Community made Tier list

[treecko]

So after the rather controversial tier list created by Captain Panda, I think it would be more representative to get the opinion of the forum as a whole. At the bottom of the post I'll be posting a google form where users can input their ideas. Note that classes can have uses in and out of combat and should be rated as such.

S tier: Reserved for classes that are almost flawless. They can do many things very well, out of combat and in combat. They can outclass other characters while also excelling in other areas. These classes should have no or very few flaws

A tier: Reserved for classes that are fantastic. They can do a large number of things, or one thing very well. They should either be able to outshine other characters in their area of expertise. or almost all of the time be useful.

B tier: Reserved for classes that are good. These classes have one or more flaws that effect their performance, or are outperformed a lot of the time by another class. They still can function and do well, but not as consistanly

C tier: Reserved for classes that have a small niche. These classes have many flaws that prevent them from being useful a lot of the time. They face heavy competition from higher tier classes.

D tier: Trash. Why would you pick this?

So fill out the survey, and post your ideas if you want. I'll share the results once we get some answers in. All the questions are optional, so rate the ones you know.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1XsSlOcWIJxHL13RnfmcoEeLvzBqjn2Lm0w-PjKXK_jU/viewform

EDIT: After 50 responses, I think we have enough to make a valid tier list:

A+: Lore bard, moon druid

A: Wizard (all types, but divination and evocation are the winners here), vengeance paladin, ancients paladin, cleric(life light, tempest), land druid

A-: Totem barb, valor bard, battlemaster, cleric (all but trickery and the ones in A tier), open hand monk, fiend pact warlock

B+: eldritch knight, shadow monk, oath of devotion, assassin, arcane trickster, dragon sorcerer

B: Champion, hunter, thief, GOO warlock, fey warlock, trickery cleric

C: Berserker, wild magic sorcerer, four elements monk, Beastmaster

D:

Looks like full spell casters are the big winners here, with a majority of the classes falling i the A-/B+ range with plenty of A and B nominations. Looks like the playground values combat skills pretty heavily, as shown in the warlock ratings. Not really surprising from an optimization forum.

[Yorrin]

Apparently I was the third one to respond, but in every case my answer was the majority answer except where all three of us disagreed!

Based on your descriptions here the vast majority of classes are A tier. Almost every class in the game performs very well at it's intended role. Anything lower than that is something with a flaw, as you put it. Frenzy Barbarians using exhaustion, or Wild Magic being trash, for example.

That being said, I'm very curious as to how the data will pan out.

[treecko]

Ideal balance for the game should be everything in A tier, so it's good people think that way.

[Firechanter]

By these definitions, I see very little difference between S and A tier. Generally speaking, I repeat my sentiment that I don't think any 5E class is an S tier. But I'll be happy to fill out your form.

[hymer]

A tier: Reserved for classes that are fantastic. They can do a large number of things, or one thing very well. They should either be able to outshine other characters in their area of expertise. or almost all of the time be useful.

I may be over-thinking this, but I'm not sure what constitutes an area of expertise for this purpose. How specific should we be thinking? Combat? Melee combat? Survivability in melee combat?
I'm also wondering how we weight the levels. I'm thinking of the vast difference between the relative power of a moon druid at level 2 and level 8.
And should we account for all sub-classes? Say, a monk drops something from having elemental monk as a Monastic Tradition? Or assume maximum optimization?

[Captain Panda]

Answered! I look forward to seeing what general opinion is.

[Firechanter]

On second thought, the existence of an S rating has one advantage, mostly a psychological one: it underlines that an "A" rating is still excellent and nothing to be ashamed of. The "B" rating has kind of a second-class flavour to it.
So I would try and calibrate the system so that a small handful of archetypes can be rated "S", and then the majority of remaining archetypes will clearly qualify as "A".
Archetypes with small drawbacks or shortcomings would be "B" as in B-Stock -- not poor in and of itself, but somewhat unappealing to many players because others do the job better.
Not sure if we need to differentiate between C and D tiers.

[ad_hoc]

Results look promising so far.

I think most classes are either a low A or a high B with only a couple being a C. I am looking at you 4 Elements Monk.

[Shaofoo]

Personally I find tier lists to be pointless because so much can change in a game and depends on the DM that it is nearly futile to try to put it in a single tier list.

Wizards are dominant in the game, maybe not so much when the DM enforces a week long rest period, you will have to ration out your spells more and thus the Wizard losses out a bit there.

Rogues don't deal as much damage as Fighters? If the DM cares a lot more for skills than fighting then Rogues are obvious better choices than fighters.

There is so much that can change between games that a list is only a view of a single subset of a game.

Tier works in video games because there are some hard constraints that you must obey and are part of the game, that doesn't exist in D&D where it is much more freeform.

Also there is the little problem that bias creeps up in nearly all lists so it can be hard to sift between actual facts and opinions, at least if you don't want to just discard everything as an opinion.

[ad_hoc]

I may be over-thinking this, but I'm not sure what constitutes an area of expertise for this purpose. How specific should we be thinking? Combat? Melee combat? Survivability in melee combat?
I'm also wondering how we weight the levels. I'm thinking of the vast difference between the relative power of a moon druid at level 2 and level 8.
And should we account for all sub-classes? Say, a monk drops something from having elemental monk as a Monastic Tradition? Or assume maximum optimization?

I think we should look at it the way the game has split them up. Social, Exploration, Combat.

If no class is better at the class in any of the 3 pillars, then it is an S Tier class. In fighting games an S Tier character has no bad matchups. They are all favourable or at least even.

[ad_hoc]

Personally I find tier lists to be pointless because so much can change in a game and depends on the DM that it is nearly futile to try to put it in a single tier list.

Wizards are dominant in the game, maybe not so much when the DM enforces a week long rest period, you will have to ration out your spells more and thus the Wizard losses out a bit there.

Rogues don't deal as much damage as Fighters? If the DM cares a lot more for skills than fighting then Rogues are obvious better choices than fighters.

There is so much that can change between games that a list is only a view of a single subset of a game.

Tier works in video games because there are some hard constraints that you must obey and are part of the game, that doesn't exist in D&D where it is much more freeform.

Also there is the little problem that bias creeps up in nearly all lists so it can be hard to sift between actual facts and opinions, at least if you don't want to just discard everything as an opinion.

I think tiers can be meaningful in TRPGs, and when they are it is apparent. It is just in 5e everything is so close that they are essentially meaningless. Even a C tier character can still shine in a party where its specialization is not overshadowed. That is all that really matters.

I don't think any class is close to being a D or an S.

[treecko]

I may be over-thinking this, but I'm not sure what constitutes an area of expertise for this purpose. How specific should we be thinking? Combat? Melee combat? Survivability in melee combat?
I'm also wondering how we weight the levels. I'm thinking of the vast difference between the relative power of a moon druid at level 2 and level 8.
And should we account for all sub-classes? Say, a monk drops something from having elemental monk as a Monastic Tradition? Or assume maximum optimization?

An example of a class doing well in an area of expertise is a champion hitting things, or a ranger tracking in their favored terrain.

We're assuming the characters are reasonably optimized.

[ad_hoc]

On second thought, the existence of an S rating has one advantage, mostly a psychological one: it underlines that an "A" rating is still excellent and nothing to be ashamed of. The "B" rating has kind of a second-class flavour to it.
So I would try and calibrate the system so that a small handful of archetypes can be rated "S", and then the majority of remaining archetypes will clearly qualify as "A".
Archetypes with small drawbacks or shortcomings would be "B" as in B-Stock -- not poor in and of itself, but somewhat unappealing to many players because others do the job better.
Not sure if we need to differentiate between C and D tiers.

I disagree. S is the 'one more' category. It indicates that something went wrong. If a class is S Tier then it is too powerful compared to the rest of the classes.

A traditionally represents the powerful classes while S represents the ones that are too powerful, they disrupt the game because of how powerful they are.

If we have a requirement to have classes in S Tier then we need another Tier above it for those classes that are too good for the game, and so on.

[Shaofoo]

I think tiers can be meaningful in TRPGs, and when they are it is apparent. It is just in 5e everything is so close that they are essentially meaningless. Even a C tier character can still shine in a party where its specialization is not overshadowed. That is all that really matters.

I don't think any class is close to being a D or an S.

Sure in other games where there are obvious class imbalances and preferences then tier lists can work, and especially when some DM assumptions are used (if you are considering the 5MWD then spellcasters shoot up way high because spell slots matter very little as a limiter).

[Firechanter]

Well, as I said in the other thread, I don't know of such a tradition. Some googling revealed that apparently the SABC... rating system stems from certain video games of Japanese origin, which would explain why I never heard of it. :smallbiggrin:

[Strill]

I disagree. S is the 'one more' category. It indicates that something went wrong. If a class is S Tier then it is too powerful compared to the rest of the classes.

A traditionally represents the powerful classes while S represents the ones that are too powerful, they disrupt the game because of how powerful they are.

If we have a requirement to have classes in S Tier then we need another Tier above it for those classes that are too good for the game, and so on.

For comparison, in the 3.5 tier list, the top-tier classes were those that could do render every other member of the party obsolete, and also break the game and derail campaigns. The second tier was those classes with the potential to do the things tier 1 classes could, but with less versatility in what particular things they could do. It was only in the third tier that things started to become reasonable.

[Shining Wrath]

Moon Druids and Lore bards are the leaders for "S", and 4 Elements, Wild Magic and Frenzy for "D"

[Strill]

Lore bards are the leaders for "S", and Wild Magic and Frenzy for "D"

Complete nonsense. The core Sorcerer chassis alone is enough to put it on at least B-tier. It's not possible for a Sorcerer Archetype to go lower than that.

Furthermore, if there's any class that deserves S-tier, it would be either Wizard or Druid due to the extreme diversity of offensive, defensive, control, and utility abilities, and the ability to change spells or learn new ones in order to address any challenge. Bard wouldn't reach that level due to the limited number of spells learned.

[Shaofoo]

Pichu, Piccolo and Dan Hibiki for garbage tier.

[Shining Wrath]

Complete nonsense. The core Sorcerer chassis alone is enough to put it on at least B-tier. It's not possible for a Sorcerer Archetype to go lower than that.

Furthermore, if there's any class that deserves S-tier, it would be either Wizard or Druid due to the extreme diversity of offensive, defensive, control, and utility abilities, and the ability to change spells or learn new ones in order to address any challenge. Bard wouldn't reach that level due to the limited number of spells learned.

I somehow overlooked 4 elements Monk - clearly at the bottom. My campaign features one of those, but we're using the Dranlu homebrew.

[treecko]

Ok, we're at 20 responses so I'll share some of the conclusions we can draw

People think frenzy is c tier, the exhaustion is too negative. Totem barb is about 50/50 A or B.
Lore bard is considered really good, one of the classes that got S tier votes. Valor bard is another A/B tier.
Most clerics are around A/B, with light, tempest, and war standing out as leaning more to the A side of the spectrum. Interesting because they're the most powerful offensive clerics. Trickery is seen as the worst cleric, with nature and light trailing it.
Druids are good, land druids are solidly in A, and moon druids have the most votes for S tier, at almost 50%.
People are very split on champion fighter, ranging from A to D. Personally, I think it's good but that's another discussion. Battlemaster is leaning towards A ranking, and eldritch knight is considered about A rank but has some critics.
Open hand and shadow monks are both about 1/3 each for A, B, and C rank. Four elements in consitered one of the worst classes, with lots of C and D nominations.
All the paladins are doing good, even the worst, devotion, is leaning towards A.
Hunter ranger is solidly B class, and beastmaster gets the award of worst, with many C and D rankings.
All the rogues are split between A, B, and C, with arcane trickster doing the best, and thief the worst.
Dragon sorcerer is A/B, and wild magic is all over the place, but consenus seems to be B/C.
Fiend Warlock is an A, while the other two are Bs
Wizard is high A tier, with some S votes. Transmutation and evocation are the worst, and divination, adjuration, and illusion are the best.

[Firechanter]

Complete nonsense. The core Sorcerer chassis alone is enough to put it on at least B-tier. It's not possible for a Sorcerer Archetype to go lower than that.


Yes it is, if some of the Archetype "features" enable you to blow yourself to bits or knock yourself out of the fight.

[treecko]

Personally I find tier lists to be pointless because so much can change in a game and depends on the DM that it is nearly futile to try to put it in a single tier list.

Wizards are dominant in the game, maybe not so much when the DM enforces a week long rest period, you will have to ration out your spells more and thus the Wizard losses out a bit there.

Rogues don't deal as much damage as Fighters? If the DM cares a lot more for skills than fighting then Rogues are obvious better choices than fighters.

There is so much that can change between games that a list is only a view of a single subset of a game.

Tier works in video games because there are some hard constraints that you must obey and are part of the game, that doesn't exist in D&D where it is much more freeform.

Also there is the little problem that bias creeps up in nearly all lists so it can be hard to sift between actual facts and opinions, at least if you don't want to just discard everything as an opinion.

The point of having a lot of people input their opinions is to average out the results to get something that's as close as we can get to reality.

[ad_hoc]

Are you able to add in an option on the form to view results without voting again?

[Shaofoo]

The point of having a lot of people input their opinions is to average out the results to get something that's as close as we can get to reality.

Then you are having a popularity list, not a tier list. Getting a bunch of opinions on a subject doesn't reveal the facts underneath the subject. You can't tell which person actually did research and looked into how each class works and which one is just talking about personal preference disregarding the actual class mechanics.

Not that saying what you are doing is wrong but it isn't conductive to actual class discussion and why does the class deserve this rating. And like I said there are so many variables that getting to them all is time consuming and basically we forget on some of them.

[treecko]

Are you able to add in an option on the form to view results without voting again?

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1XsSlOcWIJxHL13RnfmcoEeLvzBqjn2Lm0w-PjKXK_jU/viewanalytics

I think this link works.

You could also submit a blank form.

[Yorrin]

Are you able to add in an option on the form to view results without voting again?

Link to Results (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1XsSlOcWIJxHL13RnfmcoEeLvzBqjn2Lm0w-PjKXK_jU/viewanalytics?usp=form_confirm)

[Strill]

Link to Results (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1XsSlOcWIJxHL13RnfmcoEeLvzBqjn2Lm0w-PjKXK_jU/viewanalytics?usp=form_confirm)

Looks like nonsense to me. People aren't rating according to your scale. They're just rating whatever's worst with D-rank, and whatever's best with S-rank. You have silly ratings like Frenzy Barbarian at C-rank. You can simply never use Frenzy and still be B-Rank. Or Four Elements Monk at D-rank, which is ridiculous. The core Monk chassis alone is B-rank at least.

[Firechanter]

And why would anyone pick the Frenzy Barb when they would never use Frenzy anyway? That's the point of the low ratings -- everything you do, someone else does better. If you effectively say that your central archetype feature is unusable or useless, that is kind of the _definition_ of a D ranking.

[Naanomi]

Nothing in actual established rules would fall outside of A-B-C ratings in my opinion, S and D being theoretical system failures that we don't have examples of yet

[CNagy]

It's a fun thought exercise, but what is it ultimately worth? The points about the Frenzy Barbarian and the 4-Elements Monk are spot on--if they are that low ranked then the whole class is, with the better archetypes being ranked higher.

Archetype features are add-ons to the base class. The only one that could actually diminish the class itself is the Wild Magic Sorcerer, since it adds an element of "accidentally harm/maim/kill yourself." The actual impact of wild magic (appropriately) varies, as it depends on how often the DM wants you to roll for it. On the other hand, you also get Bend Luck, which is more than worth the occasional wild surge roll, which then activates 5% of the time, which then has a range of effects from ill to good.

Higher ranking on an archetype than the base class should signify that the archetype adds significant versatility, has abilities that are used often, that sort of thing. So the Frenzy Barbarian and the 4 Elements Monk are a Barbarian and a Monk, rated at whatever you would rate those base classes at, but not higher because the situations where you would wish to use Frenzy are few and far between, and 4 Elements abilities are so costly that you can only use them sparingly at the risk of not having Ki to power your base class abilities.

[recapdrake]

I feel that as has been raised, wild magic sorc is so low because of not only the first spell cast in a campaign having a chance of tpk but also that it is entirely reliant on DM remembering/wanting you to roll for random effect. Just as divine intervention is considered bad by most people wild magic has the same problem, it relies ENTIRELY on the DM.

[treecko]

I've updated the OP with the results after 50 people have filled out the survey. Are any unexpected to you guys? Anything that should be higher or lower?

[Strill]

Wizard of any kind is more powerful than Lore bard. Magical Secrets is good, but having no limit to spells known is way better. Lore Bard being S-rank is ridiculous.

Beastmaster at D is just from people who have no idea what they're talking about. Beastmaster isn't weak, it's clunky.

[MaxWilson]

Wizard of any kind is more powerful than Lore bard. Magical Secrets is good, but having no limit to spells known is way better. Lore Bard being S-rank is ridiculous.

Beastmaster at D is just from people who have no idea what they're talking about. Beastmaster isn't weak, it's clunky.

You've made some good points in this thread, Strill.

I just wanted you to know that you're not shouting into the aether in vain. :) Some of us understand what you're saying.

[ad_hoc]

How are you making the list?

It doesn't seem to correspond to the votes.

For example, Beastmaster Ranger:

S tier 0 0%
A tier 2 5.3%
B tier 7 18.4%
C tier 14 36.8%
D tier 15 39.5%

23 people voted for C or better and only 15 for D and yet you put it in D tier?

I call shenanigans.

[treecko]

How are you making the list?

It doesn't seem to correspond to the votes.

For example, Beastmaster Ranger:

S tier 0 0%
A tier 2 5.3%
B tier 7 18.4%
C tier 14 36.8%
D tier 15 39.5%

23 people voted for C or better and only 15 for D and yet you put it in D tier?

I call shenanigans.

First of all, it was a bit more headed toward D tier when I checked. Second of all, you're absolutly right and I'll change it. Sorry.

On the bright side, this means no classes in trash tier.

[Mara]

Based on the OP definitions, Full casters A tier, Everything else B tier.

[Dralnu]

It really depends what level bracket we're talking about.

At level 2, the Moon Druid is pretty absurd, but the class has significant peaks and valleys.

The Barbarian is in my eyes a king of combat for the majority of the low to mid levels, at least until level 11+ when Fighter starts to catch up.

As sweet as the Wizard is, I've personally played a level 1+ Wizard and have DM'd multiples... I wouldn't want to play a level 1 Wizard again. Wizard / Sorcerer really pick up around level 5 in my opinion, because 3rd lvl spells are amazing and you're starting to get a comfortable amount of spell slots.

Also I feel like people are rating the subclass, not the base class + subclass. Like Beastmaster and Berserker are NOT significantly lower than some of the other options, once you take into consideration their base class and how they actually perform. Even the crappy Elements Monk is still a MONK, and will be running around paralyzing important targets for its allies to swiftly dispose of, which is an insanely powerful niche.

[treecko]

Also I feel like people are rating the subclass, not the base class + subclass. Like Beastmaster and Berserker are NOT significantly lower than some of the other options, once you take into consideration their base class and how they actually perform. Even the crappy Elements Monk is still a MONK, and will be running around paralyzing important targets for its allies to swiftly dispose of, which is an insanely powerful niche.

If a subclass never uses it's subclass features, then it is in every sense of the word outclasses by another subclass that has useful features, which is the definition of the low tiers.

[CNagy]

If a subclass never uses it's subclass features, then it is in every sense of the word outclasses by another subclass that has useful features, which is the definition of the low tiers.

But therein lies the contradiction that makes this exercise of questionable worth. If the base barbarian doesn't set the tier for its worst archetype, then how can the high tier base classes set the tier for their archetypes? The caster classes can't even be measured separate from their base class abilities. Short of the monk or barbarian actually being low tier, their worst archetypes cannot be low tier--at the end of the day you are still a monk or a barbarian. It sounds like "hey, we're comparing subclasses" but that's not really true; what's being ranked is the usefulness of the base class plus the subclass. In such an evaluation, the addition of a subclass cannot be a net negative. It never sucks to have more options, even if they are options you almost never use.

A useful comparison might be as follows: rank each subclass in its class, best to worst, based on how often they are used, how versatile the abilities are, downsides, etc. Then rank the martials and the casters separate; half-casters either in the martial section or (with a more comprehensive grade breakdown) in both rankings. That would be more illustrative than a popularity contest.

[mephnick]

But therein lies the contradiction that makes this exercise of questionable worth.

The worth isn't questionable because it's actually non-existent.

[steppedonad4]

Ugh, I hate systems like this. They essentially rely on a collective acceptance that is subjective rather than objective which ends up being little more than a circlejerk. Two communities end up having different valuations not because of any objective reality but because people within the communities tend to favour certain other people and those people lead them into believing their version of what constitutes 'good' and 'bad'.

All the so-called 'bad' classes in this list I've played and been the star at the table for and yet people here bag them as crap because... why? You added some numbers together and your buddy on a forum agrees with you? Bleh.

Such lists should be discouraged not encouraged. They serve no valid purpose other than to stroke people's epeens.

[treecko]

Ugh, I hate systems like this. They essentially rely on a collective acceptance that is subjective rather than objective which ends up being little more than a circlejerk. Two communities end up having different valuations not because of any objective reality but because people within the communities tend to favour certain other people and those people lead them into believing their version of what constitutes 'good' and 'bad'.

All the so-called 'bad' classes in this list I've played and been the star at the table for and yet people here bag them as crap because... why? You added some numbers together and your buddy on a forum agrees with you? Bleh.

Such lists should be discouraged not encouraged. They serve no valid purpose other than to stroke people's epeens.

Please, share your thoughts. Which classes do you think are too low? What classes that were ranked low did you play and how did they shine? Personally, I think the champion fighter and the beast master ranger are better than people are giving them credit for.

Also, by the nature of DnD, it's impossible to objectively compare the classes (at least I haven't found a way, or I'd be using it). The point of the list to get a discussion going about what people think about the power level of the classes rather than whether or not a tier list should exist.

Also keep in mind this is from more of an optimization standpoint, of course every class is fun and deserves play.

[steppedonad4]

What classes that were ranked low did you play and how did they shine?
The best example I have is the Berserker. People don't seem to understand that it's not meant to be used every combat. It's the boss-fight ability and for that, it is fantastic. Every time we got to a significant fight, I'd Frenzy and wreck everything in sight before it had a chance to wreck the party. Sure, the character is Exhausted afterwards, but they were already going to take a long rest after a significant fight like that anyway so it ends up being a complete non issue.


Also, by the nature of DnD, it's impossible to objectively compare the classes (at least I haven't found a way, or I'd be using it).
Which is exactly why lists like this shouldn't be made.

[Shaofoo]

Also I feel like people are rating the subclass, not the base class + subclass. Like Beastmaster and Berserker are NOT significantly lower than some of the other options, once you take into consideration their base class and how they actually perform..

It is much worse with Beserker, for people Beserker is only Frenzy and nothing else. I have yet to hear people talk about the other Beserker abilities, they just reach at Frenzy and then stop reading and write off the class.

No one talks about immunity to fear and charmed (and by extension immunity to a lot of mind control effects) and being able to do Retaliation against an enemy that attacks you (and you don't even need to be raging)

Intimidating Presence seems a little weak sauce since it uses your Charisma and the Barbarian has nothing else to use his charisma other than skills. But I would personally use it out of combat as a more effective intimidate.

[Gwendol]

With no context behind the sorting this is just a popularity contest. In my view (that I'm sure is shared by many others) you can split the classes in full casters and the rest, but in terms of actual play so many other factors come in to make this sorting pretty useless.

[Firechanter]

With no context behind the sorting this is just a popularity contest. In my view (that I'm sure is shared by many others) you can split the classes in full casters and the rest, but in terms of actual play so many other factors come in to make this sorting pretty useless.

Popularity certainly has something to do with it, but just "Full Caster / Everything Else" is not doing it justice either. There is definitely a very real difference in the combat values of, say, a GWF/GWM Vengeance Pala and a Monk of any flavour. I'm not even talking about 1on1 or anything, just about their contribution to a party. When you have a stronk Paladin in the party, it is very hard (if not impossible) for the Monk to not feel redundant in a fight.

That said, I disagree with the way the "popular vote" has turned out. By adding + and - ranks,you're effectively back to 6 tiers of 3.5. Besides, whether you call the BM Ranger a C or a D doesn't matter when it's the sixth of six tiers.

The ranking also suggests that Moon Dudu and Lore Bard are standouts and a cut above everything else; I say this is definitely not the case. Moonies are definitely overrated, and Lore Bards are certainly good, but not any better than many Wizard specs.

[locke411]

Warlock seems too low and hunter and beastmaster seem too high.

[DireSickFish]

I agree that Lore bards and Moon druids should be moved down on the tier list. Moon druids spike hard pre 5 and at level 20 but are a lot more reasonable in between. It's true that they get versatility in forms and spells but the druid spell list isn't as all encompassing as it was in 3.5 days. They also have the hardest time of any class that I've seen getting a good to decent AC.

I also don't like the +/- thing you have going on. The whole point of Tiers is to show what classes can be played in parties together without seriously overshadowing others or making them redundant. Can an A+ and a B+ be played together int eh same party without problems of overshadowing? If yes then the A, and B designations for them work. If no then A+ should be S and B+ should be C.

[Gwendol]

The question isn't wether the classes are relatively different (they are), but if the difference in power/versatility is so great that they can't play together.
I'd argue the difference is there, but small enough to nullify the necessity of tiering the classes.

[SharkForce]

i would say that nothing in 5e is inherently so far ahead or behind as to reach the point where they couldn't play in the same game and have all contribute meaningfully. even the classes that i feel are furthest behind the curve in usefulness generally speaking do at least one thing well. they don't necessarily do things better than others, but they are at least able to contribute. likewise, it is possible to build any class/subclass combination to contribute even if only at a relatively low level in almost any situation.

that said, i do think it helps to see who could use a bit of a boost, and who doesn't need a bit more oomph.

one thing i would add, however, would be to grade it at a few different level points. i'd probably choose 1, 5, 11, 17+ as the points of comparison. it makes a rather large difference, after all; not all (sub)classes have an equal power curve.

[Gwendol]

This is the kind of granularity that would make sense. Also, yielding a result that can actually be used for something.

[treecko]

I agree that Lore bards and Moon druids should be moved down on the tier list. Moon druids spike hard pre 5 and at level 20 but are a lot more reasonable in between. It's true that they get versatility in forms and spells but the druid spell list isn't as all encompassing as it was in 3.5 days. They also have the hardest time of any class that I've seen getting a good to decent AC.

I also don't like the +/- thing you have going on. The whole point of Tiers is to show what classes can be played in parties together without seriously overshadowing others or making them redundant. Can an A+ and a B+ be played together int eh same party without problems of overshadowing? If yes then the A, and B designations for them work. If no then A+ should be S and B+ should be C.

I'm going to use this quote to answer the large majority of the questions being asked. First, this survey was answered by, at the time of this writing, 70 people. I'm not going to change rankings because of one or two people who disagree. Different people see different strengths and weaknesses in class, and everyone has a valid opinion. However, if enough people want something moved, I'll move it.

The +/- is for classes that would be too close to call in either tier. For example, the land druid got votes that turned out like this:
S tier 1 2%
A tier 24 49%
B tier 21 42.9%
C tier 3 6.1%
D tier 0 0%

51% wanted the druid in A of higher, while 49% wanted it in B or lower, and I don't think it's fair to put it in A when it's so close to the borderline. The +/- tiers are meant to be very close to each other, and an A- and a B+ are roughly equal. Hope this clears up confusion.

Also you make a good point about druid troubles with armor class, although wildshape helps the druid, it can't be n all the time (until 18). What do you think the lore bard struggles with?


one thing i would add, however, would be to grade it at a few different level points. i'd probably choose 1, 5, 11, 17+ as the points of comparison. it makes a rather large difference, after all; not all (sub)classes have an equal power curve.

I don't think enough people have experience playing at higher levels to get accurate results. Would be interesting though.

[Coffee_Dragon]

51% wanted the druid in A of higher, while 49% wanted it in B or lower, and I don't think it's fair to put it in A when it's so close to the borderline.

Given that the mode and the median are both A, and those are the only measures of central tendency available for this data set, I don't see how making it a B makes sense.

[treecko]

Given that the mode and the median are both A, and those are the only measures of central tendency available for this data set, I don't see how making it a B makes sense.

I felt it was too close to call an A or a B, and I think A- reflects that more than an A tier. I mean, people could just ignore the +/- stuff, but I feel it shows there is a bigger gap between, say, lore bard and champion, than open hand monk and assassin.

[ruy343]

As an alternate exercise, I think that it would be interesting to see how often people select a given class for a particular "optimization build" on these forums, because that would give us clues to what people feel is overpowered, since they keep plugging it into various builds. In other words, it would tell us how frontloaded the classes are, and how likely a powergamer is to use such a class.

If we were to analyze on that premise alone, I think that assassin rogues, battlemaster fighters, and all paladins would come out higher than they're rated here, simply based on the fact that they can more easily be splashed.

[Firechanter]

Well, there's a big difference between the usefulness of a 1-3 level dip and the class over the full distance.
For instance, a 2-3 level Rogue dip is very popular for many Melee/Shield Master builds, because it makes Shoving really dominant.
But a full single-classed Rogue is a rare sight; personally I haven't seen one yet in any game of people I know personally.

And it's easy to see why. If you're in it for the skills, the Bard does it better. If you're in it for stealthy scouting, the Warlock does it better (or rather, his pet). If you're in it for the damage, pretty much all the Warriors/Martials do it better. There's simply nothing that the Rogue does best. Which is why I consider the Rogue a low-tier class; at least one step below the aforementioned ones.

If you compare games with different ruleset options, the Rogue would actually score highest in a No-Feat, No-Multiclass game. In a game with Multiclassing, you can get the best features by a 2-3 level dip, and the class rating as a whole goes down.

[Vogonjeltz]

S tier: Reserved for classes that are almost flawless. They can do many things very well, out of combat and in combat. They can outclass other characters while also excelling in other areas. These classes should have no or very few flaws

A tier: Reserved for classes that are fantastic. They can do a large number of things, or one thing very well. They should either be able to outshine other characters in their area of expertise. or almost all of the time be useful.

B tier: Reserved for classes that are good. These classes have one or more flaws that effect their performance, or are outperformed a lot of the time by another class. They still can function and do well, but not as consistanly

C tier: Reserved for classes that have a small niche. These classes have many flaws that prevent them from being useful a lot of the time. They face heavy competition from higher tier classes.

D tier: Trash. Why would you pick this?

Nothing is flawless, so you might as well discard that category, all the classes have places they are weaker.

You also failed to define "do a large number of things", leaving it incredibly nebulous. Is this intended to be a dog whistle for "cast spells"? Battlemasters can do a large number of things, and that's just looking at maneuvers, forget about the literally infinite number of things that could be done with the Attack action.

Classes that can be described with A: All of them. Everyone is "almost all of the time be useful".

This is basically a giant show my personal prejudices survey.


Also keep in mind this is from more of an optimization standpoint, of course every class is fun and deserves play.

The criteria you've listed are completely inadequate in that all classes are qualified as "A" by the definition given. The D rank is little more than asking what class the respondant dislikes the most.

Basically you've put together a popularity contest, and that provides no data value at all.


This is the kind of granularity that would make sense. Also, yielding a result that can actually be used for something.

We could always start with level 1. For combat you'd need to take into account Offense and Defense, abilities that are useful all day, abilities that are useful situationally, and abilities that have limited use per rest or per day.

Wot they got:
Barbarian - d12 hp, medium armor, shields, simple/martial weapons, 2/rest rage
Bard - d8, light armor, simple weapons, some martial, 2/day spell, d6 inspiration cha/day
Cleric - d8, medium armor (heavy with some domain), shields, simple weapons (martial with some domain), 2/day spell
Druid - d8, medium armor, shields, some weapons, 2/day spell
Fighter - d10, all armor, shields, simple/martial weapons, fighting style, second wind
Monk - d8, simple weapons, shortsword, nothing else
Paladin - d10, all armor, shields, simple/martial weapons, lay on hands
Ranger - d10, medium armor, shields, simple/martial weapons
Rogue - d8, light armor, simple weapons + some martial, sneak attack, expertise
Sorcerer - d6, some simple, 2/day spells, sorcerous origin
Warlock - d8, light armor, simple weapons, 1/rest spell, patron
Wizard - d6, some simple, 2/day spells, arcane recovery

Cantrips are straight up inferior to weapons, spells aren't much better at this level (magic missile does 10.5 average damage, less than a great weapon fighting style Fighter with a Greatsword).

In terms of defense, the advantage goes to the martial classes all the way (more hit points, better AC).

[numerek]

Nothing is flawless, so you might as well discard that category, all the classes have places they are weaker.

You also failed to define "do a large number of things", leaving it incredibly nebulous. Is this intended to be a dog whistle for "cast spells"? Battlemasters can do a large number of things, and that's just looking at maneuvers, forget about the literally infinite number of things that could be done with the Attack action.

Classes that can be described with A: All of them. Everyone is "almost all of the time be useful".

This is basically a giant show my personal prejudices survey.



The criteria you've listed are completely inadequate in that all classes are qualified as "A" by the definition given. The D rank is little more than asking what class the respondant dislikes the most.

Basically you've put together a popularity contest, and that provides no data value at all.



We could always start with level 1. For combat you'd need to take into account Offense and Defense, abilities that are useful all day, abilities that are useful situationally, and abilities that have limited use per rest or per day.

Wot they got:
Barbarian - d12 hp, medium armor, shields, simple/martial weapons, 2/rest rage
Bard - d8, light armor, simple weapons, some martial, 2/day spell, d6 inspiration cha/day
Cleric - d8, medium armor (heavy with some domain), shields, simple weapons (martial with some domain), 2/day spell
Druid - d8, medium armor, shields, some weapons, 2/day spell
Fighter - d10, all armor, shields, simple/martial weapons, fighting style, second wind
Monk - d8, simple weapons, shortsword, nothing else
Paladin - d10, all armor, shields, simple/martial weapons, lay on hands
Ranger - d10, medium armor, shields, simple/martial weapons
Rogue - d8, light armor, simple weapons + some martial, sneak attack, expertise
Sorcerer - d6, some simple, 2/day spells, sorcerous origin
Warlock - d8, light armor, simple weapons, 1/rest spell, patron
Wizard - d6, some simple, 2/day spells, arcane recovery

Cantrips are straight up inferior to weapons, spells aren't much better at this level (magic missile does 10.5 average damage, less than a great weapon fighting style Fighter with a Greatsword).

In terms of defense, the advantage goes to the martial classes all the way (more hit points, better AC).
Magic missile is:
6 guaranteed, 10.5 average no missing(unless your first level group is up against animated armor or whatever the thing that is immune to force is called, or spell casters but at least you make them use up there spells slots on shield.)

The fighter with a greatsword would be (8+3)*their chance to hit with a +5 I'll give them a 60% so 6.6 damage average 0 guaranteed. if you want to throw in great weapon master then its (8+13)*35%=7.35, even against ac 10 you are talking (8+3)*80%=8.8 and (8+13)*55%=11 but at first level a lot of that 21 damage is going to be overkill.

Also sleep can take out 1 kobold guarantee, average 4 or 5. best any weapon user can do is 2 if they are dual wielding or have a feat, and a dual wielder would need to be a fighter(that took the dual wielding fighting style which many see as the worst for long term damage), monk(not technically dual wielding but pretty much the same thing) or raging barbarian to do more than a d6 which has a low chance of dropping a kobold after they roll their d20 high enough to hit it.

Some of the new cantrips can be used with a weapon attack. so they are not strickly worse than a weapon attack and the area effect cantrips can be better than a weapon attack if you have 3+ things around you.

[Vogonjeltz]

Magic missile is:
6 guaranteed, 10.5 average no missing(unless your first level group is up against animated armor or whatever the thing that is immune to force is called, or spell casters but at least you make them use up there spells slots on shield.)

The fighter with a greatsword would be (8+3)*their chance to hit with a +5 I'll give them a 60% so 6.6 damage average 0 guaranteed. if you want to throw in great weapon master then its (8+13)*35%=7.35, even against ac 10 you are talking (8+3)*80%=8.8 and (8+13)*55%=11 but at first level a lot of that 21 damage is going to be overkill.

Also sleep can take out 1 kobold guarantee, average 4 or 5. best any weapon user can do is 2 if they are dual wielding or have a feat, and a dual wielder would need to be a fighter(that took the dual wielding fighting style which many see as the worst for long term damage), monk(not technically dual wielding but pretty much the same thing) or raging barbarian to do more than a d6 which has a low chance of dropping a kobold after they roll their d20 high enough to hit it.

Some of the new cantrips can be used with a weapon attack. so they are not strickly worse than a weapon attack and the area effect cantrips can be better than a weapon attack if you have 3+ things around you.

Yes, 10.5 in one round, which can be done a maximum of 3 times for an average of 31.5, after which the wizard is force to rely on cantrips for damage. Firebolt averages 5.5 per hit, but at the same hit probability you mentioned the wizard is outputting less than half what the fighter is. Fighter eclipses within 6-7 rounds.

Sleep is unfriendly fire, but I'll back check it.

The new cantrip can put out extra damage in a situation spellcasting classes should be avoiding like the plague, surrounded by enemies. Dead characters deal no damage.

[numerek]

Yes, 10.5 in one round, which can be done a maximum of 3 times for an average of 31.5, after which the wizard is force to rely on cantrips for damage. Firebolt averages 5.5 per hit, but at the same hit probability you mentioned the wizard is outputting less than half what the fighter is. Fighter eclipses within 6-7 rounds.

Sleep is unfriendly fire, but I'll back check it.

The new cantrip can put out extra damage in a situation spellcasting classes should be avoiding like the plague, surrounded by enemies. Dead characters deal no damage.

yes sleep takes out the things with the lowest hitpoints first who ever that is but it does have a radius so it is somewhat controllable and if its first round against the kobolds it can't take out a player before a kobold unless one of your wizards or non-draconic sorcerers have a negative constitution modifier.

[Ogre Mage]

There are now 86 votes. It looks like the breakdown is roughly:

A: Totem Barbarian, Lore Bard, Life Cleric, Light Cleric, Tempest Cleric, Moon Druid, Battlemaster Fighter, Ancients Paladin, Vengeance Paladin, Fiend Warlock, Wizard (all subclasses).

B: Valor Bard, Knowledge Cleric, Nature Cleric, Trickery Cleric, War Cleric, Land Druid, Champion Fighter, Eldritch Knight, Open Hand Monk, Shadow Monk, Devotion Paladin, Hunter Ranger, Rogue (all subclasses), Draconic Sorcerer, Fey Warlock, Great Old One Warlock.

C: Frenzy Barbarian, 4 Elements Monk, Beastmaster Ranger, Wild Magic Sorcerer.


While the full caster classes have generally been ranked higher, this is not universally the case.

[kobo1d]

This had a bunch of responses a few days ago, did anything change?

[treecko]

This had a bunch of responses a few days ago, did anything change?

Looks about the same to me at a glance. Looks like the forum has come to a general consensus. Full casters are strong, or at least people think the are. The top three (moon druid, lore bard, and divination wizard) all have full casting and something else that is also excellent. The best non-full caster is a vengeance paladin or a ancients paladin. And the best non caster is a totem barb (ok, technically they get some rituals) and a battlemaster fighter. Makes sense, both of them are very good at straight fighting and tanking as well as some utility.

[Sigreid]

Personally I think the rating system fetish is harmful to the game. The reason is that I mostly have seen 2 outcomes. one is an argument starts because someone who loves a particular class feels like the class is being under valued by the community. The second is that someone who has been having a blast with their character starts to feel like they made a bad choice because the internet said so.

Just my 2 copper.

[Fwiffo86]

Personally I think the rating system fetish is harmful to the game. The reason is that I mostly have seen 2 outcomes. one is an argument starts because someone who loves a particular class feels like the class is being under valued by the community. The second is that someone who has been having a blast with their character starts to feel like they made a bad choice because the internet said so.

Just my 2 copper.

I concur with this entirely.

[EvilAnagram]

Personally I think the rating system fetish is harmful to the game. The reason is that I mostly have seen 2 outcomes. one is an argument starts because someone who loves a particular class feels like the class is being under valued by the community. The second is that someone who has been having a blast with their character starts to feel like they made a bad choice because the internet said so.

Just my 2 copper.

I can't agree more. The tier crowd are pushing a reductive paradigm that does not actually describe any meaningful interaction between classes in 5e. The only reason it keeps appearing is that 3.5 refugees can't seem to let it go. It made sense in 3.5 because 3.5 is a fundamentally imbalanced system, so the tiers had specific, meaningful definition and served a purpose in party organization. In 5e, no class completely outshines the others, and the differences in power levels between classes is so minor as to render any tier system effectively meaningless.

I played a Beastmaster in the same party as a Wizard, Moon Druid, Monk, and Vengeance Paladin, and I was keeping up with or even exceeding their contributions at any given time because I was clever and understood everyone's strengths and weaknesses. I freely admit that there are some serious problems with the Beastmaster class, but it's ridiculous to pretend that the difference between a Lore Bard and a Beastmaster is even close to the difference between a 3.5 Cleric and Fighter.

The tier system is useless in 5e, and the community needs to let it die.

[Shining Wrath]

I'm going to propose that really there are two tiers:
Good
Not-quite good.

Even the ones at the bottom of the list are not really terrible, they just have a poorly thought out feature (Beastmaster companion requiring an action every round to control).

In fact, I think I can fix the low ranked classes in fewer than 25 words each.

Frenzy Barbarian: Frenzy-raging inflicts a level of exhaustion unless they make a Constitution save with a DC equal to 8 plus the number of rounds of rage. Given a barbarian's CON score, this will reduce the number of levels of exhaustion by at least 50%.

Beastmaster Ranger: Once the animal companion has been given a command, it continues to act on that command until a fresh command is given. Which is what conjured creatures do, and a Ranger ought to have at least that much control over their pets.

Wild Magic Sorcerer: Actually not broken if the DM makes the wild magic roll and ... er ... "adjusts" results if needed to avoid TPK and similar major campaign events being driven by pure random chance. But as a PHB rule assuming the player rolls, The DM may substitute a different result if they feel the effect rolled is bad for their campaign.

4 Elements Monk: Reduce the Ki cost by 1 per effect and grant twice as many choices of effects known.

[EvilAnagram]

Snip

I agree. This is certainly more accurate than OP's list, but what does it add to the conversation? How does this improve anyone's understanding of class interaction? Just saying, "this class has a wonky feature" works fine.

[Ogre Mage]

I actually do find the tier lists useful because frankly the lowest tier classes are ones which I would rather avoid playing. Several of the four "Tier C" classes looked unappealing to me just based on a read-through of the 5E PHB. Practical experience of many posters seems to have confirmed these suspicions. My optimization instincts are not so strong that I insist on playing the top -- but the bottom I would rather avoid.

[Mara]

I actually do find the tier lists useful because frankly the lowest tier classes are ones which I would rather avoid playing. Several of the four "Tier C" classes looked unappealing to me just based on a read-through of the 5E PHB. Practical experience of many posters seems to have confirmed these suspicions. My optimization instincts are not so strong that I insist on playing the top -- but the bottom I would rather avoid.

Floors between classes differ more than the ceilings. Even "Tier C" classes are just find with a solid grasp of the mechanics. Frenzy Berserker is a straightforward example. Go a little too frenzy happy and you could go through months of real time sessions with 1-3 levels of exhaustion and just determine that the class is garbage. Play frenzy as once per day and the beserker has charm/fear immunity in rage, a good CC ability outside of rage, and retaliation is free attacks outside of rage. But if frenzy was just once per day, you would see people decrying the class as a resurgence of 4e daily powers for mundanes, aka once per day limitation would be too gamey.

[EvilAnagram]

I actually do find the tier lists useful because frankly the lowest tier classes are ones which I would rather avoid playing. Several of the four "Tier C" classes looked unappealing to me just based on a read-through of the 5E PHB. Practical experience of many posters seems to have confirmed these suspicions. My optimization instincts are not so strong that I insist on playing the top -- but the bottom I would rather avoid.

This is why it's a reductive paradigm. The so-called bottom tier includes the most offensive Barbarian build, a Ranger build that outdamages a good bit of the A tier, and a Monk whose only problem is that he essentially has twice/day casting. The bottom tier can stand toe-to-toe with the top tier because the differences in power level are miniscule.

[Shining Wrath]

This is why it's a reductive paradigm. The so-called bottom tier includes the most offensive Barbarian build, a Ranger build that outdamages a good bit of the A tier, and a Monk whose only problem is that he essentially has twice/day casting. The bottom tier can stand toe-to-toe with the top tier because the differences in power level are miniscule.

And with relatively simple fixes, become even smaller.

Power is not the only thing, though - versatility matters. But I do note that the lowest tier is there for the most part because of a perceived lack of combat power, exception being the WM Sorcerer where an excess of power applied to the wrong targets is the problem.

[Mavrik]

People against tier systems are the same people who live in a vacuum and believe RP and optimization are non-compatible. Tier systems exist for many reasons, with the most important ones being to provide the math-type players quick answers prior to rolling characters and preventing trap options.

A properly built tier system classifies options as:
- Overtuned/broken
- Optimal
- Viable
- Non-viable

Overtuned/broken knowledge provides DMs/players and developers knowledge to avoid balance problems. Non-viable knowledge prevents ruined parties/TPKs and new players from being unhappy after a few sessions once they see their friends having a good time while they sluggishly are useless.

Any properly built tier system uses a point value system to surmise damage, support, crowd control, fun, and utility equally to assign total value to a class/subclass in a single number. Just as in MMORPGs, where various classes combine mitigation/flat-health/avoidance to equate Effective Health Pools, D&D 5e classes can easily equate damage to damage avoided when comparing DPR to CC like Hypnotic Pattern, which might have over 200 EHP saved across the party by disabling the enemy.

[Vogonjeltz]

People against tier systems are the same people who live in a vacuum and believe RP and optimization are non-compatible. Tier systems exist for many reasons, with the most important ones being to provide the math-type players quick answers prior to rolling characters and preventing trap options.

A properly built tier system classifies options as:
- Overtuned/broken
- Optimal
- Viable
- Non-viable

Overtuned/broken knowledge provides DMs/players and developers knowledge to avoid balance problems. Non-viable knowledge prevents ruined parties/TPKs and new players from being unhappy after a few sessions once they see their friends having a good time while they sluggishly are useless.

Any properly built tier system uses a point value system to surmise damage, support, crowd control, fun, and utility equally to assign total value to a class/subclass in a single number. Just as in MMORPGs, where various classes combine mitigation/flat-health/avoidance to equate Effective Health Pools, D&D 5e classes can easily equate damage to damage avoided when comparing DPR to CC like Hypnotic Pattern, which might have over 200 EHP saved across the party by disabling the enemy.

Tier systems are nothing more than popularity contests, they feature no measurements except that of public opinion, so yeah they're worthless.

Case in point, Berserkers and beastmasters are quite near the top of the damage scales, players just have a visceral dislike of exhaustion and using something other than their primary character as a damage dealing vehicle.

[Fwiffo86]

People against tier systems are the same people who live in a vacuum and believe RP and optimization are non-compatible. Tier systems exist for many reasons, with the most important ones being to provide the math-type players quick answers prior to rolling characters and preventing trap options.


The tier system serves as nothing more than (and i'm bolding and underlying for emphasis) PERCEIVED imperfections and a way to list them in an order from best to worst or vice versa.

Ideally, a tier system would compare the following, chart it out, and then "suggest" a ranking. Emphasis on language that indicates a suggestion and not a determination.

All rankings are done on a per level basis (thus a new chart per level) and devoid of feats. Feats are optional and not part of the basic game, and therefore not automatically included in every table. I would also recommend non-multiclassing for base calculation.

Damage per round - Area damage per round - Free resource abilities (total of them) - Resource costing abilities (I would suggest Spells on a Spell level count 9 levels for instance counts as 9) - Average hit points - average armor class - Resource regeneration (maybe give a numerical value to short / long) - Proficiency skills/tools/equipment count - and finally Save proficiency frequency of use.

Assign numerical values that everyone can agree on to abilities (modified for level gained), Ignore class abilities that are common to all classes (ex ASIs) or assign the same value to them, again with numbers that are agreed upon by consensus.

Then... and only then... would I consider this a viable option other than someone's detailed opinion.

[Gwendol]

People against tier systems are the same people who live in a vacuum and believe RP and optimization are non-compatible. Tier systems exist for many reasons, with the most important ones being to provide the math-type players quick answers prior to rolling characters and preventing trap options.



First off: not cool to indirectly insult and dismiss anyone not sharing your views. I'm pretty sure there is no-one sharing the views you claim are associated with opposing a tier system of classes (that post on this board).

Second, a tier system for classes, such as JaronK's for 3.5, can't really be used the way you describe since it has next to no predictive power: it doesn't take optimization into account, tend to overvalue some aspects over others, and doesn't handle milticlassing.
For 5e, where the classes are all good, it's even more pointless.

[Paeleus]

I'm not sure that I agree at all with the tier selection. Or even the tier system for that matter. I've seen a Shadowmonk save the day with speed and stunning strike, a wild magic surge save the squishes by annihilating a group of henchmen, and an evocation wizard be completely useless due to no applicable spells prepared (the player prepared for a different style encounter).

Obligatory 'I think it's all in how you play the character given the unlimited variables and limited resources.'

[SharkForce]

I'm not sure that I agree at all with the tier selection. Or even the tier system for that matter. I've seen a Shadowmonk save the day with speed and stunning strike, a wild magic surge save the squishes by annihilating a group of henchmen, and an evocation wizard be completely useless due to no applicable spells prepared (the player prepared for a different style encounter).

Obligatory 'I think it's all in how you play the character given the unlimited variables and limited resources.'

I would agree that good use of a class's abilities is more important in 5e than what specific class you are... but I would disagree that class has no impact.

now, I would also agree that in 5e the difference is not so big as to make it a crippling disadvantage. in general, the worst of the classes are not so far behind the best of the classes as to be unable to contribute. but there's something to be said about the fact that a berserker barbarian has most of the strongest features given away by generic melee feats (polearm master gives a reliable reaction attack and a reliable bonus action attack, for example, and GWM adds a bonus action attack at full strength as a possibility). yeah, a berserker can still contribute. but the thing is, the barbarian doesn't really desperately need those ASIs. oh, sure, everyone likes more attributes, and a berserker will certainly have much more room to try and go with no armour at all because they don't need feats for DPR as much, but ultimately a totem barbarian with medium armour and 2 feats will have very close to a berserker's offensive power and defensive power, plus whatever the totems they chose give them (mobility, a reason for enemies to try and focus them instead of the squishy but offensively powerful wizard, etc).

so while I agree that a tier system might be somewhat misleading in that no two (currently existing) classes are so far apart as to belong in different games, I also don't think it's safe to say that there are no flaws, or that those flaws could not be improved upon to make the game overall better. and I think a tier list is useful for identifying those flaws. whether ranger needs help from a power perspective or not, if the class is unsatisfying I think that is a useful thing to know about.

[EvilAnagram]

People against tier systems are the same people who live in a vacuum and believe RP and optimization are non-compatible. Tier systems exist for many reasons, with the most important ones being to provide the math-type players quick answers prior to rolling characters and preventing trap options.

Absolutely incorrect. I always optimize and RP in equal measure, but no one has put forward a single tier system that actually clarifies or contributes to the conversation.

[Fwiffo86]

a totem barbarian with medium armour and 2 feats will have very close to a berserker's offensive power and defensive power, plus whatever the totems they chose give them (mobility, a reason for enemies to try and focus them instead of the squishy but offensively powerful wizard, etc).


The problem here is that in order to be accurate, the tier system should not, and more importantly cannot make use of the feats. The feats are an optional modification to the game. If you want to add the feats in, you need to do calculations for each class with each possible feat layout. Which in the end, becomes a Tier system for the feats instead of the classes.

What would you say about the totem vs. berserker if feats were unavailable? I think your answer would be vastly different than what you have presented here if you think about it for a minute.

[DireSickFish]

I think the idea of coming up with a tier list as a community is flawed from the get go. The creator of the famous 3.5 tier list had a great understanding of balance. When he first posted the list I'm sure there were people saying monk should be tier 1 because they get something every level.

Those people were just flat out wrong and there opinion changed nothing on how classes were actually balanced. As a community this person would have been able to influence the tier list even if that was just to waste peoples time proving him wrong.

A tier list might have value if constructed in such a way to help players or dms in setting up games. I think class guides are more useful at this point because being 'an evocation wizard' doesn't tell the whole story. Sure class didn't tell the whole story in 3.5 either but there were much more problems at class selection then there are currently.

[Shining Wrath]

I think the idea of coming up with a tier list as a community is flawed from the get go. The creator of the famous 3.5 tier list had a great understanding of balance. When he first posted the list I'm sure there were people saying monk should be tier 1 because they get something every level.

Those people were just flat out wrong and there opinion changed nothing on how classes were actually balanced. As a community this person would have been able to influence the tier list even if that was just to waste peoples time proving him wrong.

A tier list might have value if constructed in such a way to help players or dms in setting up games. I think class guides are more useful at this point because being 'an evocation wizard' doesn't tell the whole story. Sure class didn't tell the whole story in 3.5 either but there were much more problems at class selection then there are currently.

In 3.5, we used the tiers to help us create characters - if you used Tier 3 you could gestalt with Tier 4 or Tier 5 freely, but if you took a Tier 1 or Tier 2 you couldn't gestalt. We got some fun characters out of that, precisely because a 3.5 Wizard is in fact All That compared to a 3.5 Warblade, given roughly equal optimization.

Which brings me back to my post about 10 or 20 up the page - 5e is much more balanced, there's really only two tiers and even the worst can share a table with the best without too much disparity, and the 4 archetypes viewed as "bad" can be homebrewed into rough parity with one or two sentence fixes.

[Ogre Mage]

Tier systems are nothing more than popularity contests, they feature no measurements except that of public opinion, so yeah they're worthless.

Case in point, Berserkers and beastmasters are quite near the top of the damage scales, players just have a visceral dislike of exhaustion and using something other than their primary character as a damage dealing vehicle.

This thread currently has 2,807 views which suggests to me that people are finding it useful. If a majority of players find a subclass to not be working well for them in their games, that is useful information. And based on anecdotal evidence I've seen at EN World and the now-closed WOTC forums, the GitP forums are not the only ones to find that the four subclasses in "Tier C" wanting.

And I get that the power gap in 5e is not nearly so large as in 3.x. Indeed, the fact consensus has emerged there are only 2-3 tiers in 5e vs. the 5-6 in 3.x is evidence of that. But there are only so many hours in the day. Given that the vast majority of subclasses are NOT suboptimal, some of us don't want to bother with the few that are or spend time trying to create "fixes."

[Ogre Mage]

I'm not sure that I agree at all with the tier selection. Or even the tier system for that matter. I've seen a Shadowmonk save the day with speed and stunning strike, a wild magic surge save the squishes by annihilating a group of henchmen, and an evocation wizard be completely useless due to no applicable spells prepared (the player prepared for a different style encounter).

Obligatory 'I think it's all in how you play the character given the unlimited variables and limited resources.'

The shadowmonk is actually considered a solid subclass on this tier list and I think elsewhere. It's the 4 elements monk which is bad.

[treecko]

I would agree with the about 3 tiers. The first two are really one big tier with a large spread but all classes are playable. The best are full casters with some added utility (lore bard, moon druid), and go down from there but are all around the same power level. And then there's the 4. Elements monk, beastmaster ranger, wild sorc, frenzy barb. They all have problems that make them suboptimal or feel bad to play.

4 elements monk has had some reworks done, and the main problems identified are: Too much ki spending, lack of variety, too few disciples, and disciples cost too much ki (taken from this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1pdYIcfHauwNDM2My1XeWFYSDA/view )

Beastmaster at lv 3 is actually really good. The beast does a ton of damage and often has some utility. The problem comes at higher levels, when the damage fails to scale, and the clunkyness of the beast not doing anything if you are unable to command it.

Wild sorc is just too random for people. It has some good sides, and most of the wild magic is good/ not harmful, but there are some truly awful rolls. In addition, some of the stuff is a bit silly and might not be right for more serous campaigns.

Frenzy barb basically gets a once per day god mode. While this is pretty good, it's overshadowed by the always on benefits of the totem barb. In addition, if a frenzy barb loses their rage while frenzy, it really hurts. Basically its a decent class but feels bad to play sometimes.

And yes a community made tier list is a popularity contest.

[Mara]

The shadowmonk is actually considered a solid subclass on this tier list and I think elsewhere. It's the 4 elements monk which is bad.
It's not bad. Some of the abilities are pretty crazy and well worth the extra ki cost.

[CNagy]

The problem here is that in order to be accurate, the tier system should not, and more importantly cannot make use of the feats. The feats are an optional modification to the game. If you want to add the feats in, you need to do calculations for each class with each possible feat layout. Which in the end, becomes a Tier system for the feats instead of the classes.

What would you say about the totem vs. berserker if feats were unavailable? I think your answer would be vastly different than what you have presented here if you think about it for a minute.

Isn't the problem here that the tier system, in your words, cannot make use of feats when most tables do, in fact, use feats? The removal of feats is one degree of separation between the tier system and actual gameplay. The inability to factor in multiclass is a second degree of separation between the tier system and actual gameplay. Even race tweaks class effectiveness up or down (though not to the degree of feats and multiclassing).

So it sounds like the problem here, to me anyway, is that this great big thought experiment has only a passing relationship with the reality of the game as it is played at the table. It'll get the broad strokes right, sure, but what use is it beyond that?

[treecko]

It'll get the broad strokes right, sure, but what use is it beyond that?

That's perfect. No matter what the tier list, actual mileage at table with vary based on game style, player, DM, or all of the above. There's no perfect tier list, so we want to get as close as we can get for a variety of situations, and I think this tier list does this well enough.

[DungeonDelver]

I don't think a tier list is obsolete or pointless. I think there's still some power discrepancies, options that are better than others. I mean look at the ranger;

A beastmaster ranger's animal buddy struggles to hit at higher level, struggles to damage at higher level, and just isn't strong enough to justify using one of your own attacks to make it act. Depending on your ranger build, you've got more accuracy and damage on your own without it's help. While a hunter ranger is capable of more attacks on more enemies that deal more damage.

Some aspects of a tier list are debatable and table dependent. 5th looks more balanced than 3rd, but there are clearly still inferior choices. The tier list should serve as a note; 'These options are mechanically less flexible or powerful than others, keep that in mind while building your character.'. That could mean anything from 'avoid at all cost' to 'needs special compensation or house rules'. Depending on how bad you want a wolf to travel with your ranger.

[Mavrik]

I'm not sure what's confusing for people reading this thread. The merit of a tier list cannot be under debate because they are a scientific fact. Creating tier lists is nothing more than turning qualitative data into quantitative data and then listing it in ascending order. It's the very basis of the scientific method, and what freshman learn in both high-school and college. Tier lists exist in all non-simple games, and frankly most things in life in general. There is always a best choice and a worst choice, because the universe is an imperfect place, and everything comes with (at the very least) an opportunity cost, let alone direct balance conflicts. Hell, I could make a tier list of best to worst Chess openings, best to worst clothing materials to buy, or best to worst movies to watch. You simply define parameters for your study, objectively record your data, and derive conclusions. It's extremely simple.

Why has no one done this before Mavrik, if it's so simple? Because to do it for a game like D&D 5e would take dozens, if not hundreds of man hours, and require a great deal of personal effort. The vast majority of people skilled in scientific experimentation or statistician work have no interest in D&D, and if they did, certainly not burning months of their free-time to prove a mostly pointless internet argument to people who clearly don't understand the basics of the scientific method, let alone falsification. I can just imagine someone burning 300+ hours to make a comprehensive 5e tier list, to which the community responses are a laundry list of logical fallacies and cognitive biases.

[Mara]

A beastmaster ranger's animal buddy struggles to hit at higher level, struggles to damage at higher level, and just isn't strong enough to justify using one of your own attacks to make it act. Depending on your ranger build, you've got more accuracy and damage on your own without it's help. While a hunter ranger is capable of more attacks on more enemies that deal more damage.
Wut?

You know you add your ranger prof to the pets AC, to-hit, and all damage rolls right? A wolf ends up with 19 AC, +10 to-hit with advantage, and 13 damage per hit. A flying snake ends up with 20 AC, +12 to-hit, and 20 damage per attack.

[Waazraath]

I'm not sure what's confusing for people reading this thread. The merit of a tier list cannot be under debate because they are a scientific fact. Creating tier lists is nothing more than turning qualitative data into quantitative data and then listing it in ascending order. It's the very basis of the scientific method, and what freshman learn in both high-school and college. Tier lists exist in all non-simple games, and frankly most things in life in general. There is always a best choice and a worst choice, because the universe is an imperfect place, and everything comes with (at the very least) an opportunity cost, let alone direct balance conflicts. Hell, I could make a tier list of best to worst Chess openings, best to worst clothing materials to buy, or best to worst movies to watch. You simply define parameters for your study, objectively record your data, and derive conclusions. It's extremely simple.

Why has no one done this before Mavrik, if it's so simple? Because to do it for a game like D&D 5e would take dozens, if not hundreds of man hours, and require a great deal of personal effort. The vast majority of people skilled in scientific experimentation or statistician work have no interest in D&D, and if they did, certainly not burning months of their free-time to prove a mostly pointless internet argument to people who clearly don't understand the basics of the scientific method, let alone falsification. I can just imagine someone burning 300+ hours to make a comprehensive 5e tier list, to which the community responses are a laundry list of logical fallacies and cognitive biases.

Beware of those who say that something 'cannot be under debate' 'because science'. At the very heart of science lies the debate.

A tier list about classes is without merit if the differences between those classes are very small, and the difference between good and bad options is to be found in other aspect then 'class'. Good or bad options are about choice of feats, ability score distribution, choice of skills, choice of spells, choice off background, and synergy between those. And the kind of game a DM runs, the type of challanges is chosen, which differs from table to table and is impossible to quantify.

This makes this kind of tier lists constructions are wannabe-science and misleading. Don't want to drag too much 'real life' in this, but turning qualititive data into quantative data, people pretending that this somehow mirrors 'reality' and acting on it (making policies based upon it) is cause for a lot off problems.

[Gwendol]

Why has no one done this before Mavrik, if it's so simple? Because to do it for a game like D&D 5e would take dozens, if not hundreds of man hours, and require a great deal of personal effort. The vast majority of people skilled in scientific experimentation or statistician work have no interest in D&D, and if they did, certainly not burning months of their free-time to prove a mostly pointless internet argument to people who clearly don't understand the basics of the scientific method, let alone falsification. I can just imagine someone burning 300+ hours to make a comprehensive 5e tier list, to which the community responses are a laundry list of logical fallacies and cognitive biases.

Seriously? I would think people with a firm grasp of the scientific method are typical D&D gamers. You seem to be trolling for a fight more than anything else.

[Zeuel]

I rated Life Cleric an A because technically I don't think anyone can outheal it, but I loathe combat healing in this game. I think it is one of the least efficient things you can do with a spell slot(at least in single digit levels where my play experience exists). I might as well rate Monks an A because they can move really fast really well. Necromancers are the unsung hero of the Wizard class imo. It's a logistical nightmare to play the subclass, but even a handful of skeleton archers is sick nasty damage and you're still a full on Wizard on top of it. Every time I suggest it as an option for people who want a really high DPR class, some old grog tells me that if I was playing in his game that the town guard would just kill me.

[Mara]

...some old grog tells me that if I was playing in his game that the town guard would just kill me.
Some grog has not seen what skeletal archers do to town guard.

[Zeuel]

Some grog has not seen what skeletal archers do to town guard.

lol definitely. :P

[Fwiffo86]

Isn't the problem here that the tier system, in your words, cannot make use of feats when most tables do, in fact, use feats? The removal of feats is one degree of separation between the tier system and actual gameplay. The inability to factor in multiclass is a second degree of separation between the tier system and actual gameplay. Even race tweaks class effectiveness up or down (though not to the degree of feats and multiclassing).

So it sounds like the problem here, to me anyway, is that this great big thought experiment has only a passing relationship with the reality of the game as it is played at the table. It'll get the broad strokes right, sure, but what use is it beyond that?

I don't disagree with your statement. I was simply offering a way that I would actually find a tier list somewhat acceptable.

A community working together to rank instead of a single individual - to avoid possible personal opinion

Ranking only the things that are guaranteed to be at each table - to avoid "each table is different" effect

That's all I was saying.

[Mara]

I don't disagree with your statement. I was simply offering a way that I would actually find a tier list somewhat acceptable.

A community working together to rank instead of a single individual - to avoid possible personal opinion

Ranking only the things that are guaranteed to be at each table - to avoid "each table is different" effect

That's all I was saying.Democratic arguments is a lot like saying "is too! times infinity!". The bulk of statement only makes it feel right.

[foobar1969]

3.5 refugees can't seem to let it go. It made sense in 3.5 because 3.5 is a fundamentally imbalanced system, so the tiers had specific, meaningful definition and served a purpose in party organization. In 5e, no class completely outshines the others, and the differences in power levels between classes is so minor as to render any tier system effectively meaningless.
Perhaps it would help if we wrote the tier list in terms that are more relatable to 3.x players:

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."

Examples: none

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 potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities."

Examples: none

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."

Examples: Barbarian (Berserker)–, Barbarian (Totem), Bard (Lore)+, Bard (Valor), Cleric (Life, Light, Tempest)+, Cleric (other types), Druid (all types)+, Fighter (all types), Monk (Elements)–, Monk (Open Hand, Shadow), Paladin (Ancients, Vengeance)+, Paladin (Devotion), Ranger (Beastmaster)–, Ranger (Hunter), Rogue (all types), Sorcerer (Dragon), Sorcerer (Wild)–, Warlock (all types), Wizard (all types)+

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 competence without truly shining."

Examples: none

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."

Examples: none

+ means towards the top of the tier.
– means towards the bottom of the tier.

[Waazraath]

Perhaps it would help if we wrote the tier list in terms that are more relatable to 3.x players:

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."

Examples: none

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 potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities."

Examples: none

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."

Examples: Barbarian (Berserker)–, Barbarian (Totem), Bard (Lore)+, Bard (Valor), Cleric (Life, Light, Tempest)+, Cleric (other types), Druid (all types)+, Fighter (all types), Monk (Elements)–, Monk (Open Hand, Shadow), Paladin (Ancients, Vengeance)+, Paladin (Devotion), Ranger (Beastmaster)–, Ranger (Hunter), Rogue (all types), Sorcerer (Dragon), Sorcerer (Wild)–, Warlock (all types), Wizard (all types)+

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 competence without truly shining."

Examples: none

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."

Examples: none

+ means towards the top of the tier.
– means towards the bottom of the tier.

+1. And even in 3.5, the usefulnes of the tier list was imo less then some people made of it. It assumed much more optimization then was present in most games, had some obvious biases by the creator, and quite some inconsistencies. It was useful as a rough guideline at best, or as a reminder: think about powerlevels of different partymembers when you start a game.

[Gwendol]

+1. And even in 3.5, the usefulnes of the tier list was imo less then some people made of it. It assumed much more optimization then was present in most games, had some obvious biases by the creator, and quite some inconsistencies. It was useful as a rough guideline at best, or as a reminder: think about powerlevels of different partymembers when you start a game.

That was the only way to make use of it.

[Zman]

Perhaps it would help if we wrote the tier list in terms that are more relatable to 3.x players:

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."

Examples: none

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 potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities."

Examples: none

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."

Examples: Barbarian (Berserker)–, Barbarian (Totem), Bard (Lore)+, Bard (Valor), Cleric (Life, Light, Tempest)+, Cleric (other types), Druid (all types)+, Fighter (all types), Monk (Elements)–, Monk (Open Hand, Shadow), Paladin (Ancients, Vengeance)+, Paladin (Devotion), Ranger (Beastmaster)–, Ranger (Hunter), Rogue (all types), Sorcerer (Dragon), Sorcerer (Wild)–, Warlock (all types), Wizard (all types)+

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 competence without truly shining."

Examples: none

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."

Examples: none

+ means towards the top of the tier.
– means towards the bottom of the tier.

Exactly, 5e is Tier 3!!! Sure, you can stratify within the same relative level of power, but the whole scope of the exercise is a fraction of what made distinctions in 3.5. If we framed 5e using the same guidelines we did 3.5, it is infinitely more balanced than 3.5.

[deathbymanga]

Champion is way worse than Beastmaster. At least Beast Master adds a power that CAN be useful if you know how to use it properly. Champion just feels pointless. it increases the odds of scoring a critical hit. whoopy-dee-doo.

[Fwiffo86]

Champion is way worse than Beastmaster. At least Beast Master adds a power that CAN be useful if you know how to use it properly. Champion just feels pointless. it increases the odds of scoring a critical hit. whoopy-dee-doo.

This is opinion only. It has been pointed out numerous times that the Champion is one of the highest (if not the highest) single target dpr in the game. What is more useful to a martial character type than downing the threat in the shortest possible time without a chance of it "breaking free"?

Please note that I have seen suggestions that the enhanced critical may apply to combat maneuver attempts, such as tripping.

[treecko]

I've played a champion, and I'd like to say from personal experience it is amazing. I went with GWM, and half orc with a greatsword. The crits hit like a truck (average 20 damage every about 10 hits?) and they come in often, allowing for even more attacks. I can imagine with more attacks, it gets ridiculous pretty fast. As for beastmaster, a good pet can do quite a bit too, even if it's a bit frail. Best use I've seen is a ranger with a giant snake with reach. He walks up to an enemy with his snake then the snake attacks from over his head while he tanks the damage. Both classes seem good, although I'll reserve judgement on beastmaster at higher levels.

[Mara]

Champion expanded crit range also procs the bonus action attack from GWM. Which is a decent DPR increase.

My current champion makes use of being able to add +2 to all physical checks they aren't prof in at level 7.

Crits are also awesome if your DM rolls on the lingering injury chart for enemies.

[Ogre Mage]

It is worth pointing out that we had a version of D&D which was clearly more "tierless" than this one. 4E. Of course, one of the major complaints about 4E was that class abilities were too standardized/cookie-cutter and that the classes all seemed the same.

In 5E we are back to having (sub)classes with abilities that are nonuniform and clearly different from one another. Not surprisingly, the broad-based tier discussion which marked 3.X has reemerged. But this time, the difference in class capability appears modest, as opposed to the massive power gaps of 3.X. It is to the 5E designers credit that they have managed this without resorting to the cookie-cutter abilities of 4E. But I don't think we have the absolute class equality of that edition either.

[SharkForce]

It is worth pointing out that we had a version of D&D which was clearly more "tierless" than this one. 4E. Of course, one of the major complaints about 4E was that class abilities were too standardized/cookie-cutter and that the classes all seemed the same.

In 5E we are back to having (sub)classes with abilities that are nonuniform and clearly different from one another. Not surprisingly, the broad-based tier discussion which marked 3.X has reemerged. But this time, the difference in class capability appears modest, as opposed to the massive power gaps of 3.X. It is to the 5E designers credit that they have managed this without resorting to the cookie-cutter abilities of 4E. But I don't think we have the absolute class equality of that edition either.

4e classes were not all equal. they were very similar in structure, but there were classes that were considered to be of different power levels in 4e as well.

[Ogre Mage]

4e classes were not all equal. they were very similar in structure, but there were classes that were considered to be of different power levels in 4e as well.

There is a reason why there was minimal tier discussion during the 4E days, as opposed to the perpetual debates/discussion that marked 3.X.

[Mara]

There is a reason why there was minimal tier discussion during the 4E days, as opposed to the perpetual debates/discussion that marked 3.X.

Wasn't that just because of a general lack of discussion?

[Ogre Mage]

Wasn't that just because of a general lack of discussion?

A lack of discussion about 4E in general? Which really is to say -- folks just weren't interested. LOL. Perhaps. I always thought 4E had its fans, although I was not really one of them. Of course, there also is a reason why WOTC ditched that edition after only 6 years.

[Gilphon]

Tier lists for 4e absolutely exist- A lot of the later stuff wasn't balanced particularly well- which mostly means underpowered. And on the other hand, most of the strongest stuff was in PHB1, because the early stuff wasn't playtested as throughly as it should've been.

Also, the 'cookie-cutter' thing is misleading at best- most 4e classes actually played very differently from each other. The only standardized things were the structure and formatting.

[Vogonjeltz]

This thread currently has 2,807 views which suggests to me that people are finding it useful. If a majority of players find a subclass to not be working well for them in their games, that is useful information. And based on anecdotal evidence I've seen at EN World and the now-closed WOTC forums, the GitP forums are not the only ones to find that the four subclasses in "Tier C" wanting.

And I get that the power gap in 5e is not nearly so large as in 3.x. Indeed, the fact consensus has emerged there are only 2-3 tiers in 5e vs. the 5-6 in 3.x is evidence of that. But there are only so many hours in the day. Given that the vast majority of subclasses are NOT suboptimal, some of us don't want to bother with the few that are or spend time trying to create "fixes."

Number of page views tells us nothing about the value found in the topic by the readers, it just tells us that the title is click-bait and presumably of interest (what kind of interest we know not).

Anecdotes are not data or evidence, they're navel gazing, and just as useless. And, at the risk of repeating myself, I said that Beastmaster, Path of the Berserker, and Way of the Four Elements are results superior to the alternative class options, not merely close.


The shadowmonk is actually considered a solid subclass on this tier list and I think elsewhere. It's the 4 elements monk which is bad.

According to this flawed list, yes. The Shadow Monk's spells are pretty sub-par: No class ability to see in magical darkness, darkvision is already granted by all but 3 races, that leaves two extremely situationally useful spells and a cantrip; Their 6th level Shadow Step doesn't work with martial arts (so they're giving up an attack to gain advantage on an attack), their 11th level ability is lackluster as they are effectively taking the hide action...without actually hiding so opponents still know their location to attack, and Opportunist is an ok reaction ability that encourages pig-piling.


This makes this kind of tier lists constructions are wannabe-science and misleading. Don't want to drag too much 'real life' in this, but turning qualititive data into quantative data, people pretending that this somehow mirrors 'reality' and acting on it (making policies based upon it) is cause for a lot off problems.

which is exactly the danger inherent in presenting opinion as established fact. Readers might actually think there was a meaning behind the way someone ordered class options, when there isn't. It's all just a reflection of personal (dis)taste.

[Zeuel]

Wasn't that just because of a general lack of discussion?

There was a very healthy CharOp community in 4e. There were tier lists, but classes were still relatively close to each other overall with the tier lists often having Fighter, Wizard, Warlord, and Ranger at the top with Vampire at the bottom. Poor Vampire. I love the idea of it and the basic concepts, but I only ever take it as a multiclass option. :/

[Nu]

Looks like full spell casters are the big winners here, with a majority of the classes falling i the A-/B+ range with plenty of A and B nominations. Looks like the playground values combat skills pretty heavily, as shown in the warlock ratings. Not really surprising from an optimization forum.

I don't think it's just that, there's still a lot of non-combat versatility and ability to be found in the spell list. And full casters can make better use of these things than not-full-casters. At the absolute barest minimum, Enhance Ability can make skill monkeys a lot more competent at their tasks, to say nothing of spells which can occasionally flat-out replace ability checks or class features. Not to say I think there's a huge imbalance there (there might be, I don't have enough experience to say for sure), but that probably is a factor towards favoring full casters.


Wasn't that just because of a general lack of discussion?

There was quite a bit of CharOp for 4E, you just had to know where to look. The WotC official forums had a lot of it. And there absolutely were tiers, but they weren't really measures of "this character bends reality to his or her will" vs. "this character hits things quite a bit harder". It was mostly a numbers gap, and there were some significant numbers gaps. It's not really something that can be compared to the competence differences in 3.5 though.

[foobar1969]

I wonder if the following test could be performed under reasonably controlled conditions:

The same players and DM, or at least ones of equal skill and play style, run two parties through the same series of adventures covering many levels and situations. All characters are constructed comparably, using the 15,14,13,12,10,8 array and guide-based choices.

Party A: Lore Bard, Moon Druid, Divination Wizard, Tempest Cleric, Ancients Paladin

Party B: Elements Monk, Beastmaster, Wild Sorcerer, Trickery Cleric, Berserker

How different would the results be?

[EvilAnagram]

I wonder if the following test could be performed under reasonably controlled conditions:

The same players and DM, or at least ones of equal skill and play style, run two parties through the same series of adventures covering many levels and situations. All characters are constructed comparably, using the 15,14,13,12,10,8 array and guide-based choices.

Party A: Lore Bard, Moon Druid, Divination Wizard, Tempest Cleric, Ancients Paladin

Party B: Elements Monk, Beastmaster, Wild Sorcerer, Trickery Cleric, Berserker

How different would the results be?
I'd be willing to participate in this. I can't imagine the results would be terribly dissimilar.

[treecko]

That would be certainly very informative. Be sure to keep a record of the rolls so that you can compare the average luck. I'm interested.

[Waazraath]

I wonder if the following test could be performed under reasonably controlled conditions:

The same players and DM, or at least ones of equal skill and play style, run two parties through the same series of adventures covering many levels and situations. All characters are constructed comparably, using the 15,14,13,12,10,8 array and guide-based choices.

Party A: Lore Bard, Moon Druid, Divination Wizard, Tempest Cleric, Ancients Paladin

Party B: Elements Monk, Beastmaster, Wild Sorcerer, Trickery Cleric, Berserker

How different would the results be?

Interesting! I don't think the results would be too different, but it depends a bit on which levels the adventures would be run, wether feats would be allowed, and optimization.

[Vogonjeltz]

I wonder if the following test could be performed under reasonably controlled conditions:

The same players and DM, or at least ones of equal skill and play style, run two parties through the same series of adventures covering many levels and situations. All characters are constructed comparably, using the 15,14,13,12,10,8 array and guide-based choices.

Party A: Lore Bard, Moon Druid, Divination Wizard, Tempest Cleric, Ancients Paladin

Party B: Elements Monk, Beastmaster, Wild Sorcerer, Trickery Cleric, Berserker

How different would the results be?

I already test ran the first part of LMP with that group, minus the cleric. They pretty well annihilated it (granted this is pre level 3, so only the Sorcerer had class option abilities).

That being said, we would need about 50 runs to get any kind of idea how well the group performs on average.

Based purely on the test run, i would say they would be fine.

[CNagy]

According to this flawed list, yes. The Shadow Monk's spells are pretty sub-par: No class ability to see in magical darkness, darkvision is already granted by all but 3 races, that leaves two extremely situationally useful spells and a cantrip; Their 6th level Shadow Step doesn't work with martial arts (so they're giving up an attack to gain advantage on an attack), their 11th level ability is lackluster as they are effectively taking the hide action...without actually hiding so opponents still know their location to attack, and Opportunist is an ok reaction ability that encourages pig-piling.

...did a Shadow Monk steal your girlfriend? I haven't seen a class this misread in a long time.

The Shadow Monk spells:
Darkness -- Useful in countless ways even if you can't see in magical darkness.
Darkvision -- If you've already got it yourself, you can still give it to the party member who doesn't.
Pass without Trace -- Welcome to the entire party is now stealthy. "A veil of shadows and silence radiates from you..." I wonder if that synergizes with anything further down the list?
Silence -- There are no real alternatives in the situations where you'd want to have access to Silence. Automatically prevent an enemy spellcaster from casting anything with V components, prevent enemies from sounding any alarm.
Minor Illusion -- A cantrip, usefulness highly dependent on personal creativity and DM disposition.

That list does not read as "subpar" to me. "Situational" is fine for this list; the Monk is not about casting spells, the utility provided by the Shadow Monk's spell list enhances the Monk's role without overshadowing it.

Shadow Step: A teleport 60' at will ability. Consumes no resources, has no rest limit, merely requires a bonus action. Any obstacle you can see past can be bypassed so long as there is dim light or darkness. Bars alone cannot hold a Shadow Monk. In combat, you give up martial arts for the turn that you use it--but the reasons you would use it in combat make Advantage more worthwhile than a third attack. If you are part-Rogue, you've got automatic sneak attack conditions on a target that is likely some distance from the rest of your allies. If the target is dangerous (like an enemy spellcaster), you've bypassed all of his friends and got him in Stunning Strike distance. You're not forced to use Shadow Step in combat, so when you do (unless you don't know what you are doing) the tactical advantage (in addition to the actual Advantage) is going to outweigh the bonus attack from martial arts. Oh, and if you are still concentrating on Pass without Trace, you're bringing shadows with you. So that's convenient.

Cloak of Shadows: So wait... an at-will, concentration-free Invisibility whose only restriction is that you stay out of bright light is lackluster? In combat, unless you are literally trying not to engage the enemy, unseen is all you need. Unseen provides advantage to attacks and disadvantage to attackers--there is no expanded benefit from actually hiding unless, again, you don't even want to be in combat.

So where you see a "hide where they can still find you," I see an ability that generates combat advantage, inflicts disadvantage on foes, and allows the Monk (who has Stealth as a class skill) to hide whenever he wants, wherever he wants--provided that wherever doesn't happen to be under a spotlight. Lackluster? Seriously?

Opportunist: It is an okay reaction, if you are all out of Ki points. If you aren't, it becomes an opportunity to Stun an enemy after the first of a series of attacks by your tank, who then makes the rest of his attacks with advantage. And it locks that enemy down if his turn in the round order is coming up before your next turn. As for encouraging pig-piling, it can't do that any more than the hit-point system (where an enemy is as dangerous at 1 HP as he is at full health) already does. And it doesn't exactly have competition with a lot of reaction options for the Monk, Deflect Missiles is about it.

[Waazraath]

I wonder if the following test could be performed under reasonably controlled conditions:

The same players and DM, or at least ones of equal skill and play style, run two parties through the same series of adventures covering many levels and situations. All characters are constructed comparably, using the 15,14,13,12,10,8 array and guide-based choices.

Party A: Lore Bard, Moon Druid, Divination Wizard, Tempest Cleric, Ancients Paladin

Party B: Elements Monk, Beastmaster, Wild Sorcerer, Trickery Cleric, Berserker

How different would the results be?

Thinking about it a bit more:
- party A can have troubles to survive the early levels, especially lvl 1 when the moon druid isn't online yet. In a party of 5, there is only 1 character that can guard the front line, the paladin. Bard and wizard are squishy, and stay squishy. Berserker is much more durable in melee then the paladin. With the tempest druid and, from lvl 2, the moon druid, party A has staying power, though imo it isn't as much as a barbarian, a ranger with beasty, and a monk in party B.
- party B lacks an int character, which is annoying with skills. The trickery cleric can aim for decent int, because it synergizes well with its skills, but it wants max wis, dex 14 for medium armor, decent con as well... that's difficult.
- at the later levels, party A has much more options, which is logical if you compare 4 full casters and a half caster with 2 full casters (with 1 with very limited spell selection), a half caster (ranger, with much more limited spell selection then the paladin), and two melee classes. If I would play in party B, I'd have some serious 'party optimization' and discuss spell selection with the whole group. Maybe also add a feat or two for ritual caster, or consider racial spell options. Else you might miss too much important options.
- Party A has more 'finite rescources' then party B.
- Party B has nice buff options; with many melee characters, the cleric's bless spell will be put to good use. As will a twinned haste from the sorcerer.
- Party A has great survivability and group buffs with a bard, a cleric and an ancients paladin.

[Gwendol]

I wonder if the following test could be performed under reasonably controlled conditions:

The same players and DM, or at least ones of equal skill and play style, run two parties through the same series of adventures covering many levels and situations. All characters are constructed comparably, using the 15,14,13,12,10,8 array and guide-based choices.

Party A: Lore Bard, Moon Druid, Divination Wizard, Tempest Cleric, Ancients Paladin

Party B: Elements Monk, Beastmaster, Wild Sorcerer, Trickery Cleric, Berserker

How different would the results be?

The results would be different since the classes don't play the same. This means there is an expected divergence in their approach to problems/adventures, unless they are completely railroaded.

In general though, both parties will likely work ok, as long as the lore bard of team A and the trickery cleric of team B know to devote some resources to the traditional rogueish skills.

[Vogonjeltz]

...did a Shadow Monk steal your girlfriend? I haven't seen a class this misread in a long time.

The Shadow Monk spells:
Darkness -- Useful in countless ways even if you can't see in magical darkness.
Darkvision -- If you've already got it yourself, you can still give it to the party member who doesn't.
Pass without Trace -- Welcome to the entire party is now stealthy. "A veil of shadows and silence radiates from you..." I wonder if that synergizes with anything further down the list?
Silence -- There are no real alternatives in the situations where you'd want to have access to Silence. Automatically prevent an enemy spellcaster from casting anything with V components, prevent enemies from sounding any alarm.
Minor Illusion -- A cantrip, usefulness highly dependent on personal creativity and DM disposition.

That list does not read as "subpar" to me. "Situational" is fine for this list; the Monk is not about casting spells, the utility provided by the Shadow Monk's spell list enhances the Monk's role without overshadowing it.

Shadow Step: A teleport 60' at will ability. Consumes no resources, has no rest limit, merely requires a bonus action. Any obstacle you can see past can be bypassed so long as there is dim light or darkness. Bars alone cannot hold a Shadow Monk. In combat, you give up martial arts for the turn that you use it--but the reasons you would use it in combat make Advantage more worthwhile than a third attack. If you are part-Rogue, you've got automatic sneak attack conditions on a target that is likely some distance from the rest of your allies. If the target is dangerous (like an enemy spellcaster), you've bypassed all of his friends and got him in Stunning Strike distance. You're not forced to use Shadow Step in combat, so when you do (unless you don't know what you are doing) the tactical advantage (in addition to the actual Advantage) is going to outweigh the bonus attack from martial arts. Oh, and if you are still concentrating on Pass without Trace, you're bringing shadows with you. So that's convenient.

Cloak of Shadows: So wait... an at-will, concentration-free Invisibility whose only restriction is that you stay out of bright light is lackluster? In combat, unless you are literally trying not to engage the enemy, unseen is all you need. Unseen provides advantage to attacks and disadvantage to attackers--there is no expanded benefit from actually hiding unless, again, you don't even want to be in combat.

So where you see a "hide where they can still find you," I see an ability that generates combat advantage, inflicts disadvantage on foes, and allows the Monk (who has Stealth as a class skill) to hide whenever he wants, wherever he wants--provided that wherever doesn't happen to be under a spotlight. Lackluster? Seriously?

Opportunist: It is an okay reaction, if you are all out of Ki points. If you aren't, it becomes an opportunity to Stun an enemy after the first of a series of attacks by your tank, who then makes the rest of his attacks with advantage. And it locks that enemy down if his turn in the round order is coming up before your next turn. As for encouraging pig-piling, it can't do that any more than the hit-point system (where an enemy is as dangerous at 1 HP as he is at full health) already does. And it doesn't exactly have competition with a lot of reaction options for the Monk, Deflect Missiles is about it.

I can literally count the number of ways Darkness is useful if you can't see in it. 1. See? That was easy.
Yes, you could waste your ki on giving someone darkvision in the very unlikely event they don't A) Have it or B) Have a light source. Light sources being incredibly common, this is a very niche ability with high cost.

Pass without Trace doesn't actually create dim light or shadows, that's just colorful phrasing, no real benefit is accrued there, and along with Silence and Minor Illusion I did list them as situationally useful. So I'm glad to see you actually agreed with my analysis despite roundly claiming it was "misread".

Shadow Step consumes your opportunity to deal more damage. That's a big deal, and you have to be able to see the dim light/darkness the character wants to step to. This rules out stepping into magical darkness summarily (although from is still possible) and represents a 2 ki tax for the races that don't come with darkvision (as otherwise they can't see those dark spots within 60 feet). And of course nobody forces the character to use the ability, but if they don't use it, then it is basically a dead class option slot, and if they do use it they're actually reducing their normal functionality. Again, pass without trace doesn't create shadows, it's just a rhetorical flourish.

Cloak of Shados costing an action isn't at-will, and as I said, it doesn't hide you, so you can still be targeted at will by enemies, and if you're already in darkness this represents no additional safety at the cost of your action. This is entirely inferior to using the Hide action that every character already has access to. Remember, hidden characters also have advantage. It really is hard to overstate how bad this ability is in that it provides almost nothing. The one thing it does (which is replicated, better, by the Skulker feat) is to allow hiding (using 2 actions of course) in front of someone while in dim light. Which is flavorful, sure...but also practically a nothing class ability.

Yes, I agree, Opportunist is just an ok ability that just encourages pig-piling. I wouldn't exactly crow about that when the character could have had an insta-gib ability 6 times a short rest, or even just hold person which is straight up superior to stunning strike (and as a consequence, Opportunist). Or even Wall of Stone (potentially entombs one or more opponents in stone) or Wall of Fire which on average is doing almost double what the opportunity attack could do maximum.

I like the flavor of the Way of the Shadow, the flaw is that it's just a huge let down in terms of functionality.


- party B lacks an int character, which is annoying with skills.

Int skills aren't exactly clutch, Wisdom is the big winner in the skills category what with Perception, Insight, Survival (foraging), and Medicine (stabilizing players without magic or limited use items). What does Int even bring to the table, Investigation? Meh. Most players will be able to put 2 and 2 together themselves provided their characters perceive the clues.


The results would be different since the classes don't play the same. This means there is an expected divergence in their approach to problems/adventures, unless they are completely railroaded.

In general though, both parties will likely work ok, as long as the lore bard of team A and the trickery cleric of team B know to devote some resources to the traditional rogueish skills.

Agreed, dunno that any particular rogue skill (lock picking even?) is needed though. I've seen plenty of kick in the door groups that just don't care about making noise.

[Fwiffo86]

Shadow Step consumes your opportunity to deal more damage. That's a big deal, and you have to be able to see the dim light/darkness the character wants to step to.

Are you suggesting that the functionality of an ability lies entirely on the ability to deal damage? Am I to understand that your position on the usefulness of any ability is determined only by its benefit or hindrance of the maximum amount of damage a character can churn out in a single round?

I would posit that the shadow monk is "not" for dealing damage. They are an opportunistic strike, battlefield control type. Preventing ranged damage to the party (darkness), stunning powerful foes (granting advantage to others attacks thus drastically increasing the damage the target takes that round), and moving seamlessly around most battlefields adventurers find themselves in (dungeons, alleyways, inside of buildings) thus allowing easy access to characters in need of assistance (downed, out numbered).

The Smonk's value is not in the damage capability of itself, but the increase to the damage capability of the party instead.

[SharkForce]

as i've noted elsewhere, darkness is also extremely useful because there are a lot of remarkably unpleasant things that can be done to targets that are seen, but cannot be done if no target can be seen.

for example, suppose you are fighting a lamia.

a lamia can cast charm person, suggestion, and geas, all fairly unpleasant spells to fail a save against, to say the least.

but wait... reading the spells more closely, we discover:

charm person: "... a humanoid you can see..."
suggestion: "... a creature you can see..."
geas: "... a creature that you can see..."

as requirements for who the spell can be cast on. so now, instead of being able to geas one of your party members (can't attack the lamia because charmed, will take damage if disobeys a certain task) and suggest that another one leave, or charming a second (won't betray friends, but still unable to attack the lamia)... well, let's just say that having a darkness spell could easily mitigate a lot of unpleasantness that might have otherwise happened.

and it isn't just limited to spells, either (not that spells are an uncommon thing for a variety of monsters in the MM to have). for example, a jackalwere's sleep gaze. a hobgoblin captain or warlord's leadership. a mummie's dreadful glare. most myconid spores. even the dreaded rust monster's ability to rust metal.

considering you are all equally disadvantaged by darkness (while in darkness, you have disadvantage to hit because you can't see the enemy, but advantage because the enemy can't see you, and vice versa) it may very well be worthwhile to continue the fight in magical darkness rather than fight many of these opponents in full visibility.

just be careful you don't run afoul of arbitrary true sight and/or blindsight. a lot of monsters have those abilities, and for obvious reasons casting darkness in a fight with them is unlikely to prove beneficial ;)

[Malifice]

I'm not sure what's confusing for people reading this thread. The merit of a tier list cannot be under debate because they are a scientific fact. Creating tier lists is nothing more than turning qualitative data into quantitative data and then listing it in ascending order. It's the very basis of the scientific method, and what freshman learn in both high-school and college. Tier lists exist in all non-simple games, and frankly most things in life in general. There is always a best choice and a worst choice, because the universe is an imperfect place, and everything comes with (at the very least) an opportunity cost, let alone direct balance conflicts. Hell, I could make a tier list of best to worst Chess openings, best to worst clothing materials to buy, or best to worst movies to watch. You simply define parameters for your study, objectively record your data, and derive conclusions. It's extremely simple.

Why has no one done this before Mavrik, if it's so simple? Because to do it for a game like D&D 5e would take dozens, if not hundreds of man hours, and require a great deal of personal effort. The vast majority of people skilled in scientific experimentation or statistician work have no interest in D&D, and if they did, certainly not burning months of their free-time to prove a mostly pointless internet argument to people who clearly don't understand the basics of the scientific method, let alone falsification. I can just imagine someone burning 300+ hours to make a comprehensive 5e tier list, to which the community responses are a laundry list of logical fallacies and cognitive biases.

Is this post serious?

Surely not.

[Gwendol]

Agreed, dunno that any particular rogue skill (lock picking even?) is needed though. I've seen plenty of kick in the door groups that just don't care about making noise.

It was more about the reliability the rogue offers at skills success.

[Vogonjeltz]

Are you suggesting that the functionality of an ability lies entirely on the ability to deal damage? Am I to understand that your position on the usefulness of any ability is determined only by its benefit or hindrance of the maximum amount of damage a character can churn out in a single round?

I would posit that the shadow monk is "not" for dealing damage. They are an opportunistic strike, battlefield control type. Preventing ranged damage to the party (darkness), stunning powerful foes (granting advantage to others attacks thus drastically increasing the damage the target takes that round), and moving seamlessly around most battlefields adventurers find themselves in (dungeons, alleyways, inside of buildings) thus allowing easy access to characters in need of assistance (downed, out numbered).

The Smonk's value is not in the damage capability of itself, but the increase to the damage capability of the party instead.

I would go so far as to argue that the functionality of an ability lies in how well it translates to successfully completing an encounter, which may be (in some instances) the ability to deal damage.

Stunning is not endemic purely to the Way of the Shadow, it's a core ability, and it requires ki, which the Way of the Shadow monk is presumably using up for their spells. If not, they're not any better at providing advantage to teammates than the other two paths can be.

I would agree with you that the abilities look more mobility oriented. The problem I have with that is that the Monk is already mobility heavy and doesn't need more.


It was more about the reliability the rogue offers at skills success.

Ah, gotcha.

[Malifice]

I would go so far as to argue that the functionality of an ability lies in how well it translates to successfully completing an encounter, which may be (in some instances) the ability to deal damage.

For the monk, his functionality lies in stunlocking BBEG's. Having the ability to teleport 60' and make such a stunning fist attack at advantage cannot be underestimated.

[CNagy]

I can literally count the number of ways Darkness is useful if you can't see in it. 1. See? That was easy.
Yes, you could waste your ki on giving someone darkvision in the very unlikely event they don't A) Have it or B) Have a light source. Light sources being incredibly common, this is a very niche ability with high cost.

Pass without Trace doesn't actually create dim light or shadows, that's just colorful phrasing, no real benefit is accrued there, and along with Silence and Minor Illusion I did list them as situationally useful. So I'm glad to see you actually agreed with my analysis despite roundly claiming it was "misread".

...man, where to start with all of this? Let's count the usefulness of Darkness. Defensively; putting your party or an enemy spellcaster in magical Darkness prevents them from targeting anyone with spells that require them to see a party member. Mobility; using Darkness to kill a mundane light source creates non-magical darkness and maybe even dim light depending on how you position it, thus allowing you to Shadow Step more places. For Stealth, obstructing line of sight between creatures and party members moving from cover to cover. For obscuring traps involving natural terrain and traps involving spells cast on an area. To create a distraction. To aid the party Warlock if he has Devil's Sight.

As for claiming I agree with your analysis; a bit more comprehension is needed. You said they were extremely situationally useful--as in, useful in extremely few situations. I contend that they are situationally extremely useful--as in, extremely useful in a few situations.


Shadow Step consumes your opportunity to deal more damage. That's a big deal, and you have to be able to see the dim light/darkness the character wants to step to. This rules out stepping into magical darkness summarily (although from is still possible) and represents a 2 ki tax for the races that don't come with darkvision (as otherwise they can't see those dark spots within 60 feet). And of course nobody forces the character to use the ability, but if they don't use it, then it is basically a dead class option slot, and if they do use it they're actually reducing their normal functionality. Again, pass without trace doesn't create shadows, it's just a rhetorical flourish.

Strategy is the concept of taking different actions at different times when the benefits of such actions are worth the costs. It's not always a "big deal" to choose to deal less damage to put oneself in a strategically superior position. Shadow Step allows you to reach places that are otherwise unreachable/difficult/costly to reach in combat. It allows you to bypass foes for whom you would either have to "consume your opportunity to deal more damage" to keep them from making opportunity attacks against you or risk taking damage to get past them in order to engage a strategically superior target. And whether Pass without Trace does or doesn't create shadows is up for debate--you say it is a rhetorical flourish, I say it is in the description of the spell, which describes what the spell does.


Cloak of Shados costing an action isn't at-will, and as I said, it doesn't hide you, so you can still be targeted at will by enemies, and if you're already in darkness this represents no additional safety at the cost of your action. This is entirely inferior to using the Hide action that every character already has access to. Remember, hidden characters also have advantage. It really is hard to overstate how bad this ability is in that it provides almost nothing. The one thing it does (which is replicated, better, by the Skulker feat) is to allow hiding (using 2 actions of course) in front of someone while in dim light. Which is flavorful, sure...but also practically a nothing class ability.

So... you're mistaking what "at-will" means. People talk about Fighter "at-will" damage, they are talking about damage which does not consume a short or long rest resource. If taking an action makes things not be "at-will," then there are precious few at-will abilities in the game.

You still fail to grasp the fact that hiding in combat is not preferable--it is an unfortunate requirement for most characters. The conditions to hide are far stricter than the conditions to go invisible. Being invisible gets you exactly what you want out of being hidden; advantage to attacks, and disadvantage to enemy attacks. They can't target you with anything that requires that they see you. The only thing that you get from hiding that you don't get from being invisible is the ability to avoid the enemy. In combat, a Rogue with access to invisibility has almost no reason to hide--in this case, hiding would be one of those extremely situationally useful abilities.

I'm not sure how to make this any clearer except to ask if you think the Wizard spell Invisibility is also so incredibly bad? Sure, that one works in bright light, but it costs a 2nd level spell slot and requires concentration.



Yes, I agree, Opportunist is just an ok ability that just encourages pig-piling. I wouldn't exactly crow about that when the character could have had an insta-gib ability 6 times a short rest, or even just hold person which is straight up superior to stunning strike (and as a consequence, Opportunist). Or even Wall of Stone (potentially entombs one or more opponents in stone) or Wall of Fire which on average is doing almost double what the opportunity attack could do maximum.

I like the flavor of the Way of the Shadow, the flaw is that it's just a huge let down in terms of functionality.

Weren't you the one talking about how opportunities to do damage were such a big deal? Here's an opportunity to reliably use your reaction to attack, probably most rounds. Quivering Palm costs 3 Ki to use and is not something you are going to use as often as Stunning Strike, clearly, but yes, it is situationally far more useful than Stunning Strike. Hold Person is superior, and should be at--again--3x the cost to Stun. Wall of Stone is at best a temporary inconvenience, allows the enemy a Dex save and the opportunity to reposition themselves up to their speed if they pass the save, and is in danger of disappearing any time you get hit. Oh, and for 6 ki.

If you don't see the functionality, you don't see the functionality. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Vogonjeltz]

For the monk, his functionality lies in stunlocking BBEG's. Having the ability to teleport 60' and make such a stunning fist attack at advantage cannot be underestimated.

Advantage is the equivalent of attacking twice. Stunning Strike works off any hit. So there's no inherent advantage to having advantage on one attack vs attacking twice. It's worse actually, you have a chance to hit twice and attempt a stunning strike twice with the latter.

I'll grant you, the 60' thing provides some additional mobility...but it's marginal, as I can't think of a single encounter where the opponent I wanted to reach was more than 60 feet away. It's basically a better, yet situational requiring shadows, Step of the Wind in that it doesn't cost 1 ki.


...man, where to start with all of this? Let's count the usefulness of Darkness. Defensively; putting your party or an enemy spellcaster in magical Darkness prevents them from targeting anyone with spells that require them to see a party member. Mobility; using Darkness to kill a mundane light source creates non-magical darkness and maybe even dim light depending on how you position it, thus allowing you to Shadow Step more places. For Stealth, obstructing line of sight between creatures and party members moving from cover to cover. For obscuring traps involving natural terrain and traps involving spells cast on an area. To create a distraction. To aid the party Warlock if he has Devil's Sight.

As for claiming I agree with your analysis; a bit more comprehension is needed. You said they were extremely situationally useful--as in, useful in extremely few situations. I contend that they are situationally extremely useful--as in, extremely useful in a few situations.

Provided the opponent can't see through or remove the magical darkness, sure.

Shadow Step is already underwhelming, casting Darkness the same turn also turns off the value of advantage that Shadowstep would have provided, because it's limited to happening before the turn ends. The mobility already exists in the base chasis of the Monk, you can't go any further with Shadow Step then you could using Step of the Wind, the only benefit we're seeing in this situation is that it doesn't cost 1 ki...except you used 2 ki to cast darkness...so you're down 1 ki. Not worth it for mobility.

Darkness doesn't obstruct line of sight it only renders anything within its area obscured. If there's a light source behind the area of darkness you can still see those things.

Ah, well then yes we are in disagreement.


Strategy is the concept of taking different actions at different times when the benefits of such actions are worth the costs. It's not always a "big deal" to choose to deal less damage to put oneself in a strategically superior position. Shadow Step allows you to reach places that are otherwise unreachable/difficult/costly to reach in combat. It allows you to bypass foes for whom you would either have to "consume your opportunity to deal more damage" to keep them from making opportunity attacks against you or risk taking damage to get past them in order to engage a strategically superior target. And whether Pass without Trace does or doesn't create shadows is up for debate--you say it is a rhetorical flourish, I say it is in the description of the spell, which describes what the spell does.

The only places that would be unreachable would be maybe if they had to jump? (they can jump 40 feet, potentially)

Re: Pass Without Trace, nowhere does it say that it creates an area of dim light or lightly obscured anything, ergo it does not as those have concrete mechanical game effects that actually need to be addressed for multiple other rules. It's purely descriptive flourish, not a mechanical thing.


So... you're mistaking what "at-will" means. People talk about Fighter "at-will" damage, they are talking about damage which does not consume a short or long rest resource. If taking an action makes things not be "at-will," then there are precious few at-will abilities in the game.

You still fail to grasp the fact that hiding in combat is not preferable--it is an unfortunate requirement for most characters. The conditions to hide are far stricter than the conditions to go invisible. Being invisible gets you exactly what you want out of being hidden; advantage to attacks, and disadvantage to enemy attacks. They can't target you with anything that requires that they see you. The only thing that you get from hiding that you don't get from being invisible is the ability to avoid the enemy. In combat, a Rogue with access to invisibility has almost no reason to hide--in this case, hiding would be one of those extremely situationally useful abilities.

I'm not sure how to make this any clearer except to ask if you think the Wizard spell Invisibility is also so incredibly bad? Sure, that one works in bright light, but it costs a 2nd level spell slot and requires concentration.

Fair enough quibble about what at-will is bypassed, it still presents a large opportunity cost and is strictly worse than using the Hide action. And no, the one thing that using hide does is that the character is not attackable. An invisible character can still be attacked. A rogue benefits from advantage activating sneak attack, a monk does no such thing.

Invisibility actually works in bright light, but it costs a spell slot. So...better effect, higher cost, still a waste of a turn in combat (as compared to the other possible combat uses of a 2nd level spell slot).


Weren't you the one talking about how opportunities to do damage were such a big deal? Here's an opportunity to reliably use your reaction to attack, probably most rounds. Quivering Palm costs 3 Ki to use and is not something you are going to use as often as Stunning Strike, clearly, but yes, it is situationally far more useful than Stunning Strike. Hold Person is superior, and should be at--again--3x the cost to Stun. Wall of Stone is at best a temporary inconvenience, allows the enemy a Dex save and the opportunity to reposition themselves up to their speed if they pass the save, and is in danger of disappearing any time you get hit. Oh, and for 6 ki.

If you don't see the functionality, you don't see the functionality. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

Yeah, I see Opportunist's function quite well, it's just a so-so ability for a 17th level.

Corrections, I was comparing Hold Person to stunning strike, not Quivering Palm, although it too is simply better.
Wall of Stone can enclose multiple targets for one casting, the dex save requires their reaction to be useful (provided they didn't burn it doing something like trying to land an opportunity attack), and it only enables them to try and move up to their speed to be just outside the effect. If the wall is positioned correctly, then it would remain beyond the ability of most creatures to escape. Wall of Fire is pretty well superior if we just want to deal damage though.

[Malifice]

Advantage is the equivalent of attacking twice. Stunning Strike works off any hit. So there's no inherent advantage to having advantage on one attack vs attacking twice. It's worse actually, you have a chance to hit twice and attempt a stunning strike twice with the latter.

I'll grant you, the 60' thing provides some additional mobility...but it's marginal, as I can't think of a single encounter where the opponent I wanted to reach was more than 60 feet away. It's basically a better, yet situational requiring shadows, Step of the Wind in that it doesn't cost 1 ki.

Its not just the 60' range, its the fact you totally avoid AoO's on the way in meaning you can bypass mooks and brutes (and terrain features) to stunlock the BBEG wizard with ease.

[DireSickFish]

Or there are archers up on the walls of a castle or cliff shooting down at the party. Shadowstep up into there mists. Or drop a globe of darkness on them to take them out of the fight. Or you're team is locked in jail, Shadowstep out and grab the key. Or you're sneeking into a highly guarded castle and there is a well lit bridge in your way (and it's a choke point so no way to sneak past) Shadowstep behind them and keep stealthing. Or a boulder is rolling down at you Indiana Jones style, Shadowstep behind it and you do not care at all. Or you're in a very very large room with craggy walls and a bunch of wizards you need to kill, sure you could blow ki taking the bonus action to dash and regular action to dash or you could just Shadowstep + dash to save your ki for killing all those damn wizards in each asp.

Hells I've used Misty step and Dimension Door quite a bit and those use up major spell slot recources. Mobility is a big deal. And I don't really buy your argument that Monks have enough already and don't need more. Maximizing strengths in D&D has always been a powerful thing to do and I don't think here is any different.

[Vogonjeltz]

Its not just the 60' range, its the fact you totally avoid AoO's on the way in meaning you can bypass mooks and brutes (and terrain features) to stunlock the BBEG wizard with ease.

I suppose you could...as long as there's dim light near the target within 60 feet of you which can be seen. But you'd still have less of a chance of stunning them than if you could make use of the bonus action attack(s) from martial arts or flurry of blows.

"Way of the Shadow: We're Slightly more maneuverable!"...not the catch phrase to instill confidence.


Or there are archers up on the walls of a castle or cliff shooting down at the party. Shadowstep up into there mists. Or drop a globe of darkness on them to take them out of the fight. Or you're team is locked in jail, Shadowstep out and grab the key. Or you're sneeking into a highly guarded castle and there is a well lit bridge in your way (and it's a choke point so no way to sneak past) Shadowstep behind them and keep stealthing. Or a boulder is rolling down at you Indiana Jones style, Shadowstep behind it and you do not care at all. Or you're in a very very large room with craggy walls and a bunch of wizards you need to kill, sure you could blow ki taking the bonus action to dash and regular action to dash or you could just Shadowstep + dash to save your ki for killing all those damn wizards in each asp.

Hells I've used Misty step and Dimension Door quite a bit and those use up major spell slot recources. Mobility is a big deal. And I don't really buy your argument that Monks have enough already and don't need more. Maximizing strengths in D&D has always been a powerful thing to do and I don't think here is any different.

Those situations are all contingent on there being an area of dim light or darkness that you can see. So you wouldn't be able to shadowstep behind the boulder indiana jones style because it's filling the entire corridor. And if you cast Darkness on the archers you not only wouldn't take them out of the fight (they can still see you fine) you actually gave them Advantage on their attacks because they're now unseen attackers! This might deserve a new tag line: "Way of the Shadow: Actually making fights more difficult than they needed to be!"

Remember, even gloomy days provide bright light. (PHB 183)

Insofar as not needing more, at 20 the Monk can already move 120 feet per round using their bonus action and a ki point. I can't recall a single situation where that wasn't overkill. Shadowstep doesn't even provide a net increase in distance. Granted in the situation with difficult terrain it may have utility...but it would need to be more than 40 feet of difficult terrain, otherwise the Monk could simply jump that far.

I mean, if you've played the Way of the Shadow, have you actually encountered a situation where you needed to use Shadow step or were you trying to come up with a hypothetical situation where it provides utility that wasn't already available via Step of the Wind? Side note: I've never yet seen one where I need to dash twice in a single round. Perhaps you encounter that more often?

[Malifice]

I suppose you could...as long as there's dim light near the target within 60 feet of you which can be seen. But you'd still have less of a chance of stunning them than if you could make use of the bonus action attack(s) from martial arts or flurry of blows.

"Way of the Shadow: We're Slightly more maneuverable!"...not the catch phrase to instill confidence.

If its the difference between reaching your target and stunlocking him, or falling just short (or being unable to reach him due to terrain, distance, obstacles or other monsters) then it's worth it.


Those situations are all contingent on there being an area of dim light or darkness

If only shadow monks had some kind of ability to create such darkness...

Oh wait.

[SharkForce]

jumping 40 feet will let you clear something like a 10 foot tall enemy... so long as that enemy is precisely in the middle of the jump. and will provoke an opportunity attack.

so no, i can't say that i view a 40 foot jump (or the lesser more realistic cousin, the 20 foot jump - most monks don't have 20 strength) as a replacement for shadow step.

in any event, i certainly can't imagine why it would be a problem for shadow monk to not be the best option all of the time. if it was, *that* would be a problem. so long as it is a good option reasonably often, it's doing just fine. and by all accounts, it seems to have that covered.

[DireSickFish]

And if you cast Darkness on the archers you not only wouldn't take them out of the fight (they can still see you fine) you actually gave them Advantage on their attacks because they're now unseen attackers! This might deserve a new tag line: "Way of the Shadow: Actually making fights more difficult than they needed to be!"

What? If they're in the globe of darkness then they can't see. I'm not sure why they'd be able to see me, on the outside of the globe of darkness if the archers are inside of it. It blocks there vision much like a wall would. Its not like they can't see anything int he darkness sphere but can see things outside of it.

[Fwiffo86]

And if you cast Darkness on the archers you not only wouldn't take them out of the fight (they can still see you fine) you actually gave them Advantage on their attacks because they're now unseen attackers!

This is false. Darkness does not cause dim light. It causes blindness to all within its effect range. You can not see "out" of it. The bit about seeing through it is debatable I suppose, though our table treats a field of darkness as an opaque ball of blackness. Suitable for blocking LOS. As attempting to target anyone within a darkness effect, you are considered blinded for that target. I also recall that darkness cancels less powerful light sources and light spells. Which says to me, that it is not "dim" at all, but completely absent of light altogether.

[Vogonjeltz]

If its the difference between reaching your target and stunlocking him, or falling just short (or being unable to reach him due to terrain, distance, obstacles or other monsters) then it's worth it.

Yes, but in virtually all scenarios it's not the difference, only if there is a substantial amount of difficult terrain between you.


If only shadow monks had some kind of ability to create such darkness...

Oh wait.

Two things.
A) It was assumed the Monk was using darkness to Shadowstep from, it requires concentration so it's not possible to have two of them going.
B) Even if it were possible, the Monk has no means to see into magical darkness, so they actually are incapable of Shadow Stepping into the Darkness spell.


jumping 40 feet will let you clear something like a 10 foot tall enemy... so long as that enemy is precisely in the middle of the jump. and will provoke an opportunity attack.

so no, i can't say that i view a 40 foot jump (or the lesser more realistic cousin, the 20 foot jump - most monks don't have 20 strength) as a replacement for shadow step.

in any event, i certainly can't imagine why it would be a problem for shadow monk to not be the best option all of the time. if it was, *that* would be a problem. so long as it is a good option reasonably often, it's doing just fine. and by all accounts, it seems to have that covered.

I was thinking of jumping over difficult terrain or across a chasm up to 40 feet in distance, not trying to leap over enemies, you could just walk outside the reach of enemies who are in between you and the intended target (going diagonally doesn't cost additional movement, so you can move laterally while still moving forward).


What? If they're in the globe of darkness then they can't see. I'm not sure why they'd be able to see me, on the outside of the globe of darkness if the archers are inside of it. It blocks there vision much like a wall would. Its not like they can't see anything int he darkness sphere but can see things outside of it.

No, strictly speaking it only blocks your sight of things inside the area of magical darkness. Things outside that magical darkness are visible according to whatever conditions take hold in their location.


This is false. Darkness does not cause dim light. It causes blindness to all within its effect range. You can not see "out" of it. The bit about seeing through it is debatable I suppose, though our table treats a field of darkness as an opaque ball of blackness. Suitable for blocking LOS. As attempting to target anyone within a darkness effect, you are considered blinded for that target. I also recall that darkness cancels less powerful light sources and light spells. Which says to me, that it is not "dim" at all, but completely absent of light altogether.

No, it does not cause blindness. Anything in an area of darkness is blocked from sight as if the viewer were blinded. The Darkness spell is not opaque it merely disables the functionality of nonmagical light, magical light at a strength of level 2 or lower, and darkvision.

If the character is in the darkness spell they could not see anyone or anything that is also inside the confines of the spell, but they most certainly can see things outside of it.

The rules on this matter are clearly displayed in the DMG on pages 104-105, Darkness and Light: "The light of a torch or lantern helps a character see over a short distance, but other creatures can see that light source from far away. Bright light in an environment of total darkness can be visible for miles though a clear line of sight over such a distance is rare underground."

[Fwiffo86]

No, it does not cause blindness. Anything in an area of darkness is blocked from sight as if the viewer were blinded. The Darkness spell is not opaque it merely disables the functionality of nonmagical light, magical light at a strength of level 2 or lower, and darkvision.

If the character is in the darkness spell they could not see anyone or anything that is also inside the confines of the spell, but they most certainly can see things outside of it.

The rules on this matter are clearly displayed in the DMG on pages 104-105, Darkness and Light: "The light of a torch or lantern helps a character see over a short distance, but other creatures can see that light source from far away. Bright light in an environment of total darkness can be visible for miles though a clear line of sight over such a distance is rare underground."

PHB pg 183

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.

A little further up:

Heavily Obscured area - such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition.

Just as you said above. However, I don't see where the torch supports your argument that people in a darkness spell can still see out of it if they are being treated as blinded. If your example had the archers in "ordinary darkness" that was not magically enhanced, I would agree with your assessment hands down.

I can see how your argument is based. However, I would view that as a DM as an attempt to RL it into an advantage for a character. I can easily get behind the logic that a person "holding" a light can be seen in the darkness easily. That is common knowledge. However, I don't believe this coincides with the RAI of the darkness spell. That may just be me, it may be you, its up for interpretation.

I would point out that there was no mention of a previous torch in your example. The example only included archers firing from a wall who become encased in the darkness spell. If you wish to change the parameters to support your argument, by all means. But mine still stands, by your own quote.

[Vogonjeltz]

PHB pg 183

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.

A little further up:

Heavily Obscured area - such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition.

Just as you said above. However, I don't see where the torch supports your argument that people in a darkness spell can still see out of it if they are being treated as blinded. If your example had the archers in "ordinary darkness" that was not magically enhanced, I would agree with your assessment hands down.

I can see how your argument is based. However, I would view that as a DM as an attempt to RL it into an advantage for a character. I can easily get behind the logic that a person "holding" a light can be seen in the darkness easily. That is common knowledge. However, I don't believe this coincides with the RAI of the darkness spell. That may just be me, it may be you, its up for interpretation.

I would point out that there was no mention of a previous torch in your example. The example only included archers firing from a wall who become encased in the darkness spell. If you wish to change the parameters to support your argument, by all means. But mine still stands, by your own quote.

The original example assumes there is light, which normally doesn't exist in a dark environment. That light doesn't go away because you cast a darkness spell in one small part of it, hence the rest of a lit area will remain visible.

And the errata clear this up:

A heavily obscured area doesn't blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it.

[Ogre Mage]

Thought I'd check in on the vote tally after 183 votes.

S tier: None

A tier: Totem Barbarian, Lore Bard, Valor Bard, Life Cleric, Light Cleric, Tempest Cleric, War Cleric, Moon Druid, Battlemaster Fighter, Ancients Paladin, Vengeance Paladin, Fiend Warlock, Wizard (all subclasses).

B tier: Knowledge Cleric, Nature Cleric, Trickery Cleric, Land Druid, Champion Fighter, Eldritch Knight, Open Hand Monk, Shadow Monk, Devotion Paladin, Hunter Ranger, Thief Rogue, Assassin Rogue, Arcane Trickster, Draconic Sorcerer, Wild Magic Sorcerer, Fey Warlock, Great Old One Warlock.

C tier: Frenzy Barbarian, 4 Elements Monk, Beastmaster Ranger.

D tier: None

Three subclasses received a considerable minority of "S tier" votes: the Lore Bard (36%), Moon Druid (44%), and Divination Wizard (39%).

The 4 Elements Monk and Beastmaster Ranger are pretty close to dropping into "D tier" range.