The Unofficial 5e tier list

[CyberThread]

The following is a repost of something JaronK made over on the BG forums. It's here mostly because I'd like to get some feedback from knowledgeable minds, but it's also a useful tool, much like a handbook, and available for use.

My general philosophy is that the only balance that really matters in D&D is the interclass balance between the various PCs in a group. If the group as a whole is very powerful and flexible, the DM can simply up the challenge level and complexity of the encounters. If it's weak and inflexible, the DM can lower the challenge level and complexity. Serious issues arise when the party is composed of some members which are extremely powerful and others which are extremely weak, leading to a situation where the DM has two choices: either make the game too easy for the strong members, or too hard for the weak members. Neither is desireable. Thus, this system is created for the following purposes:

1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group

2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.

3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).

4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a Fighter, and a Rogue, maybe you shouldn't let that fly.

5) To help homebrewers judge the power and balance of their new classes. Pick a Tier you think your class should be in, and when you've made your class compare it to the rest of the Tier. Generally, I like Tier 3 as a balance point, but I know many people prefer Tier 4. If it's stronger than Tier 1, you definitely blew it.

Note that "useless" here means "the class isn't particularly useful for dealing with situation X" not "it's totally impossible with enough splat books to make a build that involves that class deal with situation X." "Capable of doing one thing" means that any given build does one thing, not that the class itself is incapable of being built in different ways. Also, "encounters" here refers to appropriate encounters... obviously, anyone can solve an encounter with purely mechanical abilities if they're level 20 and it's CR 1.

Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level. As a rule, parties function best when everyone in the party is within 2 Tiers of each other (so a party that's all Tier 2-4 is generally fine, and so is a party that's all Tier 3-5, but a party that has Tier 1 and Tier 5s in it may have issues).

The Tier System

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Examples: Unknown The Book Isn't out Yet

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

Examples: Unknown The Book Isn't out Yet

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Examples: Unknown The Book Isn't out Yet

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Examples: Unknown The Book Isn't out Yet

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the rest of the party is weak in that situation and the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Examples: Unknown The Book Isn't out Yet


Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

Examples: Unknown The Book Isn't out Yet



Now, obviously these rankings only apply when mechanical abilities are being used... in a more social oriented game where talking is the main way of solving things (without using diplomacy checks), any character can shine. However, when the mechanical abilities of the classes in question are being used, it's a bad idea to have parties with more than two tiers of difference.

It is interesting to note the disparity between the core classes... one of the reasons core has so many problems. If two players want to play a nature oriented shapeshifter and a general sword weilder, you're stuck with two very different tiered guys in the party.

Note that a few classes are right on the border line between tiers.

[Yuki Akuma]

The joke isn't very effective when you highlight it in blue text.

[Callin]

We shall have our answers in a week once the early release books are sold. Then a refinement over the next few weeks.

[obryn]

So with all this, let's make some predictions where the system's fail-points will be, and where optimizers' creative energies will be focused.

I'm thinking...

(1) Getting a spread of saves will be a key point for casters. It's unknown if all 6 saves will be targetable out of the box, but if they are, preparing 1 significant spell of each kind will be key.
(2) Multiclassing will land us with some truly bizarre combinations, and given how it works, more optimized characters - maybe even spellcasters - will have several classes under their belt.
(3) I'm just gonna call it - Wizards are still going to be tops, especially if the whackadoodle stuff for Transmuters and Necromancers from the Alpha sticks around.
(4) Any remotely significant buffs without Concentration will be in demand, whereas buffs that require concentration will be relatively useless in play, unless their buff is nearly overpowered and encounter-ending. (It's the "reaction problem" for wizards.)
(5) Ways for Casters to get proficiency on Con Saves will be a feat tax for Concentration Checks.
(6) Ways for characters without Wis Save proficiency to get proficiency will be a feat tax, since that's where the hard control effects mostly live.
(7) Bards will be top tier. I am calling it now.

[CyberThread]

The joke isn't very effective when you highlight it in blue text.



I know, I didn't want to honestly make it that hard, using tan text or regular black.

[ImperiousLeader]

(7) Bards will be top tier. I am calling it now.

This. Bards can apparently sub in for clerics now. I for one, welcome our new Bard overlords.

[CyberThread]

So my primarily post is going to start off with assuming nothing is tier 5, as that you need facts but rather pure.... what is displayed and potential...



Barbarian


The Path of the Berserker gains powers to make their rages more potent, as well as powers to terrify and dismay their enemies. TIER 4
The Path of the Totem Warrior gains powers based on a spirit animal, like a Bear, Eagle, or Wolf TIER 3.5


Bard


The College of Lore is the traditional D&D Bard, with lots of skills and versatile magical talents. Tier 2

The College of Valor is a warrior bard, with heavier armor and abilities that boost both their melee combat and ability to cast spells while making attacks. Tier 2.5

Cleric Tier 1

Druid Tier 1

Fighter


The Champion is the warrior's warrior, already in the basic rules. Tier 4

The Battle Master is the more complex fighter, using a pool of "superiority dice" spent to fuel abilities like feinting attacks and rallying their allies. Tier 3.5

The Eldritch Knight is a spellsword who gains access to a pool of up to 4th level wizard spells and the ability to fight while simultaneously wielding magic. Tier 3




Monk


The Way of the Open Hand teaches powers that emphasize unarmed combat. Tier 4


The Way of Shadow teaches powers that give the monk sneaking and magical powers while in darkness - like teleportation.Tier 3.5


The Way of the Four Elements teaches users to harness their Ki to cast a variety of elemental abilities and spells - from Burning Hands to Stoneskin. Tier 3

Paladin 3.5


Ranger


The Hunter gains a variety of abilities that make them more powerful in combat against not just their favored enemies, but a variety of foes like them. Tier 4.5

The Beast Master has an animal friend who fights alongside them and acts when they command it to. Tier 3.75


Rogue
Consummate tricksters, with abilities that make them hard to catch in addition to their classic sneak attack. Their specializations are Roguish Archetypes.

The Thief was already unveiled in the Basic Rules, their powers focus on getting where you want to go. Tier 4
The Assassin has a suite of abilities based around impersonating, infiltrating, and murdering. Tier 3.75
The Arcane Trickster gains limited spellcasting abilities, up to 4th level wizard spells, and the ability to steal from others using their Mage Hand cantrip. Can eventually steal spells from the minds of other casters. Tier 3.25



Sorcerer Tier 1.5



Warlock
A spellcaster who has a deal with a powerful supernatural creature for their might, they use a unique spellcasting system based on a limited number of spells known combined with a maximum power level of spells available.

A pact with The Archfey grants powers based on beguiling and tricking opponents. Tier 2
A pact with The Fiend grants powers based on hellish luck and dark blessings. Tier 3.25
A pact with The Great Old One grants powers based on madness, the mind, and the great beyond. Tier 2.5

Wizard Tier 1

[Zeuel]

Can we really say anything is Tier 1 yet? I mean I understand at high levels it's possible that a Wizard might still be able to outfight the Fighter with spells, but a lot of spells got their wings clipped in various ways, crazy feat combinations are pretty much gone since you get so few of them and so few are actually released, and casting is harder with nerfs to bonus actions and concentration. Reading through part of the playtest it seems that the nukes that Tier 1/2 classes had access to have been demoted to merely really really big bombs.

I'm not saying Wizards won't be one of the most powerful classes in the game at higher levels like they almost always are, but it just seems to me that the way the current tier system's highest tier is defined that being able to break the DM's game right in half in so many ways instead of just merely meaning "really really good at everything".

[akaddk]

It's threads like this that make me loathe RPG players.

[da_chicken]

Can we really say anything is Tier 1 yet?

No. OP is making a joke. He edited out his blue text making that clear.


It's threads like this that make me loathe RPG players.

It's just a joke.

[rlc]

It's threads like this that make me loathe RPG players.

pretty much this.

[akaddk]

It's just a joke.

Are you inferring that I only read the thread title and made a gross assumption as to the context without further researching it and then posited my rage in text format within said thread, thus embarrassing myself and forcing me to either retract my rushed statement in shame or further dig myself in and argue vehemently in order to blindly support my blithe ignorance?

Is that what you're saying?

[da_chicken]

Are you inferring that I only read the thread title and made a gross assumption as to the context without further researching it and then posited my rage in text format within said thread, thus embarrassing myself and forcing me to either retract my rushed statement in shame or further dig myself in and argue vehemently in order to blindly support my blithe ignorance?

Is that what you're saying?

Well I wasn't, but now I think I'd like to.

[CyberThread]

Are you inferring that I only read the thread title and made a gross assumption as to the context without further researching it and then posited my rage in text format within said thread, thus embarrassing myself and forcing me to either retract my rushed statement in shame or further dig myself in and argue vehemently in order to blindly support my blithe ignorance?

Is that what you're saying?


Who can blame you , you are a dwarf standing at chest height.

[MeeposFire]

I know this is a joke but on another matter one thing I always fin interesting about these discussions is that you can do a tiered listing for any game, edition, etc but when it comes to D&D we use the definitions for each tier based on teh limited experience of 3e.

For instance if you make a tier list on 4e but you keep these terms from 3e (such as tier 1 being able to break the game in many ways and being better at other character's jobs than the other characters) what you will find is that there are no tier 1s in 4e and all the classes are in the tier 3-5 range. This of course means that in a purely 4e discussion that the method of defining the tiers needs to be changed in order for it to make sense relative to the experience of 4e. As an example the warlord should be tier 1 in 4e but that would require a different definition of tier 1 than the 3e section would indicate (since a 4e warlord would only be able to be a tier 3 character based on the definition given in that tier list).


What I wonder is what is going to be the definitions used to determine the tiers in 5e?

[Tholomyes]

I know this is a joke but on another matter one thing I always fin interesting about these discussions is that you can do a tiered listing for any game, edition, etc but when it comes to D&D we use the definitions for each tier based on teh limited experience of 3e.

For instance if you make a tier list on 4e but you keep these terms from 3e (such as tier 1 being able to break the game in many ways and being better at other character's jobs than the other characters) what you will find is that there are no tier 1s in 4e and all the classes are in the tier 3-5 range. This of course means that in a purely 4e discussion that the method of defining the tiers needs to be changed in order for it to make sense relative to the experience of 4e. As an example the warlord should be tier 1 in 4e but that would require a different definition of tier 1 than the 3e section would indicate (since a 4e warlord would only be able to be a tier 3 character based on the definition given in that tier list).


What I wonder is what is going to be the definitions used to determine the tiers in 5e?I agree with the sentiment, but 5e is closer to 3e and prior than 4e was, so some of the same terms may apply. Still, I think it'd still be better to look at the system on it's own before determining what the stratification for the tier list would even be, or if it's even necessary. One of the big things that made me begrudgingly respect the concept was that it fueled homebrew somewhat, by giving homebrewers clear goals, if they wanted to fix certain classes by bringing them up a couple tiers. However if the variance between tiers is lower than the variance due to homebrewing skill, it might lose a large part of what made it useful.

[Madfellow]

For 5e I think the talk isn't going to be mostly about power tiers, but rather more about character "camps" or "families." The three camps are as follows:

Martial
* Fighter
* Rogue
* Monk
* Barbarian

Divine
* Cleric
* Druid
* Paladin
* Ranger

Arcane
* Wizard
* Sorcerer
* Warlock
* Bard

The divine and arcane camps have more versatility than martials due to their access to magic, but their raw power is equal and the versatility comes at a cost. In a fight, a spellcaster can only ever do one thing in a turn: cast a spell. These spells are powerful, but very restricted in use. Martial classes don't have that problem; at high levels they can zoom around the battlefield attacking whoever and whatever they want, while also interacting with the environment (open/close a door, pull a lever, jump over a pit), and they can maintain this kind of energy indefinitely. Arcane classes simply can't do that, and Divines can't do it nearly as well. They both run out of steam before long.

And at the highest of levels we see what I will call the "Capstone of Contention," the divine spell Antimagic Field. In a 10-foot radius around the caster, there is no magic. At all. This spell changes everything. All of a sudden, the vile necromancer antagonist is useless, and he has to depend on his mundane henchmen, whom the DM has probably given levels in, guess what, Fighter.

[Lokiare]

Actually with Wizard's having spells like invisibility, suggestion, charm person, Finger of Death, knock, animate dead, and spider climb, their unique neo-vancian spell prep not tied to spell slot mechanic and their great number of spells, the Wizard will be a tier 1 class in 5E, joke or no joke.

Its still able to shut down encounters, outdo every other classes abilities (we haven't seen the polymorph spell yet and whether you can turn people into trolls or other regenerative creatures for the healing niches, but they can make healing potions) and basically do everything in the game.

They are closer to other classes, but they are still able to fill the definition of tier 1. Other casters can probably claim tier 2 at least and we know that certain non-caster classes (*cough*fighter*cough*) are tier 5.

Sadly 5E isn't filling its goals and in most cases people will find other editions do their play styles better, except for a narrow band of 'extremely swingy, extremely deadly, DM makes stuff up' type of play styles.

[Inevitability]

Actually with Wizard's having spells like invisibility, suggestion, charm person, Finger of Death, knock, animate dead, and spider climb, their unique neo-vancian spell prep not tied to spell slot mechanic and their great number of spells, the Wizard will be a tier 1 class in 5E, joke or no joke.

Its still able to shut down encounters, outdo every other classes abilities (we haven't seen the polymorph spell yet and whether you can turn people into trolls or other regenerative creatures for the healing niches, but they can make healing potions) and basically do everything in the game.

They are closer to other classes, but they are still able to fill the definition of tier 1. Other casters can probably claim tier 2 at least and we know that certain non-caster classes (*cough*fighter*cough*) are tier 5.

Sadly 5E isn't filling its goals and in most cases people will find other editions do their play styles better, except for a narrow band of 'extremely swingy, extremely deadly, DM makes stuff up' type of play styles.

This is not true.

Firstly, you say that wizards will be tier 1. Not true. In 3.5, wizards were tier 1 because they could turn into whatever being suited them fancy, summon anything they'd like to, generate infinite money or wreck an encounter without spending any actions on it. In 5e, none of these things have been shown to be able to be done by them yet.

Then you first say that they are able to outdo any other class, followed by a reason why they don't rule the game yet. A bit weird, isn't it?

Finally, you claim fighters are tier 5. They aren't. In 3.5, barbarians were also forced into the 'I charge/full attack' routine, but they were still tier 4 because they had useable class abilities. The 5e fighter will have those too. Second wind makes them the best low-level healers. They gain more attacks than every other class. Action surge is awesome. Their ability score improvements/feat gains occur more often than any other classes'. Bascially, fighters are among the better when it comes to direct fighting, making a tier 5 position utter nonsense.

[Lokiare]

This is not true.

Firstly, you say that wizards will be tier 1. Not true. In 3.5, wizards were tier 1 because they could turn into whatever being suited them fancy, summon anything they'd like to, generate infinite money or wreck an encounter without spending any actions on it. In 5e, none of these things have been shown to be able to be done by them yet.

Then you first say that they are able to outdo any other class, followed by a reason why they don't rule the game yet. A bit weird, isn't it?

Finally, you claim fighters are tier 5. They aren't. In 3.5, barbarians were also forced into the 'I charge/full attack' routine, but they were still tier 4 because they had useable class abilities. The 5e fighter will have those too. Second wind makes them the best low-level healers. They gain more attacks than every other class. Action surge is awesome. Their ability score improvements/feat gains occur more often than any other classes'. Bascially, fighters are among the better when it comes to direct fighting, making a tier 5 position utter nonsense.

You don't seem to understand the tier system at all.

Tier 1 is able to do everything in the game often better than other classes. In the case of wizards, can they do everything other classes can do? yes. Do they sometimes do it better than those classes? yes. So yes Wizards are tier 1 in 5E. It doesn't mean you can't make a bad wizard. It also doesn't mean you can make a wizard that is worse than a fighter. It means they have the potential to outclass all other classes.

Tier 5 is able to do only 1 thing good, and other classes often do it better. The thing the Fighter does best is damage, however classes like the Barbarian, Wizard, and Druid can out damage the fighter. This is not to say that an individual fighter can't be on par with a Wizard, Druid, or Barbarian, rather its to say on average with equal optimization the fighter will be outclassed.

[Madfellow]

If people insist on using character tiers, I'd say all of the classes so far seem to fit snugly into Tier 3.

[Madfellow]

You don't seem to understand the tier system at all.

Tier 1 is able to do everything in the game often better than other classes. In the case of wizards, can they do everything other classes can do? yes. Do they sometimes do it better than those classes? yes. So yes Wizards are tier 1 in 5E. It doesn't mean you can't make a bad wizard. It also doesn't mean you can make a wizard that is worse than a fighter. It means they have the potential to outclass all other classes.

Tier 5 is able to do only 1 thing good, and other classes often do it better. The thing the Fighter does best is damage, however classes like the Barbarian, Wizard, and Druid can out damage the fighter. This is not to say that an individual fighter can't be on par with a Wizard, Druid, or Barbarian, rather its to say on average with equal optimization the fighter will be outclassed.

You don't seem to understand the 5e system at all.

In the case of wizards, can they do everything other classes can do? No. They can't wield heavy arms or armor, can't make multiple attacks per round, can't take a hit without folding like wet tissue paper, can't heal, can't buff worth a darn, and can't dungeon delve for more than a couple hours without having to rest for 8.

The thing the Fighter does best is not damage, it is Fighting. Fighting is more than dealing damage. Fighting means taking hits, being mobile, and controlling the battlefield without dying. Other classes can do some of this, but only the fighter can do all of it.

[Inevitability]

You don't seem to understand the tier system at all.

Tier 1 is able to do everything in the game often better than other classes. In the case of wizards, can they do everything other classes can do? yes.

3.5 wizards, maybe, but 5e wizards most certainly not. Try playing a party of four wizards, I dare you. The ugly truth is that you'll end up unable to focus enough damage on a single target (so enemies stay alive longer), can't heal except by using Hit Dice and won't be able to play meatshield.

In 3.5, wizards could summon about everything and transform into about everything. Neither of those things have been shown in 5e. What we've got so far is the ability to summon a monster once per day, without gaining any control over the aforementioned monster.

[Madfellow]

What we've got so far is the ability to summon a monster once per day, without gaining any control over the aforementioned monster.

Gate is a cleric spell, not a wizard spell.

[Fwiffo86]

Gate is a cleric spell, not a wizard spell.

Animate Dead is likewise a Cleric spell.

[pwykersotz]

Animate Dead is likewise a Cleric spell.

I, for one, welcome our new cleric overlords. :smalltongue:

[Sartharina]

Actually with Wizard's having spells like invisibility, suggestion, charm person, Finger of Death, knock, animate dead, and spider climb, their unique neo-vancian spell prep not tied to spell slot mechanic and their great number of spells, the Wizard will be a tier 1 class in 5E, joke or no joke.Fighters can freely cast Knock and Spider Climb as well, though not quite as quickly as a wizard can. Battleaxes and Rope work wonders. Charm Person and Suggestion can be emulated by anyone with a positive CHA modifier and background, without having the person seek vengeance for being magically compelled once it runs out (Because it never will). Sure, Diplomacy checks can fail, but spells have saves that cannot be trivialized. Finger of Death is a joke, and Fighters have a bigger one anyway. And invisiblity can be achieved simply by staying out of sight.


Its still able to shut down encounters, outdo every other classes abilities (we haven't seen the polymorph spell yet and whether you can turn people into trolls or other regenerative creatures for the healing niches, but they can make healing potions) and basically do everything in the game. Anyone can make a healing potion. Next you're going to argue that 3e's Monks are Tier 1 because they can cross-class UMD partially-charged wands and compete with casters through their WBL. Any class can 'shut down' an encounter as well. Wizards have a few more options to make an encounter easier, or assist in shutting down an encounter, but nothing that can shut down an encounter on its own. You don't need magic to do so anyway.. And 5e has avoided the "No you can't do this - you don't have the feat/30 skill points needed" problem that plagued 3e.

[rlc]

wizards are okay this time around, but they're really not the overpowered mess they usually are. they get some nice spells, but they're definitely not going to be one shotting encounters.

[TheOOB]

We shall have our answers in a week once the early release books are sold. Then a refinement over the next few weeks.

The Tier list came out years after 3.5's release and after quite a few supplements.

[omniknight]

You don't seem to understand the tier system at all.

Tier 1 is able to do everything in the game often better than other classes. In the case of wizards, can they do everything other classes can do? yes. Do they sometimes do it better than those classes? yes. So yes Wizards are tier 1 in 5E. It doesn't mean you can't make a bad wizard. It also doesn't mean you can make a wizard that is worse than a fighter. It means they have the potential to outclass all other classes.

Are you capable of actually advancing a rational position with evidence or logic, or do you just want to hop from thread to thread saying that 5e Wizards are OP (because you keep conflating them with 3.X spellcasters) and then get repeatedly refuted by others?

As others above have said, 5e Wizards cannot do everything other classes can do, period. They are about as capable at fighting in melee (both dealing and taking damage) as a wet tissue. Unlike in 3.5e, they cannot buff themselves to no end so that they can consistently stand toe-to-toe like (or better than) a Fighter. They do not get armor or shields, multiple attacks per round, high HP, or bonuses to the "physical" (STR/DEX/CON) saving throws. They might be able to Polymorph into something scary once or twice per day, but at the expense of other probably more vital high-level spells. They cannot heal, and some of their high-level spells got shifted over to Cleric.

What 5e Wizards do bring to the table is a large breadth of spellcasting options such that they have unparalleled (IMO) IC/OOC versatility. They can prepare for a good number of (not all) contingencies that can happen on a typical adventure day. Even then, however, they cannot spellcast with impunity because of the reduced number of daily spell slots. Nor does it mean they necessarily have the best tool for the job, just that they have one.

Now, if you want to respond to this, please do so with some logic beyond "but Wizards can do everything other classes can do because they are more like 3.Xe then my beloved 4e."

[Lokiare]

Are you capable of actually advancing a rational position with evidence or logic, or do you just want to hop from thread to thread saying that 5e Wizards are OP (because you keep conflating them with 3.X spellcasters) and then get repeatedly refuted by others?

I have yet to be refuted by facts. I do see quite a few people throwing emotional arguments my way, but without facts those arguments are dross. I've shown my evidence and logic over and over and over by citing the spells and even occasionally doing a mathematical analysis. Others have not. In fact I haven't seen anyone provide a mathematical analysis at all.


As others above have said, 5e Wizards cannot do everything other classes can do, period. They are about as capable at fighting in melee (both dealing and taking damage) as a wet tissue. Unlike in 3.5e, they cannot buff themselves to no end so that they can consistently stand toe-to-toe like (or better than) a Fighter. They do not get armor or shields, multiple attacks per round, high HP, or bonuses to the "physical" (STR/DEX/CON) saving throws. They might be able to Polymorph into something scary once or twice per day, but at the expense of other probably more vital high-level spells. They cannot heal, and some of their high-level spells got shifted over to Cleric.

Actually with the right combination of spells they are as good if not better than other classes. Mage Armor + Shield gets their AC approaching the highest other classes can reach. Throw in something like Blur and you end up better off in comparison to even the highest AC in the game with an equivalent AC of 13 (mage armor) + 5 (disadvantage vs. AC 13 with no bonuses to hit (http://anydice.com/program/168e)) = 18. Throw Shield on there for +5 for 23 AC total. The thing about shield is that it will only be used when its needed since you can declare you are casting it after the DM says you are hit. So if something can hit you only 1/3 of the time normally because of blur and mage armor (with a +0 dex bonus by the way) then that 1 time you can throw up shield and force the hit into a miss. Of course if they throw Mirror Image back into the game in the PHB we are looking at an even higher equivalent AC. God forbid they have a decent dex with a +2 or +3 bonus to AC. Wizards can just pick these spells, in order for other classes to get these kinds of ACs they have to buy equipment which costs money. Another poster in another thread did a money analysis and concluded that Plate Armor will commonly be bought at around level 4-6 depending on luck. So Wizards at 1st-4th level can choose to have a higher AC than every other class in the game. At later levels they have other ways of improving their AC or simply becoming untouchable. On top of that they can use Shocking Grasp to move freely about the fight where fighters and other non-caster classes will be locked down or take opportunity attacks.

Wizards do slightly less damage than fighters (around Str mod difference per extra attack the fighter gets) with cantrips, but they stand up to other classes and do at least as much. If they choose they can use daily spells to bolster that and deal as much or more than the fighter does. For instance a single fireball hitting 5 creatures divided among a combats rounds combined with cantrips for the rest of the encounter will be as much if not more damage than the fighter will put out. They can no longer do all these things together, but they can choose to do any one of them at any time especially since their prepared spells are not tied to their spell slots. A clock smashed to pieces and a watch with a gear missing have one thing in common, neither tells time correctly. So reigning in the wizard doesn't really matter unless you go all the way.


What 5e Wizards do bring to the table is a large breadth of spellcasting options such that they have unparalleled (IMO) IC/OOC versatility. They can prepare for a good number of (not all) contingencies that can happen on a typical adventure day. Even then, however, they cannot spellcast with impunity because of the reduced number of daily spell slots. Nor does it mean they necessarily have the best tool for the job, just that they have one.

Now, if you want to respond to this, please do so with some logic beyond "but Wizards can do everything other classes can do because they are more like 3.Xe then my beloved 4e."

I have responded with facts, quotes, math. I'll do it again. Because of the spell preparation being split from spell slots, they can prepare enough contingencies to cover almost anything that will come at them. This is especially true because cantrip damage out scales lower level spell slot damage, so that Wizards are more likely to prepare low level utility spells than to prepare damage spells (with exceptions like multiple round spells such as Flaming Sphere that are much better when scaled up than higher level spell slots). Remember they get to prepare any combination of spell levels they can cast and they can prepare their level plus their casting stat mod in spells. At 10th level that is likely to be 14 spells. At 1st level that's 3-5 spells.

If you take into account what WotC says is an average adventuring day with 4 average encounters. There are plenty of spell slots to go around. Even at early levels Wizards have enough spells to cast 1 daily spell per combat.

Also note that most utility spells are much better than skill checks. They either provide automatic successes or they bypass the challenge altogether. Want to get over a wall, spider climb is an automatic success. Levitate and Fly bypass the challenge. Want to open a locked door? Knock automatically succeeds. The only penalty to knock is only a penalty if you have a party that is completely stealthy. I mean if you had a battle in the same area, you might as well cast knock on every door because everyone within 300 feet is already aware of you. I could point out every spell in the basic game, but you get the point right?


3.5 wizards, maybe, but 5e wizards most certainly not. Try playing a party of four wizards, I dare you. The ugly truth is that you'll end up unable to focus enough damage on a single target (so enemies stay alive longer), can't heal except by using Hit Dice and won't be able to play meatshield.

In 3.5, wizards could summon about everything and transform into about everything. Neither of those things have been shown in 5e. What we've got so far is the ability to summon a monster once per day, without gaining any control over the aforementioned monster.

See above. The Wizard can play well in melee, ranged, buffer, tank, controller, etc...etc... They can do all of the things other classes do and many times they do it better. The only limitation is they can't do all of them at the same time anymore. Again its the difference between a completely smashed clock and a watch with a missing gear when you need to know what time it is. Until the clock or watch can tell time, they are equally broken.


You don't seem to understand the 5e system at all.

In the case of wizards, can they do everything other classes can do? No. They can't wield heavy arms or armor, can't make multiple attacks per round, can't take a hit without folding like wet tissue paper, can't heal, can't buff worth a darn, and can't dungeon delve for more than a couple hours without having to rest for 8.

The thing the Fighter does best is not damage, it is Fighting. Fighting is more than dealing damage. Fighting means taking hits, being mobile, and controlling the battlefield without dying. Other classes can do some of this, but only the fighter can do all of it.

They can do the equivalent of what heavy arms and armor do: protect from attacks and deal lots of damage. Multiple attacks are only there to deal damage and wizards do that admirably. With spells like stone skin they can take hits as well or better than the non-caster classes, that's if somehow the hit gets through their superior defenses. They will likely get the ability to make healing potions and possibly the ability to polymorph targets into creatures with regeneration in the PHB. At the moment healing is the one thing they can't seem to do reliably. They buff as well or better than the Cleric. They have Invisibility, Magic Weapon, Spider Climb, Fly, Haste, Protection From Energy, Stone Skin, etc...etc... and that's before the PHB expands the list.

Most dungeons are 5-10 minute affairs, who needs to dungeon delve for 8+ hours. Besides after dungeon delving for 5-10 minutes the fighter needs to rest to regain hp just as badly as the casters need to rest to regain spell slots.

The fighter doesn't do half of that. They don't deal more damage than a Wizard casting a daily spell or two and spamming cantrips. They can take hits, but so can the caster when they have their spells up. They aren't any more mobile than anyone else. In fact casters like the Wizard have cantrips that make them more mobile than the fighter any day. Fighters have zero battlefield control They just stand there and hope something comes within reach. In fact since Fighters have none of that can you list what you think gives fighters those things? Because I've ready the fighter in the basic set and it doesn't even come close to having those things.

[HorridElemental]

I have yet to be refuted by facts. I do see quite a few people throwing emotional arguments my way, but without facts those arguments are dross. I've shown my evidence and logic over and over and over by citing the spells and even occasionally doing a mathematical analysis. Others have not. In fact I haven't seen anyone provide a mathematical analysis at all.


As a lurker of this forum for a while, I've seen countless times where people have refuted you with facts... You just seem to ignore those facts as if they don't exist and then go on as if the person talking to you is the idiot.

Just like now.

You are quite entertaining though, I'll give you that.

[Lokiare]

As a lurker of this forum for a while, I've seen countless times where people have refuted you with facts... You just seem to ignore those facts as if they don't exist and then go on as if the person talking to you is the idiot.

Just like now.

You are quite entertaining though, I'll give you that.

Can you give me some examples of where I was provided with facts? Because I haven't seen any. I also don't treat people like idiots. I don't treat them like special ed students either, because I'm not their teacher. I do use straight forward language.

[Fwiffo86]

The thing about shield is that it will only be used when its needed since you can declare you are casting it after the DM says you are hit. So if something can hit you only 1/3 of the time normally because of blur and mage armor (with a +0 dex bonus by the way) then that 1 time you can throw up shield and force the hit into a miss.

For purposes of my point, I am discounting all other spells except for Mage Armor and Shield. I intend to show that at low levels, your statement is correct, but limited to hits, not encounters over a day.

Your claim is listed below....



So Wizards at 1st-4th level can choose to have a higher AC than every other class in the game.

FACTS Presented:
So at first level, with 2 spell slots per day, Wiz cast one for the encounter (mage armor 8hrs no concentration), and use shield for the 2nd one. This leaves you with only cantrips and you may or may not have negated a hit.

MA 13+Dex (+2) = 15 add Shield (+5) = 20.

Conclusion:
I can agree you probably negated a single hit. One hit using the only first level slots you have for the day. Provided that Wiz doesn't get attacked again, he should be fine to range poke whomever he wishes.

But lets not forget that according to the rules in the Basic pdf, a Roll of 20 actually hits someone with an AC 20. (Ties no longer go to the defender)

Granting additional slots as you progress through level 4 you are still using 1 for MA, and either saving your remaining 2-3 for Shield and not using them, or using them and not gaining shield, thus suffering an AC 15, which is overall equal to, or weaker than the average AC for characters at these levels.

[HorridElemental]

Can you give me some examples of where I was provided with facts? Because I haven't seen any. I also don't treat people like idiots. I don't treat them like special ed students either, because I'm not their teacher. I do use straight forward language.

I rather not dig it up and then be ignored.

And yes, you talk down to people all the time.

[Lokiare]

I rather not dig it up and then be ignored.

And yes, you talk down to people all the time.

So no proof then? Make a claim and then not back it up with facts. Its common on these forums and others. I really wish critical thinking was taught in early schools.

Its equally sad that in this society being straight forward or sarcastic is considered talking down to people. I don't talk down to people. I don't skirt around topics or worry that someone might have a negative reaction to my straight forward statement. That should be the norm, not the exception. If people can't handle someone disagreeing with them, they really need to seek professional help.

[Sartharina]

So no proof then? Make a claim and then not back it up with facts. Its common on these forums and others. I really wish critical thinking was taught in early schools.We have, again and again and again. (Scroll up!) It's getting exhausting, though (And yet, you complain about how much you have to repeat yourself, then don't and don't provide proof because you already said you did.) Every single one of your points has been discredited, over and over. You've never acknowledged it, and we've realized you never will. Now we're getting tired of doing it.

[obryn]

We have, again and again and again. (Scroll up!) It's getting exhausting, though (And yet, you complain about how much you have to repeat yourself, then don't and don't provide proof because you already said you did.) Every single one of your points has been discredited, over and over. You've never acknowledged it, and we've realized you never will. Now we're getting tired of doing it.
I have an easy suggestion for that.

[archaeo]

So no proof then? Make a claim and then not back it up with facts. Its common on these forums and others. I really wish critical thinking was taught in early schools.

Its equally sad that in this society being straight forward or sarcastic is considered talking down to people. I don't talk down to people. I don't skirt around topics or worry that someone might have a negative reaction to my straight forward statement. That should be the norm, not the exception. If people can't handle someone disagreeing with them, they really need to seek professional help.

Do you not see how saying things like "I really wish critical thinking was taught in early schools" or "If people can't handle someone disagreeing with them, they really need to seek professional help" is pretty condescending and unpleasant, given that you're directing it toward people whose only sins are disagreeing with you about elf games?

Have you noticed that every thread you drop your wisdom in quickly devolves into a fight between you and everybody else, all of whom are united in finding your tone offensive and your criticisms overblown and not supported by the evidence? Are you choosing to ignore that, despite this board being pretty skeptical of 5e in general, you are the only critic of this edition that virtually none of the other critics will agree with or support?

I don't fault you for disliking 5e. Whatever. It's a game, not everyone's going to like it. I fault you for personalizing every argument, for being endlessly rude to anyone who disagrees with you, and for acting like a martyr who just isn't understood because "critical thinking" isn't "taught in early schools." This isn't how people politely disagree with one another about elf games. Take a step back. If you are seriously here to change minds and have a conversation, you are only hurting yourself by being such a jerk.

[CyberThread]

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11114/111142124/3898460-8864152835-

[Zanos]

Animate Dead is likewise a Cleric spell.
Wait, seriously?

I guess arcane necromancers are dead. HAHAH I SLAY MYSELF

[omniknight]

A novel.

Look, I am not going to argue that Wizards can do a lot of things. That is their MO. But in 5e they cannot do a lot of things a lot. Even when they hit level 20 they will have a total of 22 spell slots per day (+a few with AR), of which only 6 are above level 5. At higher level one could spend half that on one tough encounter. Then there are 2-3 more combat encounters and OOC situations to consider. If the Wizard wants to blow all his low-level spell slots on temporary AC boosting spells, like you seem keen to suggest is obscenely powerful, that is at the significant cost of other useful spells at those levels.

Nor can they do a lot of things at the same time now because of how Concentration works. Many of the most powerful buffs or otherwise ongoing spells are Concentration limited. So, for instance, if the Wizard wants to cast Blur for extra protection, there goes casting any other Concentration spell lest Blur gets cancelled for it.

Regarding Cantrips, the damage comparison to a mundane's attacks just doesn't add up. Only at low levels do Cantrips even remotely compare to a Fighter/Barb/Rogue's weapon attacks. Later on with multiple attacks, damage feats, and magic weapons, 3 or 4d10 is barely treading water against monsters with DR compared to those classes' normal attacks.

So, again, even after reading your daily (or hourly) dissertation I see no convincing argument that Wizards are OP. Unlike in 3.X, Wizards have numerous gaps in their mechanics that cannot all be filled by spellcasting. Wizards have a big tool box but it is no replacement for other classes who do their jobs much more successfully than the 5e Wizard can.


Have you noticed that every thread you drop your wisdom in quickly devolves into a fight between you and everybody else, all of whom are united in finding your tone offensive and your criticisms overblown and not supported by the evidence? Are you choosing to ignore that, despite this board being pretty skeptical of 5e in general, you are the only critic of this edition that virtually none of the other critics will agree with or support?

Thank you! Noticed this as well and agree completely.

[obryn]

I don't fault you for disliking 5e. Whatever. It's a game, not everyone's going to like it. I fault you for personalizing every argument, for being endlessly rude to anyone who disagrees with you, and for acting like a martyr who just isn't understood because "critical thinking" isn't "taught in early schools." This isn't how people politely disagree with one another about elf games. Take a step back. If you are seriously here to change minds and have a conversation, you are only hurting yourself by being such a jerk.
Step 1: Click name in forum.
http://i.imgur.com/5Uw16ZA.png
Step 2: Select "View Profile"
http://i.imgur.com/H72rnNg.png
Step 3: Says it all.
http://i.imgur.com/rUJkQc2.png

He may or may not be correct in saying that his posts aren't violating forum rules, although I personally think they cross the line into edition warring. But if you find their behavior toxic to discussion - and believe me, I won't disagree with you - then you can take that step into your own hands, no moderation action required.

[Cibulan]

Step 1: Click name in forum.
http://i.imgur.com/5Uw16ZA.png
Step 2: Select "View Profile"
http://i.imgur.com/H72rnNg.png
Step 3: Says it all.
http://i.imgur.com/rUJkQc2.png

He may or may not be correct in saying that his posts aren't violating forum rules, although I personally think they cross the line into edition warring. But if you find their behavior toxic to discussion - and believe me, I won't disagree with you - then you can take that step into your own hands, no moderation action required.I'm equally parts annoyed by his tone and amused by his absurdity which prevents me from outright ignoring him.

[obryn]

I'm equally parts annoyed by his tone and amused by his absurdity which prevents me from outright ignoring him.
Then I have good news for you! You can see ignored posters' posts (on the full site, not the mobile one) with a single button click!

[hawklost]

I'm equally parts annoyed by his tone and amused by his absurdity which prevents me from outright ignoring him.

I am too, which is why I put certain people on Ignore list. If I feel like reading what they say, I open up each individual post to read (or read people quoting them, which also works pretty well).

I must say, it has made reading the forums more enjoyable without having to see so much toxicity (without choosing to).

[Cibulan]

Then I have good news for you! You can see ignored posters' posts (on the full site, not the mobile one) with a single button click!


I am too, which is why I put certain people on Ignore list. If I feel like reading what they say, I open up each individual post to read (or read people quoting them, which also works pretty well).

I must say, it has made reading the forums more enjoyable without having to see so much toxicity (without choosing to).I'll try it out, thanks :smallwink:

[HorridElemental]

Of course, if said person's goal was to get everyone to block said person... Then you all are just falling for an elaborate ruse.

[Lord Raziere]

I am too, which is why I put certain people on Ignore list. If I feel like reading what they say, I open up each individual post to read (or read people quoting them, which also works pretty well).

I must say, it has made reading the forums more enjoyable without having to see so much toxicity (without choosing to).

yeah, and people like me have to use it a lot, or else I get emotional and angered and bitter about it all. as for Loki...

well let me put it this way: Loki, eat some humble pie please. your not better at seeing 5e's flaws just because you talk harshly and perceive people as thinking your a cynic, and your not some misunderstood realist down inside who no one listens to because they can't handle the truth. we can handle the truth, just fine. its just that your completely wrong about the truth and refuse to admit it, and thus you constantly try to hold onto your arguing points stubbornly no matter what, believing that the people around you are just "not seeing the truth yet" and thus need to keep on arguing it, because otherwise you'd have to admit your wrong, which you clearly are. that is all from me, cya.

Edit: @ Horrid: ohai, that idea sounds completely stupid for anyone to try because there is no gain to it and only promotes convoluted paranoia. I think I'll discard that possibility immediately.

[HorridElemental]

Edit: @ Horrid: ohai, that idea sounds completely stupid for anyone to try because there is no gain to it and only promotes convoluted paranoia. I think I'll discard that possibility immediately.

I like to think a troll would have a goal like that. Maybe as a bragging right to other trolls, however gets the most bans wins you know.

Wouldn't be the craziest thing I've heard people doing on the internet.

[Lord Raziere]

I like to think a troll would have a goal like that. Maybe as a bragging right to other trolls, however gets the most bans wins you know.

Wouldn't be the craziest thing I've heard people doing on the internet.

....that....would be stupidly easy to do actually. just look up a topic that is banned on pretty much all forums, then post about it. hardly something to brag about. ignoring the etiquette and rules issues, its not much of an art to get banned like that, its not a skill or anything challenging, its just deliberately breaking a rule. so still a stupid idea.

[obryn]

I like to think a troll would have a goal like that. Maybe as a bragging right to other trolls, however gets the most bans wins you know.

Wouldn't be the craziest thing I've heard people doing on the internet.
Nope, I've been on quite a few forums with this poster. Always gets banned eventually. Always blames it on his opinions instead of his behavior.

[Zeuel]

Actually with the right combination of spells they are as good if not better than other classes. Mage Armor + Shield gets their AC approaching the highest other classes can reach. Throw in something like Blur and you end up better off in comparison to even the highest AC in the game with an equivalent AC of 13 (mage armor) + 5 (disadvantage vs. AC 13 with no bonuses to hit (http://anydice.com/program/168e)) = 18. Throw Shield on there for +5 for 23 AC total. The thing about shield is that it will only be used when its needed since you can declare you are casting it after the DM says you are hit. So if something can hit you only 1/3 of the time normally because of blur and mage armor (with a +0 dex bonus by the way) then that 1 time you can throw up shield and force the hit into a miss. Of course if they throw Mirror Image back into the game in the PHB we are looking at an even higher equivalent AC. God forbid they have a decent dex with a +2 or +3 bonus to AC. Wizards can just pick these spells, in order for other classes to get these kinds of ACs they have to buy equipment which costs money. Another poster in another thread did a money analysis and concluded that Plate Armor will commonly be bought at around level 4-6 depending on luck. So Wizards at 1st-4th level can choose to have a higher AC than every other class in the game. At later levels they have other ways of improving their AC or simply becoming untouchable. On top of that they can use Shocking Grasp to move freely about the fight where fighters and other non-caster classes will be locked down or take opportunity attacks.

Wizard: So a level 1 spell slot to cast Mage Armor for AC 13 at the start of a dungeon, an action and a level 2 spell slot to cast Blur for disadvantage to attackers that requires concentration and lasts for up to a minute, and then a reaction and a level 1 spell slot to cast Shield for another +5 AC. So using 2 level 1 spell slots, a level 2 spell slot, a reaction, and maintaining concentration they can get up to AC 18 while granting disadvantage to attackers for a single round. This uses up half of their spell slots at level 3 and slightly less than half at level 4.

Fighter: A Fighter just has to wear either Full Plate or Chainmail and a Shield to get up to AC 18. They can use their action to dodge granting disadvantage to attackers. A Fighter can practically do this all day everyday. They can do this even after the 1 minute duration on Blur is up. Their AC 18 lasts for more than 6 seconds and doesn't cost them their reaction. On top of this the Fighter still has Second Wind and about 50% greater hitpoints.


Wizards do slightly less damage than fighters (around Str mod difference per extra attack the fighter gets) with cantrips, but they stand up to other classes and do at least as much. If they choose they can use daily spells to bolster that and deal as much or more than the fighter does. For instance a single fireball hitting 5 creatures divided among a combats rounds combined with cantrips for the rest of the encounter will be as much if not more damage than the fighter will put out. They can no longer do all these things together, but they can choose to do any one of them at any time especially since their prepared spells are not tied to their spell slots. A clock smashed to pieces and a watch with a gear missing have one thing in common, neither tells time correctly. So reigning in the wizard doesn't really matter unless you go all the way.

Wizards do significantly less at-will damage than pretty much all other physical damage dealing classes and even less than some caster classes... from what I hear. Using a finite number of spell slots a Wizard can maybe temporarily exceed the damage of another class or do something that another class does well but the Wizard can only do it temporarily. I don't think anyone is arguing the Wizard isn't versatile, but the Wizard has precious few spell slots compared to 3.5(the 5e Wizard has only 22 spell slots at level 20) that they do have to be careful at managing their resources. Often times the Wizard can't do the other class's job as well as that class can(Fighters/Paladins/etc can still reach high ACs while still having way more hit points) or the Wizard might have other restrictions that the other class doesn't(e.g. Rogues can open locks without completely giving up the element of surprise to whatever is in the next room).


Also note that most utility spells are much better than skill checks. They either provide automatic successes or they bypass the challenge altogether. Want to get over a wall, spider climb is an automatic success. Levitate and Fly bypass the challenge. Want to open a locked door? Knock automatically succeeds. The only penalty to knock is only a penalty if you have a party that is completely stealthy. I mean if you had a battle in the same area, you might as well cast knock on every door because everyone within 300 feet is already aware of you. I could point out every spell in the basic game, but you get the point right?

A Wizard can expend (often multiple) daily resources to get an entire party through a challenge or temporarily do better than a given skill? I don't see what's OP about it. No one is saying the Wizard doesn't have versatility, but a Wizard being able to cast a 6th level Fly spell to automatically get a party of four past a pit trap isn't exactly what I would call over powered.


See above. The Wizard can play well in melee, ranged, buffer, tank, controller, etc...etc... They can do all of the things other classes do and many times they do it better. The only limitation is they can't do all of them at the same time anymore. Again its the difference between a completely smashed clock and a watch with a missing gear when you need to know what time it is. Until the clock or watch can tell time, they are equally broken.

And many times they do it worse. On the WotC forums the trend seems to be that the Fighter and the Rogue seem to consistently out-DPR the Wizard over the course of the day. Most classes can stay at consistently higher levels of AC than the Wizard can while being less squishy.


They can do the equivalent of what heavy arms and armor do: protect from attacks and deal lots of damage. Multiple attacks are only there to deal damage and wizards do that admirably.

el oh el


Most dungeons are 5-10 minute affairs, who needs to dungeon delve for 8+ hours. Besides after dungeon delving for 5-10 minutes the fighter needs to rest to regain hp just as badly as the casters need to rest to regain spell slots.

el oh el


The fighter doesn't do half of that. They don't deal more damage than a Wizard casting a daily spell or two and spamming cantrips. They can take hits, but so can the caster when they have their spells up. They aren't any more mobile than anyone else. In fact casters like the Wizard have cantrips that make them more mobile than the fighter any day. Fighters have zero battlefield control They just stand there and hope something comes within reach. In fact since Fighters have none of that can you list what you think gives fighters those things? Because I've ready the fighter in the basic set and it doesn't even come close to having those things.

The Fighter can deal great amounts of damage while also being able to take a lot more attacks in return where as the Wizard can kinda maybe do one or the other while burning resources to do so.

Seriously wait until the PHB comes out. You are comparing the blasty Evoker with the healy Life Cleric, stealy Thief, and the derpy Champion. You are comparing a class with it's most damage dealing subclass with a large portion of their options against the absolutely most basic version of the Fighter half the time. We have 4 of the 12 classes out right now and we only have 4 of the around 39 subclasses. Chances are the Wizard will probably have the most out of combat utility and versatility at a resource cost, but that doesn't mean they are overpowered by a long shot and I seriously doubt we will see anything as bad as the Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit of 3.5/PF.

[Knaight]

Of course, if said person's goal was to get everyone to block said person... Then you all are just falling for an elaborate ruse.
Quite honestly, I don't care. If someone's being sufficiently irritating, I'm going to block them. If they want me to block them, that just makes it a win-win situation, which I'm totally fine with.


I like to think a troll would have a goal like that. Maybe as a bragging right to other trolls, however gets the most bans wins you know.
Ignore lists aren't public. Trying to get banned to prove a point is one thing, trying to get on an ignore list to prove a point is nonsensical.

[MeeposFire]

The Tier list came out years after 3.5's release and after quite a few supplements.

True though that was also the time it took to have the idea really take off as the supplements were not needed to make the tiers where they are (except for the classes that did not exist before then). Most of the tier 1 classes are core and most of the more common broken tricks are core based.

Granted 5e may not be as stratified as 3e was so we can hope that the levels of the tiers are not quite so drastic.

[da_chicken]

Then I have good news for you! You can see ignored posters' posts (on the full site, not the mobile one) with a single button click!

Ah, but on mobile you can click the "View Full Site" link that's at the bottom (top?) of the page.

The drawback is I don't know how to switch back, but meh.

[rlc]

I do see quite a few people throwing emotional arguments my way

...okay, time out. do you actually know what an emotional argument is? you seem to use this phrase pretty often, but it's never when anybody has tried appealing to your emotions. did you just read the definition and see "a logical fallacy" and start applying it to every argument you disagree with, whether it's logical or not? not even joking with these questions.


Ah, but on mobile you can click the "View Full Site" link that's at the bottom (top?) of the page.

The drawback is I don't know how to switch back, but meh.

on my phone, i just hit the settings button in the bottom corner for both.

[CyberThread]

http://www.healthybeauty.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/back_on_track_today-300x300.jpg

[Sartharina]

Wait, seriously?

I guess arcane necromancers are dead. HAHAH I SLAY MYSELFHmm... I'm AFB, but do spellcasting schools expand the spells available to a wizard, like Psions in 3.5 did? If so, a "necromancer" subclass of Wizard might get undead-animation spells back.

[Tholomyes]

Hmm... I'm AFB, but do spellcasting schools expand the spells available to a wizard, like Psions in 3.5 did? If so, a "necromancer" subclass of Wizard might get undead-animation spells back.At least as far as the Evoker subclass seems, this won't be the case. However it's possible that a future subclass will add it, or it's quite possible that necromancy will be special (assuming the information that wizards aren't getting animate dead isn't just based on an older version of the spell list; otherwise I'm finding it difficult to see how they'll do much with necromancy, since some traditional necromancy spells, like "Cause Fear" are shifted to other schools.)

[obryn]

There were necromancers in the alpha, and they were totally OP with their army of skeletons.

I expect them to be in the PHB, too.

[A Stray Cat]

I thought I read somewhere that necromancers would appear in the DMG.

[Yuki Akuma]

There are going to be eight Arcane Traditions in the PHB. One of them will be the School of Necromancy.

Necromancers are in the PHB. :smalltongue:

[A Stray Cat]

There are going to be eight Arcane Traditions in the PHB. One of them will be the School of Necromancy.

Necromancers are in the PHB. :smalltongue:

Thanks! That's what I was thinking, but the DMG leak thread got me all excited and such.

[Yuki Akuma]

Also, new info from PHB leaks indicate that Divine Domains sometimes add spells to the Cleric's spell list from other sources, so it's possible Arcane Traditions do the same. So, perhaps, the School of Necromancy could add Animate Dead to the Wizard's spell list. Maybe.

[HorridElemental]

Also, new info from PHB leaks indicate that Divine Domains sometimes add spells to the Cleric's spell list from other sources, so it's possible Arcane Traditions do the same. So, perhaps, the School of Necromancy could add Animate Dead to the Wizard's spell list. Maybe.

Necro wizards get animate dead (plus 1 additional undead per casting) as per the enworld thread.

[Lokiare]

Do you not see how saying things like "I really wish critical thinking was taught in early schools" or "If people can't handle someone disagreeing with them, they really need to seek professional help" is pretty condescending and unpleasant, given that you're directing it toward people whose only sins are disagreeing with you about elf games?

No. I really do wish critical thinking were taught early in schools because it would solve about 50% of the worlds problems in one generation. I just get reminded about it when someone posts a logically inconsistent argument or an argument based entirely on emotion to counter my opinions which I constantly back up with facts, quotes, and math. I'm not saying I'm absolutely correct all the time, but I am saying if you want to change my mind emotional appeals and bad logic are not the ways to do that.

If someone has a fit because someone else disagrees with them, they weren't raised properly and should seek out professional help. Its a purely mental issue. I disagree with people plenty but I don't throw fits.


Have you noticed that every thread you drop your wisdom in quickly devolves into a fight between you and everybody else, all of whom are united in finding your tone offensive and your criticisms overblown and not supported by the evidence? Are you choosing to ignore that, despite this board being pretty skeptical of 5e in general, you are the only critic of this edition that virtually none of the other critics will agree with or support?

Actually when I post to a thread, I notice it polarizes into two groups who then argue bad logic and emotional appeal back and forth for the next 10 pages. I can't help that I succinctly summarize the problems and then people automatically view everything I say in the most negative light possible. That's not my problem that's the readers problem.


I don't fault you for disliking 5e. Whatever. It's a game, not everyone's going to like it. I fault you for personalizing every argument, for being endlessly rude to anyone who disagrees with you, and for acting like a martyr who just isn't understood because "critical thinking" isn't "taught in early schools." This isn't how people politely disagree with one another about elf games. Take a step back. If you are seriously here to change minds and have a conversation, you are only hurting yourself by being such a jerk.

Again, disagreeing with people is not being rude. In fact if you can find some of my disagreement posts and then phrase them in a way that you would find them not being rude, but still containing the same facts and analysis, I would love to see it.


Step 1: Click name in forum.
http://i.imgur.com/5Uw16ZA.png
Step 2: Select "View Profile"
http://i.imgur.com/H72rnNg.png
Step 3: Says it all.
http://i.imgur.com/rUJkQc2.png

He may or may not be correct in saying that his posts aren't violating forum rules, although I personally think they cross the line into edition warring. But if you find their behavior toxic to discussion - and believe me, I won't disagree with you - then you can take that step into your own hands, no moderation action required.

I love it when people take themselves out of the conversation. They are basically admitting they can't handle a real discussion about a topic and that I basically win by default.


Of course, if said person's goal was to get everyone to block said person... Then you all are just falling for an elaborate ruse.

My goal is to come to a mutually beneficial understanding about he material presented. That's it. Nothing more.


yeah, and people like me have to use it a lot, or else I get emotional and angered and bitter about it all. as for Loki...

well let me put it this way: Loki, eat some humble pie please. your not better at seeing 5e's flaws just because you talk harshly and perceive people as thinking your a cynic, and your not some misunderstood realist down inside who no one listens to because they can't handle the truth. we can handle the truth, just fine. its just that your completely wrong about the truth and refuse to admit it, and thus you constantly try to hold onto your arguing points stubbornly no matter what, believing that the people around you are just "not seeing the truth yet" and thus need to keep on arguing it, because otherwise you'd have to admit your wrong, which you clearly are. that is all from me, cya.

Edit: @ Horrid: ohai, that idea sounds completely stupid for anyone to try because there is no gain to it and only promotes convoluted paranoia. I think I'll discard that possibility immediately.

When people are shown they are factually wrong in a lot of cases they do get emotional instead of accepting it and moving on. This is one of those mental issues where the individual is not emotionally mature probably stemming from a mental health experience.


Nope, I've been on quite a few forums with this poster. Always gets banned eventually. Always blames it on his opinions instead of his behavior.

Actually most of my bans are because people spam the report button until the moderators get annoyed enough to ban me and the reasons have varied from 'don't respond to moderator PMs' to 'Our EULA says we can terminate your account without a reason'. Most of it boils down to a popularity contest. If enough people spam moderators with reports, it doesn't matter if the poster is right or wrong the mods will ban the poster to keep the peace. Which is one of the major reasons why internet discussions get nowhere. They are always interrupted or modded out before they reach a conclusion.


...okay, time out. do you actually know what an emotional argument is? you seem to use this phrase pretty often, but it's never when anybody has tried appealing to your emotions. did you just read the definition and see "a logical fallacy" and start applying it to every argument you disagree with, whether it's logical or not? not even joking with these questions.



on my phone, i just hit the settings button in the bottom corner for both.

Yes, an emotional argument is a phrase or catchword used to stir up emotions in the target audience and to force them to override logic. For instance 'What about the Children' is used by a lot of groups to make people have emotional thoughts about children and disregard other arguments, facts, logic, and math about the subject.

I used to post the logical fallacy when people would make them but I got a warning that it was against the rules to do that so I stopped. Now I just try to explain in plain English why their reasoning is flawed.

Most of the problem stems from a few things:

1. People assume the worst about what I say. Most of the time I'm half joking with a smile and an upbeat mood when I post. People assume I'm brooding and looking for a fight or something.

2. People have problems when they are presented with facts that are counter to their view.

3. I have a reputation that precedes me and people assume the reputation is well deserved, instead of giving me a fresh chance.

[HorridElemental]

I love it when people take themselves out of the conversation. They are basically admitting they can't handle a real discussion about a topic and that I basically win by default.

and the next response is...

My goal is to come to a mutually beneficial understanding about he material presented. That's it. Nothing more.



Bolded part added for clarification)

Wait, do you want to win or come to a mutual understanding?

Because those aren't the same thing.

Also totally sigging this when I get the chance. Everytime I log into giantitp I'll get to laugh.

[archaeo]

snip

I only want to reply to acknowledge that you responded to me. I have nothing more to say; I think it's abundantly clear what you're here to do and what you derive from all the derision, and I won't be participating in it anymore.

Moderators, if you're reading, your tacit approval of this behavior boggles my mind.

[Tholomyes]

Bolded part added for clarification)

Wait, do you want to win or come to a mutual understanding?

Because those aren't the same thing.They are to him. He wants everyone to come to a mutual understanding that he's right. Best not to argue with people like that. You'll never win an argument with them, and all you'll do is end up wasting your own time.

[HorridElemental]

They are to him. He wants everyone to come to a mutual understanding that he's right. Best not to argue with people like that. You'll never win an argument with them, and all you'll do is end up wasting your own time.

Nah, I'm not going to argue with him.

Though watching him ummm discuss stuff with people on the forum is like watching a train wreck, I just can't look away.

[Lokiare]

I only want to reply to acknowledge that you responded to me. I have nothing more to say; I think it's abundantly clear what you're here to do and what you derive from all the derision, and I won't be participating in it anymore.

Moderators, if you're reading, your tacit approval of this behavior boggles my mind.

That's fine. What I'm here to do is discuss 5E and see if I missed anything and get others opinions about the facts. Instead I get people trying to debate what the facts are with me and arguing about various unrelated different things, my posting style among them.

The moderators aren't doing anything because I'm not breaking any rules.

If you don't believe me read them for yourself: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=63&a=1


Bolded part added for clarification)

Wait, do you want to win or come to a mutual understanding?

Because those aren't the same thing.

Also totally sigging this when I get the chance. Everytime I log into giantitp I'll get to laugh.

I win, when no one opposes my view point, because my viewpoint was apparently the mutually agreed upon understanding of the subject matter. They literally are the same thing. Laugh all you want, just like all the people that laughed when we said the government was spying on you, right up until Edward Snowden came out with absolute proof of that very thing. Laugh at me about 5E, when it crashes and burns, I'll still be lurking around ready to comfort you when you are lamenting it.

[Lord Raziere]

I win, when no one opposes my view point, because my viewpoint was apparently the mutually agreed upon understanding of the subject matter. They literally are the same thing. Laugh all you want, just like all the people that laughed when we said the government was spying on you, right up until Edward Snowden came out with absolute proof of that very thing. Laugh at me about 5E, when it crashes and burns, I'll still be lurking around ready to comfort you when you are lamenting it.

Nice hole you have there. You digging to China? :smallbiggrin:

[Lokiare]

Nice hole you have there. You digging to China? :smallbiggrin:

No hole, just something called consistent logic. The only thing the opposition is bringing is logical fallacies and emotional arguments, again.

[HorridElemental]

No hole, just something called consistent logic. The only thing the opposition is bringing is logical fallacies and emotional arguments, again.

Must be nice. You know, how not only do you ignore what everyone else says but even yourself.

[Lord Raziere]

No hole, just something called consistent logic. The only thing the opposition is bringing is logical fallacies and emotional arguments, again.

Just keep digging yourself deeper champ. also you seem to be projecting. its things like this situation make me wonder if the possibility of being wrong is so terrifying to some people that they are willing to do anything to suppress it in their own mind, so they don't have to admit it. it would so interesting to delve into the psychology at work here. alas, it is not the time nor the place.

the actual topic:
Wizards will probably be at the top of the tiers again because everyone or at WotC seems to always make them the most powerful. people will probably put Sorcerer somewhere bad because everyone seems to hate Sorcerers but me for some reason. thats all I can predict for the tiers. life goes on, sigh.

[Envyus]

I win, when no one opposes my view point, because my viewpoint was apparently the mutually agreed upon understanding of the subject matter. They literally are the same thing. Laugh all you want, just like all the people that laughed when we said the government was spying on you, right up until Edward Snowden came out with absolute proof of that very thing. Laugh at me about 5E, when it crashes and burns, I'll still be lurking around ready to comfort you when you are lamenting it.

Dear god your a conspiracy theorist too. (Though I do remember you arguing about Chemtrails so I guess thats not a big suprise.)

You are not being logical next to no one agrees with you and you are taking the troll stance of if no one is fighting me then I win this imaginary contest.

Also 5e is the 3rd or so best selling thing on Amazon right now I don't think it's going to crash and burn and despite what you think 5e is what people wanted over 4e.

[russdm]

Dear god your a conspiracy theorist too. (Though I do remember you arguing about Chemtrails so I guess thats not a big suprise.)

You are not being logical next to no one agrees with you and you are taking the troll stance of if no one is fighting me then I win this imaginary contest.

Also 5e is the 3rd or so best selling thing on Amazon right now I don't think it's going to crash and burn and despite what you think 5e is what people wanted over 4e.

I think it might be selling so well because, Gasp!, It is actually fun to play...

That or every single person in existence is stupid. Personally I go with option 1, that 5E is fun to actually play.

[Tholomyes]

I think it might be selling so well because, Gasp!, It is actually fun to play...

That or every single person in existence is stupid. Personally I go with option 1, that 5E is fun to actually play.I'm not so sure the two are particularly mutually exclusive. :smalltongue:

[MeeposFire]

I think it might be selling so well because, Gasp!, It is actually fun to play...

That or every single person in existence is stupid. Personally I go with option 1, that 5E is fun to actually play.

While I am sure it will be fun to play those sales would reflect a lot of people that have never played 5e so they would not objectively know it was fun before they bought it. So I doubt that at this time the sales reflect the fun in the product (though it may in the future).

[Tholomyes]

While I am sure it will be fun to play those sales would reflect a lot of people that have never played 5e so they would not objectively know it was fun before they bought it. So I doubt that at this time the sales reflect the fun in the product (though it may in the future).Yeah, this too. Whether or not it's fun to play, PHBs will always sell well. Personally I'm not willing to vote with my wallet just yet, but we'll wait and see how supplemental material turns out.

[Oscredwin]

Actually when I post to a thread, I notice it polarizes into two groups who then argue bad logic and emotional appeal back and forth for the next 10 pages. I can't help that I succinctly summarize the problems and then people automatically view everything I say in the most negative light possible. That's not my problem that's the readers problem.

This sounds a lot like "I'm great at communicating, everyone else just sucks at listening" which is not actually ever a true statement.

[Madfellow]

No hole, just something called consistent logic. The only thing the opposition is bringing is logical fallacies and emotional arguments, again.

Okay Lokiare, I'll bite.

I challenge you to identify at least one poster in this thread who has presented a logical fallacy, and to identify the fallacy that they employed.

I challenge you to identify at least one poster in this thread who has presented an emotional argument, and to identify the emotion to which they were appealing.

The ball is in your court, sir.

[Lokiare]

Okay Lokiare, I'll bite.

I challenge you to identify at least one poster in this thread who has presented a logical fallacy, and to identify the fallacy that they employed.

I challenge you to identify at least one poster in this thread who has presented an emotional argument, and to identify the emotion to which they were appealing.

The ball is in your court, sir.

We can start with this post. You provide a false dichotomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). Many logical fallacies are emotional arguments.

This next one is also a false dichotomy as another poster pointed out:


I think it might be selling so well because, Gasp!, It is actually fun to play...

That or every single person in existence is stupid. Personally I go with option 1, that 5E is fun to actually play.

It could be fun to play and people can be stupid (I've seen way to much in my time to discount #2 by the way).


This sounds a lot like "I'm great at communicating, everyone else just sucks at listening" which is not actually ever a true statement.

This is a straw man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), since I never made that argument. The poster is trying to phrase an argument that could be mistaken as mine, but means something different in order to knock it down with 'which is not actually ever a true statement.' which in and of itself is provably false. Yes there are actually people that are good at communicating that interact with people that don't listen well.

[CyberThread]

Now you all are suffering from Fallacy of Moderation

[hawklost]

Okay Lokiare, I'll bite.

I challenge you to identify at least one poster in this thread who has presented a logical fallacy, and to identify the fallacy that they employed.

I challenge you to identify at least one poster in this thread who has presented an emotional argument, and to identify the emotion to which they were appealing.

The ball is in your court, sir.

Thats an Easy one for anyone who reads some of Lokiares posts. Also note that everyone (including me of course) uses Logical Fallacies, it is pretty much impossible not to. Arguments of tradition (lots of people love this one, if it happened in 3.x/4 it will happen again) is a Logical Fallacy

anecdotal also False Cause

It could be fun to play and people can be stupid (I've seen way to much in my time to discount #2 by the way).
Any claim of something due to Personal Experience is a logical Fallacy.


Straw Man


This is a straw man, since I never made that argument. The poster is trying to phrase an argument that could be mistaken as mine, but means something different in order to knock it down with 'which is not actually ever a true statement.' which in and of itself is provably false. Yes there are actually people that are good at communicating that interact with people that don't listen well.
A Straw Man argument requires the original persons claim to not be represented. Oscredwin used an actual quote from Lokiare which means that he represented the argument and interpreted it differently than Lokiare meant. Lokiare on the other hand just posted the comment that Oscredwin used without reference to the fact that Oscredwin used an actual Quote from him. That means he is missrepresenting Oscredwin's argument as putting words in his mouth without proof from Oscredwin's. Oscredwin's only failing would be claiming one thing sounds like another, which is not in fact a Logical Fallacy.

[Lokiare]

Thats an Easy one for anyone who reads some of Lokiares posts. Also note that everyone (including me of course) uses Logical Fallacies, it is pretty much impossible not to. Arguments of tradition (lots of people love this one, if it happened in 3.x/4 it will happen again) is a Logical Fallacy

anecdotal also False Cause

Any claim of something due to Personal Experience is a logical Fallacy.

Actually no. I said I've seen too much to discount it. Meaning I can't say it not true. So your fallacy doesn't hold true.


Straw Man

A Straw Man argument requires the original persons claim to not be represented. Oscredwin used an actual quote from Lokiare which means that he represented the argument and interpreted it differently than Lokiare meant. Lokiare on the other hand just posted the comment that Oscredwin used without reference to the fact that Oscredwin used an actual Quote from him. That means he is missrepresenting Oscredwin's argument as putting words in his mouth without proof from Oscredwin's. Oscredwin's only failing would be claiming one thing sounds like another, which is not in fact a Logical Fallacy.

Actually no. As long as they represent my claim meaning something other than it is, its a straw man. It can use quotes, or sound bites from me as long as they twist them to mean something different. So wrong again.

[russdm]

I really think that the Tier is going to just be 1, 2, 3; since the design features from Basic strongly suggests that Wizards chose to power down wizards to let other classes shine in their own role. Which was what I wanted to see.

There will probably be classes that are better at things/roles than others, but I think that will fall along role types like Divine caster, arcane caster or something where the classes fitting certain areas are better or worse, but it won't have 3.5 Tier messiness.

I can see Tier 1 being either Arcane Casters or Divine casters with the classes listed in order of ability like versatility, but the Tier 1s aren't better than Tier 2s. Tier 3 would be mundanes or maybe a fourth Tier could be added to separate out Rogues vs Fighters? That seems really possible.