The Most Underpowered Class?

[babinro]

The great thing about this question is that its not easy to answer. Which says something really good about 4E in my mind.

So far the most underpowered character I've seen is a primal guardian druid. However, while it came across as underpowered, it was by far the most versatile and probably has the most fun dailies of characters I've seen played.

While I'm sure a lot of people will say Warlock, I've only ever seen a Fey Warlock played, and I would say they are the most overpowered race in 4E (followed closely or on par with a Bow Ranger).

 

[Infiniti2000]

I agree with the others, that it's not so much about a class in general, but a build within a class. It also depends on the source materials allowed. babinro is right in that this does say something good about 4E. Arguments about poor classes in 3.X were about magical items (i.e. try and build a fighter who was as good as a spellcaster, without items).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

the starlock has a +X to attack packt boon which should make up for the lost to hit bonus from lower stats. And at least one packt which has reasons to use eldritch blast a lot...

 

[ShaggySpellsword]

In my experience, it is either the Druid or the Rogue.

Druids don't seem to have a very good focus for their control, and their strange versatility from access to both ranged nature powers and beast close-range powers makes them, as a controller, seem far behind the damage of the Invoker or the lock-down conditions of the Wizard.

The Rogue, on the other hand, when played as a melee combatant, is crunchy. While Dex is a primary stat for AC, he doesn't get Barbarian HP, Ranger Toughness, Avenger HP, or Infernal-Lock Temporary Hit Points. Too crunchy for melee, forcing you to go ranged, limiting the total scope of the class.

 

[Ryujin]

In my experience, it is either the Druid or the Rogue.

Druids don't seem to have a very good focus for their control, and their strange versatility from access to both ranged nature powers and beast close-range powers makes them, as a controller, seem far behind the damage of the Invoker or the lock-down conditions of the Wizard.

The Rogue, on the other hand, when played as a melee combatant, is crunchy. While Dex is a primary stat for AC, he doesn't get Barbarian HP, Ranger Toughness, Avenger HP, or Infernal-Lock Temporary Hit Points. Too crunchy for melee, forcing you to go ranged, limiting the total scope of the class.

If a Rogue isn't working in conjunction with another character, preferably a defender, then he isn't maximizing his potential. Defender marks opponent with an attack. Rogue moves to a flanking position and does big damage. Opponent now has to choose between hitting the Rogue, whose AC is being boosted by the mark, and then being in turn hit by the defender or ignoring the Rogue in favour of the defender, thereby taking easy big damage.

Then there's the charging build of Rogue; have several items that add damage on a charge, plus an item or abilities that let you shift one or more squares after a charge. Lather, rinse, repeat.

A Rogue that works alone is frequently a DEAD Rogue, as one of our players continually found out.

 

[ShaggySpellsword]

We have a big group, and frequently, there aren't enough defenders to go around. I suppose this easily could have colored my opinions of Rogues.

For example: For a while our party consisted of a Bard, Warlord, Barbarian, Invoker, and Warlock. A Rogue would not have been super successful in this party. We have recently lost the Warlock and had a new player join (Warden) and an old player return (Fighter). All of a sudden, combats are far less stressful for the Tiefling Thaneborn Barbarian/Paladin (me) who had to pretend to be a defender.

 

[Ryujin]

We have a big group, and frequently, there aren't enough defenders to go around. I suppose this easily could have colored my opinions of Rogues.

For example: For a while our party consisted of a Bard, Warlord, Barbarian, Invoker, and Warlock. A Rogue would not have been super successful in this party. We have recently lost the Warlock and had a new player join (Warden) and an old player return (Fighter). All of a sudden, combats are far less stressful for the Tiefling Thaneborn Barbarian/Paladin (me) who had to pretend to be a defender.

He should have worked fairly well with the Bard.

When you don't have defenders, then you have to use wolf pack tactics; hit and run. You have to find ways to not get nailed down. Our archer Ranger hasn't quite figured this out yet as he continually hides in corners, then gets hemmed in. If my Fey Switch has already been used, it's resurrection time.

 

[lukelightning]

Ratcatcher.

No, ratcatchers are awesome. Resistance to disease and resistance to poison? Yes, please!

 

[Felon]

The great thing about this question is that its not easy to answer. Which says something really good about 4E in my mind.

Let's not get too warm and fuzzy here. This is the internet. When one person proclaims something adamantly, a score of people feel compelled to rush forth and denounce it with equal resolution.

There are some pretty blatant power discrepancies in 4e. Most obvious is that any class that has to use implements is going to pack less of a punch than a class that gets to use [W] attacks, and they're not compensated in any kind of quantifiable way. Most heavily impacted by that discrepancy are strikers, since it's the most damage-centric class. That leaves warlocks and sorcerers warranting examination. Sorcerers can focus on multi-target damage than any other striker currently, so they have a niche. Warlocks are, however, among the most single-target-oriented, and their damage is sub-par. This creates a valid argument for deeming them inadequate at their role.

While I'm sure a lot of people will say Warlock, I've only ever seen a Fey Warlock played, and I would say they are the most overpowered race in 4E (followed closely or on par with a Bow Ranger).

I've been in a lot of threads about the warlock since 4e kicked off. Almost invariably it seems that those who contest the notion that the warlock is deficient are not people who actually play a warlock. Rather, they watch other people play warlocks. Just sayin'

I've played one for over a year. They really do kinda stink for a number of reasons. The low damage is pretty discouraging, but it really is just one of many factors. In that respect, it's kinda disappointing that the unimpressive damage becomes the crux of most warlock discussions. Another big problem is how options are whittled down at every turn. There's the Con/Cha split that can practically cut the number of choices in half. Then there's the lack of a +Con/+Int race, or even another class that uses Con as its primary ability score. There's the mandatory at-will powers. There's the emphasis on heavily-resisted damage types like necrotic and poison. And then at something of a more subtle level, the encounter powers are without much variation. They're mostly range-10, target one creature, tack on some rider effect. It's not jsut that a warlock doesn't feel powerful or impressive, it's that there's little sense of proprietorship.

And they made tieflings +Cha/+Int. That I never will get. The race that should really put a face on the infernal pact warlock instead make for superlative fey pact warlocks.

 

[lukelightning]

Warlocks are underpowered. But they make up for it by being the coolest class.

And yes, implement users are gimped. Where is my brutal rod? Where are my bracers of +2 damage to all my attacks? Where is my high-crit orb?