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

[AZRogue]

Hopefully there just won't be a "ultimate" class/race combo. Bringing ROLES to the forefront of the game, instead of an assumption made behind the scenes, I think it will encourage and nudge characters to be optimized for their ROLES as opposed to being just optimized for everything.

If I had to choose a Class that will come close, though, it would be the Fighter.

 

[Xethreau]

Your lack of faith disturbs me.
- Lord Darth Vader

I think that the Role system is going to seriously reduce the 'zilla'-ness of any class, so long as it is stuck to. Now, if there is a class that is going to be uber because it has been allotted too many abilities outside its role, that might be the.... I've got nothing, based on concrete evidence.

And I disagree with the OP. Races and Classes said that development of classes started from the ground up, so it is not like the 4e Ranger originally had spells, and the designers are somehow making a variant for it (and accidentally making it overpowered.) Since it has been remade to the same extent as all the other classes, it should be about equal; this applies to all classes, IMO.

 

[Roland55]

From what I understand the original DnD bard was actually quite powerful. So it wouldn't be too odd.

Bingo! We have a winner...

It was probably the first real uber-class. MAN was it powerful...

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I think that the Role system is going to seriously reduce the 'zilla'-ness of any class, so long as it is stuck to.

There's a lot to balance between roles. Defenders may prove to be far more useful than Strikers, or vice versa. In nearly all previous editions of D&D, strikers have excelled, whether Leap Attacking Shock Troopers, pouncing druids, TWF rogues, 2E's twin-longsword fighters, or ray-specialist mages with sudden metamagic feats (Enfeeble, Exhaust, Enervate). Most useful against the BBEGs. That role -- being optimized for taking on one tough target -- is always going to be valued.

The effectiveness of the other roles, I would imagine, will depend on the kind of games that are run. The "core balance" is going to be for a game that uses minis, has a certain level of terrain-based features, has a certain balance of "minion" encounters and "elite" or "solo" monsters, and has a certain party size. Look at 3.5; a bard was WAY more useful if you had a druid and a TWF rogue in the party than if you had a cleric and a sword-and-board fighter.

I would imagine that changing certain assumptions would make Controllers more valuable, while changing others would make Leaders more valuable. This was true in 3.5 as well, with adventure design and gaming style affecting how powerful various choices were. Minis-free game? Good luck with that spiked chain specialist. One big fight each day, generally on the PCs' terms? Get ready for the casters to dominate.

 

[Moochava]

My shot-in-the-dark guess is that gamebreakers will focus on the Warlord. There's just something about extra actions that makes me imagine some sort of infinite-action-pingpong nightmare scenario.

I'm picturing two Eladrin warlords with spiked chains, pulling one-another up by their bootstraps while they repeatedly teleport and trip-attack. They may or may not be surrounded by bags of snails.

But I suppose the real question isn't if there's going to be some game-breakingly powerful configuration, but how easy it will be to blunder into imbalance. I don't know about the rest of you, but my players couldn't optimize a ham sandwich. My concern isn't with carefully-crafted super-builds, which are usually spottable a mile away, but with "traps," both positive and negative. 3E had a few negative traps (though the designers seem committed to getting rid of them in 4E), but few positive traps (other than "play a cleric"). I'm hoping that 4E doesn't introduce any imbalances that my players can foolishly blunder into, especially imbalances that relate to individual campaign style.

 

[Jack99]

In 1e and 2e it was the wizard at most levels. In 3e it was the cleric.

Let me guess, you have never played high-level 3.5 DND? The Cleric, while part of the now famous CoDzilla, was never on top in that relationship.

 

[Sphyre]

with sweet powers like that "The die roll says I missed you, but why don't y'all take some damage anyway."

I don't see how the ability that lets you keep str to damage on a miss is any different than a spell that you fail to hit for full with (3e equivalent of someone saving for half damage).

Although, I do agree that 4e fighters look dangerous.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Say it with me. Bard-Zilla

No other class has such a rich history of uselessness, and so much to prove.

The 1e Bard would like to have a word with you.

In any case, it's still too early to tell. Nearly all the classes have been described as having really cool and powerful stuff, so I probably won't crown a Zilla (if we even have one) until I sit down with the 4e PHB and find ways to break the system.

If any class deserves to be the Zilla, it's the Paladin. And maybe the Ranger.

 

[Tallas]

It will be the Vanilla-zilla...a sneaking, spellcasting, heavy-armored, teleporting healer who wields a spiked chain and picks locks. I don't believe it will be a base class per se, just an overused set of customizations that becomes the "133t build."

Sort of like the Morrowind/Oblivion character?

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I think it will take about 18 months to find out what class is the most dominant. However, you must also keep in mind that the style of play will matter a great deal.

- Encounter frequency: Lots of fights favor classes with better healing / Hp, and the most per encounter powers. Low fight frequency skews towards peak damage output, which may skew towards the per day powers of spell casters.
- Opponent Types: If the DM skews towards running fights with lots of opponents, battlefield control will be king. If it skews to fights against Elites / Solo types, that will play well towards Strikers.
- Party Size: Leaders that give a kick to all allied players will have their abilities magnified if the DM has more people at the table then is expected.

I think the greatest risk will be from overpowered per encounter abilities, but we have no idea which class will have the greatest abilities in this regard. I am not too worried about an over powered synergy taking place. Those are apt to be highly situational in nature, as they require that one of each player in your group take one of the classes.

END COMMUNICATION