Most overpowered / underpowered ?

[Elder-Basilisk]

Overpowered:
Battlerager Fighter
Tempest Fighter
The bard version that gives temp hp every time you bloody or kill an opponent, just for standing there.

Underpowered:
None, really.

Poorly labeled:
Warlock.

People walk into this class thinking that it is a striker but it doesn't actually strike any better than a fighter--and not nearly as good as a Tempest fighter who is us at the top of the damage chain with stormwarden and pitfighter rangers. Warlocks are really single target focused controllers. They can be very effective in that role, but it's not the same role as other strikers play.

 

[Mort]

Overpowered:
Battlerager Fighter
Tempest Fighter
The bard version that gives temp hp every time you bloody or kill an opponent, just for standing there.

Underpowered:
None, really.

Poorly labeled:
Warlock.

People walk into this class thinking that it is a striker but it doesn't actually strike any better than a fighter--and not nearly as good as a Tempest fighter who is us at the top of the damage chain with stormwarden and pitfighter rangers. Warlocks are really single target focused controllers. They can be very effective in that role, but it's not the same role as other strikers play.

The battlerager certainly seems iffy, especially if you allow a dwarf with dwarven stoneblood (haven't played one though).

IMO tempest fighters are fine if double weapons are not allowed.

 

[Wormwood]

In my experience, nothing is *over* or *under* powered.

That said, here goes:

Powerful:
Ranger. Deals crazy damage and I can't ever hit the bastard.
Dwarf 2H Fighter: High damage, hard to kill.

Least Powerful:
Fey Warlock. Good at times, but otherwise a sub-par striker. I tend to put her on the 'pay no mind' list.

 

[Stalker0]

Archer Ranger: Most overpowered. Crazy damage, so hard to kill. They can get out of everything, and great skills!

Underpowered: Wizard. Not enough control in the controller class. After my brief stint trying out the druid, I found out what a control is supposed to feel like.

 

[babinro]

Overpowered: Ranged attackers: Bow Ranger, Controller Wizard, Fay Warlock

The wizards controller abilities will easily win the battle as a result of costing many foes at least one or two extra turns to get into position and accomplish what they want. These turns give the PC's free chances to get hits in and as a result essentially guarantees victory. Controller Wizards in my eyes are hands down the best character in the game and the one in need of the real balancing at this time.

Ranged attackers tend to deal less damage, but are VERY hard to hit in 4E. If they focus on speed feets, they can often manuever about the board in a way that they either never take damage from enemies, or force the melee based foes to charge every round in order to even reach them. I feel this fault exists solely because there are A LOT of monsters with no range capabilities. Playing an Elven Bow Ranger with Movement oriented feats is overpowered.

Fay Warlock: These guys are just like the Ranger except they can teleport. In the off-chance they get slowed or immobilized, the warlock can simply teleport and remain extremely effective at preventing damage to themselves.

Underpowered: All Melee Fighters except Rogue.

The reason for this is because they have no choice but to go melee unless they want to do constant basic attacks for ranged damage. Going into melee is fine, but they will take a lot of damage, and are extremely weak to things like immobilized condition. I place the Rogue as the only exception simply because they have a very high damage output to over come this detriment.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

Overpowered : Rogue.
Underpowered : Ranger.
The 2nd underpowered is the wizzard.

This is hilarious, because on another board I'm on, there are huge vitriolic threads about how overpowered the 2-weapon Ranger is. And in my game the wizard is by far the most powerful in combat, between Flaming Sphere and Fire Shroud. (I guess the other players are just poor min-maxers.)

 

[Festivus]

Having a rogue as my main character, I'd just like to point out that he is usually the first bloodied, consumes the most heals and is often voted most likely to take a dirt nap at the gaming table (and often does at least once per session go into bleed out). There are more factors than just damage output to be considered... my rogue isn't the sort to throw ranged attacks from a safe distance.

 

[Madred]

thats right. range in general is overpowered because DM won't take time to do small area maps/dungeons.
most of the time (well in the games I played) it is usually a near open field.
but.. i never played an 'official' campaign. i would like to test one of those paragon level adventure and see what really happens, since they often have small area layouts for encounters.

until then.. long live the range attacks and 1 stat chars (like elf archer DEX rules all!! or tiefling feylock(at a lesser extend..he needs INT for ac.).. lets pump that main stat to 20 and fck the rest!)

oh and by the way, most underpowered =

'great weapon fighter' (unless you allow those crazy big races like minotaur) Barely does more dmg than the 1h weapon fighter, less AC, and cannot use shield tactics. I'd rather go rogue or twf ranger..

and

'paladins' (especially the avenging straladin.. it becomes even more pathetic at paragon level. they really should have powers that works with either wisdom or strength..
the 'straladin' problem is that, any build that requires 3 stats maxed out will loose in the long run.
+.. poor guy cannot even push his constitution for some soaking.
hes definitely the big looser of 4th ed.
close to him his the starlock. or any other class that really needs 3 stats.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Underpowered: All Melee Fighters except Rogue.

The reason for this is because they have no choice but to go melee unless they want to do constant basic attacks for ranged damage. Going into melee is fine, but they will take a lot of damage, and are extremely weak to things like immobilized condition. I place the Rogue as the only exception simply because they have a very high damage output to over come this detriment.

What you don't realize is that without melee fighters, your ranged attackers become front line characters and are not so hard to hit anymore.

You don't have a good grasp of what overpowered/underpowered means. It's not a ratio Damage output / damage taken. It's overall usefulness. If we have a balanced team of 4, the addition of any one class should only improve the party's power by 25%. If a class bring more or less than 25% increased power to the party, that class is a little more or less powerful than the others.

I think most class are reasonably balanced but if we did extensive test with model partys, where we run the same fight several time by removing one different PC at a time, I think you'd be surprised to discover that the archer ranger is probably not that high on the totem pole of the most crucial team member. After all, removing him only reduces damage output but doesn't affect in the least the ability of the team to hold a line or keep itself fitting fit. A fight where you remove a fighter, paladin, warlord or cleric from the mix is probably going to go more poorly than one where you remove an archer ranger.

In fact, the archer ranger almost exclusively provide damage to the team. Most other classes bring more to the table and are therefore IMO more useful/powerful since they also do damage and their additional contribution outweight the difference in DPR.

The melee ranger actually is much more powerful than the archer IMO because he takes more hits. Beside comparable DPR, he also brings to the table an improved ability to hold the line for the team, spread the burden around a bit and synergize well with the defender marking ability. In a team of 5, you shouldn't have more than 2 purely ranged characters IMO, and the fact that they take less damage than the other 3 should never be construed as being more powerful! It should be seen as a lesser contribution on that front that needs to be compensated in other areas. And in fact, IMO, the Archer ranger's higher DPR isn't quite that much higher to make it worth it to have a PC hiding in the back and shirking front line duty. Warlock and Wizard brings more to the mix IMO and in a team of 5, I'd rather shield a warlock than a ranger from blows.

Taking hits isn't something to denigrate. It's something that has to be done! And if your PC doesn't do it, he better make up for it in some other way. I don't think the archer ranger brings enough to the team to compensate the loss of a warm body at the front and so I think he is one of the most underpowered class!

 

[Mengu]

If, in a team of 5, you can remove that PC and that team lose more or less than 20% of effectiveness, then that class is overpowered/underpowered compared to the other.

I don't think that's a very good way to look at it. If you remove a character from any well coordinated party, you should lose more than 20% effectiveness because you are missing a key element.

The better comparison of overpowered/underpowered will be between characters of the same role. If you remove the avenging paladin and replace it with the battlerager fighter, do challenges suddenly become easier? If you replace a wizard with a druid, do you suddenly have better battlefield control? These will answer the question of overpowered/underpowered a bit better, though the roles are not pure, so some discussion for secondary roles may also be necessary.