Classes into tiers

[Sadrik]

Realizing this will be controversial and everyone has their pet class that they will want to promote up a tier. I personally look at the tiers as how strongly and mechanically unique the classes are.

Tier 1 (Common)
Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Rogue

Tier 2 (Uncommon)
Druid C/W
Ranger F/R
Sorcerer W variant
Paladin F/C
Bard R/W

Tier 3 (Rare) Theme?
Barbarian F variant
Warlock Sorcerer variant
Warlord F variant
Psion Sorcerer variant
Monk F variant

Tier 4 Theme?
everything else

Where should the classes end and the themes begin?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Tier 1 might as well be "Source."

 

[the Jester]

If you are defining them in terms of strong mechanical uniqueness, I think the sorcerer would traditionally be more a tier 3 class (seriously, not much different from a wizard, at least historically) and the warlock tier 2 (much farther from a wizard than a sorcerer is).

If paladin and ranger are emblematic of the level of uniqueness you need for tier 2, I think you can put the warlord there too.

 

[Deadboy]

I would vote all the classes as tier 1 "strongly and mechanically unique."

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I disagree with Rogue being tier one, I'd knock it back down to tier two. My reasoning is twofold:

*In terms of combat, I see the rogue as a pure derivative of the fighter or martialist.
*By trying to have the rogue as the "skill monkey", I think it sucks away too much of that oxygen from the other classes. Why can't all classes be particularly skilful? By erasing the rogue, you allow the other classes to breath up and neatly subsume that former space.

As such I'd replace the rogue with the "Primal" character (thus the core neatly represents the primary four 4e sources). Therefore you have:
- The Martialist [Specializing in skilful and powerful non-magical pursuits]
- The Wizard [Specializing in the "taint" of unnatural arcane magic]
- The Priest [Specializing as a conduit between the Deities and their Celestial Servants and the Mortal Realm.
- The Primalist [Specializing in spirits and the spiritual realm overlaying the material plane].

These are like different platters from which characters can take their stuff. Like primary colours, it is when you start mixing these that the tier two/three classes are produced. Mix the martialist and priest to get the cleric/paladin. Mix the Martialist/Primalist to get the barbarian on one side of this spectrum or the shaman at the other. Mix the wizard and the primalist to get the Voodoo guy or the priest and the primalist to get the Necromancer. Different from what has been chosen for 5e sure but if I was starting the whole thing from scratch, that is what I would do.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Blood & Bones]

Realizing this will be controversial and everyone has their pet class that they will want to promote up a tier. I personally look at the tiers as how strongly and mechanically unique the classes are.

They are already thinking in this direction... making elements of the game "common" "uncommon" and "rare". Common elements being those that are basic to the game, uncommon elements are ones that are popular, but can easily removed from the game, and rare elements are those weird/interesting things that have a small fan-base, but isn't really popular.

Examples: Fight (common), Barbarian (uncommon), Psychic Warrior (rare).
Alternatively: Elf (common), Drow (uncommon), Winged Elf (rare).

 

[Blood & Bones]

I disagree with Rogue being tier one, I'd knock it back down to tier two. My reasoning is twofold:

1) OD&D is the only version that matters, and Rogues were optional in the original game.
2) I like my traps deadly, and my doors locked!

<jk>

 

[mkill]

How does this improve the game? I just don't see how this affects the game at all, it's a label like power sources in 4E. Remove it and the game stays the same.

 

[Mallus]

Question: what does this accomplish?

They only categorization that's remotely useful is general vs. specific, ie.

General (or archetypal) class: fighter.

Specific (or variant) class: paladin.

 

[Fifth Element]

How does this improve the game? I just don't see how this affects the game at all, it's a label like power sources in 4E. Remove it and the game stays the same.

Question: what does this accomplish?

As stated in the OP, it seems to be an attempt to determine where class should end and theme should begin. It's not an argument that some classes should be designated "Tier 1" in the game itself. It's a design consideration.

 

[Sadrik]

They are already thinking in this direction... making elements of the game "common" "uncommon" and "rare". Common elements being those that are basic to the game, uncommon elements are ones that are popular, but can easily removed from the game, and rare elements are those weird/interesting things that have a small fan-base, but isn't really popular.

Examples: Fight (common), Barbarian (uncommon), Psychic Warrior (rare).
Alternatively: Elf (common), Drow (uncommon), Winged Elf (rare).

YES!!! I had forgotten about that. So common = tier 1, tier 2 = uncommon, tier 3 = rare, and tier 4 = theme. I may have to go back and edit my original post...

 

[mkill]

As stated in the OP, it seems to be an attempt to determine where class should end and theme should begin. It's not an argument that some classes should be designated "Tier 1" in the game itself. It's a design consideration.

Maybe. But that doesn't answer the question how it affects a (tier 1) Wizard PC vs. a (tier 2) Paladin PC. In what way would they be treated differently?
What difference does it make for me as a player what tier my PC is in?

 

[Remathilis]

I liked the idea they originally were going with (and still are?)

Tier 1: Common (Found in nearly all places and settings, fairly easy to use).
Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard

Tier 2: Uncommon (a bit more specialized and has more bells and whistles)
Bard
Ranger
Paladin
Druid
Sorcerer
Warlord

Tier 3: Rare (either not common in the setting, very specialized, or may need DM approval)
Assassin
Monk
Barbarian
Warlock
Psion

Tier 4: Theme (classes that don't need a 20 level base class)
Swashbuckler
Archer
Cavalier
Spellthief
Eldrich Knight
Mystic Theurge
Necromancer
Illusionist
Healer
Warmage
Invoker
Avenger
Warden
Tempest
Weapon Master
Ninja
Samurai
Wild Mage
Elementalist
Shaman
Rune Priest

 

[GX.Sigma]

If this is about rarity, I think rarity should be determined by (1) how likely a setting is to have such a class, and (2) how rare members of that class (or just heroic ones) are in those settings.

Tier 0: Exists in every imaginable setting
Fighter
Rogue

Tier 1: Exists in most conceivable settings
Assassin
Barbarian
Ranger
Warlord

Tier 2: Exists in settings with traditional western fantasy assumptions
Paladin
Sorcerer
Warlock
Wizard

Tier 3: Exists in settings with nontraditional assumptions
Cleric
Monk
Psion

Tier 4: Only exists in specific settings
Bard
Druid

Of course that's not going to happen; "rarity" is going to be a grognard-appeasing device, setting everything that was in BD&D to "common" and everything that was only in 4e to "rare."

 

[Fifth Element]

Maybe. But that doesn't answer the question how it affects a (tier 1) Wizard PC vs. a (tier 2) Paladin PC. In what way would they be treated differently?
What difference does it make for me as a player what tier my PC is in?

The way I was describing it, it makes absolutely no difference. I was only talking about deciding which things should be classes and which things should be themes. Tier 1 are definite classes, Tier 2 are probable classes, Tier 3 are probable themes, Tier 4 are definite themes.

 

[mkill]

The way I was describing it, it makes absolutely no difference. I was only talking about deciding which things should be classes and which things should be themes. Tier 1 are definite classes, Tier 2 are probable classes, Tier 3 are probable themes, Tier 4 are definite themes.

What the OP calls a "theme" is an AD&D-style subclass. In his system, each theme is tied to a specific class - but from what I've seen that's not what 5E is going to be like.

5E themes look more like 4E combat roles, reintroduced as separate character elements. Note how the playtest themes match 4E striker / defender / leader / controller.

 

[Minigiant]

Once again, people are doing it backwards. Start form Tier 4 for themes

Tier 4 is themes. Themes are a collection of 3 combat or combat facilitating feats. So Tier 4 classes would be classes that could be boiled down to 3 aspects that have no HD or attack bonus requirement. These would be the many of 3E's later base classes and most of the new 4th edition base classes after the PHB (4E classes only had about 3 class features anyway. And most late 4E classes recieved few variants).

Tier 3 are rarer classes. These would be classes with enough classes features to be considered a base class OR several themes incorporating all of the different class features.

Tier 2 are more common classes but still a bit uncommon. Many of this are complex variants of existing traditional classes (Druid, Sorcerer), hybrid of the traditional classes that are done justice by multiclassing (Paladin, Ranger), or less rare classes that require subsystems not seen in the core 4.

Tier 1 are the core 4.

Tier 1: Common (Found in nearly all D&D places and settings)
Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard

Tier 2: Uncommon (Hard variants, complex hybrids, and classes with their own system)
Bard (bard songs can't be fit into a feat)
Ranger (either a class or an ugly multiclass)
Paladin (see ranger)
Druid (wildshape is too broken as a feat. trust me)
Sorcerer (literally the definition of rewriting the wizard as a non-bookish internal caster)
Warlock (uses its own magic system)
Monk (see ranger)

Tier 3: Rare (either not common in the setting or a soft variant but has enough legacy and class features to be a class of 3+ themes)
Barbarian (could be a class or several themes one for each type: martial rager, primal rager, anti-mage...)
Assassin (really only has 3 features:: assassination, poison use, and minor magic. Can be a base class with all three or 3 themes)
Warlord (could be a class or several themes one for each type: inspiring, tactical, bravura)
Psion (variant wizard)
Cavalier (nondivine paladin perfect of a reputation and honor game)
Shaman (variant druid/cleric/wizard, could be a few spirit based themes or a caster with its own spell list)

Tier 4: Theme (classes that don't have enough unique features to really be a base class)
Seeker
Invoker
Ardent
Warden
Battlemind/Psy Warrior
Artificer
Swordmage
Specialist Caster
Specialist Warrior

 

[ren1999]

Well, to make this more meaningful, you could have everyone start out at level 1 as a common

Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard

Then at higher levels their class title will change and this will entitle them to powers only available to this class path. Something like Epic Tier Paths?

For example,

A Fighter becomes a Warlord or Ranger.
A Rogue becomes an Assassin or ?
A Cleric becomes a Paladin or Druid.
A Wizard becomes a Psion or ?

 

[jadrax]

Tier 1: Common (Found in nearly all D&D places and settings)
Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard

Tier 2: Uncommon (Hard variants, complex hybrids, and classes with their own system)
Bard (bard songs can't be fit into a feat)
Ranger (either a class or an ugly multiclass)
Paladin (see ranger)
Druid (wildshape is too broken as a feat. trust me)
Sorcerer (literally the definition of rewriting the wizard as a non-bookish internal caster)
Warlock (uses its own magic system)
Monk (see ranger)

Tier 3: Rare (either not common in the setting or a soft variant but has enough legacy and class features to be a class of 3+ themes)
Barbarian (could be a class or several themes one for each type: martial rager, primal rager, anti-mage...)
Assassin (really only has 3 features:: assassination, poison use, and minor magic. Can be a base class with all three or 3 themes)
Warlord (could be a class or several themes one for each type: inspiring, tactical, bravura)
Psion (variant wizard)
Cavalier (nondivine paladin perfect of a reputation and honor game)
Shaman (variant druid/cleric/wizard, could be a few spirit based themes or a caster with its own spell list)

Tier 4: Theme (classes that don't have enough unique features to really be a base class)
Seeker
Invoker
Ardent
Warden
Battlemind/Psy Warrior
Artificer
Swordmage
Specialist Caster
Specialist Warrior

Now I think this is more helpful.

I would move Rogue down to Tier 2. The core four should be the core three, the Thief/Rogue is just a Greyhawk specific thing that got way out of control.

I would probably move Psion up to Tier 2 as well, I think its just as distinct as Warlock in that it 'uses its own magic system'.

 

[Sadrik]

Tier 2: Uncommon (Hard variants, complex hybrids, and classes with their own system)
Bard (bard songs can't be fit into a feat)
Ranger (either a class or an ugly multiclass)
Paladin (see ranger)
Druid (wildshape is too broken as a feat. trust me)
Sorcerer (literally the definition of rewriting the wizard as a non-bookish internal caster)
Warlock (uses its own magic system)
Monk (see ranger)

I think you have nailed it in your post. However, just a couple of things. I am hoping that theme can define spell list in some fashion. Because I would like to see all the spontaneous casters fall under one heading as variants of each other. Want to be a warlock? pick sorcerer or wizard and tack on your warlock theme. Want to be a psion? pick your wizard or sorcerer and put on your theme. I think each of these would be an acceptable way to go. For instance psion would have access to a specific list of spells that correlate to the psion (i.e. psychic powers), warlock the same.

The bard songs can simply be spells too. No need to have songs as class features with an adjunct bard spell point system to cast them. Clearly the only definitional change would be bards dont cast their spells they perform them. I can see a bard a cleric of a music god, a rogue/wizard, a rogue/sorcerer, a fighter + some combination even. That said I think the class is iconic enough to warrant its own class, but just make the bard songs spells, no need for an additional system tacked on.

The druid is similar in my mind too, its class features (from < 4e) can be encapsulated in spells. Wildshape can be a spell. It really always should have been. Access improved critters as you level up and wala.

Ranger paladin and monk. These should all be separate and unique classes and not just multiclasses of the core tier 1 common classes. The best thing to do imho, is to strip the background out of the classes, because these classes are not generic enough. Make them generic and you will really get to the root of what the classes features and abilities are. If someone wants to play a paladin because they want to be a champion of good (and not simply a fighter/cleric) what does that mean and what does the class offer. No easy task, because there are a lot of people who have an opinion, on it and you can misstep. If they try and broaden classes though and treat them as big tents where multiple backgrounds, themes and create the broadest based appeal for a class it is hard to go wrong. The more requirements and limitations they put on a class the more it becomes niche and I don't mean mechanically I mean the classes place in the world. Paladins in particular suffer from this. They are very limited in scope. I'd personally like to see a paladin that could fit in any culture without a hitch. Samurai paladin, tribesman paladin, and city watch paladin. I dont think all of these work currently. Make it work.