TOPIC: What are the Ideal Class Damage Rankings?

There should be no ideal class damage ranking. All classes should be relatively equal at base, then damage should scale with earned equipment and skill at sliding or performance on their respective skill test.

Note: Also, just shaking my head when people justify the Rogue having less damage because they have a puzzle to help the group. It's just silly.

Guedoji wrote: There should be no ideal class damage ranking. All classes should be relatively equal at base, then damage should scale with earned equipment and skill at sliding or performance on their respective skill test.

Note: Also, just shaking my head when people justify the Rogue having less damage because they have a puzzle to help the group. It's just silly.

each class should have a design statement that determines why you want to play the class. Not every class can be the top damage dealer, but many classes are only defined by their combat abilities. For class balance sake, no class should excel outside of combat and in it. Since rouge has a role out of combat, to be balanced in desirability, it should have a weak combat role.

Guedoji wrote: There should be no ideal class damage ranking. All classes should be relatively equal at base, then damage should scale with earned equipment and skill at sliding or performance on their respective skill test.

Note: Also, just shaking my head when people justify the Rogue having less damage because they have a puzzle to help the group. It's just silly.

Let's just take the rogue boxes away. Equal footing in all areas to go with equal damage.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Bob Chasan wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Here are my preferred class rankings for damage output, and why.

Let’s start with why:

1. TD wants to sell tokens.
2. People buy tokens predominantly to boost their combat capabilities.
3. There are only 6-12 rounds of combat in a typical dungeon - things that boost combat damage, and things that grant actions/let you do more with an action are more desirable than things that grant defenses.

Design goal: No class should be better than another class at everything players want to do (if so, there is no reason for people to play the lesser class).

So it’s OK to have an SUV, a tractor, and a corvette.

It’s not Ok to have a corvette, and Porsche, and a Ferrari.

Here are the things people want to do, ordered but what I believe the general preference is:

1. Gather treasure.
2. Deal damage / kill monsters.
3. Avoid / resist monster attacks and effects.
4. Boost the party / hinder monsters.

To answer the question of what order the classes should go in with regard to #2 - one should also evaluate where they stand / should stand in #1, 3 and 4.

Let’s do that quickly:

#1 Treasure collection:
1. Rogue
2. All other classes tied.

#3 Avoid / Resist attacks

Tier one: Paladin (great saves, AC)

Tier two: Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighters, Monk (mix of high HP, great saves, high AC, and class features like evasion / feather fall etc.)

Tier three: Bard, Ranger (Decent AC/saves)

Tier four: Rogue (slightly worse AC, saves)

Tier five: Wizards (worst saves, worst AC, worst HP)

#4 Supporting the party / hindering the monster

1. Bard (Bardsong, monster lore, buff spells)
2. Cleric (bless, prayer, restore abilities, healing
3. Tie Paladin (guard, lay on hands, remove disease) and Druid (healing, defensive spells)
5. Tie Elf Wizard (Alertness), Rogue (puzzle clue, flank)
7. Tie Dwarf Fighter (taunt), Wizard (buff spells), Ranger (healing)
10. Tie Barbarian, Fighter, Monk

Summing all that up, the damage tiers should be:

Tier one:
Wizards (compensates low defenses, low support)

Tier Two:
Ranger (compensate for medium defenses, low support)

Tier three:
Barbarian, Fighters, Monk, Rogue (compensate for high defenses, worst support)

(Rogue could move up one - depends on how much you value the treasure)

Tier four:
Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin (compensate for awesome support and/or defenses)

(Druid could move up depending on how you value healing and if we ever get a reprint or new armor set similar to Dragonscale).

I like this. I play Wizard and just finished playing VTD felt like I was playing on Normal and everyone else was playing on Nightmare. It would have been nice to be able to contribute more damage to the party total.

I know that's the point of this thread, but comparing classes with and without their legendary makes a big difference.

In particular, Barbarian, Monk and Rogue are incredibly powerful now.

I definitely agree on Barbarian and Monk but does the new Legendary for Rogue put it on par with the Ranger or is it still below Ranger on the damage potential

Rogue is currently #4 in total damage output at a max built.

I'm ok with this. The assumption that rogues are just about puzzle boxes isn't sound. By that logic, clerics are only there for healing, and wizards are only there to attack multiple opponents or are only there to use wands. Because something is part of a class, that doesn't mean it is the only thing that class can do.

At higher levels, the rogue extra 3 rares per run doesn't matter. For new players - sure - it definitely helps but this thread isn't comparing level 4 character classes. In that case, it would be monk, ranger, then wizard, then druid in total power.

The rogue is meant to be a glass cannon in virtually every gaming edition. In D&D, in particular (especially 3.5 that TD uses for the basis for the core rules), the rogue could do top 3 damage but did so at great risk to themselves. They could never have the AC other classes had and when they become a target, they were toast without party support. Similarly, wizards and druids in D&D aren't the top damage dealers - they control the battle field that enables everyone else.

My view is these are the various roles of different classes in TD:
Bard - primary support for buffing, lore checks, and supplemental healing and damage
Barbarian* - damage dealer but also meat shield - high HP and resistance
Cleric* - best healer in the game, strong ac, supplemental damage, should be amazing against undead
Druid - Versatile caster not not best in class for damage or healing, strong supporting damage dealing, shapeshifting, limited support for rogue/bard through spirit bowl
Dwarf Fighter - Amazing AC, designed to attack attacks and tie up combatants, crit fishing for great damage
Elf Wizard* - Top 3 caster damage dealer, should be versatile as a combatant, needs more "elfiness"
Fighter - Strong melee combatant, great AC, should be most reliable to hit of all classes
Monk** -Amazing melee combatant but low AC, best resistances in the game, stunning ability
Paladin* - Great AC, strong melee combatant against evil, limited immunities and limited healing
Ranger** - Strong melee combatant with limited magic, best in class flexibility between ranged and melee (likely not true with current rogue set-up)
Rogue - glass cannon melee combatant, opens locks (puzzle box), limited support role (flanking)
Wizard* - Best spell damage of all casters, battlefield control and area effects. Should have the most spell versatility of all classes.

*indicates where TD needs to adjust the classes to better fall in line with their roles or power levels
-Barbarians should have better resistances and be the ultimate meat shields
-Clerics should be lights out against undead - turning should be something that just ends combats against undead. In D&D, a cleric turning undead basically ends combat against anything that fails its save. Since fear is hard to replicate in TD, maybe something like 10 X healing spell bonus area effect against all undead (save for no damage) usable 1/day.
-Elf wizard doesn't feel like and elf at all. They can't use long swords or do much in melee and have no racial abilities. This is one of the cards most in need of a redesign. I would recommend let them use rogue armor, use rogue weapons plus all bows and long swords, then give them immunity to sleep and charm. Add that to the current class card, pull polymorph, and you would have a much better elf wizard.
-Paladins need better abilities against evil - maybe a smite ability from 5e. That could be their spell bonus or healing bonus as bonus damage against anything evil 5/run.
**indicates where TD made the class overpowered versus it's D&D origins. Ranger hasn't been a top tier damage dealer in D&D since 1st edition and only then for the first 2-3 levels. I think it lost it's way a bit to not have more spellcasting and animal related abilities.

Fred

While cleric has an identity, I don't feel it when playing it or someone else is. It just feels like a healbot that adds somewhat to party damage. Now, I do find cleric vastly more appealing in lower $$ play where need for both healing and support spells seem to matter, where Turn might not be horrible, where any player's contributions are more impactful, where AC might be more important.

Druid is amazing. Whatever it does in terms of damage, it has so much stuff going on. I'd rather that polymorph focused more on weird abilities than damage, but there's only so many dials in this game that matter and weird specials so often don't.

Endgame wrote:

Guedoji wrote: There should be no ideal class damage ranking. All classes should be relatively equal at base, then damage should scale with earned equipment and skill at sliding or performance on their respective skill test.

Note: Also, just shaking my head when people justify the Rogue having less damage because they have a puzzle to help the group. It's just silly.

each class should have a design statement that determines why you want to play the class. Not every class can be the top damage dealer, but many classes are only defined by their combat abilities. For class balance sake, no class should excel outside of combat and in it. Since rouge has a role out of combat, to be balanced in desirability, it should have a weak combat role.

Perhaps the answer is other classes need better out of combat ability, not force a class with an outside ability to be worse at something. Again, I think all classes should be equal and this should be skill dependent, but that might not be feasible in VTD.

Think of it this way. The reality is a Rogue has to spend much more money to be comparable in damage to very basic characters of other classes. I can switch my Rogue build to other classes and be amazed at the output with hundreds of dollars reduction in token cost. Some level 4 rare characters of other classes can out damage a level 5 purple builds.

I've also noticed in the past folks running challenge runs don't really need a Rogue because they know the puzzle and simply desire competitive damage and healing.

I'm defending the Rogue because I love the class, but know I ultimately think balance is important. Just would think the balance should not be related to a puzzle room skill that benefits the entire team.

Fred K wrote: -Barbarians should have better resistances and be the ultimate meat shields
-Clerics should be lights out against undead - turning should be something that just ends combats against undead. In D&D, a cleric turning undead basically ends combat against anything that fails its save. Since fear is hard to replicate in TD, maybe something like 10 X healing spell bonus area effect against all undead (save for no damage) usable 1/day.
-Elf wizard doesn't feel like and elf at all. They can't use long swords or do much in melee and have no racial abilities. This is one of the cards most in need of a redesign. I would recommend let them use rogue armor, use rogue weapons plus all bows and long swords, then give them immunity to sleep and charm. Add that to the current class card, pull polymorph, and you would have a much better elf wizard.
-Paladins need better abilities against evil - maybe a smite ability from 5e. That could be their spell bonus or healing bonus as bonus damage against anything evil 5/run.
Ranger hasn't been a top tier damage dealer in D&D since 1st edition and only then for the first 2-3 levels. I think it lost it's way a bit to not have more spellcasting and animal related abilities.

Fred

1) Barbarian Rage could auto-pass Will saves (or at least get a bonus equal to the damage bonus)

2) You don't want Turn Undead to auto-end a combat. It's already a pretty good AoE against undead (and Evil Outsiders and Aberrations). Granted it doesn't compare to damage spells once high spell bonuses are included, but in an Undead dungeon, you might get to use it 3 times.

Now, more tokens could be released to improve it, maybe extra uses, something that adds spell damage to turning, making it give a free turn when the monster is "driven back" before returning, equal to a Maze spell, etc.

But we ESPECIALLY don't want it to auto-end a combat with a Room 7 monster (especially if it's the end of a longer arc), and if you don't want players complaining because the monster is immune to their auto-success token/ability...

3) I was actually just saying something like this about Elves, if we were doing a total class card overhaul - I'd drop the "wizard' part entirely for a balanced light fighter/mage

There was a long discussion elsewhere about giving Wizards the ability to do decent damage when their spells run out, so if the Elf gets a decent sword/bow, you need to balance their spells against the Wizard not having the same.

4) It would be cool for there to be a "smite evil" on at least 5th lvl Paladins, but I don't think more than 1/game unless it's low-powered like Turn Undead (and not AoE), but their card is already so full just on a technical front, it might have to come from tokens. Then the question is making it competitive with just better weapons/STR/DEX bonuses

5) If Rangers are already OP, no sense in giving them more. And if the Elf is going to be fighty/spelly guy, no need for Ranger as well. Now, more scrolls could include Ranger if thematic, and maybe an Animal Companion in the off-hand puck, like a wolf for melee, bird for ranged, etc.
Finally, I wouldn't look to D&D for things like class balance, more just for inspiration

I would agree that more classes should matter outside of combat. Like spells you might cast outside of combat for wizards. Like, um, er, em, hmmm, eh ... for fighter types.

Tokens focus almost entirely on the combat half of TD, which has good features. If you can just token all puzzles, then the game has increased sameness. Now, what always matter is hit points, so anything that increases hit points or healing always matters (to survival**), which is why cleric/druid are so essential at levels of play where not only does combat go more than one round, the party actually loses fights.

** I realize different people have different definitions of success. I consider getting to room 7 intact and getting to take a couple actions success, where others view beating everything success, where some look to never take any damage.

Guedoji wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Guedoji wrote: There should be no ideal class damage ranking. All classes should be relatively equal at base, then damage should scale with earned equipment and skill at sliding or performance on their respective skill test.

Note: Also, just shaking my head when people justify the Rogue having less damage because they have a puzzle to help the group. It's just silly.

each class should have a design statement that determines why you want to play the class. Not every class can be the top damage dealer, but many classes are only defined by their combat abilities. For class balance sake, no class should excel outside of combat and in it. Since rouge has a role out of combat, to be balanced in desirability, it should have a weak combat role.

Perhaps the answer is other classes need better out of combat ability, not force a class with an outside ability to be worse at something. Again, I think all classes should be equal and this should be skill dependent, but that might not be feasible in VTD.

Think of it this way. The reality is a Rogue has to spend much more money to be comparable in damage to very basic characters of other classes. I can switch my Rogue build to other classes and be amazed at the output with hundreds of dollars reduction in token cost. Some level 4 rare characters of other classes can out damage a level 5 purple builds.

I've also noticed in the past folks running challenge runs don't really need a Rogue because they know the puzzle and simply desire competitive damage and healing.

I'm defending the Rogue because I love the class, but know I ultimately think balance is important. Just would think the balance should not be related to a puzzle room skill that benefits the entire team.

I don't think people put enough value on the Rogue's Flanking ability. It can be invaluable on some combats (at least on the real world).

This is where I think the "who can do the most damage" discussion starts getting dangerous. It leads to people not using extremely useful in-combat abilities that help the party, all because they want to deal the most damage as an individual.

Ian Lee wrote: I would agree that more classes should matter outside of combat. Like spells you might cast outside of combat for wizards. Like, um, er, em, hmmm, eh ... for fighter types.

Tokens focus almost entirely on the combat half of TD, which has good features. If you can just token all puzzles, then the game has increased sameness. Now, what always matter is hit points, so anything that increases hit points or healing always matters (to survival**), which is why cleric/druid are so essential at levels of play where not only does combat go more than one round, the party actually loses fights.

** I realize different people have different definitions of success. I consider getting to room 7 intact and getting to take a couple actions success, where others view beating everything success, where some look to never take any damage.

And some try to kill themselves!

Fiddy wrote:

Guedoji wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Guedoji wrote: There should be no ideal class damage ranking. All classes should be relatively equal at base, then damage should scale with earned equipment and skill at sliding or performance on their respective skill test.

Note: Also, just shaking my head when people justify the Rogue having less damage because they have a puzzle to help the group. It's just silly.

each class should have a design statement that determines why you want to play the class. Not every class can be the top damage dealer, but many classes are only defined by their combat abilities. For class balance sake, no class should excel outside of combat and in it. Since rouge has a role out of combat, to be balanced in desirability, it should have a weak combat role.

Perhaps the answer is other classes need better out of combat ability, not force a class with an outside ability to be worse at something. Again, I think all classes should be equal and this should be skill dependent, but that might not be feasible in VTD.

Think of it this way. The reality is a Rogue has to spend much more money to be comparable in damage to very basic characters of other classes. I can switch my Rogue build to other classes and be amazed at the output with hundreds of dollars reduction in token cost. Some level 4 rare characters of other classes can out damage a level 5 purple builds.

I've also noticed in the past folks running challenge runs don't really need a Rogue because they know the puzzle and simply desire competitive damage and healing.

I'm defending the Rogue because I love the class, but know I ultimately think balance is important. Just would think the balance should not be related to a puzzle room skill that benefits the entire team.

I don't think people put enough value on the Rogue's Flanking ability. It can be invaluable on some combats (at least on the real world).

This is where I think the "who can do the most damage" discussion starts getting dangerous. It leads to people not using extremely useful in-combat abilities that help the party, all because they want to deal the most damage as an individual.

I've never actually used flank. I'm pretty good at hitting criticals on sneak attack so it seemed pointless, but I will try next time.

Guedoji wrote: Think of it this way. The reality is a Rogue has to spend much more money to be comparable in damage to very basic characters of other classes. I can switch my Rogue build to other classes and be amazed at the output with hundreds of dollars reduction in token cost.

But you’re taking a very narrow view. Rogues aren’t supposed to deal as much damage as a Fighter. And there’s no getting around the fact that a fighter who spent as much on your rogue build would still outdamage you, because that’s all they do. No flank, no clues, no bonus treasure, no sneak attack...

It would be ridiculous to suggest Paladins are screwed because they can’t heal as well as Clerics.

If every class had equal damage output, then Fighters and Barbarian would be pointless, because damage is all they do. Anyone who chose them would be laughed out of the party. “Don’t be silly, choose a class that does something the rest of us can’t.” Maybe Monk, too. All they have is a bunch of defensive powers and a Stunning Fist that is much harder to trigger outside of VTD.

I think the goal is to make every class equally powerful and useful and fun across all dimensions, not just damage-dealing, even if it is the hands-down most important. Dead monsters don’t usually swing back.

A Modest Proposal (TM): Don’t stop at getting rid of rogue boxes, get rid of classes altogether. That would make everything perfectly balanced, as well as quite boring, and it wouldn’t be D&D anymore.

Making Elves into Fighter-Mage hybrids would play havoc on existing tokens. The errata would be huge, or elves would be juggernauts.