can be said for Archivists.  But at the same time, people just play classes they like better... I'm quite good with Factotums and they felt quite natural to me, and I've seen a number of new players go nuts with that class, while other players who at least seem experienced also seem incapable of making that class perform.

So, it's really quite hard to rank classes on difficulty/ease of play. 

JaronK

Hmm perhaps one can do a simple 'complexity' column. It can be done but yes I think it would be hard.