The Problem with Tier Lists in 5E

[Aldarin]

This post's purpose is to briefly discuss the problems associated with and caused by the creation of 5E Class tier lists, to discuss possible formats for a tier list for the game that 5E is, and to see the opinions of the 5E community.

So, to begin.
The obvious problems with a tier list in 5E is that WotC made the classes attempting them to be equal. And let's be honest here, anyone who thinks that a 3.5E-esque tier list can be made for 5E is fooling themselves.

Why, then, is a 3.5 tier format incompatible with 5E? The obvious explanation is that of balance. In 3.5, everyone knew that a party with an extra cleric or wizard was better then an extra commoner or fighter, and that was an inescapable fact.
The second explanation is that the 3.5 tier list was constructed to fit the needs of 3.5E... and not any edition beside that. That is a matter that many people do not, as of yet, recognize.
So, it's frankly quite pointless to attempt to make a 5E tier list using those guidelines. And in that case, can a tier list even be MADE for 5E?

The short answer is no, no it can't. As I've reiterated throughout this post, 5E is far more balanced then 3.5E, and by that logic, a tier list for 3.5 is impossible.

However, with a bit more thought, a tier list-like organizer could be utilized to create a classification system for the classes of 5E. For that, I propose that each class, instead of being ranked by one concrete list, could be ranked by its placement in a series of lists, each one ranking a class by its excellence a certain attribute. For example, instead of Warlock, for example, being a tier 3 class, it would be a Damage 2/ Versatility 4/ Tanking 6. See what I mean?

In conclusion, I think that each of the 5E classes are too multifaceted and complex to be rated by one unchanging tier list, but a more flexible system could be organized.

Please share your opinions on my thoughts and ideas, in addition to any suggestions you may have.

Thanks,
Aldarin

[krugaan]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?481770-Tier-Lists-are-Harmful-to-the-5e-Community

EvilAnagram made a thread on this earlier with some extensive discussion.

I don't think they are. Interesting intellectual exercise.

[KorvinStarmast]

{Scrubbed}

[krugaan]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I see what you did there, sir.

[Aldarin]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

My apologies for attempting to address a common topic of discussion from my own point of view.

[krugaan]

My apologies for attempting to address a common topic of discussion from my own point of view.

Your forgiven, just don't let it happen again.

/royalpardon

[KorvinStarmast]

The target of my alleged wit wasn't as much the OP here as the dogpile I expect this OP to attract.

Your idea on "well if we are gonna make a tier list, what form should it take" makes as much sense as anything else I've seen on the topic. I can and will enjoy 5e without ever consulting such a tier list. Others will, I am sure, find value in them.

[krugaan]

The target of my alleged wit wasn't as much the OP here as the dogpile I expect this OP to attract.

Your idea on "well if we are gonna make a tier list, what form should it take" makes as much sense as anything else I've seen on the topic. I can and will enjoy 5e without ever consulting such a tier list. Others will, I am sure, find value in them.

No, I'm right and YOU'RE WRONG!

But seriously, this exact thread was done very recently and very, very thoroughly. Just add to it if you want, it'll save a duplication of effort.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, I'm right and YOU'RE WRONG!

But seriously, this exact thread was done very recently and very, very thoroughly. Just add to it if you want, it'll save a duplication of effort.
*Passes popcorn bowl to krugaan*

Care for some? Just a little butter and a little salt. :smallbiggrin:

[krugaan]

Hah, I'm pretty sure there's enough salt in that thread already.

I'll take butter though!

Although, to be fair, I suggested basically the same things OP did, so I think the ideas have merit, just the timing is off.

[EvilAnagram]

Obvioisly, I think that you're absolutely right about the usefulness of 3.x tier lists or their clones in 5e. I'm interested in the multilayered list you suggest, though I don't think more than four tiers would be necessary.

[krugaan]

Obvioisly, I think that you're absolutely right about the usefulness of 3.x tier lists or their clones in 5e. I'm interested in the multilayered list you suggest, though I don't think more than four tiers would be necessary.

My ancient enemy approacheth!

Have at thee, vile knave!

No! You're wrong!

You argument is specious and your tie is ugly!

[Aldarin]

My ancient enemy approacheth!

Have at thee, vile knave!

No! You're wrong!

You argument is specious and your tie is ugly!

Do I even want to know what train of thought spawned that post?

[Coffee_Dragon]

You argument is specious and your tie is ugly!

Your tie looks faint to me. It's so ugly it can only be an illusion.

[EvilAnagram]

Do I even want to know what train of thought spawned that post?

He's intentionally derailing the thread because he doesn't like the topic. There was no real train of thought.

[SharkForce]

Do I even want to know what train of thought spawned that post?

he was being silly.

personally, as I mentioned in the other thread, I don't think more than 3 tiers are particularly useful.

lowest would be that you have no special abilities that assist with the category.
middle would be that you have some class abilities that make you better than baseline, but not excellent.
highest would be that you are one of the best of the best.

(those might not necessarily be the names I'd choose for the tiers).

to use an example in skills:

- fighters and wizards would be lowest tier, because they generally don't have superior access or increased chance of success in skill checks for the most part. their skill related features, when they exist, generally just make them equal (or not even equal) to a basic skill user; attribute bonus + proficiency bonus, just like anyone else who takes a skill (or tool).

- rangers and barbarians would be somewhere in the middle tier. they get advantage on some checks that help make it more likely to succeed at tasks they were already likely to succeed at, but they're not drastically superior, and they generally don't get to pick which skills they're good at.

- rogues and bards would be in the highest tier. they get expertise in whatever skills they choose, can work well from a variety of attributes, and even have further features to help with success in skill checks (rogues eventually never roll less than 10, bards can boost skill checks with inspiration for others, and lore bards can even boost themselves).

now, you probably *could* get a bit more granular. I mean, there's definitely a case to be made that knowledge clerics are not as good in skills as rogues or bards, for example; their expertise option is limited to a few specific skills, and guidance isn't exactly a massive buff, but they are clearly better than rangers and barbarians. and there's an argument to be made that a high level shadow monk is highest tier in stealth skills (pass without trace alone would be enough to get them there even if they couldn't create darkness or silence, teleport past obstacles, walk up walls, and eventually turn invisible). but generally speaking, I don't think that's really necessary. you just need to know if they have basic capability (which is still useful), vastly superior, or better than basic but not vastly superior.

[JoeJ]

As long as we all remember that only class abilities count (except feats, which don't count even though some classes get more than others), and that casters should be evaluated by how many things they can do what other classes can do while non-casters are evaluated by how many things they can do that other classes can't.

[EvilAnagram]

As long as we all remember that only class abilities count (except feats, which don't count even though some classes get more than others), and that casters should be evaluated by how many things they can do what other classes can do while non-casters are evaluated by how many things they can do that other classes can't.


Spellcasting is a class ability. It gets judged against other class abilities. Your DPR includes spells.

[krugaan]

He's intentionally derailing the thread because he doesn't like the topic.

I'm not derailing it, if anything i'm helping keep it alive. The topic is fine, but the odds of anything new actually being said are extremely slim since:

a) the OP has not said anything unique from the last thread, other than stating his opinion (which I happen to mostly agree with), and

b) the other posters in the thread thus far have all been from the other thread, and have not said anything pertinent either (or have merely restated their positions)


There was no real train of thought.

Yes, this is true. There is no forum rule against being silly, although I might have been a little rude, actually.

I do feel a little bad about that, by the way. I thought the humor would have been a little ... gentler ... than it came out in print.

[JoeJ]

Spellcasting is a class ability. It gets judged against other class abilities. Your DPR includes spells.

Yep. And opening locks, which count in favor of the usefulness of wizards, because they can use Knock, and against the usefulness of rogues, because wizards can do the same thing with Knock. :smalltongue:

[SharkForce]

Yep. And opening locks, which count in favor of the usefulness of wizards, because they can use Knock, and against the usefulness of rogues, because wizards can do the same thing with Knock. :smalltongue:

except that knock is not remotely the same thing as having thieve's tools proficiency.

first off, thieve's tools proficiency covers a heck of a lot more stuff. secondly, knock is extremely noticeable. thirdly, knock requires the expenditure of resources, while thieve's tools proficiency is largely unlimited in how often you can use it. there's also some corner case scenarios (knock won't work in an anti-magic field, but since those aren't exactly common, that's relatively a minor concern. additionally, knock can be counterspelled, but again, relatively minor).

there's something to be said for the guaranteed success of a knock spell, but by the time the spell slot it takes to cast knock is no longer particularly crucial, the rogue can probably reliably pick the lock on the chastity belt of a goddess of virtue without her even noticing. it's better than nothing at all I suppose, but all things considered I'd rather have a wizard with thieve's tools proficiency than a wizard that can cast knock, if it comes to trying to get through a locked door.

[JoeJ]

except that knock is not remotely the same thing as having thieve's tools proficiency.

first off, thieve's tools proficiency covers a heck of a lot more stuff. secondly, knock is extremely noticeable. thirdly, knock requires the expenditure of resources, while thieve's tools proficiency is largely unlimited in how often you can use it. there's also some corner case scenarios (knock won't work in an anti-magic field, but since those aren't exactly common, that's relatively a minor concern. additionally, knock can be counterspelled, but again, relatively minor).

there's something to be said for the guaranteed success of a knock spell, but by the time the spell slot it takes to cast knock is no longer particularly crucial, the rogue can probably reliably pick the lock on the chastity belt of a goddess of virtue without her even noticing. it's better than nothing at all I suppose, but all things considered I'd rather have a wizard with thieve's tools proficiency than a wizard that can cast knock, if it comes to trying to get through a locked door.

Blue text means sarcasm. I was mocking some of the "casters rule" arguments I've seen. Sorry for the confusion.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yes, 5e is better balanced than 3e. No, it's not perfect. Yes, there are no trap options and all classes can contribute effectively. No, there are still classes that are better at certain things than others. Yes, some classes are better at DPR. No, I have no idea why we obsess over small differences in DPR as if they mattered. I think that about covers it. You could do a 3e-style tier list, but everything would fall in the T3 to T4 range, which is not a terrifically important distinction to make.

The one related theorycrafting question that seems worth discussing is spells, I suppose; while most of the seriously broken spells from 3.5 seem to have been appropriately weakened, it doesn't look like there's been much of a change in breadth of options.

[warmachine]

I would rather classes and archetypes were rated in various categories:-


Complexity - how much beginners and non-rules lawyers would pause the game to re-read class features and spells.
Slaying - how well the class can kill enemies in combat.
Tactical - how well the class can make sure combat goes right and not goes wrong without directly slaying.
Problem solving - how well class features and spells solve various non-combat obstacles, whether persuasion, mystery solving, stealth, climbing etc.
Flavour - variety of features that provide interesting role playing and story telling flavour, rather than mechanical utility, such as Thieves' Cant.

[Visser3SansTheP]

I would rather classes and archetypes were rated in various categories:-


Complexity - how much beginners and non-rules lawyers would pause the game to re-read class features and spells.
Slaying - how well the class can kill enemies in combat.
Tactical - how well the class can make sure combat goes right and not goes wrong without directly slaying.
Puzzle solving - how well class features and spells solve various non-combat obstacles, whether persuasion, mystery solving, stealth, climbing etc.
Flavour - variety of features that provide interesting role playing and story telling flavour, rather than mechanical utility, such as Thieves' Cant.


I like this, except for the flavour part - you're basically measuring whether the class has a ribbon ability or not and then launching head first into the impossibly subjective. And I'd change slaying to 'ability to deal and receive damage' or maybe turn it into a couple of combat categories.

[NewDM]

Blue text means sarcasm. I was mocking some of the "casters rule" arguments I've seen. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm still trying to figure out how the Knock spell's loud bang, is a detriment. I mean if you have even one combat in the same area the screams of the wounded and dying, battle cries, and the clash of weapons and explosions of spells are going to be at least as loud, so by the same measure everything in the dungeon already knows you are there.

[SharkForce]

I'm still trying to figure out how the Knock spell's loud bang, is a detriment. I mean if you have even one combat in the same area the screams of the wounded and dying, battle cries, and the clash of weapons and explosions of spells are going to be at least as loud, so by the same measure everything in the dungeon already knows you are there.

well, for one thing, unlocking a door can come before the battle. there's a world of difference between getting a surprise attack in for the first fight, and not getting a surprise attack in.

secondly, there's a big difference between "someone is in this area somewhere, there was fighting a minute ago" and "there's someone on the other side of that door".

[warmachine]

I like this, except for the flavour part - you're basically measuring whether the class has a ribbon ability or not and then launching head first into the impossibly subjective. And I'd change slaying to 'ability to deal and receive damage' or maybe turn it into a couple of combat categories.
I don't see a problem with the impossibly subjective flavour category as the other categories are subjective anyway. Flavour ought to remain as some like that kind of thing and can't be merged into the other categories. It's probably the most prone to disagreements but this is the GitP forum. If you want to avoid arguments, you're in the wrong forum.

As for 'ability to deal and receive damage', that's too verbose. Slaying will have to be understood to mean withstanding damage as well as dealing as a character forced to retreat is not slaying.

[NewDM]

well, for one thing, unlocking a door can come before the battle. there's a world of difference between getting a surprise attack in for the first fight, and not getting a surprise attack in.

secondly, there's a big difference between "someone is in this area somewhere, there was fighting a minute ago" and "there's someone on the other side of that door".

Not really. Due to being alerted of battle elsewhere they are going to be listening for intruders and will get active perception checks, so its almost a certainty that they will hear any heavily armored characters tromping down the hallway and stopping in front of their door. Unless your entire party is lightly armored and trained in stealth, and stealthily slipping down the corridor before silently picking the lock, you really aren't going to surprise anyone, and even then that's assuming they aren't standing ready to do battle waiting on the intruders to come crashing through the door.

I find that most DMs hand wave loud combat noises, but zero in on the knock spells loud noise. Of course if the game were played realistically, the first combat in a dungeon, lair, or castle would bring the combined forces of the entire place down on them, and would always result in a TPK.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Discuss or don't discuss, but please don't show up in threads just to threadcrap, mock, derail, or spam. If you think there's nothing productive to be accomplished by a thread, just don't read it or post in it.

[NewDM]

Sheriff: Discuss or don't discuss, but please don't show up in threads just to threadcrap, mock, derail, or spam. If you think there's nothing productive to be accomplished by a thread, just don't read it or post in it.

Was this directed at any specific posts or posters, or is it some kind of general warning?

[djreynolds]

I agree with the negatives that can be associated with Tier lists.

And characters got by just fine in 1st and 2nd edition without any feats or ability increases.

But there seems to be an unusual benefit as well. Recently the UA has begun creating additional archetypes, kits, etc. for classes like the rogue, fighter, or ranger that many see as undervalued, I do not because I have played since Elves and Dwarves were actual classes, and understand that the roll of the dice can make champions and ghosts of PCs.

But perhaps these creators are actually on these sites themselves and read what we have to say. Pros and cons. And since a lot cons come-up for fighters and rogues, we have begun to see many new archetypes for them.

Look at the SCAG, new legit fighter and rogue archetypes. Look at UA, the same. Coincidence possibly, but I'm betting the creators depend on Forums such as this to see where improvement need to be made. So there are some positives for Tier lists, at least for those classes that hang around in the lower sections on these lists.

[Firechanter]

I would rather classes and archetypes were rated in various categories:-


Complexity - how much beginners and non-rules lawyers would pause the game to re-read class features and spells.
Slaying - how well the class can kill enemies in combat.
Tactical - how well the class can make sure combat goes right and not goes wrong without directly slaying.
Problem solving - how well class features and spells solve various non-combat obstacles, whether persuasion, mystery solving, stealth, climbing etc.
Flavour - variety of features that provide interesting role playing and story telling flavour, rather than mechanical utility, such as Thieves' Cant.


Yep, good point. I've actually begun to write a newbie guide like that a while back. Well, so far I've talked about Damage Dealing and complexity. I wouldn't rate flavour since it's entirely subjective, but the rest should be sensible.

[darkdragoon]

The obvious problems with a tier list in 5E is that WotC made the classes attempting them to be equal.


Which is basically meaningless if you don't actually make comparisons. If you were to boil things down to one thing in 3.5 it's that they thought certain things were equivalent when they were not. In that sense, it doesn't matter if they hit all their goals if their goals were the wrong benchmark to begin with.


In conclusion, I think that each of the 5E classes are too multifaceted and complex to be rated by one unchanging tier list, but a more flexible system could be organized.


They're modular with mostly sporadic updates. If anything it would probably be pretty stagnant barring a huge jump from an archetype or spell.

The JaronK list has been deconstructed multiple times, but the alternatives I've seen end up with pretty much the same conclusions. It's kind of devolved to an ego contest about how to label the chart.

[NewDM]

I don't think anyone has actually linked the 3.x tier list. So I'll do that now for reference:

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=73iqd36rmppiq3cdl4kd9lr3b6&topic=5293

Some things to note:

Reason the system was designed in the first place

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

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

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

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

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

This post is NOT intended to state which class is "best" or "sucks." It is only a measure of the power and versatility of classes for balance purposes."

I personally see this as a problem in 5e, highlighted by my recent game session where I (a high elf level 4 blade singer) was nearly able to solo 3 knights from about half hit points on, after they managed to kill the rest of the party by simply using up my spell slots. At higher levels spell casters can nearly cast a spell slot spell every round in nearly every combat of the day.

The martial classes in some cases don't stand a chance.

[Theodoxus]

Just curious (and lazy), but was a ton of 'Tier List Rawr!' shenanigans done for 4E as well?

[Coffee_Dragon]

From what I've read, 4e had just one class.

[Theodoxus]

From what I've read, 4e had just one class.

That's pretty accurate - at least as a chassis for classes. I decided to be unlazy for a hot minute and google 4E Tier List. These very boards, 6 years ago were abuzz with the same silly arguments and "this isn't the definition of 'tier' we used for 3.5, but..." commentary.

Given that the ultimate conclusion in 4E is the same as in 5E - it is abundantly clear that the Tier System as envisioned by JaronK is an artifact of that specific system that doesn't duplicate into other systems with anything other than a muddy semblance of usefulness.

My own conclusion hasn't changed in any of the subsequent threads regarding the subject: Not only does it not matter if you develop a tier system, it is actually potentially detrimental to a new players outlook on the game and not meeting the expectations of a perceived power (high tier) class. This harms our hobby far more than any benefit might be derived by the comparison.

As such, I would recommend a different tact when discussing class balance and the three pillars of game experience (Combat, Exploration & Social).

[Anonymouswizard]

You could make a JaronK-style tier list for 5e, but it has a lot less usefulness. As I remember it measures ability to solve problems, sort of similar to versatility, although it puts some power in there. I'd put three JaronK style tiers here:
-Prepared casters, able to adapt to pretty much anything their spell list offers.
-Pretty much every other class.
-Fighters, who don't get enough out-of-combat abilities for me.

So yeah, I think the only reason I don't have them all equal is the greater versatility of prepared casters annoys me. I feel like wizards are just better than sorcerers in every way, although I wouldn't mind trying metamagic.

I do agree that another system would be nice, but I wouldn't be sure what to rate. Versatility? That's much more common, although Lore Bard edges ahead thanks to getting any six skills and pinching spells from other lists (I just know I'll be made to take Raise Dead :smallsigh:). Power? That's not specific enough. DPR? Do I really care about it? (no)

As it is, I want a few more nonmagical options, and to play my half-orc bard, but I can't see a realistic way to build a 5e tier system. The really question is, how does class impact play in 5e? How do they fare in theorycrafting?

[NewDM]

From what I've read, 4e had just one class.

I like how some come here and immediately start throwing edition war bait around as if it were not against the forum rules to do so.

The tier system actually works you have:

Tier 1 Wizards
Tier 2 Warlocks, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics
Tier 3 Paladins, Eldritch Knights
Tier 4 Barbarians, Fighters
Tier 5 Champion Fighters, Rangers


If you read my above post you'll find out that its not absolute power, its relative power. So knowing that if you have a ranger in a party of wizards, you'll definitely see a power difference.

If you put barbarians and Fighters in the same party as a Wizard, you'll see that the fighters and barbarians hold their own in combat, but other than that the Wizards are going to be doing nearly as well (or as well) in combat and they will be dominating social and exploration challenges.

These gaps become more pronounced the further you progress in the game. At the highest levels of the game Wizards are teleporting and plane shifting and asking Deities questions and wishing things into existence, never dying because of contingency clones, and creating simulacrum copies of themselves nearly doubling their spell slots and actions. While the fighters and barbarians are still running around and attacking OMG 4 enemies in a round, or 8 in one round every other combat.

If you compare class feature to class feature (and yes spells are class features) you end up with action surge becoming a joke as soon as the wizard gets simulacrum. It costs a little bit of money but that isn't a problem by the time they get it. They can polymorph and shape change into creatures that rival the fighters power. They can true polymorph themselves or others into more powerful creatures permanently. Remember they have 16 other spell slots + the 16 the simulacrum has. The fighter can make a saving throw to stay alive if they drop to 0 hit points. Ok, useful but not near as good as clone spell. The fighter will eventually fail their save while the wizard will always be cloned. The wizard can get right back in the action too with a teleport spell.

I don't think anyone is willing to say the Fighter and the Wizard are on the same playing field.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't think anyone is willing to say the Fighter and the Wizard are on the same playing field.
That doesn't matter because the DM will fix it. Look at DPR, that's the most important thing.

I really just don't see how one can argue that classes like the Fighter and the Wizard are equal in anything but basic ability to kill things. (Not even necessarily combat as such, which covers a lot more than just vastly-overcited DPR calculations). Which is important, don't get me wrong; that's far and away the part most people will notice, I think, and also the part that I think most players care most about. The ability to fill their schtick, if nothing else, which 5e is vastly better at than 3.5 was.

[jas61292]

I don't think anyone is willing to say the Fighter and the Wizard are on the same playing field.

Actually, I think a majority of people are. D&D is not a PvP game. The fighter doesn't need to kill a wizard, or even kill things as fast as a wizard. He needs to provide utility to a party that cannot be given (or at least not to the same extent) by a wizard. This is exactly how this edition is. No individual class is out of place with any other class in the party, so yes, they are on the same playing field.

[NewDM]

Actually, I think a majority of people are. D&D is not a PvP game. The fighter doesn't need to kill a wizard, or even kill things as fast as a wizard. He needs to provide utility to a party that cannot be given (or at least not to the same extent) by a wizard. This is exactly how this edition is. No individual class is out of place with any other class in the party, so yes, they are on the same playing field.

The sad part is the fighter brings nothing to the table. The barbarian does the same thing and any spell caster can cause the same status effects as the Battle Master, only better and at a cheaper cost (16+ spell slots compared to a few superiority dice).

This is literally the definition that was used in the 3.x tier system. The fighter just moved up a tier is all.

Edit: As to the PvP comment. That's the first thing that gets brought up, ignoring the definition of the tier system which is relative power. No one is talking about PvP at all and it has no bearing on ranking the classes.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Actually, I think a majority of people are. D&D is not a PvP game. The fighter doesn't need to kill a wizard, or even kill things as fast as a wizard. He needs to provide utility to a party that cannot be given (or at least not to the same extent) by a wizard. This is exactly how this edition is. No individual class is out of place with any other class in the party, so yes, they are on the same playing field.
They both contribute. The wizard (casters in general, really) can contribute in more different situations and in more different ways. That's not necessarily bad, but it's not nothing.

[jas61292]

The sad part is the fighter brings nothing to the table. The barbarian does the same thing and any spell caster can cause the same status effects as the Battle Master, only better and at a cheaper cost (16+ spell slots compared to a few superiority dice).

This is literally the definition that was used in the 3.x tier system. The fighter just moved up a tier is all.

Edit: As to the PvP comment. That's the first thing that gets brought up, ignoring the definition of the tier system which is relative power. No one is talking about PvP at all and it has no bearing on ranking the classes.

The PvP comment is not about players literally fighting each other. Its about them competing against one another. In other words, when you have 3 party members and are trying to decide on a 4th, its not about what class is the strongest, compared to each other, in a vacuum. Its about what brings the most to the table FOR THE TEAM. While 5e D&D can certainly be played with a single player, the vast majority of the time people play as members of teams, and comparing classes vs each other in such vacuums is useless. You can say "Wizards bring more to the table" all you want, but in a party of a bard, sorcerer and rogue, adding a fighter will, in my experience, improve the team by far far more than adding a wizard.

In 3.5, this was not the case. It didn't matter if the team was Cleric/Fighter/Rogue or if it was Wizard/Wizard/Wizard; adding a wizard as the 4th member was always the more optimal choice than adding a fighter (or just about any other class). This is absolutely not the case in 5e, and the very fact that it is not the case pretty much cements the fact that they are on the same playing field.

I could get into how much you are over stretching the caster's resources, and undervaluing at will mundane resources, but honestly, that's not even important here.

[NewDM]

The PvP comment is not about players literally fighting each other. Its about them competing against one another. In other words, when you have 3 party members and are trying to decide on a 4th, its not about what class is the strongest, compared to each other, in a vacuum. Its about what brings the most to the table FOR THE TEAM. While 5e D&D can certainly be played with a single player, the vast majority of the time people play as members of teams, and comparing classes vs each other in such vacuums is useless. You can say "Wizards bring more to the table" all you want, but in a party of a bard, sorcerer and rogue, adding a fighter will, in my experience, improve the team by far far more than adding a wizard.

In 3.5, this was not the case. It didn't matter if the team was Cleric/Fighter/Rogue or if it was Wizard/Wizard/Wizard; adding a wizard as the 4th member was always the more optimal choice than adding a fighter (or just about any other class). This is absolutely not the case in 5e, and the very fact that it is not the case pretty much cements the fact that they are on the same playing field.

I could get into how much you are over stretching the caster's resources, and undervaluing at will mundane resources, but honestly, that's not even important here.

Adding a Wizard to a party is still the optimal choice. Whereas the fighter's role can be replaced by a Paladin, Barbarian, or a War Cleric and more recently by a well thought out Blade Singer.

Caster's resources aren't stretched. Average encounters that the DMG suggests are 6-8 per day. By level 5th level Wizards have enough slots to use one spell per encounter plus rituals that take 10 minutes to cast. Plus arcane recovery that gives them 3 spell levels worth of slots. In reality with Arcane Recovery a 4th level wizard can cast one spell per combat.

By level 8 they are casting 12 + 4 spell levels with Arcane Recovery which is 2 spells per combat. Their cantrips also keep up with the damage of multiple attacks pretty well.

Short of some insane day that the party faces more than 8 encounters (outside the recommendations of the DMG) per day, the casters will keep up plenty with the non-caster classes. Couple that with hit dice healing requiring short rests and the main healing resource being spell slots which require long rests to recover any given party isn't going to ignore long and short rests.

Honestly the only thing the fighter brings to the table is high damage and survivability in combat. These things are duplicated by most classes as well or better than the fighter. The fighter is clearly a tier 4 class.

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

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

They are capable of doing everything in the game. They can heal themselves (and others) through (true) polymorph troll (or other regenerative creatures). They can stand toe to toe with enemies and do melee (mirror image + mage armor + green-flame blade or booming blade with a False Life thrown in when needed, or drop mage armor and mirror image and just play the blade singer subclass). They can do any skill check (spider climb, jump, enhance ability, etc...etc...). They can do anything in the game and due to the number of spell slots they get plus the rituals they can do it all day (6-8 encounters unless the DM is trying to kill you as per the DMG).

Fighters can deal damage. They can do athletics checks.

The difference between 3.x and 5E is simply that the numbers are closer together so the comparisons while still relative are much closer. Remember the tier system is relative power between classes.

[jas61292]

Adding a Wizard to a party is still the optimal choice. Whereas the fighter's role can be replaced by a Paladin, Barbarian, or a War Cleric and more recently by a well thought out Blade Singer.

Caster's resources aren't stretched. Average encounters that the DMG suggests are 6-8 per day. By level 5th level Wizards have enough slots to use one spell per encounter plus rituals that take 10 minutes to cast. Plus arcane recovery that gives them 3 spell levels worth of slots. In reality with Arcane Recovery a 4th level wizard can cast one spell per combat.

By level 8 they are casting 12 + 4 spell levels with Arcane Recovery which is 2 spells per combat. Their cantrips also keep up with the damage of multiple attacks pretty well.

Short of some insane day that the party faces more than 8 encounters (outside the recommendations of the DMG) per day, the casters will keep up plenty with the non-caster classes. Couple that with hit dice healing requiring short rests and the main healing resource being spell slots which require long rests to recover any given party isn't going to ignore long and short rests.

Honestly the only thing the fighter brings to the table is high damage and survivability in combat. These things are duplicated by most classes as well or better than the fighter. The fighter is clearly a tier 4 class.

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

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

They are capable of doing everything in the game. They can heal themselves (and others) through (true) polymorph troll (or other regenerative creatures). They can stand toe to toe with enemies and do melee (mirror image + mage armor + green-flame blade or booming blade with a False Life thrown in when needed, or drop mage armor and mirror image and just play the blade singer subclass). They can do any skill check (spider climb, jump, enhance ability, etc...etc...). They can do anything in the game and due to the number of spell slots they get plus the rituals they can do it all day (6-8 encounters unless the DM is trying to kill you as per the DMG).

Fighters can deal damage. They can do athletics checks.

The difference between 3.x and 5E is simply that the numbers are closer together so the comparisons while still relative are much closer. Remember the tier system is relative power between classes.

This is such a gross exaggeration its not even funny. When "doing everything" involves either things only available at the very highest levels (polymorph is beasts only, so no troll until you get that true version at level 17) and only once per day, or things that require a good amount of resources just to be as good as someone who is literally spending no resources (I have played with a party of a bladesinger and martials, and saying a bladsinger can take the job of a pure martial character is a joke).

Can a wizard do "absolutely everything"? Maybe. I'd probably say no, but close.
Can a wizard do things "better than classes that specialize in that thing?" Not even close.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the tier description because it doesn't even apply to anything that exists in 5e.

If you really think versatility is the best measure of power, then yeah, you are going to put wizards on top. But they are simply not better at every role, and when you need a specific role, it doesn't matter how good you are at other things. 5e wizards are not 3.5 wizards and absolutely cannot replace other classes. And the spells in 5e are not the spells from 3.5, and rarely break any given situation, much less the entire game. Your comparison the the 3.5 tier list simply does not hold water.

[NewDM]

This is such a gross exaggeration its not even funny. When "doing everything" involves either things only available at the very highest levels (polymorph is beasts only, so no troll until you get that true version at level 17) and only once per day, or things that require a good amount of resources just to be as good as someone who is literally spending no resources (I have played with a party of a bladesinger and martials, and saying a bladsinger can take the job of a pure martial character is a joke).

I'm sorry but I'm playing 2 melee wizards in different campaigns and they both fill the role of the fighter and they do it well. In one campaign there is a fighter and the blade singer outlasted them in melee battle. The other one is a dwarf transmuter and they keep up with the barbarian of the party. The barbarian starts out doing lots of damage but then the cleric and bards healing spells are used up and the barbarian has to kinda step back or go down while the dwarf transmizard has only received 1 healing spell in the whole campaign (and it wasn't asked for). My experience tells me different.

The same applies to 3.x those kinds of spells were high level and yet the Wizard was still classified as a tier 1 class.

Wizard's can cast Creation to create a 5 foot cube of Good Berries. That's hundreds and each one restores 1 hit point with a 5th level spell. Vampiric touch to heal themselves. Polymorph doesn't heal, but it can be used to give a character a new hit point total which has much the same effect until it wears off.

Remember one of the key things is that the character has to be "well played". A well played fighter does what? deals damage. A well played wizard can do just about anything.


Can a wizard do "absolutely everything"? Maybe. I'd probably say no, but close.
Can a wizard do things "better than classes that specialize in that thing?" Not even close.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the tier description because it doesn't even apply to anything that exists in 5e.

If you really think versatility is the best measure of power, then yeah, you are going to put wizards on top. But they are simply not better at every role, and when you need a specific role, it doesn't matter how good you are at other things. 5e wizards are not 3.5 wizards and absolutely cannot replace other classes. And the spells in 5e are not the spells from 3.5, and rarely break any given situation, much less the entire game. Your comparison the the 3.5 tier list simply does not hold water.

I've already seen them replace other classes. At worst they would have a hard time replacing a cleric's healing ability.

They can replace Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues for damage. They can open locks more reliably, sneak around more reliably, and scout more reliably, than rogues. They can bypass traps with spells like mage hand.

Is the gap as big as 3.x? No, of course not. But the gap is there.

[JoeJ]

Wizard's can cast Creation to create a 5 foot cube of Good Berries. That's hundreds and each one restores 1 hit point with a 5th level spell.

That's a pretty unusual house rule. Now I wonder what other house rules you're playing with, and what effect they have on class balance.

[NewDM]

That's a pretty unusual house rule. Now I wonder what other house rules you're playing with, and what effect they have on class balance.

Berries are no longer living once plucked. You can create any vegetable matter (plant life) that is not living. Its a straight forward reading of the rules.

[EvilAnagram]

Berries are no longer living once plucked. You can create any vegetable matter (plant life) that is not living. Its a straight forward reading of the rules.

That's straight up not true. Berries are incubation pods for seeds, which are alive. They don't "die" until their cells stop living, and they don't stop living and metabolizing the moment they're plucked.

[NewDM]

That's straight up not true. Berries are incubation pods for seeds, which are alive. They don't "die" until their cells stop living, and they don't stop living and metabolizing the moment they're plucked.

Well rope has bacteria on it so you can't make rope either. Of course you can just make seedless Good Berries since you are just going to spit the seeds out anyway. Wait, do Good Berries have seeds at all? They are created by a spell so they might not have seeds at all.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Berries are no longer living once plucked. You can create any vegetable matter (plant life) that is not living. Its a straight forward reading of the rules.
Goodberries are the result of an ENCHANTMENT, not a natural thing. I don't think you can make magic items with Creation.

[NewDM]

Goodberries are the result of an ENCHANTMENT, not a natural thing. I don't think you can make magic items with Creation.

It says nothing in the spell description about magic or non-magic items. A straight RAW reading would allow it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It says nothing in the spell description about magic or non-magic items. A straight RAW reading would allow it.
Yeah, as a general rule, I wouldn't base comparative assumptions on stupid-RAW readings of anything.

[NewDM]

Yeah, as a general rule, I wouldn't base comparative assumptions on stupid-RAW readings of anything.

Unfortunately RAW is the only thing that different games at different tables have in common. We can't include DM calls in the comparisons because different DMs will have different calls.

[EvilAnagram]

Well rope has bacteria on it so you can't make rope either. Of course you can just make seedless Good Berries since you are just going to spit the seeds out anyway. Wait, do Good Berries have seeds at all? They are created by a spell so they might not have seeds at all.

Seedless berries are also still alive until their cells stop metabolizing.

[jas61292]

Allowing Creation to create Goodberries is not even close to RAW. The spell Goodberry has two effects. It creates berries in your hand, and it imbues them with magic. Creation can totally create berries. It cannot imbue them with magic. And claiming it can just create them with magic inside them is utterly asinine. I mean, if that's the case, why are you making goodberries? Why not use the fact that it can make metal stuff for up to 12 hours to make a legendary weapon or something? The spell creates objects, not magical effects.

When you need to stretch the truth beyond what is even close to reasonable to make your point, you are only hurting your position.

[NewDM]

Allowing Creation to create Goodberries is not even close to RAW. The spell Goodberry has two effects. It creates berries in your hand, and it imbues them with magic. Creation can totally create berries. It cannot imbue them with magic. And claiming it can just create them with magic inside them is utterly asinine. I mean, if that's the case, why are you making goodberries? Why not use the fact that it can make metal stuff for up to 12 hours to make a legendary weapon or something? The spell creates objects, not magical effects.

When you need to stretch the truth beyond what is even close to reasonable to make your point, you are only hurting your position.

lol. Sorry, Creation creates the berries that are infused. It only has to be some vegetable matter you've seen before it doesn't have to be non-magical or non-crafted or the original parts. No where does it indicate it can't be infused with magic.

[JoeJ]

lol. Sorry, Creation creates the berries that are infused. It only has to be some vegetable matter you've seen before it doesn't have to be non-magical or non-crafted or the original parts. No where does it indicate it can't be infused with magic.

Then you're wasting a spell slot creating Good Berries when you could be using it to create a Ring of Wishes.

[jas61292]

Then you're wasting a spell slot creating Good Berries when you could be using it to create a Ring of Wishes.

Exactly.

If you start assigning infinite power to a mid-level spell, its no wonder you would see a class as stronger than it is.

[Grod_The_Giant]

lol. Sorry, Creation creates the berries that are infused. It only has to be some vegetable matter you've seen before it doesn't have to be non-magical or non-crafted or the original parts. No where does it indicate it can't be infused with magic.
Dude. I agree with your overall point about tiers existing, but you're not helping your case by arguing the most munchkiny, can't-possibly-imagine-a-DM-allowing-it readings or super-high-optimization builds.

The Wizard isn't more versatile than a fighter because he can cheese the **** out of Create, he's more versatile than a fighter because there's basically no situation where creating something from nothing can't help, and yet he can also turn the injured warlock into a bear to get a bunch of temporary HP and fight on, control minds, turn the rogue invisible to scout, and so on.

[SharkForce]

kindly keep your silly air bud shenanigans out of the discussion.

"it doesn't say i can't do <thing>" is a terrible and silly argument.

wizards are quite strong. at very high levels, they will probably add more than most non-spellcasting classes.

having said that... they aren't better at most things than non-casters specialized in their areas. they won't beat a rogue specialized in picking locks (an arcane trickster can pick locks, at range, silently, without using spell slots, with 100% success rate, as a bonus action. a thief can do all of that except for the "at range" part) or stealth (invisibility on its own basically does nothing any more. certainly not nearly as much as +17 to a stealth check).

what they probably can boast is that they're quite good at what the specialist is good at, and are also typically much better at other tasks than the specialist. at level 20, honestly, i probably would rather have 4 wizards than 1 each of wizard, rogue, fighter, cleric (though i wouldn't consider 4 wizards to be as optimized as, say, a wizard, a bard, a druid, and a paladin). at the levels where most people play, i'd much rather have a fighter or two than 1 or 2 extra wizards. and i don't just mean level 1, either... i'd say full casters don't even really start to pull ahead until after level 11, and even then haven't really pulled *far* ahead until at least level 15 or so (and depending on what non-caster we're talking about, possibly not even then).

i think you're really underestimating the skill system as well. being able to consistently hit 15 is actually pretty powerful. consistently hitting 20 or higher is extremely strong. a fighter with nothing more than a decent charisma score and proficiency in persuasion has a fair chance of success on persuading people to do reasonable things on a regular basis. this isn't 3.x where you need +20 on a skill check before you even bother showing up.

[NewDM]

Then you're wasting a spell slot creating Good Berries when you could be using it to create a Ring of Wishes.

The duration makes that impractical unless you had your wishes pre-planned. You also have to have seen one before. Finding a druid for good berry is easy (low level spell). Finding a ring of wishes super hard.

[smcmike]

Lacking a ton of experience with 5e, I wasn't sure which side of this argument I agreed with.... until NewDM unleashed the "ten thousand goodberries" argument. Hah!

[comk59]

Screw goodberries, what's the volume of a wand?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Lacking a ton of experience with 5e, I wasn't sure which side of this argument I agreed with.... until NewDM unleashed the "ten thousand goodberries" argument. Hah!
Oh, it's an absolutely insane argument. But... it's D&D. Classes either have magic offering a wide variety of different effects, a handful of specific skill/utility options, or essentially bupkiss. Combat potential is certainly tighter than it was in 3e, skills are... more equitable, if not more functional*, and even individual spells tend to be better balanced; you just get caster-classes with way more defined options.


*Everyone gets similar access and not being trained isn't a big deal by RAW, but the modifiers are very low in comparison to the d20, meaning that random chance is a huge element

[JoeJ]

The duration makes that impractical unless you had your wishes pre-planned. You also have to have seen one before. Finding a druid for good berry is easy (low level spell). Finding a ring of wishes super hard.

You only have to have seen the form and material. If you've seen rings and you've seen metals you're good to go.

[PoeticDwarf]

I won't make one but people may make lists and it is OK. Don't judge them for making something fun. It's more balanced but wizard can do still more than berserkers. The tier 4 and 3 difference of 3.5e

This kinds of threads are just annoying people and flaming. It's like saying "don't homebrew gunslingers, they don't fit in D&D 5e"

Most people won't share my opinion but if someone wants to make a list. Go on