The Most Underpowered Class?

[Destil]

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.

Strikers aren't 100% damage and nothing else. They elimiate targets, they're not DPS and this isn't WoW. Warlocks have lots of interesting abilities and can be terribly durable and slippery. Like wizard there's a bit more bleed from their secondary role, but they're still generally useful.

There's more to each class than idealized DPR numbers.

I agree entirely on weapon/impelement disparity, but warlocks can just use pact blades and weapon feats to get around it, if that's what you really care about.

 

[Turtlejay]

I haven't seen every class in play, but from what I've seen and read I'd think Shaman or Warlock would be in the top five. Too bad that *power* is only a small part of the equation, making these classes low in this area, but likely high in others.

Jay

 

[Thanee]

Personally, I think warlord is among the weakest, at least at low level (never seen on high level so I cannot say). As a healer, they are the worst, even being surclassed by paladin in some case. As a damage dealer they are lackluster. The buff they gives are subpar to most other leader type buff.

Well, my experience is certainly different here.

We have a Cleric, a Paladin and a Warlord in our party (since 1st level, now almost 14th level), and while the Warlord certainly can't even get close to the healing the Cleric provides, he does decent damage (he's not a Striker or Fighter, of course) and the buffs are very powerful (that's the forte of this class), certainly much better than what the Cleric can do (WIS Cleric, I think the STR Cleric has a bit more powers here, esp. Righteous Brand, of course, but still nothing close to what the Warlord has).

I don't really have any experience with the PHB2 leaders, though, can't compare with them.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Jhaelen]

There is no most underpowered class, yet. There may be a most underpowered character, I guess. But even that would be difficult to determine, since a character that may look underpowered if examined in isolation may shine in a party with ideal synergy (which I'm not surprised to see some suggest warlords).

A (to me) more interesting exercise would be to find the most underpowered party.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A (to me) more interesting exercise would be to find the most underpowered party.

Eladrin Star Pact Warlock (using both ability scores of course, Con and Cha)
Halfling Archery Ranger
Dwarven Protecting Paladin (Charisma focused)
Dragonborn Tactical Warlord
Elven Staff Wizard

All pre any power books or PHB 2 at best.

This should provide the least synergy, I'd say. Racial choices are just there to have bad ability modifiers, you can be "fairer" if you like and make those more optimized.

None of the classes can really benefit from extra attacks granted by the Warlord. The Ranger might have the best chance since he might get off a few basic ranged attacks.

 

[Felon]

Strikers aren't 100% damage and nothing else. They elimiate targets, they're not DPS and this isn't WoW. Warlocks have lots of interesting abilities and can be terribly durable and slippery. Like wizard there's a bit more bleed from their secondary role, but they're still generally useful.

There's more to each class than idealized DPR numbers.

"Interesting abilities"? Let's contemplate how fruitlful it is to try to redeem a class by dint of nonspecific "interesting abilities". Previously in this thread I mentioned past discussions of warlocks in these honored forums, and denoted that the most commonly-encountered warlock advocate is not someone who actually claims to play a warlock. There are the warlock-watchers with their vicarious familiarity a tablemate's warlock, and then there's the other type of warlock advocate: the self-styled out-of-the-box-thinker who wants to proffer an argument about how strikers amount to more than just damage output. There's mobility and target access and target isolation and a good sense of humor that are super-significant but just happen to be too subtle for those crass, superficial folks who focus on DPS like this was WoW and not D&D.

After all, unlike WoW, monsters in D&D don't have hit points, right?

I think it's safe to say that the whole "this isn't WoW" line is utterly and shamelessly devoid of novelty. It's officially cemented in the realm of tired cliche. D&D may not be WoW, but like WoW it is a game where you kill monsters by divesting them of hit points, so damage output is rightly considered enormously important to a class whose role is dedicated to delivering the party's payload. Strikers may have other factors to consider, but for all practical purposes, Damage Output is the star around which mobility, target isolation, and all those other nuances revolve. Damage Output gets its own section of the newspaper between Entertainment and Sports & Leisure. Damage Output is the head of the department that gets the big corner office.

And the reason is thus: all of those other nuances don't compete with damage output or compensate for its absence. Rather, they are its suboordinates. They are modifications to the payload. They're the vehicles that facilitate the delivery of a HP-reducing package.

Damage is the striker's product. Doesn't matter how much you zoom out and try to take a holsitic perspective, without a prodcut you are out of business.

 

[Dice4Hire]

And the reason is thus: all of those other nuances don't compete with damage output or compensate for its absence. Rather, they are its suboordinates. They are modifications to the payload. They're the vehicles that facilitate the delivery of a HP-reducing package.

Damage is the striker's product. Doesn't matter how much you zoom out and try to take a holsitic perspective, without a prodcut you are out of business.

So to extend the analogy, Damage output, the guy who only knows one programming language ,when everyone else knows 3-5, does not get the corner office.

Damage output, the guy who doesn't have a passport, does not get to be the top seller inteh office when everyone else has international customers.

DPR is important, but if it is all that you feel is important in a character, then role-playing must be off the stove entirely in your games.

 

[Herschel]

And the reason is thus: all of those other nuances don't compete with damage output or compensate for its absence. Rather, they are its suboordinates. They are modifications to the payload. They're the vehicles that facilitate the delivery of a HP-reducing package.

Only if the table you play at is a bastion for the tactically inept narcissist.

 

[renau1g]

So to extend the analogy, Damage output, the guy who only knows one programming language ,when everyone else knows 3-5, does not get the corner office.

Damage output, the guy who doesn't have a passport, does not get to be the top seller inteh office when everyone else has international customers.

DPR is important, but if it is all that you feel is important in a character, then role-playing must be off the stove entirely in your games.

Not necessarily. You can play a super high DPR (like a barb) and yet still have a deep immersive RP character. This gets into roll vs role play and that's not the issue being discussed. The previous poster mentioned that strikers should only be measured on their DPR, rather than mobility, status effects, etc. (not that I 100% agree with it, but then again dead is the worst status effect)

 

[scarik]

I would say that while Feylocks are hard to nail down, they just don't have the punch of other classes. Many of the 'controlerish' powers are of limited, situational use. The damage tends to lag. In order to get back on track you have to wait until Paragon, then add another pact.

Feytouched is a brutal machine of teleporting doom in mid paragon. The sad part is that a Swordmage or Hybrid is better at it than a pure Warlock is.

My problem with arock is that unlike some other classes there is no obvious way to build a good one and there are many ways to make a lackluster one.

Personally, I think warlord is among the weakest, at least at low level (never seen on high level so I cannot say). As a healer, they are the worst, even being surclassed by paladin in some case. As a damage dealer they are lackluster. The buff they gives are subpar to most other leader type buff.

Not my experience with Warlords but we only use Tactical around here because the other builds are just flat out not as potent.

Its a common issue in 4e that some builds are just much, much better than others.