D&D 4E So, which class will end up being the -Zilla of 4e?

[Set]

Warlocks are weak, and I don't see them getting a huge face-lift, just some neat flavor stuff with variant pacts.

I'd say Warlord is the one to watch for, either being a kaiju or being screaming weaksauce, since it's got a lot of stuff going on and it could turn into Bard 2.0, revenge of the homecoming queen, or Cleric 2.0, I can heal, fight, buff, smite, nuke, rebuke and look HOT doing it!

It would be nice if nothing was the 'zilla and nothing was the big loser. But I'd hold out for the 4.5 fine-tuning.

 

[Deset Gled]

Warzilla.

Could be Warlock, Warlord, Warrior, or War for art thou Romeo, and I'll still be right. Gotta go with the odds.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

If they aren't careful, then I think within each Role there *may* be Classes who are better at performing the Role's functions than others. But when looking across Roles, it will be more difficult, because each Role is designed to perform a different function.

For example, a Fighter will always be a better Defender than a Cleric, but a Cleric will always be a better Leader than a Fighter. So I don't think it will be fair to say that one is "better" than the other unless you specify what it is you're talking about. But it may be a better question to ask "Who is the better Defender, a Fighter or a Paladin?" IMO, it's possible one may be slightly better at performing it's role than the other. I trust WotC will do it's best to minimize these differences to the point where they won't obvious to the majority of gamers.

I think if you're an obsessive number cruncher with a deep need to create the most optimized character within it's Role (either to have the "best" character or to prove that 4e is broken), then I think you will be able to find a build that is in fact the best for that Role. I just don't believe it will be all that significant to most players (unlike CoDzilla, which is very obvious).

 

[Nahat Anoj]

That wont be possible. It was only in 2e that fighter/mages were powerful. Even then they took a heavy hit to exp, esuring they were usually 2 levels behind the rest of the party.

Unless they come upwith a valid warrior-mage core class, multi-classing will never allow fighter/mages to be good. Look how bad they suck in 3e; only the EK prc and the raumathari bmage prc makes them playable.

Why are you using 3e as a basis for 4e multiclassing? Aside from the possibility of various Class Training Feats, we have virtually no idea how multiclassing works in 4e.

 

[Sphyre]

Fighter, for irony?

Actually, I can see that being the closest to true. Bringing the fighter up, along with HP up, along with giving them the ability to do good damage (supposedly enough to make you choose it if you want to do damage and be in close range with enemies, as opposed to jumping in and out like rogues or rangers have) they seem like they may be very robust, while other classes will retain their weaknesses.

At least this is my interpretation of blogs and playtest reports so far.

 

[Puggins]

Uhmm... hopefully none of them?

There's probably going to be a "strongest class," but I don't think it'd be unreasonable to hope that the power difference is hopefully more along the lines of wizard-to-sorcerer than cleric-to-fighter.

 

[fnwc]

*cough* Warlock *cough*

Not if it's anything like the 3rd edition Warlock.

 

[fedelas]

Well, it looks like they've tried to bring most attacks into line with damage-dealing. That's how they measure classes against each other, and it's the standard they're going with. It's why undead turning is probably going to mostly deal damage, poison is going to deal damage, weakening effects cut your damage in half instead of changing your STR, etc.

So, the overpowered class is going to be one where their abilities aren't damage-dealing. Seriously, stay with me here. It's pretty easy to just run a lot of numbers and keep all the classes damage-dealing potential in-line with the "math." WotC has smart people, they have time, I believe they will succeed at this. Where the hole is going to be is in abilities that don't deal with to-hit, damage, or defense scores. You look at classes that move themselves in different ways, move enemies, make weird ranged attacks, counter-attack, hand out extra actions, etc. That's where they're going to accidentally break a class.

Somebody is going to come up with a way to make, say, an eladrin fighter with rogue cross-training who sneak-attacks and teleports away, or something bizarre like that. It's going to be a combo of different miscellaneous powers, not quadding power attack or throwing out save-or-dies.

True!!
I think that if damage dealing was in balance or semi-balance by all classes ( at least in core) the uber class of the edition can be someone who can screw in other way, not damage. My bets are for warlord (give additional action to an ally, etc.) or wizard (yes AGAIN) by preventing enemies action or with great out-of-combat ritual ( if classes in combat are sooo balanced) OR perhaps some weird cross-class/trained by feats with unearthly mobility or insane number of action.
Only time will tell...
Cheers
Fede.

I apologize for my bad grammar and spelling, english isn't my first language.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Actually, I can see that being the closest to true. Bringing the fighter up, along with HP up, along with giving them the ability to do good damage (supposedly enough to make you choose it if you want to do damage and be in close range with enemies, as opposed to jumping in and out like rogues or rangers have) they seem like they may be very robust, while other classes will retain their weaknesses.

At least this is my interpretation of blogs and playtest reports so far.

I agree. Fighters are going to be dangerous in 4E, with sweet powers like that "The die roll says I missed you, but why don't y'all take some damage anyway."

I predict an encounter against multiple fighters will be truly worrisome rather than the laugh-and-a-half it was in 3E.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think if you're an obsessive number cruncher with a deep need to create the most optimized character within it's Role (either to have the "best" character or to prove that 4e is broken), then I think you will be able to find a build that is in fact the best for that Role. I just don't believe it will be all that significant to most players (unlike CoDzilla, which is very obvious).

I wanted to argue with this, but I actually think you're probably right. The focus on "roles" will likely move abilities around in such a way that it makes unlikely that any single class is going to be extremely powerful. If there is a "zilla" (ugh, what an ugly term), then it'll be a class which can perform multiple roles decently, I suspect, if there is such a thing.

In 2E, I always thought the most powerful characters were multi-classers and possibly that'll be repeated in 4E. I have no problem with that, if so, so long as the margin isn't huge and they're clearly losing something.