Class rankings

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I've got some new players making new characters. Some know nothing about 5e D&D, and come from gamist backgrounds. I have the PHB table to give a quick overview to help them decide on a class, but I'm also making a table that ranks the classes by various metrics.
So far I have ranks for Tank, Damage, Versatility, Healing and Complexity. Is there anything other metrics I should add?

Edit: Here's the table, for the curious. I am not posting it in order to argue about it.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/0rUJQgyB6Q3QLiZFqj0Ts0H6BbOvCQVxIvd3xU-D5Ws=w497-h261-no

[Person_Man]

I've got some new players making new characters. Some know nothing about 5e D&D, and come from gamist backgrounds. I have the PHB table to give a quick overview to help them decide on a class, but I'm also making a table that ranks the classes by various metrics.
So far I have ranks for Tank, Damage, Versatility, Healing and Complexity. Is there anything other metrics I should add?

I have Niche Ranking System in my signature for 3.5 that you might want to look at for ideas. Note that a lot of stuff that was limited by Skills or access to specific spells in 3.5E is now much easier to access in 5.0E, because Skills anyone can get any Skill, anyone can get Rituals or Cantrips, and spell lists overlap a great deal.

[mr_odd]

I've got some new players making new characters. Some know nothing about 5e D&D, and come from gamist backgrounds. I have the PHB table to give a quick overview to help them decide on a class, but I'm also making a table that ranks the classes by various metrics.
So far I have ranks for Tank, Damage, Versatility, Healing and Complexity. Is there anything other metrics I should add?

Edit: Here's the table, for the curious. I am not posting it in order to argue about it.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/0rUJQgyB6Q3QLiZFqj0Ts0H6BbOvCQVxIvd3xU-D5Ws=w497-h261-no

This is actually really cool. I may need to use this, assuming I can have your blessing.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I've got some new players making new characters. Some know nothing about 5e D&D, and come from gamist backgrounds. I have the PHB table to give a quick overview to help them decide on a class, but I'm also making a table that ranks the classes by various metrics.
So far I have ranks for Tank, Damage, Versatility, Healing and Complexity. Is there anything other metrics I should add?

Edit: Here's the table, for the curious. I am not posting it in order to argue about it.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/0rUJQgyB6Q3QLiZFqj0Ts0H6BbOvCQVxIvd3xU-D5Ws=w497-h261-no

Do note that with 1 feat you can heal pretty decently with any PC and a healer's kit.

1d6+4+ X (where X is the maximum HD a target has) once per short or long rest.

You aren't a life cleric but you do a decent job especially at low levels where healing is needed the most.

It is essentially Second Wind but usable on multiple creatures.

Rogue (Thief) + Healer + Healer Kit is fantastic and turns that F into at least a B. Bonus Action use object healer's kit is very very nice... Like if Flash was a combat medic.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I have Niche Ranking System in my signature for 3.5 that you might want to look at for ideas. Note that a lot of stuff that was limited by Skills or access to specific spells in 3.5E is now much easier to access in 5.0E, because Skills anyone can get any Skill, anyone can get Rituals or Cantrips, and spell lists overlap a great deal.

That's great. I'll mine that for ideas. One category that jumps out right away is "control".


This is actually really cool. I may need to use this, assuming I can have your blessing.

Of course! Public forum and all that. :)


Do note that with 1 feat you can heal pretty decently with any PC and a healer's kit.

1d6+4+ X (where X is the maximum HD a target has) once per short or long rest.

You aren't a life cleric but you do a decent job especially at low levels where healing is needed the most.

It is essentially Second Wind but usable on multiple creatures.

Rogue (Thief) + Healer + Healer Kit is fantastic and turns that F into at least a B. Bonus Action use object healer's kit is very very nice... Like if Flash was a combat medic.

Neat combo. I'll be sure to mention that if no one wants to play a class with healing spells.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not sure that these are the correct metrics to use. Rather, I would rank the classes by their competence in the standard party roles: support (cleric), damage (fighter), utility (rogue), and control (wizard). Tank and complexity aren't really roles, I think. Players have little way to force monsters to attack that player, so traditional tanking isn't quite there. And complexity might be better labeled "versatility", but really just means the character is good at more than one role.

Also:

Rogue damage is good, but not better than a fighter's. Only assassin rogues can pull ahead, and only on the surprise round.
Warlock versatility ought to be higher due to their wide variety of roles and the potential to cast all rituals.
Wizard damage is definitely not A+, since the evoker falls behind fighters who in turn fall behind optimized sorcerers [quickened/twinned cantrip + attribute = 8*(~1d10+5)=84/round for more than 20 rounds of combat If the sorcerer converts spell slots to sorcery points].
The monk's tankiness ought to be higher due to bonus action dodges, high saves and evasion. Also, one of the monk's primary contributing roles (control through stunning fist locking down a dangerous target) is not reflected here.
A thief rogue with the healer feat is actually a decent (C probably) healer.

It might be more accurate to do a list like this by archetype.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Neat combo. I'll be sure to mention that if no one wants to play a class with healing spells.

You could make it part of the healer's kit. I think during the play test it actually was a feature of the kit now that I think about it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm not sure that these are the correct metrics to use. Rather, I would rank the classes by their competence in the standard party roles: support (cleric), damage (fighter), utility (rogue), and control (wizard). Tank and complexity aren't really roles, I think. Players have little way to force monsters to attack that player, so traditional tanking isn't quite there. And complexity might be better labeled "versatility", but really just means the character is good at more than one role.

Also:

Rogue damage is good, but not better than a fighter's. Only assassin rogues can pull ahead, and only on the surprise round.
Warlock versatility ought to be higher due to their wide variety of roles and the potential to cast all rituals.
Wizard damage is definitely not A+, since the evoker falls behind fighters who in turn fall behind optimized sorcerers [quickened/twinned cantrip + attribute = 8*(~1d10+5)=84/round for more than 20 rounds of combat If the sorcerer converts spell slots to sorcery points].
The monk's tankiness ought to be higher due to bonus action dodges, high saves and evasion. Also, one of the monk's primary contributing roles (control through stunning fist locking down a dangerous target) is not reflected here.
A thief rogue with the healer feat is actually a decent (C probably) healer.

It might be more accurate to do a list like this by archetype.

You shouldn't compare who can do more damage than who but " can this class reach X damage" where X is enough to kill specific creatures.

For example, to get an "A" at level 1 you need to be able to (potentially or on average?) one shot a hobgoblin. To get an F you need to be able to one shot a goblin.

I think every class has potential of one shotting a goblin at 7 HP, on average or whatever metric you want to use.

This way you are comparing a Sorcerer (A) to a Wizard (B) when that Evoker Wizard can take out a decent threat just as well as the sorcerer.

Grading on a curve doesn't actually show what you can do versus the game, just what you can do versus another PC. A sorcerer may do 200 pts of damage and the Wizard may do 150... If most or all creatures would die from the wizard then why does it matter he can't do 20p pts?

The scale should be something like..

Average HP of creatures you might dace at a given level versus average damage you may do.

If you can kill X% you get an A, kill Y% and you get a B... And so on... This gives a better representation against what the classes were meant to go up against and how effective they really are at their damage role (or roll technically?).

[Easy_Lee]

You shouldn't compare who can do more damage than who but " can this class reach X damage" where X is enough to kill specific creatures.

For example, to get an "A" at level 1 you need to be able to (potentially or on average?) one shot a hobgoblin. To get an F you need to be able to one shot a goblin.

I think every class has potential of one shotting a goblin at 7 HP, on average or whatever metric you want to use.

This way you are comparing a Sorcerer (A) to a Wizard (B) when that Evoker Wizard can take out a decent threat just as well as the sorcerer.

Grading on a curve doesn't actually show what you can do versus the game, just what you can do versus another PC. A sorcerer may do 200 pts of damage and the Wizard may do 150... If most or all creatures would die from the wizard then why does it matter he can't do 20p pts?

The scale should be something like..

Average HP of creatures you might dace at a given level versus average damage you may do.

If you can kill X% you get an A, kill Y% and you get a B... And so on... This gives a better representation against what the classes were meant to go up against and how effective they really are at their damage role (or roll technically?).

If you don't like "How much damage can this person do?" as a metric for grading damage output, well...first off, why? Secondly, maybe you'll like this better.

Potential damage doesn't matter if you can't deal it. In order to land attacks, one has to get to the target and hit them. By that metric, mundane damage is inferior to magical, because mundane is often resisted. Also, ranged damage is better than melee because melee can be shut down by a flying or otherwise unhittable foe. Poison damage sucks. Fire damage is okay. Force damage is the second best. And damage from a magical weapon is the best. By that logic, an eldritch knight crossbow expert does better damage than anyone else. The warlock 2 / sorcerer 18 does more damage though, and most of it is force.

And if you want to rank classes by their potential to take out X threat, then wizards are going to win since they have the best save or suck spells, many of which are AOE (like web) or have a charm effect (like crown of madness).

If we argue that in X situation Y is better, we'll see no end to it. I think it's better to just grade damage by damage and call it a day.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

The main reason I gave the casters high damage rating is they have potent AoE spells. Most classes have a spread rating for the categories, to nebulously cover the various builds and subclasses. High detail and accuracy wasn't the primary goal.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If you don't like "How much damage can this person do?" as a metric for grading damage output, well...first off, why? Secondly, maybe you'll like this better.

Potential damage doesn't matter if you can't deal it. In order to land attacks, one has to get to the target and hit them. By that metric, mundane damage is inferior to magical, because mundane is often resisted. Also, ranged damage is better than melee because melee can be shut down by a flying or otherwise unhittable foe. Poison damage sucks. Fire damage is okay. Force damage is the second best. And damage from a magical weapon is the best. By that logic, an eldritch knight crossbow expert does better damage than anyone else. The warlock 2 / sorcerer 18 does more damage though, and most of it is force.

And if you want to rank classes by their potential to take out X threat, then wizards are going to win since they have the best save or suck spells, many of which are AOE (like web) or have a charm effect (like crown of madness).

If we argue that in X situation Y is better, we'll see no end to it. I think it's better to just rank the classes on damage by potential damage output and call it a day.

The big problem is that when you give that wizard a B people think it can't get the job done. Within the 5e system it can get the job done just fine even though the average or max damage isn't the same as the sorcerer. The point is to rate on how well it gets the job done not how much more damage it does than another class... Those aren't the same thing.

Have a target number like average HP of creatures you might face at a given level, which someone has done already... Forget the name... Damn..

Then see who all can do that much HP damage. And who comes in what percentile of that target number.

So you are comparing each class to each other but the measurement is versus the game and gives a better representation of the classes.

So if Wizard, Fighter, and Sorcerer all can take out an average CR 20 monster (or however the CR system works, I'm AFB) in 1 round they get an A. If the Bard takes two rounds they get a B. If the cleric takes 3 rounds they get a C.

But if you compare potential damage versus each class you get a ranking of Sorcerer A, Wizard B, Fighter B, Bard C, Cleric D which doesn't actually tell you how useful they are versus the game since perhaps even a letter grade of D can take out a CR 20 for in one round at level 20. If that's the case then why do they have a D in damage?

(Totally arbitrary rankings btw, just using as example).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The main reason I gave the casters high damage rating is they have potent AoE spells. Most classes have a spread rating for the categories, to nebulously cover the various builds and subclasses. High detail and accuracy wasn't the primary goal.

I'm mostly questioning the idea that ranking classes compared to each other is a worse measurement then ranking them versus the game. Classes weren't meant to fight each other but to go up against creatures and other NPCs.

So if a class who does the least amount of DPR can still take out a threat as fast as a class that has high DPR then they would have the same ranking. Doing more damage than a creature has HP still only brings it to 0 (monsters die at 0 HP unless you call nonlethal or they are special).

Say the average damage for bard is 100 and sorcerer is 200. The average HP is 100 for a creature that they will encounter.

Why would the sorcerer have an A and the Bard a lower grade if they get the same job done at the same speed? That would misrepresent the usefulness of a damage dealing bard since they can on average take out the same creature as a sorcerer can.

[Easy_Lee]

The big problem is that when you give that wizard a B people think it can't get the job done. Within the 5e system it can get the job done just fine even though the average or max damage isn't the same as the sorcerer. The point is to rate on how well it gets the job done not how much more damage it does than another class... Those aren't the same thing.

Have a target number like average HP of creatures you might face at a given level, which someone has done already... Forget the name... Damn..

Then see who all can do that much HP damage. And who comes in what percentile of that target number.

So you are comparing each class to each other but the measurement is versus the game and gives a better representation of the classes.

So if Wizard, Fighter, and Sorcerer all can take out an average CR 20 monster (or however the CR system works, I'm AFB) in 1 round they get an A. If the Bard takes two rounds they get a B. If the cleric takes 3 rounds they get a C.

But if you compare potential damage versus each class you get a ranking of Sorcerer A, Wizard B, Fighter B, Bard C, Cleric D which doesn't actually tell you how useful they are versus the game since perhaps even a letter grade of D can take out a CR 20 for in one round at level 20. If that's the case then why do they have a D in damage?

(Totally arbitrary rankings btw, just using as example).

Which still doesn't explain why in the hell a wizard has a higher ranking than a sorcerer who does the same or better damage in virtually all situations.

Besides, can one shot and will one shot are two different things. An assassin can one shot just about any normal target. That doesn't mean they will. But fighters and sorcerers do more consistent, reliable damage. A wizard can do max damage once, taking damage every time they reuse the ability, but a sorcerer can do double average damage (which works out to be the same) frequently. That has to factor somewhere into any kind of damage ranking system.

[Dienekes]

This is a good way to measure up for new players. However, I understand the need for more complexity for more experienced players.

Single target damage, area damage, buffing, debuffing, control, survival, tanking, party face, exploration are all possibly good additions (or separation of older groups).

[JoeJ]

I think damage is too loose a category to be very helpful. You need to be more specific about single target vs. area and especially consistent vs. nova damage.

[Easy_Lee]

I think damage is too loose a category to be very helpful. You need to be more specific about single target vs. area and especially consistent vs. nova damage.

Now that I agree with. Mundane aoe, as usual, is lacking. The only good (and I use the term loosely) source of mundane aoe is Hunter rangers with volley / whirlwind. And that doesn't even scale.

[Giant2005]

I'm mostly questioning the idea that ranking classes compared to each other is a worse measurement then ranking them versus the game. Classes weren't meant to fight each other but to go up against creatures and other NPCs.

So if a class who does the least amount of DPR can still take out a threat as fast as a class that has high DPR then they would have the same ranking. Doing more damage than a creature has HP still only brings it to 0 (monsters die at 0 HP unless you call nonlethal or they are special).

Say the average damage for bard is 100 and sorcerer is 200. The average HP is 100 for a creature that they will encounter.

Why would the sorcerer have an A and the Bard a lower grade if they get the same job done at the same speed? That would misrepresent the usefulness of a damage dealing bard since they can on average take out the same creature as a sorcerer can.

Whether you are just comparing potential damage vs an indestructible or destructible target the results come out exactly the same. Unless you are targeting a mook and what you are describing is exactly that - damage against mooks.
If the target is something in which higher damage is irrelevant then there is no point comparing the classes at all - just give everyone an A and call it a day. If there is a destructible target being used as a measuring bar it needs to be one that is strong enough for the difference in damage to be meaningful for any kind of grading system to be meaningful which means it needs to either be capable of mitigating enough damage that no-one can destroy it in a single round or mitigating enough that only the strongest class can destroy it in a single round.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I think damage is too loose a category to be very helpful. You need to be more specific about single target vs. area and especially consistent vs. nova damage.

Oh definitely, the list does need expanding for a better representation of what D&D offers.

But as is, the grading system is fine for new players... For the most part.

I think a pass fail system would be better, like set a benchmark. If you meet or succeed this benchmark then you pass, if you fall below then you fail.

So like damage we could say...

Average damage (AoE) = or > than X is a pass.
Average damage (direct) = or > than X is a pass
Average healing (no feats) = or > than Y is a pass

And so on...

Then at the end you could add up the pass to fails and rank them as you see fit. This would give you a representation of skill versus the game which you then could rank against each other.

[GiantOctopodes]

Metrics I'd consider adding off the cuff:

Skill use
Exploration / Maneuverability
Crowd Control
Consistency / Reliance on limited resources

Note that the one thing I will say about your existing metrics is that if everyone is given a C-A, then the ratings are less meaningful. Just like every game getting between a 70-100 rating means that an 85 is actually the equivalent of 50 in a "fair" rating system.

If C is the worst that anyone does at damage (as an example), then the classes you rate with that should be rated at an F (the worst possible amongst all options), and those with a B should be a C (middle of the road). Just my thoughts.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

If C is the worst that anyone does at damage (as an example), then the classes you rate with that should be rated at an F (the worst possible amongst all options), and those with a B should be a C (middle of the road). Just my thoughts.

I only rated complexity on a curve, since that was a class-to-class comparison. All the other ranks were made with a mind as to whether they could perform or not in the game. As all classes have some skills or can get utility spells etc. none of them get an F in versatility for instance.

[Demonic Spoon]

If C is the worst that anyone does at damage (as an example), then the classes you rate with that should be rated at an F (the worst possible amongst all options), and those with a B should be a C (middle of the road). Just my thoughts.


I disagree. Grades should be applied based on how well the class fills the role. Damage is something every class can do fairly well at least; you don't want to imply that a class is incapable of doing meaningful damage, which is what an 'F' rating would imply.

[GiantOctopodes]

I disagree. Grades should be applied based on how well the class fills the role. Damage is something every class can do fairly well at least; you don't want to imply that a class is incapable of doing meaningful damage, which is what an 'F' rating would imply.

To be fair, every class *can* tank as well. A Mountain Dwarf Wizard Illusionist is right up there in terms of tank ability. Anyone can take healer and be quite decent at healing (once per short rest, heals damage very equivalent to that done by cure wounds, can be done once to each party member? That's a lot of spell slots that's replacing). But a College of Lore Bard is never going to be doing even half as much damage as a Rogue, Fighter, or Warlock. He *can* do damage, sure, but certainly no better than a Wizard can tank or a Rogue can heal- he can do about as well as his feats or other influences allow. I am perhaps taking it a bit too far, he is better at damage than they are at those roles (cannot perform them at all unless specced, he can at least throw out generic attacks with enhanced ability or haste helping give him a boost), but I think it's more a matter of perspective, priority, and desired goal of the ratings. Ultimately it's your rating system, you can do whatever you want of course. :smallbiggrin:

[Demonic Spoon]

Sure, but to that I'd say that Wizard shouldn't necessarily be rated F if he can become tanky through good application of spells.

the Healer feat is...a feat, and applies equally to everyone, so it's not really useful for comparison.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I disagree. Grades should be applied based on how well the class fills the role. Damage is something every class can do fairly well at least; you don't want to imply that a class is incapable of doing meaningful damage, which is what an 'F' rating would imply.


I hate when I try to explain some thing and it takes me forever and some one else comes in and says a few lines and is 100 times more clear than I was... Lol


Sure, but to that I'd say that Wizard shouldn't necessarily be rated F if he can become tanky through good application of spells.

the Healer feat is...a feat, and applies equally to everyone, so it's not really useful for comparison.

Really feats should stay out of the basic rankings, leave that to builds.

Though a rogue with fast hands and a healer kit is extreme more useful than anyone else with a healer's kit because the rogue can bonus action heal 1d6 + 4 + target max HD #

[unwise]

All this talk of needing Nova vs Consistency, AoE vs Single Target etc is kind of missing the point of the table I think. If your player is even familiar with those sorts of concepts, then they can just look at the classes themselves and see for themsleves how each of them will work.

I think that the table is of great help to give a brief overview for the sort of people who look at you blankly if you say"Nova AoE DPR".

[Feldarove]

All this talk of needing Nova vs Consistency, AoE vs Single Target etc is kind of missing the point of the table I think. If your player is even familiar with those sorts of concepts, then they can just look at the classes themselves and see for themsleves how each of them will work.

I think that the table is of great help to give a brief overview for the sort of people who look at you blankly if you say"Nova AoE DPR".


I LOL'd.... and Total agree. I just started a group that has 2 first time players (2 girlfriends of other players) and they wouldn't understand the concept of Tank if not explained.

I think its a great table without getting to caught up in the finer points. Though I wouldn't use it. I just like the idea of going through each class and giving a brief description of what they are, and letting new player's mind's get caught up in a concept.

[Ashrym]

You shouldn't compare who can do more damage than who but " can this class reach X damage" where X is enough to kill specific creatures.

For example, to get an "A" at level 1 you need to be able to (potentially or on average?) one shot a hobgoblin. To get an F you need to be able to one shot a goblin.

I think every class has potential of one shotting a goblin at 7 HP, on average or whatever metric you want to use.

This way you are comparing a Sorcerer (A) to a Wizard (B) when that Evoker Wizard can take out a decent threat just as well as the sorcerer.

Grading on a curve doesn't actually show what you can do versus the game, just what you can do versus another PC. A sorcerer may do 200 pts of damage and the Wizard may do 150... If most or all creatures would die from the wizard then why does it matter he can't do 20p pts?

For starters, that sorcerer or wizard isn't doing that kind of damage. Next, CR5 monsters have over around 100 hit points and a 5th level wizard casting a fireball isn't killing CR1 and CR2 monsters.

A high level fighter with feats and 3 attacks can action surge for that kind of damage.

Knowing what you can do versus the game requires looking at the spell damage inflicted and the monster hit points. Overkill can exist but in order for it to exist the hit points need to be less than the damage.

Also, not every encounter takes place at 20th level with a full complement of spell slots.

@ the OP: Disagreement with some assessments aside, tank is really survivability; damage might be subdivided into sustainable, AoE, and burst; versatility; healing; social; exploration; enhancing (buffing, debuffing / status effects); and controlling / lockdown might be ranked.

For example, action surge is a good burst damage effect and a poor area damage effect. Fireball is a good area damage effect but poor individual target damage compared to weapon attacks.

Some classes could use individual entries for their sub-classes because some make the base class more different than others.

[silveralen]

So does the tank section correspond to overall toughness, resistance to straight damage, or ability to protect party members? Or some combination of the three?

[Gwendol]

I recommend sub-dividing the tables into subclasses in general since they play out quite differently.

Second, I don't think I understand what "Tank" really is in the table. If it's just HP and DR, why even bother? You can simply look at the HD and armor/shield proficiency offered by the class and get more or less the same result. In my opinion, a tank needs to be able to draw attacks, not only soak damage. The Battlemaster Goading attack does that, as does the Protection fighting style (though as a reaction). If it's survivability, then again the table is off since you need to factor in saves, DR, resistances, etc. My guess is classes like Paladin and Monk are likely to reach the top.

Third: the listing of damage looks off. I can't see how a wizard can pull off an A+ in damage and not generally suffer in all other departments. That's not the only example though, just pointing out one of the more obvious. I recommend splitting into ranged/melee damage since the two styles are so different, and for a class like fighter to show it can excell in both.

Versatility: again, subclasses makes the numbers close to meaningless without statting them out individually. Fighter should be upgraded thanks to the extra ASI/Feats.

Healing: Rogues should be upgraded (does combat medic best in the game).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

For starters, that sorcerer or wizard isn't doing that kind of damage. Next, CR5 monsters have over around 100 hit points and a 5th level wizard casting a fireball isn't killing CR1 and CR2 monsters.

A high level fighter with feats and 3 attacks can action surge for that kind of damage.

Knowing what you can do versus the game requires looking at the spell damage inflicted and the monster hit points. Overkill can exist but in order for it to exist the hit points need to be less than the damage.

Also, not every encounter takes place at 20th level with a full complement of spell slots.



Well yeah, I was using what I typed as, you know, an example.

I'm not sure if I wasn't clear I was just pulling numbers out of my butt, but yeah just an example and my point is still valid.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

So does the tank section correspond to overall toughness, resistance to straight damage, or ability to protect party members? Or some combination of the three?

In the updated version it's labelled "Endurance" and is a vague metric of raw HP, saves, resistances, and the ability to easily gain high AC.