What are the best classes for each role in 4th edition?

[Pentius]

If and only if the characters have taken Melee Training (or Power of Skill). Oh, or the rogue is ranged.

But if you're playing a Rogue or Avenger in a party with a Warlord, why wouldn't you get ahold of a good melee basic? I mean, I could see not having it at first level, because you were grabbing something else, but it seems like it'd be on the to-get list.

Thanks for all your thoughts, guys, keep them coming I know that 4th edition is basically meant to level the playing field for all the classes and give everybody something to do on their turn, but I was just wondering if some classes just weren't better than the others at what they do and there seems to be. Just like 3.x had classes that were just downright better than others (Clerics for the win!), I thought there had to be game mechanically better classes than others.

I was wondering how nobody mentioned the Monk for striker, but perhaps it's just plain bad? I thought it looked pretty nifty but perhaps it's because it's an implement user that it just doesn't cut it? It sure does look the most mobile of the classes.

Monks are pretty nifty. They get knocked a bit as Strikers because they tend to be low on the single target damage, but they are good at spreading damage around, as well as being mobile and generally tough to hit. The main thing to remember when coming from 3e to 4e, though, is that what people mean by something being over or underpowered is just not even in the same league in 4e as it was in 3e. The gaps are way smaller.

 

[Kinneus]

It's not that the Monk is flawed, per se, it's just that it can't hold a candle to the Martial Gank Squad.

So long as you're not overclocking any given build, Monks are fine, effective and fun.

 

[Dragon Sin-Camealot]

None of the above. What's wrong with a fictional character? The question is can you get back into the game at this time? The story has already been thought out in advance so it must be passable.

I know this borderlines or is Godmodding.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thanks for all your thoughts, guys, keep them coming I know that 4th edition is basically meant to level the playing field for all the classes and give everybody something to do on their turn, but I was just wondering if some classes just weren't better than the others at what they do and there seems to be. Just like 3.x had classes that were just downright better than others (Clerics for the win!), I thought there had to be game mechanically better classes than others.

I was wondering how nobody mentioned the Monk for striker, but perhaps it's just plain bad? I thought it looked pretty nifty but perhaps it's because it's an implement user that it just doesn't cut it? It sure does look the most mobile of the classes.

There is a hierarchy of power in 4e classes, but comparing that to the imbalance in 3.x is incredibly deceptive. Almost every class (other than in Heroes of Shadow or the PHB3) is the best there is at what it tries to do. In the case of the monk, what it does is utterly insane wire-fu mobility combined with high damage. Unfortunately this isn't normally as useful as the rogue's very good mobility and very high damage, or the ranger's extreme damage.

In 3e CoDzilla could make the fighter redundant and still be a decent spellcaster. In 4e every class has a niche (other than the Binder - and the Vampire's is mostly being a vampire). The reason the Warlord comes out ahead of the cleric is not because he is a better healer than the cleric (the Cleric is in fact the best healer in the game) - it's because improved offence normally prevents more damage than improved healing restores.

As a rule the power sources go:
Martial: More Damage, almost exclusively single target.
Primal: Tougher
Arcane: More controlling and debilitating, lower single target damage but more area effect.
Divine: More buffing and healing, lots of AoEs that don't hurt allies.

Psionic: Broken base mechanic.
Shadow: Tricksy.
Monk: Massively mobile (technically psionic but not like the other three psionic classes).

But it's a balance not an absolute "This is better" unless you razor-optimise. To use an analogy, the best classes can run a 100m sprint in 9.9 seconds in 4e but they are all professional sprinters capable of easily breaking 11 seconds. In 3e, CoDzilla is running the 200m in less than 10 seconds, whereas the monk takes 20s for the 100m.

 

[malraux]

In 3e, CoDzilla is running the 200m in less than 10 seconds, whereas the monk takes 20s for the 100m.

My only complaint with that analogy is that in 3e, monks could run at 50 mph.

 

[Argyle King]

There is a hierarchy of power in 4e classes, but comparing that to the imbalance in 3.x is incredibly deceptive. Almost every class (other than in Heroes of Shadow or the PHB3) is the best there is at what it tries to do. In the case of the monk, what it does is utterly insane wire-fu mobility combined with high damage. Unfortunately this isn't normally as useful as the rogue's very good mobility and very high damage, or the ranger's extreme damage.

In 3e CoDzilla could make the fighter redundant and still be a decent spellcaster. In 4e every class has a niche (other than the Binder - and the Vampire's is mostly being a vampire). The reason the Warlord comes out ahead of the cleric is not because he is a better healer than the cleric (the Cleric is in fact the best healer in the game) - it's because improved offence normally prevents more damage than improved healing restores.

As a rule the power sources go:
Martial: More Damage, almost exclusively single target.
Primal: Tougher
Arcane: More controlling and debilitating, lower single target damage but more area effect.
Divine: More buffing and healing, lots of AoEs that don't hurt allies.

Psionic: Broken base mechanic.
Shadow: Tricksy.
Monk: Massively mobile (technically psionic but not like the other three psionic classes).

But it's a balance not an absolute "This is better" unless you razor-optimise. To use an analogy, the best classes can run a 100m sprint in 9.9 seconds in 4e but they are all professional sprinters capable of easily breaking 11 seconds. In 3e, CoDzilla is running the 200m in less than 10 seconds, whereas the monk takes 20s for the 100m.

The part I bolded is a very good point. Yes, the cleric has more healing. However, it's been my experience that you need that extra healing with a cleric because the enemy is alive longer.

The other thing to mention is that (in my opinion) the Warlord is a much more versatile member of the party. You can heal, you can buff your allies, you can function as a defender if necessary (often not a very good one, but good enough to help out,) and many other things. I would also lean toward saying that many Warlord powers enable you to be a controller. Not 'control' in the sense of burst, blasts, and walls, but control in the sense that you can shift the battlefield in your favor with many powers which move other pieces of the battle.

Yet another thing to keep in mind is something I said in a different thread recently: the Warlord is a very easy class to multiclass with. As such, if you find that the part does need a little bit of help in another area, you can usually pick up a few powers from somewhere else and still be just as good of a leader. With STR as a primary ability and many abilities triggering from melee attacks, you have fighter and barbarian to easily cherry pick from; many of their paragon paths work fairly well with a Warlord as well. Personally, I've had good experiences with branching into Paladin out of Warlord. If you feel you need more healing, there's no reason the Warlord can't MC into one of the other leader classes for a little boost.

 

[Estlor]

Leader: Ardent - While not the best at actual single output healing numbers. They get far more actual healing power uses than any other leader class while being able to really impact monster effectiveness. A clear winner in this department if you ask me.

Here's the problem with judging a leader by it's healing:

1. Healing, and therefore winning by grinding out monsters, is not only not fun, it's not a tactically sound choice in the world of MM3/MV monster rules. They simply dish out too much damage for any healer of a caliber less than a Pacifist Cleric to keep up.
2. The warlord can out heal the ardent hands down. They have so many enabling powers that, if you want to go full-on lazy, you can be an Eladrin TacLord/Battle Captain with Fight On and the other feats that make Inspiring Word grant a save and stack on Cha and Int mod to the healing. Yeah, Warlord is the best leader hands down. It bears repeating - Hybrid Warlord makes every other class better.

Striker: Fey-Warlock - Not the best damage dealer but extremely hard to hit and has a strong controller feel to it. Probably the most powerful class build in 4e.

There are some places on the internet saying FeyLock and "best striker" in the same sentence will get you laughed off the internet. FeyLock is good at a lot of things, but striking isn't one of them.