How would you guys rate the various classes? (Power-wise)

[Prince_Vorrel]

Was just wondering what the overall general consensus on the level of power of the various classes using adventure league legal rules.

There are definitely some stand outs in sheer power/versatility like lore bard and Div wizard. Even multi-classing wise the Sorcerer/warlock becomes quite the powerhouse. Here are my two cents on them but I'd love to hear what you guys think and maybe get a discussion going about it. I'll put my thoughts down here then a TLDR teir list at the bottom.

Fighter: Definitely A+ material and quite powerful as a tank and/or DPS and can even go Eldritch Knight for quite a bit of magical versatility once you get some levels under your belt. Hell, the sheer amount of builds you can make with a pure fighter means something is working right.

Rogue: Good to meh depending on how many situations you get that work for a rogue. Assassin sounds great but in practice rarely works out. And worst of all your out skill monkey'd by a lore bard who is also a decent caster while all you have is a sneak attack that works sometimes. (definitely middle of the pack IMO)

Cleric: Ahh the healer. A heavily armored face smashing healer at that. Cleric seems really good depending on what he wants to do. He can go pure healer and be insanely good at it. Or he goes more warrior priest mode and be a pally in all but name while throwing out heals between smacking dudes faces. Heck go light cleric and you become a pretty good blaster who can also heal. Definitely a valuable member of the team one way or another.

Bard: Single most versatile class in the game in lore bard. Yea it's not the highest damage dealer possible. But a half-elf Lore bard can out skill monkey just about ANYTHING in this game AND will have a spell selection that will make a wizard blush with the ability to learn a few spells from ANY class. Valor bard is of course overshadowed by his sibling and with good reason but is also no slouch himself. Becoming a fairly good front line warrior with his attacks while still supporting with his spells (as long as he plays smart and doesn't start thinking he's as durable as the fighter).

Monk: Okay if you go the way of the open hand. Buuuuut kinda bad if you go anything else. Your pretty darn good early on but after level 3 or 4 things really start going downhill for the monk. Your a sorta squishy front line warrior like the rogue BUT you doesn't have skill monkey potential OR the scary burst a rogue has with proper positioning. Overall this is the hardest MEH class in the game for me power-wise. Your painfully mediocre and could easily be outshone by any of the other squishy melee warriors in terms of damage or versatility. (Valor bard, rogue, Melee Ranger)

Ranger: Terrible if you go Beastmaster but darn good otherwise. You get plenty of neat tricks and spells. You can go range or melee and can get decent support for either role. Honestly, the ranger doesn't really stand out to me but every time I've seen one and the one time I got my hands on one in a one shot 9-hour mini-campaign have been overall positive! Except for beastmaster...poor beastmaster. (Though I hear overall Rangers way late-game fall behind a bit)

Paladin: Powerful. Very powerful. You may not have the sustained damage of a fighter but with smite, you can burst on par with a rogue with a lucky crit. Your also a respectable emergency healer with lay on hands and spells AND your aura's are INSANE support (seriously +3 or more to saves for all my melee buddies? That's basically a free proficiency in all your stats that stacks!). Sure the oaths are a little meh overall power wise but for gods (heh) sake the base Paladin class without the oaths is a powerhouse by itself so you can't really complain.

Sorcerer/Wizard: I'm putting these two together as they can both be pretty summed up in once sentence. These are the two pure arcane spell casting classes that go about it in different ways but still succeed overall. Seriously, these two classes do have different feels to them but definitely feel relatively on par in terms of raw power. Sure the sorcerer may get some flack with the small spell selection but meta magics are pretty darn powerful. And wizards get some serious versatility and devious tricks in the form of divination/illusions/abjurer schools.

Barbarian: Ba ba barbarians! Okay, barbarians are pretty good. I do think they fall a bit behind the fighter overall BUT that doesn't change the fact that if you build them smartly they can be monsters on the battle field. I'd rate them below fighter or pally but still pretty respectable...if you build them to tank. This just may be me but every barb I've played with either went bear and became the immovable object with an ax or went anything else and started having serious survivability issues dropping at least once EVERY session.

Warlock: My favorite class! for flavor. Power rating though? Absolute garbage if your not getting a TON of short rests. Sure it's THE premier multiclassing toe dipper class (with Sorlock being a terrifying example). I think they were very afraid of having a caster who regains spells on short rests instead of long ones and over compensated for it's possible to power. If your DM gives your group a normal amount of shorts rests per session you will quickly find yourself lagging behind only using Eldritch Blast over and over again non-stop for entire sessions too afraid to use your valuable TWO spells in case you need them. You do start becoming a lot more threatening if you start getting a LOT of short rests but the sad truth even if your getting that many rests are this. You would be better-suited multi-classing into practically ANYTHING within reason other then warlock once you hit level 2 or 3.

So tier list time!

S+
Lore bard
Divination Wizard

S
Valor Bard
Paladin
Wizard (other schools)
Sorcerer (Not wildmage)
Tempest/Light/life cleric
Fighter (not champion)

A
Fighter (champion)
Cleric (other types)
Not Beastmaster Ranger

B
Thief/Arcane Trickster Rogue
Bear Barbarian

C
Wildmage Sorcerer (only because i hate that unpredictability)
Assassin Rogue
Barbarians (Not bear)
WotOH Monk

D
Monks (not WotOH)
Warlocks (unless you're only getting 2-3 levels in it)

Garbo
Beastmaster Ranger

[ZorroGames]

The AL party I am gaming with had a Paladin first adventure but he moved up tiers and until recently my Monk was the only melee type character (now have cleric, from ex-Rogue (?) ) and a straight up fighter and I/We made Monk work as "the meat shield" until then so I like Monk but Fighter and Cleric have the most appeal to me in game play terms.

[BillyBobShorton]

Agree with most of your assessment with a few excdptions.

I have to make an honorable mention for Arcana Cleric. Getting access to any 6, 7, 8, AND 9th(WISH) level wizard spell? A Cleric with Magic Missile, Teleportation Circle, Planar Binding, Magic Circle, and Fey/Fiend turning/banish/imprisonment abilities? And an extra 2 wizard cantrips? That count/cast as cleric spells? So your wisdom modifier is added to their damage as well... did I mention Spell Breaker? Heal someone and end a spell effect on them.

IMO the best "part of another class without multiclassing" subclass in the game, hands down. No need for stat jockeying to use other class features. Underrated and underutilized subclass, big time.

I also think you underrate Shadow Monk. Teleporting through shadows is a game chabger in the hands of the right player.
As well as rogues in general, particularly AT. Only class in the game with Ledgermain. No way for any other class to have that ability. And Sneak Attack in general is just massive. Rogues hit HARD consistently and give DM's fits during encounters due to all their bonus action abilities.

I've seen crummy wizards and even lackluster Paladin builds, but have never run or played in a game in 5e where the Rogue did not stand out in combat, and shine out of it.

Lastly, Moon Druids are utterly insane.

[Bahamut7]

I think you are downplaying Monks quite a bit. Regardless of what tradition a player chooses, the base monk abilities make a very potent character who can survive just about anything, not to mention the consistent damage they put out is really good.

Sure their Martial Arts damage start at a 1d4, but if you nail a +4 in Dex, you are looking at a consistent 5 damage per attack that hits. They also get multi-attack right out the gate, which means level 1 they are dishing out minimum 10 damage (assuming both attacks hit).

Stunning Strike can lock down the mightiest of foes and allow your party to utilize pack tactics or just let the Monk hold down the BBEG while the party clears out the minions.

Evasion, Practically no fall damage ever, running on walls, able to speak all languages, advantages on all saving throws (including death saves), and one of the most self sufficient classes period. Magic Weapons? Monk gets that at level 6. Not to mention a Monk turns Missile weapons into 1d10 by level 17, improvised or not.

[Matticusrex]

SSS:Wizards, Druids, Sorcadins, Mystics
SS: Forge Cleric, Ancient/blackguard/Oathbreaker paladin, Shadow Sorcerer
S: Paladins, Clerics, Bards, Sorcerers, Hexblade
A: Revised Ranger, Rogue, path of zealot/ ancestral guardian barbarian
B: Barbarian, Warlock
C: Fighter, Monk,
D: Artificer, Champion

This has been my general experience with playing as and watching others play as these classes with a lot of number crunch included. The list is based off their ability to handle all situations and what they bring to a party compared to other classes. If you let a warlock use the spell-point variant then they get bumped up to an A. A ranged Dex fighter with battle master can just barely scratch B. I have the least experience with Bards but being a full caster will always grant you access to S rank, especially when you can grab spells from other classes and have easy access to gishing.

[Jerrykhor]

No druids?

[toapat]

I think you are downplaying Monks quite a bit. Regardless of what tradition a player chooses, the base monk abilities make a very potent character who can survive just about anything, not to mention the consistent damage they put out is really good.

youre overvaluing component consideration of the monk subclasses. the problem with 4 Elements, Sun Soul, and Long Death is they dont improve on the monk itself in the same way both Open Hand and shadow do.

the OP is also dismissing the power of paladin oaths, dismissing their power like they arent themselves overwhelingly meaningful

Redemption > Ancients + Conquest > Vengeance, Devotion, Oathbreaker/Treachery > Crown

[Chugger]

From lvl 2 to lvl 5 (where I am now) there is no dispute - it's moonies that got da powah! Moon druids are insane and begging to be nerfed, but they slow down from what I understand. At 5 other classes get double attacks and lvl 3 spells, but moonies are still pretty wicked, even if their smack-advantage is not so shiny any more. You become a 34 or w/e hp animal - some with nice specials like pack attack or web shooting (and spider climb) - and if you zero you don't go unconscious - you are back in caster form and can become an animal again! And then if you zero you can start casting damage spells or heal or w/e. So right out the gate there's no question - go moonie!

[Rhedyn]

Well rounded classes that can break things: Druid, Wizard, Bard, Cleric

Classes that can unbalance your game depending on how they combo with other: Sorcerer, Paladin, Barbarian

Classes that can only break things because they can summon: Ranger

Classes that fit this system: Warlock, Monk,

Classes that are competent but unlikely to break anything without help: Rogue, Fighter

IMHO for the most part, every class is overpowered. (or monsters just lack abilities beyond being given random things by the DM)

[suplee215]

I think you are overvaluing bear in comparison to other archtypes. how often are you getting hit by damage that isn't bludgenoning, slashing or piercing? depends on level but I find other Barbarians surviving pretty long with Bear. I also argue that Battle Rager adds a great amount of survivable to the archetype through adding extra hit points each turn. Again depends on how much you are resisting but I would think a 5 round combat the 25 temp hp will go longer in a lot of battles than resisting everything. Wolf is hard to judge because that's a party make up think but give it a couple GWM, Sharpshooter, rogues or other people who love advantage and it is amazing.

[SharkForce]

it's pretty situational. there are some general statements you can make, but it's going to be hard to get it really accurate.

for example, if you're comparing at level 1, most spellcasters suck. fighters are crazypants awesome, barbarians are pretty good, paladins and rangers are ok, rogues are pretty good, monks are pretty good.

go up a single level, and fighters still look pretty good, warlocks get a lot stronger with 2 invocations and a second short rest recharging spell slot, paladins look very good, rangers... well they're better than they were at level 1, rogues get amazing, and monks don't really change much. and most of the spellcasters still suck (moon druids don't suck overall, but they do still suck as spellcasters).

and this kind of thing continues through the early levels.

at level 5-6, casters finally start to come into their own for most classes, but won't really hit their stride for a few more levels (need more level 3+ spell slots), monk has fallen behind in combat except as a specialized anti-artillery missile because their damage hasn't substantially increased and they don't have an endless supply of ki (but may have gained some interesting utility options), paladins are getting their omgwtfpwnbbq aura of passing all the saving throws, etc.

fast forward to level 11, and casters have a pretty good number of level 3+ spell slots, and level 6 spells which can really be strong... but not so much for clerics. most of the martials have been gaining at a steady pace while the casters have been growing at a slow exponential curve that is starting to become visible, but most of those martials (and partial martials) have also gained something to help them out in combat; improved divine smite for paladins, third attack for fighters, etc. the cracks in ranger are really starting to show... they still work, because danged near anything will in 5e if you don't try to make it not work, but it's hard to find any standout moments for them except possibly in exploration.

jump ahead to level 17-18, and you've got stuff like wish spells and shapechange and true polymorph on the table, proficiency bonus is at it's highest which means monsters with non-proficient saves are rolling with the same low bonuses against higher DCs than ever before, plus sometimes crazy abilities, while most martials don't have anything nearly as crazy. the casters have continued their exponential growth, and as exponential growth generally does it has sped up considerably, but the martials are generally still only advancing at a linear rate at best (depending on specific levels you compare, it can look really bad... 3 level 5 fighters may very well be more scary than a single level 17 fighter), although that isn't always completely true (monks get what amounts to no-concentration greater invisibility + barbarian rage, and champions get their regen to half ability at these levels).

go the last couple of levels, and it hasn't changed much for most. there are some exceptions (paladins, barbarians, and especially moon druids, plus to some extent fighters who have suffered through the major drought after level 11 to reach this point).

but then we also have to consider things like how does multiclassing impact this; how do we rank fighter/rogues; are they fighters, rogues, or a separate thing? do we compare each and every possible "optimized" build?

and furthermore, how much of each pillar is in the game? if the game is exclusively dungeon crawls where you kick in the door, kill stuff, and loot their corpses, that's going to be very different from a game that involves a lot of wandering in the wilderness scavenging resources, or travelling through a trap-infested tomb with almost nothing living (or undead) in it, or if it's a more political-oriented game where social skills are king, etc. rangers look pretty bad compared to fighters in a combat-heavy game, but as many people who've played the first part of the underdark campaign have noted, they are much more valuable when you're wandering through the wilderness with no supplies and your biggest problems can include things like traveling quickly and foraging to keep everyone from starving while staying ahead of a hostile pursuing force with superior supply lines.

so it really depends. level, build, what you want to do, how much is each pillar emphasized, etc.

and ultimately, any tier list you make needs to be clear on one thing: tiers aren't nearly as far apart as they have been in the past. while i consider the path of the berserker to be pretty lousy, i would never argue that it's unplayable, i just think it's much more poorly made and mechanically less powerful than, say, the lore bard. but if both are playing in the same game, i don't automatically assume that the berserker is useless or that the lore bard can solve every problem; the lore bard may be able to solve more problems (and especially able to help solve more problems) but doesn't have the resources to solve everything (especially all in one day), and the barbarian can still do useful things that the lore bard probably cannot do and can even help the lore bard from time to time.

[Specter]

Love how 99% of these analyses have 0% of consideration for the standard adventuring day. E.g. Divination Wizard being ranked as the top wizard for a power they can only use on two rolls a day. Anyway...

If I were to rate this, I'd do:

1) Full long-rest casters
2) Warlock/Martials

Which is as much as one can say generically.

[BillyBobShorton]

Somewhere on the webz is a chart like in board meetings where the various colored lines representing various aspects rise and fall to a general overhead chart usually indicating months or quarters to show increases and decreases. It ahows various classes and how they rise through the tiers/levels in 5e. Some start out quick from the getgo but often slowly the incline of their line tapers off while others show incrimental spikes and periods of lulls. And some, like wizard, start off very slow but have massive, sudden spikes that shoot them well above most others.

IIRC, much like the OP's assessment, Mages, Bards, and Pally's all finish above the others, with Druids and Clerics being pretty respectable 2nd place finishes. Rangers were the weakest, but fighters and rogues ended up closer to the 2nd place finishes than the 2nd placers were to top finishers, respectively.

I think the "general concensus" is about right that Lore Bard, Mage, and Paladins have the most potential to gain the most powerful abilities in the game. IEn capable of either massive damage and kills, altering reality, or just controlling/manipulating situations without much chance of being stopped.

The nig debates and counter-points come in when intangibles like party cohesion, campaign style, DM style, and how far/high the PC's actually go as a whole.

Generally speaking, there are very few, if any, "Bad" class choices, as all offer interesting and unique strengths and weaknesses. Some have options available that mathematically and through actual gameplay are shown to just be better than what others gain. But a lot, and I mean A LOT, depends on the players using said characters. A table full of noobs with great "staple" classes can still be massively outshined and out-gamed by a clever, experienced player using a beast master or Elements monk.

Classes are like cars. Some go faster and look cooler, but they are only as good as the drivers behind the wheel. (Players) and the road/conditions they have to drive in (DM).

[bid]

S+
Lore bard
Divination Wizard

Garbo
Beastmaster Ranger
The problem here is that 2 garbos would clean the floor off a single so-called S+. This is not 3.5 where you'd need dozens of garbos to challenge an optimal build.


The second issue is that level 5 and level 15 will not favor the same classes. Yet another meaningless blanket statement.

[Chugger]

I think you are overvaluing bear in comparison to other archtypes. how often are you getting hit by damage that isn't bludgenoning, slashing or piercing? depends on level but I find other Barbarians surviving pretty long with Bear. I also argue that Battle Rager adds a great amount of survivable to the archetype through adding extra hit points each turn. Again depends on how much you are resisting but I would think a 5 round combat the 25 temp hp will go longer in a lot of battles than resisting everything. Wolf is hard to judge because that's a party make up think but give it a couple GWM, Sharpshooter, rogues or other people who love advantage and it is amazing.

I don't think sharp can advan off wolf - wolf gives melee advan, iirc, if 5' from the barb.

But you make a point. If one party has a wolf barb and if that party is fighting where the meleers can pull synergy off him/her, then that party may kill things so much faster that the bear totem wouldn't have mattered, anyway. But some encounters make it hard for the wolf barb to share his advan w/ meleers. As others have pointed out, this stuff varies a lot encounter to encounter.

[Chugger]

Also has anyone mentioned Fighter BM w/ bow - a basic Archer? They got stupid good burst damage potential w/ sharpshooter and surge, especially if a friend has landed faerie fire on the target (it's a dex save, so it actually might stick on a giant or other somewhat low dex monsters). But with bless, a magic bow maybe or some magic item plus to hit, a high dex and the basic +2 a fighter can pick - and then Precision - and then if needed a bardic inspiration - a bow using fighter can dish out nasty damage, even when not surging. And when surging, it's silly. Of course the BM and inspiration and so on will run out, but, burst is burst - and Pals can only burst so much, too. With sharpshooter, even if not doing the -5 +10 thing, the bow fighter has no disad on range to 600 feet! Can ignore all but totally full cover. And probably gets boring to play after a while. But it is a powerful option, if we're just talkin power.

(edit - a cool think to keep in might with a bm fighter archer is that it cancels out one of the more annoying hitches that DMs like to throw at players - "there are already several meleers on that monster - it has __ cover if you shoot at it - and you can't melee it because there's no room." With Sharpshooter feat you ignore cover - and instead of attacking the unhurt monster over there, you instead finish off the already hurt monster the meleers are on. That's one dead monster, divided an conquered - and one source of damage no one needs to worry about any more. Then focus on what's left. And unlike casters, if such a fighter is close-quartered, he can always pull out a finesse weapon and shield and just fight - and still do okay damage while having okay ac)

[strangebloke]

In 3.5 terms:

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.

examples: No examples in 5e.

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, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

examples: No examples in 5e. Arguably, wizards could fit in here, but in practice, they don't really have the capacity to break campaigns until you get to high levels. A full-length adventuring day alone will severely dampen their ability.

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. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

examples: Most classes. Bards are awesome skill monkeys, decent healers, mediocre strikers and generally poor tanks. Paladins are amazing tanks, decent healers, great strikers but generally poor outside of combat. Battlemasters, Open Hand Monks, and Warlocks dominate if the party is required to take a lot of short rests. (as per the adventuring day) And so on and so on.

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. 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.

Examples: Champions, Beastmaster, Four elements Monk.

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

examples: No examples in 5e.

Yes, yes, I know its a foregone conclusion. But it bears repeating that 5e is remarkably balanced.

[Findulidas]

Im suprised that so many people have low rankings for fighters. My bm fighter with sharpshooter and crossbow mastery absolutely destroys with his handcrossbow. Its no mcing and all phb stuff as well.

[qube]

@Findulidas the reason for this, can be seen in strangebloke's post:

in 5E all classes are so close together, that trying to put them in multiple tiers makes the it look silly - basically everything fits in tier 3 & 4; and with a somewhat capable DM, you'll never spot the difference.

[Matticusrex]

Im suprised that so many people have low rankings for fighters. My bm fighter with sharpshooter and crossbow mastery absolutely destroys with his hand crossbow. Its no mcing and all phb stuff as well.

Doing damage isn't good enough to be high tier, it never has been. Power is in control and choices, neither of which the fighter has much of.

[rollingForInit]

I don't really think there are a lot of tiers in 5e. There's not enough variety to have 7 tiers. All official classes are really well-balanced, with some archetype exceptions (e.g. the PHB Beast Master). Where you put classes on a scale like that will depend so much on what type of campaign you play and on what level. Is it a dungeon crawl on level 20, or a political campaign at level 10, or a wilderness survival game on level 4? A 4th level Beast Master will be much better than 4th level Sorcerer in a wilderness campaign, because it'll have the right skills and class features to deal with that, and the animal companion hasn't really gotten bad enough yet. A Mastermind Rogue would be really bad for a dungeon crawl, but pretty good for intrigues in a city.

If we're just looking at how generally useful classes are based on their mechanics, I'd probably just make three tiers. I'm also going to assume level 20, which isn't really correct either; we'd probably need a different list for every 5 levels or so to be completely fair.

Edge. These classes have an edge that that others lack, and could be considered broken.
* Moon Druid, because infinite wild shapes as a bonus action means infinite HP, especially with elemental forms, which makes them basically unkillable, and they can cast spells while wild shaped and never have to worry about somatic, verbal or no-cost material components. And they can perform a lot of tasks, like the two below.
* Bard and Cleric, because they can fill any role: blaster, healer, support, crowd control, tank, melee damage dealer, and they have full spellcasting progression.
* Some specific multiclass builds, maybe Sorcadin.

Average. These are average and useful in most types of games. Nothing is really overpowered. Nothing is too niched to be useless. Doesn't take world-building into account (e.g. a Necromancer could be a horrible choice in some settings for in-game reasons).
* Basically every class and subclass that isn't listed elsewhere.

Below Average. Here are the classes that are either very niched and only performs well in a single type of situation, or a class that's somehow broken and can't be played well without houserules. This doesn't mean the class is unplayable, just that it doesn't feel entirely on par with the rest.
* Beastmaster Ranger (because mechanically flawed)
* Champion Fighter (because it's so very niched in abilities)
* Mastermind Rogue (very niched)


So really, I think the game is very balanced. There has to be a very specific reason for a class to be outside the average tier, and even then I don't think there's space for more than one step up or down. Maybe there are more classes and subclasses that should be moved out from the average tier, but I really do believe that there isn't space for more than three tiers in 5e.

(I'm not counting possibly broken UA stuff here, of course, since those are in development)

[Vaz]

S++; Lore Mastery Wizard, Theurgy Wizard

Sorcerer feels very high at S rank. A, maybe. Spells Known is too much of a limitation, and lack of Simulacrum and/or Glyph of Warding is devastating in comparison to any of the other classes like Bard, Cleric or Wizard. Also Paladin at A rank? Eh, no.

Sorc, Warlock and Mystic are A rank. Bard, Wizard and Cleric are S, with Lore Bard and Divination Wizard taking S, and Lore Mastery+Theurgist taking S+.

Paladin is no higher than B IMHO.

[MaxDPSsays]

I think some people think the diviner wizard is better than it really is. Problem is, you have to use your portent before the dice are rolled. You can't wait until after, so it's not nearly as good as it could be. My favorite wizard subclass is abjuration. The extra hp bubble that you can eventually throw on someone else in an emergency is nice. Getting proficiency on counterspell and dispel is good too. I love the level 14 ability though. So amazing!

[Byke]

S++; Lore Mastery Wizard, Theurgy Wizard

Sorcerer feels very high at S rank. A, maybe. Spells Known is too much of a limitation, and lack of Simulacrum and/or Glyph of Warding is devastating in comparison to any of the other classes like Bard, Cleric or Wizard. Also Paladin at A rank? Eh, no.

Sorc, Warlock and Mystic are A rank. Bard, Wizard and Cleric are S, with Lore Bard and Divination Wizard taking S, and Lore Mastery+Theurgist taking S+.

Paladin is no higher than B IMHO.

Lore Master Wizard is broken, I don't know any table that allows it and those that do why bother playing any other class. Will wait for the rework.

Sorcerer is in the S category based on spells chosen and Meta Magic. Shadow Sorcerer or the original Favored Soul with the the additional domain spells would bump it higher. Simulacrum can be achieved via Wish and the Simulacrum shenanigans are limited to 1 copy, in most games as it is the only real cheese in 5e. When you remove Lore Master and Simulacrum abuse, Sorcerer is definitely S tier.

WoTC seems to be reluctant to bump Sorcerers to the level they had in previous editions (IE Dragon Lance) and want to firmly keep Wizards ahead of them. As an example Lore Master Wizard energy substitution should have been given in the Sorcerer baseline abilities.

[Byke]

I think some people think the diviner wizard is better than it really is. Problem is, you have to use your portent before the dice are rolled. You can't wait until after, so it's not nearly as good as it could be. My favorite wizard subclass is abjuration. The extra hp bubble that you can eventually throw on someone else in an emergency is nice. Getting proficiency on counterspell and dispel is good too. I love the level 14 ability though. So amazing!


Diviner wizard really shines before Legendary saves. I'm with you on Abjuration and Illusion also get underated at higher levels they are awesome.

[Vaz]

Lore Master Wizard is broken, I don't know any table that allows it and those that do why bother playing any other class. Will wait for the rework.

Sorcerer is in the S category based on spells chosen and Meta Magic. Shadow Sorcerer or the original Favored Soul with the the additional domain spells would bump it higher. Simulacrum can be achieved via Wish and the Simulacrum shenanigans are limited to 1 copy, in most games as it is the only real cheese in 5e. When you remove Lore Master and Simulacrum abuse, Sorcerer is definitely S tier.

WoTC seems to be reluctant to bump Sorcerers to the level they had in previous editions (IE Dragon Lance) and want to firmly keep Wizards ahead of them. As an example Lore Master Wizard energy substitution should have been given in the Sorcerer baseline abilities.

Yeah, no. Simulacrum has twice the spells of a Sorcerer, and a better spell list, which it can swap out each day.

I have no disagreement on Lore Mastery's stupidity in concept and execution, treading on all the toes of all the things, but it not being acceptable at many tables doesn't mean it shouldn't be clarified. It's stupidly broken, so it's S++. Sorcerer is nowhere near Valor Bard's utility, non Div/LM Wizards (who also have Simulcrum and Glyph of Warding), and Clerics (who can combine Glyph of Warding and decent mixed spell lists, especially something like Life, War, Trickery, Forge or Arcana domains).

I mean, the OP's also put Shadow Monk below WotOH, which is quite amusing also, and Warlocks as bottom tier. Which is like I dunno what he's smoking, but by any metric, it's not. It's an Archer, with an awesome spell list. What other Archer gets the ability to True Polymorph?

[strangebloke]

Im suprised that so many people have low rankings for fighters. My bm fighter with sharpshooter and crossbow mastery absolutely destroys with his handcrossbow. Its no mcing and all phb stuff as well.

Battlemaster fighters are total kings of one very specific thing, AKA sustained DPS.

If your goal is literally anything other than DPS over a long adventuring day, they fall way behind. Paladins and sorcerers destroy them as far as DPS is concerned if you only have a few encounters per day. Paladins, sorcerers, and clerics are way better at support. Paladins and Warlocks are better tanks. Wizards, rogues, and bards have way more flexibility.

[Byke]

Yeah, no. Simulacrum has twice the spells of a Sorcerer, and a better spell list, which it can swap out each day.

I have no disagreement on Lore Mastery's stupidity in concept and execution, treading on all the toes of all the things, but it not being acceptable at many tables doesn't mean it shouldn't be clarified. It's stupidly broken, so it's S++. Sorcerer is nowhere near Valor Bard's utility, non Div/LM Wizards (who also have Simulcrum and Glyph of Warding), and Clerics (who can combine Glyph of Warding and decent mixed spell lists, especially something like Life, War, Trickery, Forge or Arcana domains).

I mean, the OP's also put Shadow Monk below WotOH, which is quite amusing also, and Warlocks as bottom tier. Which is like I dunno what he's smoking, but by any metric, it's not. It's an Archer, with an awesome spell list. What other Archer gets the ability to True Polymorph?

We will agree to disagree, you don't seem to value Metamagic as highly as i do it seems. Sorcerer can do thing no other class can Twin buffs (Poly/Haste ect..ect.) or never be counterspell or being the master of any social situation with subtle. I find the MM has it own utility that no other class can make up for.

[Vaz]

Less valuable that having something else do it for you? And have the same resource take from resource to do other things? And only do one of the things you've said?

You're also rating doing X, but doing it better is equitable to doing X, and also doing Y and Z. Which it clearly isn't.

[Rhedyn]

Simulacrum is the ability to twin by there being two people.

Likewise one casting greater invisibility on the other replaces subtle.

Sorcerer is good for breaking the game at level 7 with twin polymorph.

[Byke]

Less valuable that having something else do it for you? And have the same resource take from resource to do other things? And only do one of the things you've said?

You're also rating doing X, but doing it better is equitable to doing X, and also doing Y and Z. Which it clearly isn't.


Ummmm....ok :) You lost me... but utility of can be interpreted differently and yes not all utility is equal.



Re: How would you guys rate the various classes? (Power-wise)

Simulacrum is the ability to twin by there being two people.

Likewise one casting greater invisibility on the other replaces subtle.

Sorcerer is good for breaking the game at level 7 with twin polymorph.

A sorcerer can have a simulacrum as well...so I guess they are quadding?

Greater Invisibility has several counters...subtle does not.

Sorcerer is good at breaking the game at higher levels as well.

I'm not saying I agree with the op's tier list or that Sorcerer is S+ or S++, but they are definitely in the S category IMO.

[Easy_Lee]

It's more useful to talk about tactics than classes. It also varies by tier of play.

For example, a fighter with high AC is more useful than a wizard in the first tier of play. In the third and fourth tiers, the reverse is true.

Dexterity and wisdom are commonly seen as the best stats. Hit and run tactics work very well in 5e. Targeting weak saves also works very well. A halfling beast master archer riding a panther can do both better than most classes, and has high dexterity and wisdom. Yet most people rank beastmaster dead last.

So, like I said, tactics and tier of play > class when determining relative power.

[strangebloke]

Re: simulacrum.

If your whole argument for 'why class x is better than class y' is predicated on a level 9 spell, and both classes have access to it...

In general when we're talking class power we're talking about the power of the class across all levels, not just at level 20.

[Byke]

Re: simulacrum.

If your whole argument for 'why class x is better than class y' is predicated on a level 9 spell, and both classes have access to it...

In general when we're talking class power we're talking about the power of the class across all levels, not just at level 20.

Ahh ok, thank for the clarification. My argument wasn't predicated on level 20 or simulacrum. It was that Metamagic has utility and benefits that outweigh the negatives of a limited spell list (if the appropriate spells are chosen).

[TheUser]

Yeah, no. Simulacrum has twice the spells of a Sorcerer, and a better spell list, which it can swap out each day.

I have no disagreement on Lore Mastery's stupidity in concept and execution, treading on all the toes of all the things, but it not being acceptable at many tables doesn't mean it shouldn't be clarified. It's stupidly broken, so it's S++. Sorcerer is nowhere near Valor Bard's utility, non Div/LM Wizards (who also have Simulcrum and Glyph of Warding), and Clerics (who can combine Glyph of Warding and decent mixed spell lists, especially something like Life, War, Trickery, Forge or Arcana domains).

I mean, the OP's also put Shadow Monk below WotOH, which is quite amusing also, and Warlocks as bottom tier. Which is like I dunno what he's smoking, but by any metric, it's not. It's an Archer, with an awesome spell list. What other Archer gets the ability to True Polymorph?

While I agree that Wizards and Bards have diversity over Sorcerers, Sorcerers have the potential to do more with their spells than either of those two casters could dream of.

Wizards/Bards can be shut down by even the lowliest of barbarians cupping a hand over their mouth, DM's dog piling them with a few foes to wrestle their hands/mouth or even just forcing their head underwater (95% of spells require verbal components and contingency can only be layered once which only apply to so many circumstances....).

Sorcerers who take subtle spell as a metamagic never have to worry about any of this. And while their spell list is very restrictive by comparison they don't have the physical limitations that other casters are almost completely shut down by.

But most DM's aren't cutthroat enough to have enemies that will intelligently attack their player's ability to cast spells, and so, this vulnerability is never exploited to help balance them. To any and all wizard players ask yourself how often your DM has pitted you against foes that use tactics where you end up getting told "you cannot cast in these circumstances"

To that end a lot of these assessments will be very skewed by the type of DM's you face. I think that your assessment of wizards vs sorcerers stems from the fact that the weaknesses that a loremaster has aren't ever aggressively pursued (they're also optional material that a vast majority of DM's don't allow simply because it's so poorly designed).

With that in mind....

At the top 3 spots of the list are the Gamebreakingly Strong Classes and Archetypes

Number 3: The Draconic Sorcerer
The only class able to mimic subtle spell is the level 20 druid but until that point Sorcerers have sneak magic all to themselves. Any spell being cast without verbal or somatic components becomes very hard to trace making them perfect in social campaigns as well as protecting themselves in fights by remaining hidden. They blast harder than any other class with empowered + elemental affinity fire spells hitting as though they were cast at +2-3 levels of spell slots in damage; or can nova with quicken/twin to burn down encounters in a crunch. It's hard to ignore just how much they can contribute to large scale fights. Metamagic also doesn't limit to elemental types so fire immunity doesn't put too much of a damper on them. Being a Draconic Sorcerer means you have on demand element resistance (for one element), permanent mage armor and +1 HP/level as well as concentration free flight at level 14. It closes up a lot of the holes in the class and makes them feel much more able to deal with combat than other sorcerers/wizards. The caveat that they have a limited spell list and less spells known seems to be the only thing keeping them from taking the top spot.

Number 2: The Moon Druid
Best capstone, and one of the best tanks in the game with layer upon layer of ablative HP to shuck on encounters. Combined with their ability to cast very strong spells throughout all stages of the game hitting level 20 turns them from well rounded power-houses into gods. They may not have the best spell list but they have some very potent options and can even heal. Their ability to transform into animals is also great for utility. High wisdom, constitution and dex scores means they have strong saves where it counts.

Number 1: The Necromancer
Who cares if you can be locked out of spells by physical restraints if you have a literal army of undead to not only keep foes from ever tackling you but to also provide a strong non-magical component to your damage.

Their level 2 ability heals a lot with the right spells and after their level 6 powerspike their power keeps on spiking. Every campaign I've played as, or with, a necromancer has taken CR equivalent fights and dumpstered them with ease. The level 6 feature is one of the only complete versions of adding level scaling to a spell that exists. While other spells scale with slots or stats Animate Dead becomes better and better the higher level you are whilst still only being a level 3 spell. Moreover being able to frontload your casting into an army means you trivialize the encounters meant to wear and tear on a group and have an easy time even in deadly level encounters. As an intelligent PC you can employ strong tactics for your army and keep them spaced out appropriately to avoid getting them all wasted at once. Despite all this, the fact you're still a full fledged wizard means you have all the bells and whistles that goes with the level of OP that one might expect from the class with the developers namesake. Once you get into the habit of equipping your undead (chainmail on zombies for instance) or coupling it with other classes and their abilities (crusader's mantle, faerie fire etc), the one man army becomes that much stronger. If your DM decides to provide you with zero humanoid corpses go visit your local graveyard/cemetery and offer to pay the establishment or the families of the deceased for bodies.


Now that the top 3 are out of the way the lines become a lot blurrier and so I'm just going to list off the 3 most powerful classes instead of specific archetypes.

A Tier: Bards/Paladins/Wizards
Which one outshines which is very contentious because all of them offer very different styles of play but do it very well. Bards can skill monkey very well and bring spells that the party is missing while paladins have amazing defensive auras and nova damage with smites. Wizards start off so-so but by level 5 have very clear-cut strengths. They clearly stand out as strong classes but putting one above the other is tough because every campaign is different and every DM will treat certain abilities differently.

Does Smite interact with GWF? How powerful is Illusion magic? Is the campaign going to get to level 10 for Bards to get Magical Secrets (possibly again)? Swift Quiver Valor Bards for instance get 4 sharpshooter attacks at level 10 (OP) while Invokers get a rather boring +5 to all evocation spells. This is not a bad level 10 feature but it's nowhere near as strong or defining for the wizard as it is for the bard. The point is that you start treading on territory where the differing levels of play provide windows of opportunity for specific classes to shine.

Almost A-Tier: Clerics
Strong casters with neat abilities they are very good supports but lack that extra....oomph that Bards, Paladins, and Wizards do. Their spell list is a bit too restrictive but has some strong contenders. If bards couldn't pilfer from their list they most certainly would be A-Tier.

B-Tier: Everything else
Yeah.... As noted earlier level plays a huge part in this. I can't for the life of me contend with the idea of evaluating all the other classes at each and every tier of play. They aren't bad (except OG BM rangers) but they certainly don't have the same game-breaking level of shenanigans you can expect from the others. The niche's they all fill they do well; rogues do consistent damage with strong utility and skill monkeying, warlocks are gated by short rests but do well in longer adventuring days, barbarians have amazing damage soaking potential with very solid consistent damage, monks **** on legendary saves and have the best mobility. Each has it's own niche and it fills it well. Good players make any of the classes shine.

[N810]

#1 (that guy who steals all your thunder)

#2 (your class and that class you almost took)

#3 (the rest of your parties classes)

#4 (the great unwashed masses)

[SharkForce]

It's more useful to talk about tactics than classes. It also varies by tier of play.

For example, a fighter with high AC is more useful than a wizard in the first tier of play. In the third and fourth tiers, the reverse is true.

Dexterity and wisdom are commonly seen as the best stats. Hit and run tactics work very well in 5e. Targeting weak saves also works very well. A halfling beast master archer riding a panther can do both better than most classes, and has high dexterity and wisdom. Yet most people rank beastmaster dead last.

So, like I said, tactics and tier of play > class when determining relative power.

well, beastmaster gets ranked badly because it doesn't work in a way that people like. same deal as the "artificer" wizard subclass in one of the early UAs. it wasn't a particularly bad subclass (it had some balance issues, but that's UA for you), but it was absolutely positively not what people were looking for in an artificer. beastmaster is not mechanically bad in terms of power if you make certain specific choices and play a certain specific way, but it gets a lot of hate for being bad mechanics in the sense that it doesn't feel like you're a beastmaster, it feels like you're a discount shadowrun drone rigger + street samurai.

it also doesn't help that the ranger class also feels pretty clunky and unimpressive in the first place. plenty of people hate elemental monk and berserker barbarian, but the base classes they're attached to already function reasonably well, so while people may feel that elements monk is bad, well... you can just ignore everything about your subclass and still be able to run past the front line and stun the artillery. ranger doesn't have that going for it.

[Rhedyn]

Ummmm....ok :) You lost me... but utility of can be interpreted differently and yes not all utility is equal.



A sorcerer can have a simulacrum as well...so I guess they are quadding?

Greater Invisibility has several counters...subtle does not.

Sorcerer is good at breaking the game at higher levels as well.

I'm not saying I agree with the op's tier list or that Sorcerer is S+ or S++, but they are definitely in the S category IMO.
Sorcerers do not get simulacrum this edition. They have their own list

[Byke]

Sorcerers do not get simulacrum this edition. They have their own list

They use Wish spell...if they want a Simulacrum or a Clone or whatever sub 8th level spell there is.

[strangebloke]

Typically power analyses are based off of average power... not the power of a character at a given level or the power of a single exploit.

[SharkForce]

Typically power analyses are based off of average power... not the power of a character at a given level or the power of a single exploit.

that would be a useless measurement. how powerful i would be *if* i had my full spell slots remaining is not even the tiniest bit relevant to how powerful i am after expending all my spell slots, or vice versa.

[toapat]

that would be a useless measurement. how powerful i would be *if* i had my full spell slots remaining is not even the tiniest bit relevant to how powerful i am after expending all my spell slots, or vice versa.

paladins arent even really that good as mundanes once they run out of Smite-Juice

[SharkForce]

paladins arent even really that good as mundanes once they run out of Smite-Juice

if the only ability a paladin had was +5 to all saves for nearby party members, i'd still be happy to have one along in most parties.

given that even a paladin with no smites has that, plus at least mediocre melee damage, decent toughness, and potentially a bunch of healing, they're not that bad even after running out of spell slots :P

[toapat]

if the only ability a paladin had was +5 to all saves for nearby party members, i'd still be happy to have one along in most parties.

given that even a paladin with no smites has that, plus at least mediocre melee damage, decent toughness, and potentially a bunch of healing, they're not that bad even after running out of spell slots :P

Paladins still are better off with an 8 hour coma than trying to continue when theyre out of Smites, they probably are also out of LoH which just leaves them with the 2 auras, and thats only if theyre ancients since the other 7 subclasses dont have a aura worth mentioning

[Findulidas]

Battlemaster fighters are total kings of one very specific thing, AKA sustained DPS.

If your goal is literally anything other than DPS over a long adventuring day, they fall way behind. Paladins and sorcerers destroy them as far as DPS is concerned if you only have a few encounters per day. Paladins, sorcerers, and clerics are way better at support. Paladins and Warlocks are better tanks. Wizards, rogues, and bards have way more flexibility.

Im not saying the class variant is the most awesome. But its seriously underrated on the rankings Ive seen so far. Its clearly lacking in utility and outside of battle stuff, but between the skills you can pick and the background tools and its devastating damage and thoughness in battle its not that bad. Honestly you can do much in 5e with just that. So while its certainly not the best its still a very solid choice. Im now going to explain why.

First off being a tank in 5e is seriously overrated, its almost as bad as being dedicated healer. Some abilities like paladins aura of protection is pure win, but is that really a tanking ability or a support one? I think its better to be support/controller/dps than all other roles in battle. Each of them can easily do everything you want unless the DM specifically tailors the encounter so two of them cant do its thing. If you have tailored encounters like that then you cant really do rankings of power anyway because god knows what the dm will throw out next.

I completely disagree on the fact that some variants do way more damage than bm handcrossbow fighter if there are few encounters. All you have to do is use action surge and blow all your maneuvers at will. I mean its 1d4+15 damage per attack and using action surge plus a bonus action extra attack thats quite a lot. All abilities in the first round nova is reset on short rests btw, unlike most other nova abilities. So if there are few encounters and you can do a short rest in between you can nova all day on round one if you want.

There is also something to be said about dealing 1d4+14 on three separate attacks (or five with action surge) each round on level 6. Nothing saves resources like just outright killing the mages on round one and still being able to do your thing every round after still. It is a good place to be awesome at as well since its pretty early and most campaigns will be at that level at some point. It also helps that if the campaign is actually played like its supposed to be (with many encounters per day with few short rests) then not only is the handcrossbow bm fighter dealing huge amounts of damage all the time. Also like I mentioned earlier the ablities are all reset on short rests which is gravy on many encounters with short rests in between.

If you picked goading, trip, menacing or pushing attack then there you have some controll. While there arent many uses of them it helps that I can pick which one I want, use it at a devestating/important moment (like pushing a monster off a cliff, tripping the monster before all of my melee friends rounds, goading it away from the wizard and so on) and regain it on a short rest after. If it doesnt happen then I can just precision strike when its useful. Only when its useful, because it happens to be one of those delicious ones you can choose to pick at those moments you want AFTER the roll.

Its a very good option to mc after level 11 to rogue or perhaps ranger to gain some utility. Sure you lose one attack per round but six levels of rogue and three levels of ranger (hopefully revised) will give you a lot in both utility and damage anyway. So yeah I think its a very solid choice on the power rankings.

[SharkForce]

Paladins still are better off with an 8 hour coma than trying to continue when theyre out of Smites, they probably are also out of LoH which just leaves them with the 2 auras, and thats only if theyre ancients since the other 7 subclasses dont have a aura worth mentioning

i guess i've fought different things than you have, because i've found plenty of value in immunity to charm as well :P

but in any event, a paladin with no daily resources still can contribute meaningfully. yes, they'd contribute more with rest, but they're still relevant as sustained damage dealers in a way that a wizard (even an evocation wizard with int to damage) is not.

[strangebloke]

that would be a useless measurement. how powerful i would be *if* i had my full spell slots remaining is not even the tiniest bit relevant to how powerful i am after expending all my spell slots, or vice versa.

How did you think that I was arguing that?

I'm just saying that a lot of people here are rating moon druid highly because of its level 20 capstone, when in real play, that level 20 capstone will only be relevant for a few sessions even when the game actually goes that long.

Similarly, ranking a class highly because it gets simulacrum is also kind of silly. 9th level spells come online in a tiny subset of games, and usually not for very long.

You absolutely should factor in resource cost when deciding the strength of a class. A fourth level sorcerer will run out of spells by the third encounter. A fourth level sharpshooting battlemaster can keep killing for days.

[Vaz]

Simulacrum's a 9th level spell now? What edition are you playing?

Sorcerer has a terrible spell list in comparison to the Wizard, and the Wizard can Glyph Spell. Sorc cannot (afaia)

[strangebloke]

Simulacrum's a 9th level spell now? What edition are you playing?

Sorcerer has a terrible spell list in comparison to the Wizard, and the Wizard can Glyph Spell. Sorc cannot (afaia)

huh, thought it was ninth.

It's still a pretty late game class feature. I've never played in a game that got that high level and I've never played with a DM who would actually allow simulacrum.

*Yawn* Wizard is better with time to prep, sorcerer is relatively good without any prep. Wizard gets really strong spells, sorcerer makes its spells really strong. News at eleven.

[Vaz]

Right from the off, a Sorcerer is worst off than the wizard, and thanks to the everybody can spontaneous cast mechanic, a Wizard is immediately better off; Absorb Elements, Alarm, Familiar to give the rest of the party free advantage on attack rolls, Grease, Tasha's, Longstrider, Identify for when the DM throws cursed items at you, Unseen Servant, Ritual Casting to make your spell slots go further.

I think a Sorcerer has what, Enhance ability and Warding Wind over a Wizard? When a wizard has advantage on any Enhance Ability checks courtesy of Familiar. Compared to things like Glyph of Warding which lasts longer, and the ability to recover spell slots on a Short rest without having to burn into the rest of their "shtick".

Sorcerer is powerful, but it's not got the same ability to operate in the same theatre as a Wizard. A Sorcerer has one or two, and must define its area of operations to that during the build process. A wizard can choose one to focus on, and get all the spells it needs to. Take Lore Mastery and it doesn't even need to do that. Take Theurgy, and you get to add all of the Cleric spells to your class list and add a specific domain to your abilities.

With appropriate levels of divination and preparedness, as well as the ultra high intellectual with perennial paranoia, a wizard can appropriately get themselves ready for each days adventuring, using spare spell slots on Divinations; to be aware of whats coming up in the near future, and adequately prepare for it the next day. The solution to a problem of a Wizard of any given level is often a matter of simply going to the nearest town and finding X spell on their spell list, and preparing it the next day. A Sorcerer cannot.

That is the level of difference. A Sorcerer cannot adapt to the environment, whereas a Wizard can.

[Citan]

Was just wondering what the overall general consensus on the level of power of the various classes using adventure league legal rules.

There are definitely some stand outs in sheer power/versatility like lore bard and Div wizard. Even multi-classing wise the Sorcerer/warlock becomes quite the powerhouse. Here are my two cents on them but I'd love to hear what you guys think and maybe get a discussion going about it. I'll put my thoughts down here then a TLDR teir list at the bottom.

Fighter: Definitely A+ material and quite powerful as a tank and/or DPS and can even go Eldritch Knight for quite a bit of magical versatility once you get some levels under your belt. Hell, the sheer amount of builds you can make with a pure fighter means something is working right.

Rogue: Good to meh depending on how many situations you get that work for a rogue. Assassin sounds great but in practice rarely works out. And worst of all your out skill monkey'd by a lore bard who is also a decent caster while all you have is a sneak attack that works sometimes. (definitely middle of the pack IMO)

Cleric: Ahh the healer. A heavily armored face smashing healer at that. Cleric seems really good depending on what he wants to do. He can go pure healer and be insanely good at it. Or he goes more warrior priest mode and be a pally in all but name while throwing out heals between smacking dudes faces. Heck go light cleric and you become a pretty good blaster who can also heal. Definitely a valuable member of the team one way or another.

Bard: Single most versatile class in the game in lore bard. Yea it's not the highest damage dealer possible. But a half-elf Lore bard can out skill monkey just about ANYTHING in this game AND will have a spell selection that will make a wizard blush with the ability to learn a few spells from ANY class. Valor bard is of course overshadowed by his sibling and with good reason but is also no slouch himself. Becoming a fairly good front line warrior with his attacks while still supporting with his spells (as long as he plays smart and doesn't start thinking he's as durable as the fighter).

Monk: Okay if you go the way of the open hand. Buuuuut kinda bad if you go anything else. Your pretty darn good early on but after level 3 or 4 things really start going downhill for the monk. Your a sorta squishy front line warrior like the rogue BUT you doesn't have skill monkey potential OR the scary burst a rogue has with proper positioning. Overall this is the hardest MEH class in the game for me power-wise. Your painfully mediocre and could easily be outshone by any of the other squishy melee warriors in terms of damage or versatility. (Valor bard, rogue, Melee Ranger)

Ranger: Terrible if you go Beastmaster but darn good otherwise. You get plenty of neat tricks and spells. You can go range or melee and can get decent support for either role. Honestly, the ranger doesn't really stand out to me but every time I've seen one and the one time I got my hands on one in a one shot 9-hour mini-campaign have been overall positive! Except for beastmaster...poor beastmaster. (Though I hear overall Rangers way late-game fall behind a bit)

Paladin: Powerful. Very powerful. You may not have the sustained damage of a fighter but with smite, you can burst on par with a rogue with a lucky crit. Your also a respectable emergency healer with lay on hands and spells AND your aura's are INSANE support (seriously +3 or more to saves for all my melee buddies? That's basically a free proficiency in all your stats that stacks!). Sure the oaths are a little meh overall power wise but for gods (heh) sake the base Paladin class without the oaths is a powerhouse by itself so you can't really complain.

Sorcerer/Wizard: I'm putting these two together as they can both be pretty summed up in once sentence. These are the two pure arcane spell casting classes that go about it in different ways but still succeed overall. Seriously, these two classes do have different feels to them but definitely feel relatively on par in terms of raw power. Sure the sorcerer may get some flack with the small spell selection but meta magics are pretty darn powerful. And wizards get some serious versatility and devious tricks in the form of divination/illusions/abjurer schools.

Barbarian: Ba ba barbarians! Okay, barbarians are pretty good. I do think they fall a bit behind the fighter overall BUT that doesn't change the fact that if you build them smartly they can be monsters on the battle field. I'd rate them below fighter or pally but still pretty respectable...if you build them to tank. This just may be me but every barb I've played with either went bear and became the immovable object with an ax or went anything else and started having serious survivability issues dropping at least once EVERY session.

Warlock: My favorite class! for flavor. Power rating though? Absolute garbage if your not getting a TON of short rests. Sure it's THE premier multiclassing toe dipper class (with Sorlock being a terrifying example). I think they were very afraid of having a caster who regains spells on short rests instead of long ones and over compensated for it's possible to power. If your DM gives your group a normal amount of shorts rests per session you will quickly find yourself lagging behind only using Eldritch Blast over and over again non-stop for entire sessions too afraid to use your valuable TWO spells in case you need them. You do start becoming a lot more threatening if you start getting a LOT of short rests but the sad truth even if your getting that many rests are this. You would be better-suited multi-classing into practically ANYTHING within reason other then warlock once you hit level 2 or 3.

So tier list time!

S+
Lore bard
Divination Wizard

S
Valor Bard
Paladin
Wizard (other schools)
Sorcerer (Not wildmage)
Tempest/Light/life cleric
Fighter (not champion)

A
Fighter (champion)
Cleric (other types)
Not Beastmaster Ranger

B
Thief/Arcane Trickster Rogue
Bear Barbarian

C
Wildmage Sorcerer (only because i hate that unpredictability)
Assassin Rogue
Barbarians (Not bear)
WotOH Monk

D
Monks (not WotOH)
Warlocks (unless you're only getting 2-3 levels in it)

Garbo
Beastmaster Ranger
It's real funny to see how far our opinions are on some classes... XD

Without further ado...

1. Brief (at least I'll try to) overview of classes...
Barbarian
Imo badly balanced archetypes, because of Frenzy's exhaustion, so usually Bear Totem is chosen. More tactical class than you'd think at first glance, making it fairly interesting to play.

Bard
One of the best designed classes: archetypes that are overall balanced with each other while each bringing an original feel, great array of features that gear towards support but still gives some leeway to the player.

Cleric
One of the best classes to multiclass with. First half of spells is plain amazing, the highest level spells and features are imo less interesting or rather, slightly more dependent on DM and campaign to be more or less useful. Still, properly played to its fullest, a Cleric can be great in many roles.

Druid
In the top three of awesome classes: great array of spells (even more versatility in spell kind than wizard thanks to healing), unique and flavorful feature, very different archetypes. Just great from start to finish, although most of it rely on spellcasting (except high level Moon Druid).

Fighter
A decent all-around class, although clearly geared towards sustained damage, each archetype provides a distinctive feeling. Second half feels less interesting in features except for EK.

Monk
One of the despised childs of the forum, the Monk's strength is, like the fluff hints at, an inner one. Seems like a sad mix between Fighter and Rogue at first, needing even more wits to play correctly, Monk rewards the player with increasingly great power, balanced between offense and defense, lacking mainly in utility. Also, each archetype brims with personality.

Paladin
One of the most well-rounded classes, on the brink of being unbalanced because it's so good and easy to play from start to finish. Only hassle is spell choice, and being smart enough not to blow smites on the first enemy faced. But the high defense from level 1 onwards makes it welcomer-friendly.

Ranger
The other 5th wheel on the forum, mainly because DM of people here tend to put aside all the exploration part of a campaign XD, also because the Beastmaster felt clunky although adequately powerful otherwise. As long as a DM pays a minimum attention to give player a chance to play their strengths, Ranger is a very strong contributor to the party.

Rogue
The one that can be the skill master! Probably needs as much wits as a Monk, although in a slightly different way, since you have to rely on your mobility and sneakiness to survive. One of the classes that has the biggest breakpoint at level 11: Reliable Talent basically means Rogue can break any challenge in which he's expert into without sweating, except the extra hard ones.

Sorcerer
One of the most complex classes to play, mainly because of the spell and metamagic selection. Can easily change the tide of an encounter though, being the most reliable (Heighetend), efficient (Careful) or fast (Quicken) caster of all.

Warlock
A very special kind of caster, deceiptively simple because of few slots, but making in fact the choice of using them that harder. Also, the combination of options from multiple sources may be a bit puzzling for new players.

Wizard
The classic caster at first, an extremely strong caster at end, thanks to free magic and the widest selection of spells available, including the world-bending, possibly game-breaking ones. Plus near ten Schools each providing a distinctive playstyle.

Now for the overall efficiency (considering progression, potential in each aspect, maximum potential).

S+ (over the top)
Moon Druid: spellcasting + unlimited wild shape.
Ancients Paladin: because of auras and capstone.
Totem Barbarian: unlimited rage + Bear = unlimited resistance to all but psychic. + great attack. Extra strong in its own field of expertise.
Abjurer Wizard: not because of Arcane Ward (although it does make a difference at higher level). Because of what all Wizards get (free Shield, broken spells) but also advantage on saving throws against magic and resistance to damage.
Necromancer Wizard: if your DM gives you much freedom, arguably the most potentially broken of all. If you are ready to cope with the consequences of permanently maintaining an army of undead. XD

A+ (extremely great overall)
Arcane Trickster: limited spellcasting, but efficient one (Magical Ambush) on top of Rogue chassis.
Wild Magic Sorcerer: because Sorcerer, + Bend Luck awesomeness.
Eldricht Knight: limited spellcasting, Eldricht Strike a bit more complex to enable, but has an extremely good sustained potential.
Open Hand Monk: not because of free control on Flurry of Blows (it's good, but not that good). Because of Quivering Palm, which has the best ratio cost/damage of all abilities in the game barring 9th level spells.
Bladesinger Wizard: better mobility, AC, concentration, emergency damage absorption, good melee damage, on a Wizard chassis.
Tempest Cleric: domain shores up one of the traditional weakness of Cleric: AOE damage. And it does it well. The other abilities open up several tactics too.
Vengeance Paladin: I don't like all of the archetype, but it does provide a unique experience, and all of its abilities are interesting.

A- (great overall, but lacking something really distinctive that pushes them over the others, or suffer from a minor inconvenient)
Clerics (all other domains).
Wizards (all other domains).
Paladins (all other domains).
Warlocks (Tome, Chain)
Long Death Monk.

B (has some drawback that impacts either the "feeling" of how the class is played)
4E Monk (great versatility, but not enough Disciplines known).
Draconic Sorcerer (as any Sorcerer, suffers a bit from few Metamagics).
Hunter Ranger: good overall, but just good unless DM plays strengths.
Valor Bard: I feel you take it more for the easy boost in defense and alternative use of Bardic Inspiration than for the true martial feeling.
Thief: I love the class, but playing its strengths (objects as trap, using magic objects) is fairly DM dependent.

C (significantly lacking in one field)
Shadow Monk: very good but abilities are very specialized. No utility otherwise.
Sun Soul: same.
Blade Warlock: a nice emergency melee attack usually, requires a bit of investment to make you a true hit&run fighter.

D (not saying it's not "powerful" but I find these archetypes a bit tedious to play).
Champion: good thing there are feats to bring a bit of personality.
Assassin Rogue: very dependent on DM to really exploit the Assassin's true strength (not Assassinate, tedious to setup and boring. The Impersonate and the like, which give you the power to change the whole world, silently, step by step).
Beast Master Ranger: very powerful past some step, but it does feel strange to "share" your turn with the beast. A bit of a frustrating experience.
Land Druid: I love the archetype for extra spells when a party needs a dedicated fullcaster (or at least some specific spells), but find otherwise the identifying features a bit bland, or nailing you toward very specific tactics.
Frenzy Barbarian: exhaustion is a real pain, making the archetype tedious to play. Really. Sad.

Note though that this very personal rating (which would probably be a bit different if I was in any state to think normally XD), is not so much a "power" rating rather than "what classes I'd choose to play".
Because beyond the ones mentioned in the S+, I find very difficult to define a "power level": casters are obviously off the charts as long as they have spells, but once out of fuel they are lacklusters. Most martials have very little utility, but stand their own all day long in fights. Etc...

[FabulousFizban]

1)Bard
2) everything else

[Citan]

Right from the off, a Sorcerer is worst off than the wizard, and thanks to the everybody can spontaneous cast mechanic, a Wizard is immediately better off; Absorb Elements, Alarm, Familiar to give the rest of the party free advantage on attack rolls, Grease, Tasha's, Longstrider, Identify for when the DM throws cursed items at you, Unseen Servant, Ritual Casting to make your spell slots go further.

I think a Sorcerer has what, Enhance ability and Warding Wind over a Wizard? When a wizard has advantage on any Enhance Ability checks courtesy of Familiar. Compared to things like Glyph of Warding which lasts longer, and the ability to recover spell slots on a Short rest without having to burn into the rest of their "shtick".

Sorcerer is powerful, but it's not got the same ability to operate in the same theatre as a Wizard. A Sorcerer has one or two, and must define its area of operations to that during the build process. A wizard can choose one to focus on, and get all the spells it needs to. 1. Take Lore Mastery and it doesn't even need to do that. Take Theurgy, and you get to add all of the Cleric spells to your class list and add a specific domain to your abilities.

With appropriate levels of divination and preparedness, as well as the ultra high intellectual with perennial paranoia, a wizard can appropriately get themselves ready for each days adventuring, using spare spell slots on Divinations; to be aware of whats coming up in the near future, and adequately prepare for it the next day. The solution to a problem of a Wizard of any given level is often a matter of simply going to the nearest town and finding X spell on their spell list, and preparing it the next day. A Sorcerer cannot.

That is the level of difference. A Sorcerer cannot adapt to the environment, whereas a Wizard can.
1. Using UA material as an argument, which is reknown as broken and having extremely low chance to end as official as-is, is the best way to ruin the credibility of your whole post.

Beyond that... Sure, Wizard has many more options available, whether you compare him to Sorcerer or any other class really. But you are using a much blacker brush than really needed. Sorcerer cannot prepare as well as a Wizard, because its spell-list is much more combat oriented. But he's much better than Wizard in using those spells both have on their spell list. After that, any Sorcerer that wants utility can always pick Ritual Caster feat and get as good as Wizard on that part. :)

[Byke]

Simulacrum's a 9th level spell now? What edition are you playing?

Sorcerer has a terrible spell list in comparison to the Wizard, and the Wizard can Glyph Spell. Sorc cannot (afaia)

No it's 7th :) but If the Sorcerer wants one he can get one as all I am saying.

Preparing the appropriates spells for any situation (if given time) and having the complete spell list is a Wizard greatest strength, I'm not arguing that a prepared wizard can be better than a Sorcerer, that is a given. All I am saying is that your selling Sorcerer short in you assessment. (Especially when you bring Lore Master into the argument).

[Vaz]

If the Sorcerer wants one he has to wait for another 4 levels.

And Citan, you're not even reading the argument are you? Just because something is known to be OP shouldn't mean it can't be ranked higher simply because people are aware of it. The awareness of OPness doesn't register on the spectrum. You can compare a Sword to a Nuke all you want, but it doesn't stop the nuke being more powerful simply because people are aware the nuke being more powerful.

If you think that ruins the posts credibility, you need to give your head a wobble sunshine.

[Waazraath]

Was just wondering what the overall general consensus on the level of power of the various classes using adventure league legal rules.


Tier "too strong and therefore unbalanced": -
Tier "nicely balanced without overshadowing anything": all classes
Tier "too weak and therefore unbalanced": -

Seriously: the power differences in 5e are so small, and, as mentioned, differ during the different stages of the game, that having tier lists like in 3.x makes little sense. All classes are really close, even though there are classes that seem a little on the weak side (4e monk) and some class abilities that are really strong (pally's save bonus aura, tempest cleric maximize lightning combo'd with chain lighting/lighning bolt, wish spell). Nothing is grossly over or under powered.

Of course you can make a list. But given how close all classes are in power, striving for a ranking as detailed as 7 scores, is imo not very productive, nor will it give accurate information; even 3.x, which huge differences in power, only had 5 (with a later added garbage tier, mostly for the commener). Given how close classes are in power, "class" isn't the thing that determines if your character is powerful or not. What is just as important, or much more important: how did you roll for stats (is the default char creation option); what kind of encounters provides your DM (social, exploration, combat), and how do they match your skills/abilities; what kind of combats do you encounter (good for burst damage, or single target, ranged or melee, magical or common); what are your party members playing; how good is a player at resource management; how good is a player at tactical gaming; etc. etc. Because these circumstances are more important than 'class', it's unlikely that there'll even be consensus.

[Citan]

If the Sorcerer wants one he has to wait for another 4 levels.

And Citan, you're not even reading the argument are you? Just because something is known to be OP shouldn't mean it can't be ranked higher simply because people are aware of it. The awareness of OPness doesn't register on the spectrum. You can compare a Sword to a Nuke all you want, but it doesn't stop the nuke being more powerful simply because people are aware the nuke being more powerful.

If you think that ruins the posts credibility, you need to give your head a wobble sunshine.
Yes it ruins credibility, because you are including UNOFFICIAL, TEST MATERIAL into the comparison.

If you cannot undertand why it's not admissible in class comparison, then I frankly don't know how I could explain to you because it's just too obvious to me.

[Vaz]

Considering I am testing against other UA material, the metric and boundaries are still the same.

Your point about unofficial (as unofficial as material can be, published on the D&D website by one of its creators) is non sequiteur (probanly the wrong word but w/e) when compared to the fact that I'm including all others in there anyway?

You want to judge a class by not using UA,sure. Doesn't mean someone who clearly is using UA is wrong for using UA material equally. Especially when it's clearly differentiated from others; ie Lore Mastery vs Necromancy vs Theurgy vs College of Whispers.

[TheUser]

Yes it ruins credibility, because you are including UNOFFICIAL, TEST MATERIAL into the comparison.

If you cannot undertand why it's not admissible in class comparison, then I frankly don't know how I could explain to you because it's just too obvious to me.

Pretty much this.

Thinking that UA is somehow contentious for power rankings is asinine.

[dejarnjc]

#1 (that guy who steals all your thunder)

#2 (your class and that class you almost took)

#3 (the rest of your parties classes)

#4 (the great unwashed masses)

The most correct answer in this thread.

[Iamcreative]

A- (great overall, but lacking something really distinctive that pushes them over the others, or suffer from a minor inconvenient)
Clerics (all other domains).
Wizards (all other domains).
Paladins (all other domains).
Warlocks (Tome, Chain)
Long Death Monk.

B (has some drawback that impacts either the "feeling" of how the class is played)
4E Monk (great versatility, but not enough Disciplines known).
Draconic Sorcerer (as any Sorcerer, suffers a bit from few Metamagics).
Hunter Ranger: good overall, but just good unless DM plays strengths.
Valor Bard: I feel you take it more for the easy boost in defense and alternative use of Bardic Inspiration than for the true martial feeling.
Thief: I love the class, but playing its strengths (objects as trap, using magic objects) is fairly DM dependent.

C (significantly lacking in one field)
Shadow Monk: very good but abilities are very specialized. No utility otherwise.
Sun Soul: same.
Blade Warlock: a nice emergency melee attack usually, requires a bit of investment to make you a true hit&run fighter.


Just a heads up, chain blade and tome arent the warlock subclasses. GoO, fiend, fey are.

[Vaz]

Pretty much this.

Thinking that UA is somehow contentious for power rankings is asinine.
Why is that?

[TheUser]

Why is that?


It's unofficial playtest material which by definition implies it hasn't been finely calibrated to be balanced. This like asking why homebrew is not considered for power rankings; with regards to AL and standard play you can't expect to be allowed to use either. I can't believe you're even asking this question Vaz....

and if you ARE accounting for UA why aren't you factoring in old/New Favored Soul as the #1 most OP ? Cleric spells + metamagic makes loremaster look like a joke....(twin healing, subtle geas, quicken + empower call lightning?)

[Vaz]

You mean like 4E monk or Beast Conclave is finely calibrated to be balanced? **** off mate.

Plenty of UA IS balanced. Hear complaints about College of Whispers, Cavalier, new Kensei, Ancients Barb, Conquer Paladin, Raven Queen Warlock, new Arcane Archer, Forge Cleric? No, do you heck.

Also, if someone is interested in running a game, it would be a disservice to not judge something simply because it's UA, rather than based on the merits of the individual abilities.

It's more asinine to assert otherwise, and to be so close minded.

They (WotC) cannot improve if they don't recieve feedback. If that feedback isn't given because it's UA, you've got a divides by zero where they can't recieve feedback on stuff they're releasing via UA for feedback.

It also doesn't stop the game being played.

I bet you peasants ban 3rd party content too simply because its 3rd party. How dare matt mercer come up with a Gunslinger or Witcher Analogue? How dare XYZ content creator create content despite not having a payslip from WotC legitimising their work? How dare someone create rules that aren't done by wotc - oh wait, you advocate that yourself.

Let's be clear; you are an idiot if you believe that the argument of a Wizard being better than a Sorcerer is devalued because the presence of one of the dozen Wizard archetypes happens to be UA.

Edit; IRT the Favoured Soul - it's the Spells Known mechanic that limits the Sorcerer. The Cleric spell list improves the Sorcerer, sure. But maybe to an S- rank, rather than S rank. It's not S, because it can't adapt at the cost of a days rest. The fact you only have 15 Spells Known over your entire career is what limits you. If it gets walled by a challenge, it's similarly limited in the same way that a Champion is. A Champion can't come back another day and try something different.

[TheUser]

You mean like 4E monk or Beast Conclave is finely calibrated to be balanced? **** off mate.

Plenty of UA IS balanced. Hear complaints about College of Whispers, Cavalier, new Kensei, Ancients Barb, Conquer Paladin, Raven Queen Warlock, new Arcane Archer, Forge Cleric? No, do you heck.

Also, if someone is interested in running a game, it would be a disservice to not judge something simply because it's UA, rather than based on the merits of the individual abilities.

It's more asinine to assert otherwise, and to be so close minded.

They (WotC) cannot improve if they don't recieve feedback. If that feedback isn't given because it's UA, you've got a divides by zero where they can't recieve feedback on stuff they're releasing via UA for feedback.

It also doesn't stop the game being played.

I bet you peasants ban 3rd party content too simply because its 3rd party. How dare matt mercer come up with a Gunslinger or Witcher Analogue? How dare XYZ content creator create content despite not having a payslip from WotC legitimising their work? How dare someone create rules that aren't done by wotc - oh wait, you advocate that yourself.

Let's be clear; you are an idiot if you believe that the argument of a Wizard being better than a Sorcerer is devalued because the presence of one of the dozen Wizard archetypes happens to be UA.

Edit; IRT the Favoured Soul - it's the Spells Known mechanic that limits the Sorcerer. The Cleric spell list improves the Sorcerer, sure. But maybe to an S- rank, rather than S rank. It's not S, because it can't adapt at the cost of a days rest. The fact you only have 15 Spells Known over your entire career is what limits you. If it gets walled by a challenge, it's similarly limited in the same way that a Champion is. A Champion can't come back another day and try something different.

The context matters Vaz
Find me a DM that allows Loremaster....

[Citan]

You mean like 4E monk or Beast Conclave is finely calibrated to be balanced? **** off mate.

Plenty of UA IS balanced. Hear complaints about College of Whispers, Cavalier, new Kensei, Ancients Barb, Conquer Paladin, Raven Queen Warlock, new Arcane Archer, Forge Cleric? No, do you heck.

Also, if someone is interested in running a game, it would be a disservice to not judge something simply because it's UA, rather than based on the merits of the individual abilities.

It's more asinine to assert otherwise, and to be so close minded.

They (WotC) cannot improve if they don't recieve feedback. If that feedback isn't given because it's UA, you've got a divides by zero where they can't recieve feedback on stuff they're releasing via UA for feedback.

It also doesn't stop the game being played.

I bet you peasants ban 3rd party content too simply because its 3rd party. How dare matt mercer come up with a Gunslinger or Witcher Analogue? How dare XYZ content creator create content despite not having a payslip from WotC legitimising their work? How dare someone create rules that aren't done by wotc - oh wait, you advocate that yourself.

Let's be clear; you are an idiot if you believe that the argument of a Wizard being better than a Sorcerer is devalued because the presence of one of the dozen Wizard archetypes happens to be UA.

Edit; IRT the Favoured Soul - it's the Spells Known mechanic that limits the Sorcerer. The Cleric spell list improves the Sorcerer, sure. But maybe to an S- rank, rather than S rank. It's not S, because it can't adapt at the cost of a days rest. The fact you only have 15 Spells Known over your entire career is what limits you. If it gets walled by a challenge, it's similarly limited in the same way that a Champion is. A Champion can't come back another day and try something different.

Italic part: whether you like it or not, 4E Monk and Beast Conclave are balanced. Many players don't like the limitations that come with or the manner in which fluff was translated mechanically. That's another problem entirely.
As for all UA content you are speaking of,most did get some constructive critics on specific parts being borderline*, although they still were in manageable limits, contrarily to Theurge and Lore Master which are plain Quivering Palms in the face of other classes.
* Except Conquest which, let's say, didn't quite *conquer* the hearts on the forum.

Bold part: you'd do well to calm down and cease borderline insulting expressions* while everyone is still in a fair mood (especially when you are utterly wrong: cannot tell for others, but I myself WRITE homebrew, so I'm very open minded on that topic, and that's also why I daresay I have decent opinion about balancing: because I had to face it concretely). Consider yourself warned. :)
*Didn't see the "idiot" part the first time. Which is on the wrong side of the border. XD
Chill down kid and accept that for once you aren't "right". Unofficial is unbalanced by design (even if some of them are indeed acceptable as is), unbalanced is unacceptable in a class comparison. That's really not difficult to understand... Normally.

It's especially ridiculous since there is really no need to bring UA on topic to demonstrate that Wizard is more versatile and more powerful with preparation than Sorcerer. So your anger is totally useless. XD

[EvilAnagram]

Oh, Gods, another one of these threads. We've had such a nice stretch without anyone bringing up another season of arbitrary hot-or-not lists. Oh, you think these classes are better because they're full casters. How original. You must have put a lot of thought into this.

Yes, let's ignore the fact that just about any class performs perfectly well in play. Let's ignore the relative lack of any glaring balance issues. Let's ignore the fact that speechless just turn the bickering and never provide any actual input on how classes play. Let's squabble over whose dear diary entry about how they just love this class or that class sooo much is more important.



They (WotC) cannot improve if they don't recieve feedback. If that feedback isn't given because it's UA, you've got a divides by zero where they can't recieve feedback on stuff they're releasing via UA for feedback.
If only they had some sort of way to, I don't know, poll us on our thoughts on the new Unearthed Arcana, possibly even as they came out! But no, such fanciful imaginings are unrealistic. Better for therm to sift through self-important posts in forums in which theorycrafters squabble over arbitrary, poorly reasoned lists of class "power levels."

Yes. This is as it should be.

[Vaz]

Oh, Gods, another one of these threads. We've had such a nice stretch without anyone bringing up another season of arbitrary hot-or-not lists. Oh, you think these classes are better because they're full casters. How original. You must have put a lot of thought into this.
It's almost as if it's an empirical truth that casters are better because they do much more, rather than having to beg a DM to not put in Plane Shifting, the need to Teleport. Or the need to fly. Or the need to go underwater for extended periods of time, and that the game only revolves around hitting things with big sticks.


Yes, let's ignore the fact that just about any class performs perfectly well in play. Let's ignore the relative lack of any glaring balance issues. Let's ignore the fact that speechless just turn the bickering and never provide any actual input on how classes play. Let's squabble over whose dear diary entry about how they just love this class or that class sooo much is more important.
Have you thought about, you know, not clicking on threads you don't like? Because this is pretty much base trolling?


If only they had some sort of way to, I don't know, poll us on our thoughts on the new Unearthed Arcana, possibly even as they came out! But no, such fanciful imaginings are unrealistic. Better for therm to sift through self-important posts in forums in which theorycrafters squabble over arbitrary, poorly reasoned lists of class "power levels."

Yes. This is as it should be.
Ah, I get it. You're being sarcastic, because you lack substance or brains. Gotcha. Are you done petal? Have you had your rant? Do you feel better now darling? Ta-ta now, have a nice day. Feel free to make meaningless rambles about how people aren't allowed to talk about their hobby in a way that you disagree with any time you like.

Citan, for your pleasure. I'm calm as ****. I use words like ****, because they feel good to say. It's like an endorphin burst in my brain when I use it to express exasperation at dealing with particularly troublesome autistic children; as a frame of reference. My job. It's beginning to feel a lot of the same when I try and explain the base concept of how a class that despite not being "balanced" is irrelevant.

Is Weird balanced against Wish, as a 9th level spell? Theoretically yes. Practically, no. Doesn't stop Wish being the better option. They are empirically better, apart from when you may want to deal maybe a maximum of 40d10 Psychic damage over a minute, where a creature has to fail a DC19 Wisdom Save (average +9.75 to Wis Saves for CR17+ monsters) every round.

Being unofficial does not mean that a certain isn't balanced - as shown by many of the other material produced as part of the UA, and by much of the Homebrew. You yourself make homebrew. It's unofficial, and can be tiered according to its balance. Why can't UA be measured against the same metric? It's tiered according to its balance, and its capability in game. You are the one making a mountain out of molehill, and creating an argument stating that it can't be tiered because it's unofficial - while I'm stating that's precisely the reason it should be. People should be aware of what it is, and how good it is, and by listing it as extremely powerful (Lore Mastery, I'd even argue to be at a stage above Theurgy - S++ perhaps), it should be treated as such.

Get a grip. You insist on calling me "Kid", so that clearly suggests you believe yourself to be an adult. Start ****ing acting like it. No-one is angry. I'm calm, but I still think you're an idiot, and you're only proving it.

[EvilAnagram]

It's almost as if it's an empirical truth that casters are better
This is such a good example of what's wrong with these threads. People portray asinine opinions as, "empirical truth," to stroke their egos, muddling actual conversations about balance and confusing newbies into thinking perfectly valid and fun choices are bad because of some guy with an oversized ego who thinks his opinions are absolute. It reminds me of a friend who wanted to play 3.5 until the guy helping her build a character told her every choice she wanted to make was wrong and built her a different character.

When people freely portray asinine opinions as empirical truth and rank classes according to ridiculous criteria, it harms the game.



Ah, I get it. You're being sarcastic, because you lack substance or brains.
I'm sorry, should I have taken your - apparently intelligent - approach and called people, "idiots," and, "peasants," for politely disagreeing with me? Is that how you show brains and substance? Because that seems more of a temper tantrum than an argument. If you can't maintain dignity in the face of my sarcasm, and you certainly can't respond to Citan with any sort of grace, perhaps you should take a step away from the Internet for a while. Maybe have some tea.

[90sMusic]

It all depends on what level range you're talking about. At level 20, a lore bard is more powerful and more useful than anything else because you can just stay in Ancient Brass Dragon form all the time and something has to be able to take down an ancient brass dragon before it even has an opportunity to fight you. Not only that, but you can transform your entire adventuring party permanently into a group of ancient brass dragons.

You could just cast True Polymorph once again after they knock you out, albeit this time you'd be subject to concentration checks when you got hit.

Out of combat, you would have all the good healing and utility spells, and you could get Wish as well meaning once per day you can cast any non-9th level spell in the game which is the ultimate versatility. Any conceivable situation that calls for that one random spell that is only good circumstantially, and you'd have it whenever that or any other circumstance actually popped up.

Need to be sneaky? No problem. 1d20 + 12 for stealth expertise + 10 for pass without a trace + 1d12 for self bardic inspiration.
That is a maximum potential of 54, and that is before even adding whatever your dexterity modifier happens to be. If your DM lets anything see you with 54 stealth, it is because he is a jerkoff.

Likewise deception and persuasion rolls, assuming 20 charisma which who doesn't have 20 charisma by level 20, 1d20 + 17 + 1d12 is 49 potentially with 19 at the least possible and rolling double 1's.

Level 20 lore bard just can't be touched honestly. They are close to a god as you can get with the base rules of the game.

Even if a rogue had 20 wisdom and expertise in insight and then used his capstone ability to take 20 on an insight check, a bard could still deceive him. Can also cast Enhance Ability to have advantage on those charisma rolls, could cast Glibness for minimum 15 on the d20, so even if you rolled a 1 on deception, you'd only need a 5 on your bardic inspiration roll to beat the best possible roll a rogue can possibly do, and he can only do it once whereas you can continue to do it at this level.

Yes indeed. Every level 20 bard could end the campaign as the ruler of a kingdom if he really wanted to.

[treecko]

Results of the community tier list I made a while back:
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: -

Source: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf94Ki08CSME02JEnBwDdAiVdfxOTx9nkfR58xh6xj2 Snh9pg/viewanalytics

That being said, I do have a personal list. The criteria are as follows: lvs 3 to 11 are consitered, as I think those are the most balanced levels of play (1-2 is wonky, 13 casters get strong)
PHB only
No magic items other than to bypass nonmagic DR at lv 6 (consistent with monk/moon druid)
Standard fantasy, standard adventure. Exploration, social encounters, and combat will all factor in, and no large time setup will be allowed.
Assuming high optimization (IE: SS+CE fighter, GWM vengence pally, goodberry life cleric)
S: Lore bard, life,light, tempest cleric, div and evo wizard, moon druid
A: Paladin, other cleric, valor bard, other wiz, sorc, valor bard, land druid, fiendlock, battlemaster fighter
B: Barb, other fighter, Monk, other Warlock, rogue
C: Ranger

This being said, I still feel martials are fairly useful for the party, as a group like wiz/cleric/bard/sorc wont have the at will damage to get through the day. IMO the best party would looks something like life cleric/fiendlock/vengence pally/lore bard.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I saw the title and knew a flame war would happen at some point. I'm actually fairly surprised that there hasn't been all that much of one, considering.

In 5e, I think it's far more valuable to think of classes by situation or 'party slot' instead of a catch-all tier list. Wizards are great, but I'd fear for an entire party of them, especially at low levels. That utility means very little when they can't survive more than one or two encounters before people start dying off.

The roles I look at are:
Tank (can survive taking a hit, might have abilities tied to stopping enemies)
DPR (can output high consistent damage to overwhelm enemies)
Nova (can suddenly cause extremely high damage to defeat dangerous, high value targets)
Skill Utility (can get a reasonable number of good skills alongside the incentive to boost their accompanying ability score)
Spell Utility (can use magic to enhance or bypass aspects of the social and adventuring pillars)
Face (high charisma with access to good social skills and other incidental social boosts)
Healer (can heal hp damage, stop or prevent negative status effects, and prevent or reverse death itself)
Buffer (can enhance the abilities of their team in meaningful ways, especially in combat)
Debuffer (can hamper the abilities of their enemies in meaningful ways, especially in combat)

For a balanced party, you need all of these roles well-covered, with a few duplicates for good measure. You might have noticed that every single class in the game belongs on several of these lists. Some, all of them. And build matters a lot, as my ratings speak to potential, not necessarily what every member of the class has. So that said (WARNING: OPINIONS BELOW. DO NOT TAKE PERSONALLY)-


Tank C
DPR B
Nova C
Skill Utility C
Spell Utility B
Face D
Healer D
Buffer B
Debuffer D


Tank S
DPR A
Nova A
Skill Utility D
Spell Utility D-F (totem)
Face D
Healer F
Buffer F
Debuffer B-F (totem)


Tank B-D (valor)
DPR D
Nova C
Skill Utility S
Spell Utility A
Face S
Healer A
Buffer S
Debuffer A


Tank A-D (life, tempest, war)
DPR B-D (light, tempest, war, and arcane)
Nova C
Skill Utility C
Spell Utility B
Face C
Healer S-A (life)
Buffer S
Debuffer B


Tank A-D (moon)
DPR B-D (moon)
Nova B
Skill Utility C
Spell Utility A
Face B
Healer A
Buffer A-C (land)
Debuffer C


Tank S
DPR S
Nova B
Skill Utility C
Spell Utility D-F (eldritch knight)
Face D-F (eldritch knight)
Healer F
Buffer F
Debuffer B-F (eldritch knight)


Tank C
DPR B
Nova B
Skill Utility B
Spell Utility D-F (shadow, 4 elements)
Face F
Healer D-F (long death)
Buffer F
Debuffer B (EDIT: stunning fist reflected here)


Tank A-C (avatar, immortal, soul knife)
DPR B
Nova B
Skill Utility A-C (nomad)
Spell Utility B
Face S-C (numerous disciplines)
Healer B-F (restoration discipline)
Buffer A-F (numerous disciplines)
Debuffer A-F (numerous disciplines)


Tank S
DPR A
Nova S
Skill Utility D
Spell Utility C
Face A
Healer B
Buffer B
Debuffer C


Tank B
DPR A
Nova B
Skill Utility B
Spell Utility C
Face D
Healer C
Buffer C
Debuffer D


Tank B-C (swashbuckler)
DPR B
Nova A
Skill Utility S
Spell Utility B-F (arcane trickster)
Face A-B (arcane trickster)
Healer F
Buffer C-F (arcane trickster)
Debuffer B-F (arcane trickster)


Tank D
DPR A-B (dragon)
Nova S
Skill Utility C
Spell Utility A
Face A
Healer F
Buffer B
Debuffer A


Tank B-D (hexblade)
DPR S
Nova D
Skill Utility C
Spell Utility B
Face S
Healer F
Buffer D
Debuffer A


Tank B-D (bladesinger, abjuration is also higher than usual)
DPR A-B (evocation)
Nova S
Skill Utility C
Spell Utility S
Face C
Healer F
Buffer A
Debuffer S

[treecko]

The roles I look at are:
Tank (can survive taking a hit, might have abilities tied to stopping enemies)
DPR (can output high consistent damage to overwhelm enemies)
Nova (can suddenly cause extremely high damage to defeat dangerous, high value targets)
Skill Utility (can get a reasonable number of good skills alongside the incentive to boost their accompanying ability score)
Spell Utility (can use magic to enhance or bypass aspects of the social and adventuring pillars)
Face (high charisma with access to good social skills and other incidental social boosts)
Healer (can heal hp damage, stop or prevent negative status effects, and prevent or reverse death itself)
Buffer (can enhance the abilities of their team in meaningful ways, especially in combat)
Debuffer (can hamper the abilities of their enemies in meaningful ways, especially in combat)

For a balanced party, you need all of these roles well-covered, with a few duplicates for good measure. You might have noticed that every single class in the game belongs on several of these lists. Some, all of them. And build matters a lot, as my ratings speak to potential, not necessarily what every member of the class has. So that said (WARNING: OPINIONS BELOW. DO NOT TAKE PERSONALLY)-

Gotta say, love the roles- its a very good point. I could nitpick about the individual rankings but I won't, because the concept is a very important one to 5e power levels.

(except for barb and fighters nova- action surge >>>>> reckless attack)

[dejarnjc]

I saw the title and knew a flame war would happen at some point. I'm actually fairly surprised that there hasn't been all that much of one, considering.

In 5e, I think it's far more valuable to think of classes by situation or 'party slot' instead of a catch-all tier list. Wizards are great, but I'd fear for an entire party of them, especially at low levels. That utility means very little when they can't survive more than one or two encounters before people start dying off.

The roles I look at are:
Tank (can survive taking a hit, might have abilities tied to stopping enemies)
DPR (can output high consistent damage to overwhelm enemies)
Nova (can suddenly cause extremely high damage to defeat dangerous, high value targets)
Skill Utility (can get a reasonable number of good skills alongside the incentive to boost their accompanying ability score)
Spell Utility (can use magic to enhance or bypass aspects of the social and adventuring pillars)
Face (high charisma with access to good social skills and other incidental social boosts)
Healer (can heal hp damage, stop or prevent negative status effects, and prevent or reverse death itself)
Buffer (can enhance the abilities of their team in meaningful ways, especially in combat)
Debuffer (can hamper the abilities of their enemies in meaningful ways, especially in combat)

For a balanced party, you need all of these roles well-covered, with a few duplicates for good measure. You might have noticed that every single class in the game belongs on several of these lists. Some, all of them. And build matters a lot, as my ratings speak to potential, not necessarily what every member of the class has. So that said (WARNING: OPINIONS BELOW. DO NOT TAKE PERSONALLY)-


Eh I thought this thread was dumb but this is probably one of the best ways to do this. That being said, I think Monk should be S or A tier de-buffer. Stunning strike is one of the most powerful abilities in the game and open hand monks can push/knock prone consistently.

[Easy_Lee]

Eh I thought this thread was dumb but this is probably one of the best ways to do this. That being said, I think Monk should be S or A tier de-buffer. Stunning strike is one of the most powerful abilities in the game and open hand monks can push/knock prone consistently.

Monks are great against foes with low physical saves. Trouble is that constitution is one of the highest saves in the game for powerful creatures. You'll occasionally stun a devil, or remorhaz, or pit fiend, or lich, but not often. Meanwhile, a dedicated wizard can target every attribute with effects that last multiple rounds. That's why monks are only situational debuffers.

[Gastronomie]

*Grabs popcorn*

The best class is the one you like using best.[/thread]

[jas61292]

The whole idea of looking at the different roles and how good each class is in each of them is a far better way of looking at things that simply trying to grade them overall. That said, I do think that it is important to look even deeper though, not just at how good they can be at each role, but how those roles work together with each other. While being a good Face, for instance, can go well with just about anything, being a good Tank means very little if you do not make opponents want to actually hit you. How you accomplish that goal is not that important. Rather, what matters is simply that you can accomplish that, by excelling at another role, simultaneously. Similarly, being good at buffing is great, but if after you have those buffs set up you have nothing more to do, you will be much weaker than a character that can buff and then do some damage, even if their buffs are a bit worse and their damage is not top tier. Excelling at all different things is great, but its being able to combine them together, to mix and match these abilities, and have them play off each other that makes a character useful.

With that said, there is one specific class, or rather sub-class, that I want to address: the moon druid. I have always held that the moon druid is by far the most overrated subclass in the game. Its good, no doubt, but it is the perfect example of a class that can fill a lot of roles, but struggles to play them off each other, thus causing it to pale in comparison to its alternative. Of course, moon druid is poorly designed as far as scaling, and as such is horribly broken at a few levels. But, ignoring those few outlier levels, the archetypes main attraction really does a poor job of accomplishing something to improve on the core class. Druids excel at healing, buffing and controlling the battlefield. Moon druid adds melee capabilities, but, outside those first few levels, it is a poor damage dealer, and so, the incredible tankiness that it provides is mostly wasted, as you must give up all the things that make a druid good to simply be a bulky thing that is unattractive to actually attack. This is in contrast to something like a bladesinger, another archetype that also largely increases the tanking ability of its class. However, while the bladesinger might not have as much comparative bulk, it gains the bulk it has at no cost, and is thus able to utilize its tanking ability alongside the full abilities of a base wizard. The moon druid cannot do that, at best able to concentrate on a single spell it cast before transforming. Its tanking ability comes only by giving up on what makes the core druid a strong class.

Now, for comparison, the land druid does not really become great at any role that the druid was not already good at. However, in pretty much every magic related role (utility, healing, buff, debuff, dps, nova) the land druid is straight up an improvement over the base class (and thus the moon druid), if only due to having more spell slots per day and spells prepared. Many people think of the moon druid as giving power compared to the land giving flexibility, but really, the exact opposite is the case. The moon druid allows the druid to take a role it could not take before, while the land druid simply improves upon its ability to fill the roles it already fit into. While as an isolated character in a white room, the better survivability in melee that a moon druid possesses is huge, in a real game with an average sized party of relative normal composition, a druid usually covers enough roles as is, and thus simply being a better mage is generally going to be the stronger option.

And while that is just one case, I think it is an important example. Covering a lot of roles is nice, but only if you can be counted on to actually do them all when needed. And similarly, while greater role coverage is always a good thing, in a party, gaining more roles is not always as valuable as improving your ability at roles you already posses.

In short... there are far, far too many things to take into account to easily find a good way of ranking things. But if you are looking at the class too much in isolation, than it is very easy to see your method is a bad way.

[Gastronomie]

-snip-I 100% agree with this guy.

[SharkForce]

i think the way the moon druid makes people want to go after it is by having horrendously low AC :P

[Citan]

Being unofficial does not mean that a certain isn't balanced - as shown by many of the other material produced as part of the UA, and by much of the Homebrew. You yourself make homebrew. It's unofficial, and can be tiered according to its balance. Why can't UA be measured against the same metric? It's tiered according to its balance, and its capability in game. You are the one making a mountain out of molehill, and creating an argument stating that it can't be tiered because it's unofficial - while I'm stating that's precisely the reason it should be. People should be aware of what it is, and how good it is, and by listing it as extremely powerful (Lore Mastery, I'd even argue to be at a stage above Theurgy - S++ perhaps), it should be treated as such.

Get a grip. You insist on calling me "Kid", so that clearly suggests you believe yourself to be an adult. Start ****ing acting like it. No-one is angry. I'm calm, but I still think you're an idiot, and you're only proving it.
And why should people "be aware" of the power of options they may never be able to play? Since it's plain forbidden in AL, and many DM wouldn't run them anyways?

People that want to know what these UA options are about can very well make their own opinion by reading the related documents (UA itself, survey results, dedicated forum threads).
But using reknown broken UA prototype in a class comparison has no value and no meaning, I stand by it. Because they will never be published in the same state.
So by using broken UA in your argument, you are stressing that you rely on those particular options to justify your conclusion.
Which is stupid imo because you don't even need to do that in the first place, pretty much everyone agrees that Wizards have more options than any other caster.

By the way, one more post with such an agressive and condescendant tone (which is why I called you a kid -once-, because that is childish behaviour), and I will report you. Because you are always welcome to disagree with me (which is probably the definitive state here XD), not being that disrespectful. Last warning.

[qube]

Or the need to fly
Yes

Except of course, 4E monks & chaos sorcerers can fly as well, and look at the love their getting.


When people freely portray asinine opinions as empirical truth and rank classes according to ridiculous criteria, it harms the game.+1.


*Grabs popcorn*

The best class is the one you like using best.[/thread]+1

Hard to argue wizards are strong, if you're the kind of player that basically blows his entire spellload in the first of 8 encounters.

[Vaz]

o.O

If they can't play it then they don't worry about it. Simples. Like people who compete in the Dakar Rally don't care about F1 cars for competing purposes. But F1 cars still go faster.

Perhaps you should consider the same mentalilty when you are telling people that they are badwrong for comparing classes abilities and effects rather than arbitrariness such as Homebrew or UA.

Hope that's not triggering enough for you to report me massur.

Edit; how is asserting that a certain class is better is harmful for the game? Queens are better than pawns, ergo chess is harmed as a game? Now THAT is asinine.

[Aaron Underhand]

excellent post....

So this is why the Bard is rated so highly... 3 Ss and 3 As...

and the Monk has nothing above a B (possibly a little unfair)

:-) did you see what I did there....

[TheUser]

It all depends on what level range you're talking about. At level 20, a lore bard is more powerful and more useful than anything else because you can just stay in Ancient Brass Dragon form all the time and something has to be able to take down an ancient brass dragon before it even has an opportunity to fight you. Not only that, but you can transform your entire adventuring party permanently into a group of ancient brass dragons.

Hmm something sounds fishy about this... I'm not familiar with the transform all my party into dragons spell...Maybe he misread animal shapes? Is he fully concentrating on True Polymorph and waiting 24 hours between casts to regain the 9th level slot? Why would his party want to be a dragon forever and stop gaining class levels?


You could just cast True Polymorph once again after they knock you out, albeit this time you'd be subject to concentration checks when you got hit.

Oh he just doesn't understand what "permanent" means. If you true polymorph to a new permanent form and the form is reduced to 0 hitpoints...you die.

Taken from True polymorph description
"The transformation lasts for the duration, or until the target drops to 0 hit points or dies. If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the transformation becomes permanent."
See how it places the sentence about the effect being permanent after describing the conditions which would normally break it? It means targets don't revert after the change is permanent. If you turn a party member into a brass dragon permanently and they are reduced to 0 hitpoints that party member is dead and can only be resurrected as a brass dragon (Re-incarnate maybe? Or Wish spell obvi..)


EDIT: Apparently the spell is re-written in SRD's to no longer use "permanent" errata doesn't cover this but it's in the SRD and later prints of the PHB which say it lasts until "dispelled" grumble grumble....

[Positiveimpact3]

Alot of this depends on context but ruling that out to use a rule of averages i agree with most of your general statements.

The biggest difference of power between classes depends on class level. For example i dont think anything beats a moon druid for strongest lvl 2 character and its hard to argue against a caster with the wish spell or wish/simulacrum regardless of what class or level you are.

This becomes trickier when you are looking at classes as a whole by averaging a classes power level across all 20 levels. If this is the case then it would probably be difficult for me to discern between A tier and B tier along with discerning B tier with C tier. D tier still remains pretty obvious.

I would note that people often forget the power of a rogue skill monkey via the reliable talent feature which is extremely potent. Never rolling below 10 before adding modifiers can be extraordinary. Example a 20 dex rogue with a +6 prof and expertise in slight of hand means the rogue cant get less than a roll of 10+5+6+6=27

Never rolling below 27 on a check is pretty incredible and something tbat emphasizes the rogues master of some rather than the bards master of none. I would love to play an evil sultan advisor with 27 for minimum rolls for persuasion and deception or intimidation for example.

One other disagreement are with monks. They are very solid levels 1-5 and from there they taper off generally getting soft defensive abilities, tankiness, or utility. They spike again at 14 with massive bonuses to all saves and cheap advantage. They spike again at 18. 4 ki points for no concentration greater invisibility+potion of invulnerability is insane.

Other than that a barbarian can nearly go toe to toe with fighters on pure damage since they can easilly spam gwm +10 attacks with advantage while also resisting some or nearly all damage making them generally tougher than a fighter (in terms of effective hit points)

Warlocks arent the strongest but they arent slouches either. With eldritch/agonizing blast they effectively get up to four attacks per round (and 3 levels earlier than the fighter). Darkness and devils sight can make for easy advantage, disrupt enemy spells that require sight to cast and cause disadvantage from enemy attack rolls.

Aside from that level 20 druids have infinite sildshape, sorcerers can twincast true polymorph to create two adult dragons to do his/her bidding. I mean they can twincast wish - whatever the heck that would do. A level 20 cleric can guarantee a powerful divine intervention from their god (similar to wish). After a while it all starts to seem pretty insane.

It might be worth noting that paladins feel super strong early on but feel like they slowly taper off after lvl 6 and especially after lvl 12.

[qube]

Edit; how is asserting that a certain class is better is harmful for the game? Queens are better than pawns, ergo chess is harmed as a game?Considering that the objective of chess is winning, you can't just willy nilly compare it to roleplaying games.

Also, considering that you put so much on a wizards utility ... it's a pawn that can turn into queen OR knight. Heck, queens are only brute force; it's usually smart pawn play that wins you games.

Operating under the mindset that there are universal truth, like queens are better than pawns, in chess, is a sure way to lose the game.

Advocating/teaching others these bad things, is in fact, detremental to the game.


A level 20 cleric can guarantee a powerful divine intervention from their god (similar to wish). After a while it all starts to seem pretty insane.divine intervention > wish.
When you try to wish for anything decent, there's a good chance you'll never be able to use it again.


One other disagreement are with monks. They are very solid levels 1-5 and from there they taper off generally getting soft defensive abilities, tankiness, or utility. They spike again at 14 with massive bonuses to all saves and cheap advantage. They spike again at 18. 4 ki points for no concentration greater invisibility+potion of invulnerability is insane.yup.

... Not to mention, four element monk can cast fly ...

[dejarnjc]

Monks are great against foes with low physical saves. Trouble is that constitution is one of the highest saves in the game for powerful creatures. You'll occasionally stun a devil, or remorhaz, or pit fiend, or lich, but not often. Meanwhile, a dedicated wizard can target every attribute with effects that last multiple rounds. That's why monks are only situational debuffers.

I get where you're coming from and I think this may be true at low levels but as you advance a monk their saves get higher, their ki point pool gets higher (also rechargeable on a short rest) , and monsters saves' don't really scale comparatively (from what I understand). Even if a creature has a +6 to its con save, a monk with a DC 16 has a 50% chance to inflict a stun and can attempt to stun it up to 4 times a turn. Of course, the ability will be more and less useful depending on # of enemies, strength of enemies, type of enemies etc.

And yeah, sure, I get it... it's not hypnotic pattern, arguably one of the strongest spells in the game pound for pound. But it definitely puts the monk at at least an 'A' for de-buffer.

[qube]

Even if a creature has a +6 to its con save, a monk with a DC 16 has a 50% chance to inflict a stun and can attempt to stun it up to 4 times a turn.At end game, Wis 20 monks have DC 19 stun.
Average Con save per CR (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Monsters by Challenge Rating):
CR 13: +8.3
CR 14: +9.7
CR 15: +10
CR 16: +10
CR 17: +12
CR 19: +12
CR 20: +13.3
CR 21: +11.5
CR 22: +14.5
(many high level enemies (fiends & dragons in particular) seem to be proficient in con saves)

[dejarnjc]

At end game, Wis 20 monks have DC 19 stun.
Average Con save per CR (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Monsters by Challenge Rating):
CR 13: +8.3
CR 14: +9.7
CR 15: +10
CR 16: +10
CR 17: +12
CR 19: +12
CR 20: +13.3
CR 21: +11.5
CR 22: +14.5
(many high level enemies (fiends & dragons in particular) seem to be proficient in con saves)

Clearly CON saves scale better than I thought. I still maintain that stunning strike is an incredibly powerful de-buff however. Forcing 4 DC19 CON saves a turn for potentially four turns in a row with a short rest rechargeable ki pool sounds about as good as anything a spell caster could do.

[jas61292]

At end game, Wis 20 monks have DC 19 stun.
Average Con save per CR (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Monsters by Challenge Rating):
CR 13: +8.3
CR 14: +9.7
CR 15: +10
CR 16: +10
CR 17: +12
CR 19: +12
CR 20: +13.3
CR 21: +11.5
CR 22: +14.5
(many high level enemies (fiends & dragons in particular) seem to be proficient in con saves)

While this is true, it is also a bit misleading, as high CR creatures are rare and not necessarily the main thing a high level party will face. At level 17, for instance (since that is when proficiency hits max and DCs go to 19), two CR 10 creatures is a medium encounter. Same with three CR 7s. While its true that high CR creatures have good Con saves, unless you DM ignores encounter guidelines or is a huge fan of solo enemies, you will still likely face more lower CR monsters and be able to stun them with ease.

[EvilAnagram]

While this is true, it is also a bit misleading, as high CR creatures are rare and not necessarily the main thing a high level party will face. At level 17, for instance (since that is when proficiency hits max and DCs go to 19), two CR 10 creatures is a medium encounter. Same with three CR 7s. While its true that high CR creatures have good Con saves, unless you DM ignores encounter guidelines or is a huge fan of solo enemies, you will still likely face more lower CR monsters and be able to stun them with ease.

That's the big problem with a lot of "CR appropriate" math. Too many people assume you're always going to be facing enemies of a CR appropriate to your level, when most parties aren't constantly facing solo encounters. You're more likely to face an army of skeletons at level 10 than you are five CR 10 undead in quick succession. There's a reason most of the enemies you face at level 1 are CR 1/4 or lower.

[Citan]

At end game, Wis 20 monks have DC 19 stun.
Average Con save per CR (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Monsters by Challenge Rating):
CR 13: +8.3
CR 14: +9.7
CR 15: +10
CR 16: +10
CR 17: +12
CR 19: +12
CR 20: +13.3
CR 21: +11.5
CR 22: +14.5
(many high level enemies (fiends & dragons in particular) seem to be proficient in con saves)
That's why Monk (especially the Open Hand one) always travels with his two Best Friends Forever: Lore Bard and Wild Magic Sorcerer. :smallbiggrin:

[TheUser]

That's why Monk (especially the Open Hand one) always travels with his two Best Friends Forever: Lore Bard and Wild Magic Sorcerer. :smallbiggrin:

Cutting Words doesn't affect Saves....

[Citan]

Cutting Words doesn't affect Saves....
Arf, I always forget that limitation. My bad, Lore Bard is out then... Welcome, Diviner Wizard. XD

[mephnick]

You're more likely to face an army of skeletons at level 10 than you are five CR 10 undead in quick succession. There's a reason most of the enemies you face at level 1 are CR 1/4 or lower.

This is true. But to be fair, every single enemy added to the combat weakens Stunning Strikes' effect on that combat. So it's more likely to land but less useful if it does.

[GlenSmash!]

I would rate the various classed 13/10. much fun. very game.

[Dudu]

Any attempt at ranking the various 5.0 classes in a tier system will be much more opinionated than the tier system in 3.5.

I do agree with some lists here.

Overall, I would put full casters (no Warlock, you don't count) as usually in the top.
Wizards, Bard and Clerics have some really strong archetypes supporting them. Not counting UA cheese like Lore Wizard. Some subclasses just rock too hard. Wizards have abjurer and diviner among my favorites. Bards have the Lore Bard, not counting UA Jester bard which is broken good. Clerics have what I call the killer trio: Tempest, Nature and Arcana domains. Nature might be the weakest in the trio, though, but the other two are a blast.
Sorcerers and druids have a lot of good spells and wonderful tricks as well, so it would be hard to arrange the full casters in ranking order.

Then we would have classes that have more limited roles, but excell in that greatly and those roles are usually in high demand in nearly 100% of the campaigns. Fighters and rogues being prime examples. Paladins could be above fighters, since they can be interpreted as tank fighters with a lot of cream on top of them.

After that we have classes that have their niche, but that niche might be completely ignored in the campaign. Rangers who are superb trackers, for example. Those guys might be the MVP in a survival heavy campaign, but lackluster in campaigns that do not feature such content.

And some classes are more of dip classes or simply don't do that well. Warlock and Monks, mostly. Monks receive some love in this forum, but the monks I saw playing in the table were lacking, wonder if the players were the ones to blame, rather than the class. Warlocks still do their little tricks and might be very strong in campaigns that allow a lot of short rests. But even then, 2 spells per short rest for most of their career is... to restrictive.

[SharkForce]

the biggest problem with monks is that they're an execution-heavy class.

to be effective, you need to be jumping behind enemy lines and making the enemy artillery very very sad. if you do it well, you can be devastating. if you do it poorly, you will probably just fall flat on your face. if you don't do it at all, you've got low damage, high survivability, no real reason for enemies to go after you, and your strongest abilities generally go right up against the typical enemy you'd find on the front lines... con saves are just not going to scare a hill giant chieftain the way they would scare the archmage who's controlling the tribe.

edit: it also doesn't help that the class doesn't actually tell you any of that. nowhere in monk does it say "by the way, you need to figure out how to jump over the ogres, reach the ogre magi, keep that ogre magi stunned, and somehow not get ganged up on by the rest of the ogres in the process. you're not very good at being a frontliner except maybe in chokepoints where enemies can't get past you so they have no choice but to try to hit you instead of a better target"

[qube]

That's the big problem with a lot of "CR appropriate" math. Too many people assume you're always going to be facing enemies of a CR appropriate to your level, when most parties aren't constantly facing solo encounters. You're more likely to face an army of skeletons at level 10 than you are five CR 10 undead in quick succession. There's a reason most of the enemies you face at level 1 are CR 1/4 or lower.stunning fist is a "single target" ability. Arguing that many encounters have multiple targets doesn't really do credit to your argument.


and somehow not get ganged up on by the rest of the ogres in the process.
SCAG's deathmonk can area frighten at will (sadly though, other PCs are also affected)

[djreynolds]

Wizards are always great, but the issue is often your own party. Ted the Wizard (actual quote)"I said I want Dave the fighter over here and Roy the rogue here and Kate the cleric there and Steve the bard... who cares. Now everyone hold your action and just get hit while I drop this chain lightning. That was awesome, wasn't...... oh Dave the fighter is dead. Well okay, can the cleric or bard bring him back to life or do we just get a new Dave?"

[Citan]

the biggest problem with monks is that they're an execution-heavy class.

to be effective, you need to be jumping behind enemy lines and making the enemy artillery very very sad. if you do it well, you can be devastating. if you do it poorly, you will probably just fall flat on your face. if you don't do it at all, you've got low damage, high survivability, no real reason for enemies to go after you, and your strongest abilities generally go right up against the typical enemy you'd find on the front lines... con saves are just not going to scare a hill giant chieftain the way they would scare the archmage who's controlling the tribe.

edit: it also doesn't help that the class doesn't actually tell you any of that. nowhere in monk does it say "by the way, you need to figure out how to jump over the ogres, reach the ogre magi, keep that ogre magi stunned, and somehow not get ganged up on by the rest of the ogres in the process. you're not very good at being a frontliner except maybe in chokepoints where enemies can't get past you so they have no choice but to try to hit you instead of a better target"
Yeah, sure. It's not like built-in "progressive double speed", "alternative paths (wall/water), bonus action mobility/evasion, strictly evasion related defensive features, DEX-reliant AC are SCREAMING that kind of fighting tactics... Oh wait!

Seriously, what a meaningless thing to say: as void as saying that "Rogue class doesn't actually tell you anything about avoiding enemy at any costs" (in spite of Disengage/Hide as bonus action, once/round half-damage, AOE-geared defensive feature, Sneak Attack requiring either advantage or close ally, and light AC).

Or that Barbarian class doesn't actually tell you anything about actively engaging enemy and sticking there, in spite of bonus to melee attacks only, resistance to damage, offense for defense trade ability etc...

Seriously, just actually reading abilities and thinking about how to use and mesh them is largely enough to understand how a class is supposed to play at core.

The only problem with Monk is that they are deceptively simple to play: as with the cavalier in chess, any wrong tactical choice may earn you a strong slap in the face quickly*, so having great analyse skills or good mates to support you is required to avoid frustration. Also, on the forum, many don't like Monks because it's more difficult to multiclass with because of the constant Ki progression and most interesting features relying on it. But that's another matter. ;)

*Usually more so than a Barbarian rushing too far in enemy lines (it's stupid, and it will hurt, but he does have resistance) or a S&B EK or Paladin (it's still very stupid, and it will hurt, but high AC means not too many hits). Monk has neither of those at lower levels so the price of carelessness or wrong analysis is much steeper. Foundation is the same though: behaving too rashly harms the party overall except when it was a calculated gamble that actually paid off.


Wizards are always great, but the issue is often your own party. Ted the Wizard (actual quote)"I said I want Dave the fighter over here and Roy the rogue here and Kate the cleric there and Steve the bard... who cares. Now everyone hold your action and just get hit while I drop this chain lightning. That was awesome, wasn't...... oh Dave the fighter is dead. Well okay, can the cleric or bard bring him back to life or do we just get a new Dave?"
I'd daresay it's a bad example: with a Wizard having so many prepared spells, It would be rare for him to not have anything better suited for a situation in which friendly fire is a thing.
Also, worst case, you are still choosing the target of each bolt, which can be "a creature or an object". With "an object" being an extremely generic word, it'd be really rigid of a DM to not accept that your bolts cannot move towards some furniture, environmental obstacles such as trees or amovible rocks or the like. So with some luck, you can "force" the bolts to end early by directing them in such a way they have only one "leap" valid. Otherwise, well, let's just hope your friends had some way to mitigate (resistance, Absorb Elements, Nature CLeric's ability)...

But really, I have trouble imagining such situations arising in the first place. Either you went full AOE and you obviously took the Evoker School because doing otherwise is stupid, or you just knew in advance that enemies would fear lightning and you prepared Lightning Bolt or Chromatic Bolt to have an alternative, or you are from another School with just a versatile list of prepared spells and you probably wouldn't prepare such a spell if your friends cannot coordinate in the first place. Unless there are latent conflicts in the group (I could see the case arising between a Necromancer and a Devotion Paladin... "Oh, shoot, I hit you with the Chain Lightning. Aww, dang, I'm sorry, I REALLY didn't do it on purpose... Must have been that shiny heavy metal armor of yours that drew it to you, you know, I'm still having some trouble controlling this spell. I'm sorry you now have to spend half your hit dice when we are gonna fight an Ancient Dragon soon..."). :smallbiggrin:

[EvilAnagram]

stunning fist is a "single target" ability. Arguing that many encounters have multiple targets doesn't really do credit to your argument.

I have made no arguments whatsoever with regards to the monk or his Stunning Fist. I don't know what you're referring to.

[LaserFace]

"How would you guys rate the various classes? (Power-wise)"

I wouldn't.

Each class is absolutely viable with any race, with or without feats or multiclassing. Some classes sometimes edge out others in terms of flashiness, but I have never seen players glare at the Wizard or Bard for being "too good".

If your group is letting a particular class dominate, it's probably the DM unintentionally favoring those classes. The DM should be broadly aware of the strengths of each party member, and be granting them opportunities to elect to use their strengths. If say the DM provides zero chance for the Ranger's Natural Explorer ability to have impact on the game, the DM should either be convincing that player to choose another ability altogether as a substitute, or not play a Ranger because it simply doesn't fit with the style of play they want at the table. DM style choices don't relate to power of the ability.

I think stratifying the classes of 5E only serves to stigmatize perfectly valid and interesting options that are worth discussing with your DM and party mates for any given campaign.

[Spacehamster]

With beastmaster being rated as garbage I guess you mean the vanilla BM ranger not the better one they put in Unearthed arcana? :)

[SharkForce]

Yeah, sure. It's not like built-in "progressive double speed", "alternative paths (wall/water), bonus action mobility/evasion, strictly evasion related defensive features, DEX-reliant AC are SCREAMING that kind of fighting tactics... Oh wait!

Seriously, what a meaningless thing to say: as void as saying that "Rogue class doesn't actually tell you anything about avoiding enemy at any costs" (in spite of Disengage/Hide as bonus action, once/round half-damage, AOE-geared defensive feature, Sneak Attack requiring either advantage or close ally, and light AC).

Or that Barbarian class doesn't actually tell you anything about actively engaging enemy and sticking there, in spite of bonus to melee attacks only, resistance to damage, offense for defense trade ability etc...

Seriously, just actually reading abilities and thinking about how to use and mesh them is largely enough to understand how a class is supposed to play at core.

The only problem with Monk is that they are deceptively simple to play: as with the cavalier in chess, any wrong tactical choice may earn you a strong slap in the face quickly*, so having great analyse skills or good mates to support you is required to avoid frustration. Also, on the forum, many don't like Monks because it's more difficult to multiclass with because of the constant Ki progression and most interesting features relying on it. But that's another matter. ;)

*Usually more so than a Barbarian rushing too far in enemy lines (it's stupid, and it will hurt, but he does have resistance) or a S&B EK or Paladin (it's still very stupid, and it will hurt, but high AC means not too many hits). Monk has neither of those at lower levels so the price of carelessness or wrong analysis is much steeper. Foundation is the same though: behaving too rashly harms the party overall except when it was a calculated gamble that actually paid off.

the difference is that the barbarian or fighter's role is well understood. everyone understands the idea of the front line. it's a standard thing in tabletop and computer RPG play. the concept of something like an assassin role character from MOBAs is not nearly as solidified... "tank", "DPS", "crowd control" and "healer" are things most of us will understand because of our past experiences. but i don't think there's really been anything like a 5e monk in the game, where their job is to target the back line artillery, but they do it in melee (archers or spellcasters shooting at the enemy backline is not unusual though). and it goes against what most of our experience tells us, which is that splitting off is dangerous and tends to get you killed, or at best you tend to take a lot of damage. like you said, when a fighter or a barbarian try that kind of thing, it generally doesn't go very well for them, and that isn't just a "5e" thing, it's been the case for a long time. we've been conditioned to lure enemies into a chokepoint, not to fling our characters onto the other side of the chokepoint from everyone else in the party.

and so, because the monk is built for something so different, it could really benefit from some clarity as to what exactly it is that monks are designed to do. not because nobody could understand it, but because many people have spent the past 5 decades learning to not do the thing that monks are supposed to do. if you're some sort of officer in the military, you probably grasp it a lot more readily (the idea of skirmishers have been around for millenia), and there are probably other things that will help make that idea stand out (i'm guessing there's someone in a football team who is supposed to get around the line and pressure the quarterback and anyone else who may get the ball handed to them, for example, so they might grasp it more readily), but for many of us the monk is doing exactly what our years of experience tell us is crazy and suicidal.

[Zalabim]

Oh, Gods, another one of these threads. We've had such a nice stretch without anyone bringing up another season of arbitrary hot-or-not lists. Oh, you think these classes are better because they're full casters. How original. You must have put a lot of thought into this.
If this thread is so awful, why are you here? [/Spider-man:homecoming] Why am I here?


Is Weird balanced against Wish, as a 9th level spell? Theoretically yes. Practically, no. Doesn't stop Wish being the better option. They are empirically better, apart from when you may want to deal maybe a maximum of 40d10 Psychic damage over a minute, where a creature has to fail a DC19 Wisdom Save (average +9.75 to Wis Saves for CR17+ monsters) every round.
Weird doesn't do the same thing as Wish. If you want to empirically show that wish is better, you should find an 8th level or lower spell that wish can replicate to do what Weird does, better. In any case, Weird isn't for dealing damage to a single creature, so mentioning the Wis saves of single-creature encounters isn't making a good case against it.

When people freely portray asinine opinions as empirical truth and rank classes according to ridiculous criteria, it harms the game.
Now this feels like a truth I can hold self-evident.

the difference is that the barbarian or fighter's role is well understood. everyone understands the idea of the front line. it's a standard thing in tabletop and computer RPG play. the concept of something like an assassin role character from MOBAs is not nearly as solidified... "tank", "DPS", "crowd control" and "healer" are things most of us will understand because of our past experiences. but i don't think there's really been anything like a 5e monk in the game, where their job is to target the back line artillery, but they do it in melee (archers or spellcasters shooting at the enemy backline is not unusual though). and it goes against what most of our experience tells us, which is that splitting off is dangerous and tends to get you killed, or at best you tend to take a lot of damage. like you said, when a fighter or a barbarian try that kind of thing, it generally doesn't go very well for them, and that isn't just a "5e" thing, it's been the case for a long time. we've been conditioned to lure enemies into a chokepoint, not to fling our characters onto the other side of the chokepoint from everyone else in the party.

and so, because the monk is built for something so different, it could really benefit from some clarity as to what exactly it is that monks are designed to do. not because nobody could understand it, but because many people have spent the past 5 decades learning to not do the thing that monks are supposed to do. if you're some sort of officer in the military, you probably grasp it a lot more readily (the idea of skirmishers have been around for millenia), and there are probably other things that will help make that idea stand out (i'm guessing there's someone in a football team who is supposed to get around the line and pressure the quarterback and anyone else who may get the ball handed to them, for example, so they might grasp it more readily), but for many of us the monk is doing exactly what our years of experience tell us is crazy and suicidal.
Skirmisher, flanker, or whatever you want to call it is a well-known role. Skirmisher was a whole monster category in 4E. Flanking was a mechanic in 3E. Though there is a general lack of "how to play" instructions in 5E classes, people seem to mostly respond better to that. This is one of those things where a lot of people actually could benefit from "how do I flank" courses, but that might go for a lot of roles.

[Klorox]

What's the S+ and S grade mean?

[Citan]

the difference is that the barbarian or fighter's role is well understood. everyone understands the idea of the front line. it's a standard thing in tabletop and computer RPG play. the concept of something like an assassin role character from MOBAs is not nearly as solidified... "tank", "DPS", "crowd control" and "healer" are things most of us will understand because of our past experiences. but i don't think there's really been anything like a 5e monk in the game, where their job is to target the back line artillery, but they do it in melee (archers or spellcasters shooting at the enemy backline is not unusual though). and it goes against what most of our experience tells us, which is that splitting off is dangerous and tends to get you killed, or at best you tend to take a lot of damage. like you said, when a fighter or a barbarian try that kind of thing, it generally doesn't go very well for them, and that isn't just a "5e" thing, it's been the case for a long time. we've been conditioned to lure enemies into a chokepoint, not to fling our characters onto the other side of the chokepoint from everyone else in the party.

and so, because the monk is built for something so different, it could really benefit from some clarity as to what exactly it is that monks are designed to do. not because nobody could understand it, but because many people have spent the past 5 decades learning to not do the thing that monks are supposed to do. if you're some sort of officer in the military, you probably grasp it a lot more readily (the idea of skirmishers have been around for millenia), and there are probably other things that will help make that idea stand out (i'm guessing there's someone in a football team who is supposed to get around the line and pressure the quarterback and anyone else who may get the ball handed to them, for example, so they might grasp it more readily), but for many of us the monk is doing exactly what our years of experience tell us is crazy and suicidal.
Ok, I see your point. Sorry for being a bit in the agressive tone in my post too, sarcasm didn't bring anything.

I still don't agree though. In the fact that Monk has always been a trope in RPG (at least in D&d, but I could quote probably at least a few dozen video games or movies/animes demonstrating the same kind of character), so the argument that "general culture gives hint on how to play a class" also apply to a Monk.
Especially since "skirmisher" or "striker" are known 'archetypes', which could apply fairly easily to the Monk.

Beyond that, really, anyone that is able to understand that a Barbarian is supposed to stick on the front line because he is resistant and gives advantage against him should be able to understand that a class with high mobility and exclusive reactions against arrows/AOE is supposed to make hit and runs.
To say otherwise, if someone is not able to grasp at least that from reading, then Monk is indeed not a class for him/her (but then, probably not Barbarian too). Because tactics are the only way to survive, even more so than for a Rogue which (in "classic" builds at least) can safely rely on attacking from a great range if it's difficult for him to assess the threat on the frontline, without losing anything (barring use of weapon cantrips) or a Barbarian who can usually survive at least one turn of punishment because he was too reckless.
So someone who cannot even project the most basic playstyle without having his hand held will just weigh down the party, boring for everyone. Even if I fully agree on the fact that playing a Monk efficiently is indeed difficult (much more than other classes), partly because it's usually impossible to make "mind-game simulations" of what tactic to use or how to position best because too many variables are not known until you are in the fight itself.

[TheUser]

"How would you guys rate the various classes? (Power-wise)"

I wouldn't.

Each class is absolutely viable with any race, with or without feats or multiclassing. Some classes sometimes edge out others in terms of flashiness, but I have never seen players glare at the Wizard or Bard for being "too good".

If your group is letting a particular class dominate, it's probably the DM unintentionally favoring those classes. The DM should be broadly aware of the strengths of each party member, and be granting them opportunities to elect to use their strengths. If say the DM provides zero chance for the Ranger's Natural Explorer ability to have impact on the game, the DM should either be convincing that player to choose another ability altogether as a substitute, or not play a Ranger because it simply doesn't fit with the style of play they want at the table. DM style choices don't relate to power of the ability.

I think stratifying the classes of 5E only serves to stigmatize perfectly valid and interesting options that are worth discussing with your DM and party mates for any given campaign.

Just because 5e is easy compared to other editions and every little snowflake build will be able to survive and flourish doesn't mean they are all on equal footing.

The effect a character has on social, exploration and especially combat is very dependant on class selection.

[EvilAnagram]

What's the S+ and S grade mean?

It's the equivalent of putting hearts around someone's name in your diary, and just as meaningful.

[JNAProductions]

Just because 5e is easy compared to other editions and every little snowflake build will be able to survive and flourish doesn't mean they are all on equal footing.

The effect a character has on social, exploration and especially combat is very dependant on class selection.

Player > Build > Class

[SharkForce]

Skirmisher, flanker, or whatever you want to call it is a well-known role. Skirmisher was a whole monster category in 4E. Flanking was a mechanic in 3E. Though there is a general lack of "how to play" instructions in 5E classes, people seem to mostly respond better to that. This is one of those things where a lot of people actually could benefit from "how do I flank" courses, but that might go for a lot of roles.

ok, so there's one edition. specifically, the one edition that a lot of fans of the game hate with a burning passion and avoided at all costs, i might add. D&D has had several editions (how many depends on how you count them, to some extent) and goes back decades. something that happened over a handful of years in that time period when people were deliberately looking the other way is not going to establish a concept for a lot of people.

(also: while the 4e "striker" role always claimed that you were supposed to be ultra-mobile and able to keep yourself alive easily while going after squishy targets, in my experience that was at best only true some of the time. a rogue had no more business leaving the protection of the defenders than a controller or a leader did, and a warlock who teleported into the back line was probably not going to enjoy the experience very much from what i recall).

[TheUser]

Player > Build > Class

mmmm I might change that to Player > Class > Build.

You'll never have a Fighter bending reality the way a Wizard or Sorcerer can.

Good players make strong builds and while a good player can do a whole heck of a lot, they will often gravitate to the classes that let them flourish the most.

[LaserFace]

Just because 5e is easy compared to other editions and every little snowflake build will be able to survive and flourish doesn't mean they are all on equal footing.

The effect a character has on social, exploration and especially combat is very dependant on class selection.

What's a snowflake build?

How do you define "equal footing"?

Class / race obviously does dictate your experience. You should pick the things that you think will be fun. But there are no "trap" options. You really can't go wrong if all you do is pick things you like, and listen to what the PHB says about where to put your best stat rolls.

[djreynolds]

I'd daresay it's a bad example: with a Wizard having so many prepared spells, It would be rare for him to not have anything better suited for a situation in which friendly fire is a thing.
Also, worst case, you are still choosing the target of each bolt, which can be "a creature or an object". With "an object" being an extremely generic word, it'd be really rigid of a DM to not accept that your bolts cannot move towards some furniture, environmental obstacles such as trees or amovible rocks or the like. So with some luck, you can "force" the bolts to end early by directing them in such a way they have only one "leap" valid. Otherwise, well, let's just hope your friends had some way to mitigate (resistance, Absorb Elements, Nature CLeric's ability)...

But really, I have trouble imagining such situations arising in the first place. Either you went full AOE and you obviously took the Evoker School because doing otherwise is stupid, or you just knew in advance that enemies would fear lightning and you prepared Lightning Bolt or Chromatic Bolt to have an alternative, or you are from another School with just a versatile list of prepared spells and you probably wouldn't prepare such a spell if your friends cannot coordinate in the first place. Unless there are latent conflicts in the group (I could see the case arising between a Necromancer and a Devotion Paladin... "Oh, shoot, I hit you with the Chain Lightning. Aww, dang, I'm sorry, I REALLY didn't do it on purpose... Must have been that shiny heavy metal armor of yours that drew it to you, you know, I'm still having some trouble controlling this spell. I'm sorry you now have to spend half your hit dice when we are gonna fight an Ancient Dragon soon..."). :smallbiggrin:

Its not that the Dave the Fighter got caught in the spell, its that Ted the wizard didn't care that Dave got killed.

I know when I play a wizard, for some reason I become bossy because I want to solve every solution regardless of the outcome.

[Waazraath]

Just because 5e is easy compared to other editions and every little snowflake build will be able to survive and flourish doesn't mean they are all on equal footing.

The effect a character has on social, exploration and especially combat is very dependant on class selection.

"snowflake build".... come on, please. And that not every class/subclass is on equal footing, really does not mean that they are different enough to adequately rank them on 7 tiers. It isn't. See http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22209950&postcount=56


It's the equivalent of putting hearts around someone's name in your diary, and just as meaningful.

+1


mmmm I might change that to Player > Class > Build.

You'll never have a Fighter bending reality the way a Wizard or Sorcerer can.

Good players make strong builds and while a good player can do a whole heck of a lot, they will often gravitate to the classes that let them flourish the most.

In what way is the Wizard or Sorcerer "bending reality in a way that a fighter never can"? And at what point in the game? Because fine, wish, 99% of the games are never played there. Almost all the "breaking reality" below that level is just a flashy way of doing what a fighter is doing as well (damage, debuffing), stuff that a fighter can get access to through other ways (like flying from race), healing or buffing through feats, or very useful utility things (which are nice, doesn't make the class more 'powerful' per se).

In all editions, breaking the action economy is recognized as one of the most powerful features. Having a spell that could do it (lets say, by giving you another action, like 'celerity' in 3.5) was considered uber and game breaking, and yet another proof that casters were great and martials poor sad 'mundanes'. Now we have 5e, each fighter gets to break the action economy in exactly that way (better, actually). And it's not recognized as 'breaking reality', because it isn't a spell and hasn't got a fancy name. I find that fascinating.

So no, Player > Build > Class, most definitely.

[Jerrykhor]

"snowflake build".... come on, please. And that not every class/subclass is on equal footing, really does not mean that they are different enough to adequately rank them on 7 tiers. It isn't. See http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22209950&postcount=56



+1



In what way is the Wizard or Sorcerer "bending reality in a way that a fighter never can"? And at what point in the game? Because fine, wish, 99% of the games are never played there. Almost all the "breaking reality" below that level is just a flashy way of doing what a fighter is doing as well (damage, debuffing), stuff that a fighter can get access to through other ways (like flying from race), healing or buffing through feats, or very useful utility things (which are nice, doesn't make the class more 'powerful' per se).

In all editions, breaking the action economy is recognized as one of the most powerful features. Having a spell that could do it (lets say, by giving you another action, like 'celerity' in 3.5) was considered uber and game breaking, and yet another proof that casters were great and martials poor sad 'mundanes'. Now we have 5e, each fighter gets to break the action economy in exactly that way (better, actually). And it's not recognized as 'breaking reality', because it isn't a spell and hasn't got a fancy name. I find that fascinating.

So no, Player > Build > Class, most definitely.
This is wrong on so many levels. Can the Fighter banish creatures to another plane? Teleport 500ft? Turn creatures into a T-Rex or rat? Create invincible force fields? Become completely invisible? Summon elementals? All these are certainly not just a 'flashy' way of doing what a Fighter already can. The Fighter simply cannot do these things, and its because they are plebs.

Action surge sure is a sweet feature, how I would love to get it. Oh wait, 2 levels of Fighter dip and the magic man can enjoy it too.

[Vaz]

Breaking the action economy is powerful depending on what you do with it. Two sets of 'i hit with a sword' versus 2 Plane Shifts.

[FinnS]

These rankings are all based on Theorycraft and I hate to break to you all but theorycraft is just theory and doesn't translate to reality half as often as one hopes.
Best case in point is how Fighters always get ranked low but anyone sitting a a table with one for any prolonged amount of time knows the reality that Fighters simply get it done over and over again even when other classes fail despite those other classes' supposedly superior abilities.
And no class benefits from simple magic items more than Fighters.

Back to theorycrafting...best story I can offer is from WoW, especially in the vanilla days.
I took a 2h Fury warrior and blew away the top DPS theorycraft builds by remarkable margins and had the highest survivability of any non-tank.
I did it with a Bonereaver's Edge, a camp fire, 2 pieces of PvP gear and Hamstring spam inbetween cooldowns.
Anyone that played a Warrior in vanilla WoW just said wtf did you just say lol
And I was Alliance too so it didn't involve Windfury either.
I won't waste anymore thread space on it but if anyone wants details, just PM me.

Regardless, my point is that these power lists are nice but don't mean jack.
It will always be about the player not the class.

[Waazraath]

The Fighter simply cannot do these things, and its because they are plebs.


Oh my... I stepped on some very sensitive toes it seems, in pointy shoes. Relax, Jerrykhor, you can be out of character here, don't need to play Galindann the sun elf who looks down on all those pathetic commoners who can't cast a spell.


Can the Fighter banish creatures to another plane? Teleport 500ft? Turn creatures into a T-Rex or rat? Create invincible force fields? Become completely invisible? Summon elementals? All these are certainly not just a 'flashy' way of doing what a Fighter already can.

Aren't they? On a very basic level, everything every character does is "damage opponents" "prevent getting (badly) damaged yourself" "taking monsters out of the fight" "utility stuff"

- Banisment? It takes an opponent temporarily out of the fight, without hurting him. The fighter can spend her turn beating the opponent simply into jelly, if nessecary spending action surge and/or superiority dice. Or grappling, and throwing said opponent over a conveniently close cliff (or at least keeping him away from the rest of the party). Hee, what's that sound? Ah! The monster making his saving thrown, meaning the wizard spend a mid level spell on doing nothing and being a waste of space!
- Teleport? Handy. Or you can walk. Or fly. Or hitch a ride with the guy spending a high level long rest rescource on it anyway.
- Polymorph: to do damage, or take somebody temporarily out of the fight? Been there, done that.
- Invincible force fields: very nice, short duration, in itself doesn't solve any problems (dividing the opponents in 2 groups still requires that guy with the big sword to take care of them.
- Invisibility? Doesn't do anything in 5e except giving advantage on a mundane skill check. If you want it that badly as a fighter, play a firbolg.
- Summon elementals: and what are they gonna do? Let me guess: do damage. The fighter can do that as well. Except that the fire elemental can put something on fire as well, luckily the fighter carries a torch.

And of course I'm exaggerating; casting classes are fine, can do useful stuff. The spells above are good, and if used well, can have a big impact on the game. Often bigger than what a martial can do. But the martial can do usefull stuff as well, and is more reliable in doing it (never out of spells, never memorized the wrong spells, less easily taken out of the fight).



Action surge sure is a sweet feature, how I would love to get it. Oh wait, 2 levels of Fighter dip and the magic man can enjoy it too.

Ah, yes. Only a 2 level dip. Lagging behind 2 levels with all other casters, just to taste a bit of the sweet, juicy power every fighter gets. If you don't take the 2 fighter levels first (which would make those levels suck a bit, since you prolly maxed out int), you'll spend 10, 20 evenings (real life) playing to reach it.

If anything, this proves how close the classes are in power in 5e. In 3.x, when there was a serious disparity in power, NEVER would somebody have suggested to augment the power of a caster by dipping into fighter. Don't lose caster levels were 3 out of the 10 tips in the optimization handbook.


Breaking the action economy is powerful depending on what you do with it. Two sets of 'i hit with a sword' versus 2 Plane Shifts.

Eh, 2 plane shifts? To go somewhere, and back home in the same turn? Or target 2 creatures with a spell that requires both and attack roll and has a saving throw? Great.

Given 'plane shift (lvl 7 spell, 13 level caster required) and 2 levels of fighter assumed (action surge), the fighter is hitting 6 times with his sword (or shove first, and hit 5 times with advantage, when appropriate). Can imagine quite some situations in which hitting is the better option.

[Zalabim]

ok, so there's one edition. specifically, the one edition that a lot of fans of the game hate with a burning passion and avoided at all costs, i might add. D&D has had several editions (how many depends on how you count them, to some extent) and goes back decades. something that happened over a handful of years in that time period when people were deliberately looking the other way is not going to establish a concept for a lot of people.
I wouldn't put quite that much vitriol on 3E, though the point was that there was more than one edition with the concept and more sources for the concept than just D&D editions, as you had already helpfully explained.


(also: while the 4e "striker" role always claimed that you were supposed to be ultra-mobile and able to keep yourself alive easily while going after squishy targets, in my experience that was at best only true some of the time. a rogue had no more business leaving the protection of the defenders than a controller or a leader did, and a warlock who teleported into the back line was probably not going to enjoy the experience very much from what i recall).
[Racing on a tangent at breakneck speeds]I always thought of the striker/defender difference (other than the obvious) being Strikers have abilities that say "don't hit me" and Defenders have abilities that say "don't hit them." Or "ignore me" from strikers and "don't ignore me" from defenders. Hellfire Rebuke and Armor of Agathys are clear examples of that kind of striker defense. I recall a lot of warlock and sorcerer spells with effects in those lines.

Incidentally, I describe the leader/controller relationship similarly, as a controller ability being "don't do that" and a leader ability being "do this."

[qube]

In all editions, breaking the action economy is recognized as one of the most powerful features. Having a spell that could do it (lets say, by giving you another action, like 'celerity' in 3.5) was considered uber and game breaking, and yet another proof that casters were great and martials poor sad 'mundanes'. Now we have 5e, each fighter gets to break the action economy in exactly that way (better, actually). And it's not recognized as 'breaking reality', because it isn't a spell and hasn't got a fancy name. I find that fascinating. I just felt a cold shiver down my spine.


Can the Fighter banish creatures to another plane? Teleport 500ft? Turn creatures into a T-Rex or rat? Create invincible force fields? Become completely invisible? Summon elementals? All these are certainly not just a 'flashy' way of doing what a Fighter already can. The Fighter simply cannot do these things, and its because they are plebs.What do you mean, he can't? I count a "probbably, yes, probbably, probbably, yes and yes."

I never understood why people are hellbend on comparing classes in a meaningless void.


Any lvl 20 character worth his sault will be able to fly at lvl 20 ... But I can do it as concentration spell instead of an item, meaning I can do it myself, but fall from the sky the instant I get a decent hit. Look at me being SOOO OP!!!!

[Vaz]

Meanwhile Fighter does an extra 40pts of damage twice a S/R. To a target that is binary alive with 400+ HP, and doesn't get significantly weaker.

Also, these threads are brilliant for the watching all the people come out of the wood to screech about how these threads are pointless.

[Waazraath]

Meanwhile Fighter does an extra 40pts of damage twice a S/R. To a target that is binary alive with 400+ HP, and doesn't get significantly weaker.

Also, these threads are brilliant for the watching all the people come out of the wood to screech about how these threads are pointless.

Yeah, very nice way to frame people who having other ideas than yourself. Classy.

As for your example, we're talking level 15, and your hypotethical target has over 400 HP (fine), but not such an AC, saving throws, and legendary saves, that a hostile plane shift is a problem? Right.

Truth of the matter is, at that level there are plenty of targets on which plane shift will work, just as there are plenty of targets that can be better taken out by hp damage. And for a large part, it's the party setup that depends which is better, and the type of enemy that is selected by the DM. It's all part of the relativity of these kind of threads, and shows that "A is more powerful than B" as a general statement is nonsensical.

[EvilAnagram]

Yeah, very nice way to frame people who having other ideas than yourself. Classy.

As for your example, we're talking level 15, and your hypotethical target has over 400 HP (fine), but not such an AC, saving throws, and legendary saves, that a hostile plane shift is a problem? Right.

Truth of the matter is, at that level there are plenty of targets on which plane shift will work, just as there are plenty of targets that can be better taken out by hp damage. And for a large part, it's the party setup that depends which is better, and the type of enemy that is selected by the DM. It's all part of the relativity of these kind of threads, and shows that "A is more powerful than B" as a general statement is nonsensical.

Yeah, that argument path always struck me as silly. Assuming no magical weapons, it's not hard to build a Fighter that can outperform a wizard in high level encounters. Assuming white room and average rolls at level 20, by the time an ancient red dragon fails a single saving throw (and cannot LR), a reasonably built Battlemaster or Champion can reduce an it to half HP. But, of course, he's just a loser normie who can't do anything.


Also, these threads are brilliant for the watching all the people come out of the wood to screech about how these threads are pointless.

Bad ideas do typically draw out detractors.

It's also fun for seeing how quickly some people have to resort to insults.

[jas61292]

Yeah, that argument path always struck me as silly. Assuming no magical weapons, it's not hard to build a Fighter that can outperform a wizard in high level encounters. Assuming white room and average rolls at level 20, by the time an ancient red dragon fails a single saving throw (and cannot LR), a reasonably built Battlemaster or Champion can reduce an it to half HP. But, of course, he's just a loser normie who can't do anything.

Indeed. And it gets even worse when you take defense and not just offense into account. I mean, sure, in a real game setting, you should be fighting as a team with both the wizard and fighter working together, but no, that's not a dumb comparison that serves no purpose, like this thread is supposed to be about. So, rather, lets keep looking at classes by themselves in a white room against that ancient red dragon.

First off... lets be clear here, wizard or fighter, it doesn't really matter. You are going to die facing an ancient red dragon 1 on 1. As already mentioned, the fighter can do a ton of damage by the time the wizard even is sucessful with a save spell. But... when you take into account that the dragon is not just going to be passively letting you kill it, you realize that the wizard will never be successful with such a spell, because they will most likely be dead before getting through its legendary resistance. Now, to be fair, assuming the dragon is smart, only an archery Fighter could actually do significant damage to it, as it would just keep out of reach of any other fighter, and regardless of the type of fighter, they will also be dead very quickly without doing too much... but.... hey, a few HP of damage is at least something. Maybe you can give it a nice scar so the next fool who comes to face the dragon alone will at least get to see some evidence that you were there. That's more than the wizard would likely get to do.

Alternatively, you could go in with an actual party, teaming up with people of other classes, both martial and magic, work together with everyone having their own strengths, and actually slay the dragon, but... that wouldn't (fail to) prove any points on an internet forum, so what is the fun in that?

[TheUser]

Indeed. And it gets even worse when you take defense and not just offense into account. I mean, sure, in a real game setting, you should be fighting as a team with both the wizard and fighter working together, but no, that's not a dumb comparison that serves no purpose, like this thread is supposed to be about. So, rather, lets keep looking at classes by themselves in a white room against that ancient red dragon.

First off... lets be clear here, wizard or fighter, it doesn't really matter. You are going to die facing an ancient red dragon 1 on 1.


Wizard erects a wall of force dome overtop of herself and spams sacred flame through it forcing the ancient red to retreat and wait for 10 minutes in which time the wizard can teleport away to safety.

The Fighter becomes lunch.

[jas61292]

Wizard erects a wall of force dome overtop of herself and spams sacred flame through it forcing the ancient red to retreat and wait for 10 minutes in which time the wizard can teleport away to safety.

The Fighter becomes lunch.

So the wizard.... sits there doing nothing (or using a cleric cantrip?) and then moves itself, along with the goalposts, away from the battlefield.

If simply living was a success, there never would have been a battle in the first place.

[Vaz]

Wow half HP. That's...ye nothing, because being at half HP does nothing. Oh, and how does the Fighter ever reduce the Dragon to half HP? Oh, I guess he just stands there and waits to get hit like a gopd little strawman. Right okay.

[Dudu]

Aren't they? On a very basic level, everything every character does is "damage opponents" "prevent getting (badly) damaged yourself" "taking monsters out of the fight" "utility stuff"
It seems you are severily underrating the "utility" stuff. You have your goal, which might be anything.

That goal might be to retrieve a powerful artifact from the palace vaults. In which the fighter can do so by vanquishing the whole palace guard. The rogue can do it by stealthly dodging every obstacle, the whole kingdom only noticing the artifact was stolen the next morning (fulfilling the task more easily and with more elegance as well). The caster might scry the place, teleport in and teleport out, classic gamebreaking cheat. Both caster and rogue did it without damaging anyone.


- Banisment? It takes an opponent temporarily out of the fight, without hurting him. The fighter can spend her turn beating the opponent simply into jelly, if nessecary spending action surge and/or superiority dice. Or grappling, and throwing said opponent over a conveniently close cliff (or at least keeping him away from the rest of the party). Hee, what's that sound? Ah! The monster making his saving thrown, meaning the wizard spend a mid level spell on doing nothing and being a waste of space!
- Teleport? Handy. Or you can walk. Or fly. Or hitch a ride with the guy spending a high level long rest rescource on it anyway.
- Polymorph: to do damage, or take somebody temporarily out of the fight? Been there, done that.
- Invincible force fields: very nice, short duration, in itself doesn't solve any problems (dividing the opponents in 2 groups still requires that guy with the big sword to take care of them.
- Invisibility? Doesn't do anything in 5e except giving advantage on a mundane skill check. If you want it that badly as a fighter, play a firbolg.
- Summon elementals: and what are they gonna do? Let me guess: do damage. The fighter can do that as well. Except that the fire elemental can put something on fire as well, luckily the fighter carries a torch.
Ok, now you pushed it a bit. One by one.

Teleport - Yeah, you can always walk. Like in a collapsing tower surrounded by lava. Go ahead, walk away from that. Also, the scry and die trick always relied on some sort of teleportation.

Polymorph - The beauty is that you can use polymorph in more than one way. And my favorite way is to go to a nearly KOed friend and transform him into a TRex. Now you don't have a close to die ally, you have a trex friend for the fight. No, the fighter can't pull that off.

Invisible Force Field - Again, it brings something the fighter can't really do.

Invisibility - As someone who already did his share of stealth missions, I love this spell. Yes, it's much, much more than advantage on a skill check.

Summon Elemental - This kind of make it hard to argue the utility of a fighter, actually. I mean, now the wizard team has their own beatstick. So, a wizard can summon a fighter, but a fighter can't summon a wizard.



And of course I'm exaggerating; casting classes are fine, can do useful stuff. The spells above are good, and if used well, can have a big impact on the game. Often bigger than what a martial can do. But the martial can do usefull stuff as well, and is more reliable in doing it (never out of spells, never memorized the wrong spells, less easily taken out of the fight).
I agree with you. The aforementioned team of wizards, for example, would be bull****. The current game I'm playing count with me as cleric, a friend fighter who does more than half of damage of the team on top of tanking (when the situation isn't fit for my own Spirit Guardians, that is), the wizard with tonnes of utility and some on-demand damage and a druid that can help me by taking some burden from my shoulders (and ah, firewall and cone of cold as well). Ocasionaly, we get my rogue friend (I built that char, actually) or the barbarian. And I wouldn't change a thing in this party. 5ed succeeded in making every class relevant which differs strikingly from 3.5.

5ed, a diverse party >>>>> a one dimensional one. But if I had to pick between an all caster party and an all martial one, I would pick the caster party any day. Hell, I could do a lot of stuff with a all cleric party already.

[LaserFace]

Meanwhile Fighter does an extra 40pts of damage twice a S/R. To a target that is binary alive with 400+ HP, and doesn't get significantly weaker.

Also, these threads are brilliant for the watching all the people come out of the wood to screech about how these threads are pointless.

Also, these threads are brilliant for the watching all the people come out of the wood to make inane power rankings in a game where everything other than deliberate self-sabotage is sufficient for a successful campaign.

It's like these people would make the argument that the weakest Olympian on a nation's team is actually a completely worthless piece of trash not worth anyone's time or investment, disregarding they are an Olympian.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's the equivalent of putting hearts around someone's name in your diary, and just as meaningful. Yeah.

The answer to the OP's question is mu.

Solo adventures are a CRPG thing. In D&D 5e, the game design is a party, so I'd offer that the more compelling question to ask is "How do you rate the best 3, 4, or 5 character party" and even then, you need to frame that question within a given campaign.

We are back to ... a party of all lore bards. Go.
Let us know how things are going at about level 6, 11, and 15.

Anyone done this? What kind of campaign were you in?

[Cybren]

Meanwhile Fighter does an extra 40pts of damage twice a S/R. To a target that is binary alive with 400+ HP, and doesn't get significantly weaker.

Also, these threads are brilliant for the watching all the people come out of the wood to screech about how these threads are pointless.

Well, they are pretty pointless, so

[EvilAnagram]

Wow half HP. That's...ye nothing, because being at half HP does nothing.
It makes it easier to kill a creature. Obviously. How is this even a conversation? If a fighter crit on all eight attacks on am action surge and reduced it to 1 HP would you say, "So? Who cares? Reducing it to 1 HP does nothing." Because that's where your logic leads.

I suppose a spell that reduced a dragon to half HP would totally be worth it, though, because it's a spell.


Oh, and how does the Fighter ever reduce the Dragon to half HP? Oh, I guess he just stands there and waits to get hit like a gopd little strawman. Right okay.
You do realize that Fighters can make excellent ranged attackers, right? Like, it's really, really simple, and with the number of feats a fighter has acces to it's basically harder to fail to make a good ranged character.

Are you trying to make bad arguments?

[Vaz]

Also, these threads are brilliant for the watching all the people come out of the wood to make inane power rankings in a game where everything other than deliberate self-sabotage is sufficient for a successful campaign.

Well, ye, that's literally the entire premise.

[qube]

Teleport - Yeah, you can always walk. Like in a collapsing tower surrounded by lava. Go ahead, walk away from that.it's called having hit points, baby :p

(there's a old 3.X funny story about a player taking of his shoos before crossing a stream of Lava. The DM ask why the player would do such a crazy thing, to which the player responds that lava only does 20d6 damage. His character can take that - his shoos can't)



Summon Elemental - This kind of make it hard to argue the utility of a fighter, actually. I mean, now the wizard team has their own beatstick. So, a wizard can summon a fighter, but a fighter can't summon a wizard.do note you use a spell you can only cast at level 9, to summon only a CR 5 monster that does beserk once you lose concentration ... both [a] disabling you from using concentration spells, and [b] actually turing the encounter into the enemies advantage if you ever fail a concentration check. (loss of frontliner & additional enemy)

[LaserFace]

Well, ye, that's literally the entire premise.

To be inane?

Thanks for clearing that up, I guess?

[Vaz]

Well, ye. Welcome to DnD, and forums about DnD. They're all inane.

Or did you think you were doing sooper serious stuff that benefits humanity on the internet when you log onto these forums?


it's called having hit points, baby :p
Apart from the instant kill lava that's in stuff like Tomb of Horrors.

[Willywilliamrtx]

Y'all are sleeping on Oathbreaker Paladin *grabs popcorn*

[Rhedyn]

What decent wizard can't kill an ancient red dragon?

What decent high level fighter doesn't realize his limitations and raise an army to kill the dragon?

[EvilAnagram]

What decent wizard can't kill an ancient red dragon?
I don't know of a single wizard build that can take one on.

[Gtdead]

I've yet to see evidence supporting that fighter is as strong as people think. In an other thread I demonstrated that against a tarrasque, a fighter without magic items barely does more damage per turn than a sacred flame.

Fighter can Nova. So can other classes. Perhaps he can do it more times per day and a bit harder than most, but it's not a unique feature by any stretch of the imagination.

The only interesting thing about the class is action surge and the reason isn't because of the action economy but because he gets it so early.

Also fighter just doesn't perform that well on the level curve as a solo class.

There is one thing the class does well. Team Nova. Buff him with foresight, haste etc, and watch him cleave the crap out of everything. That however hardly makes him an amazing class. More like a gimmick.

That's not to say he isn't viable. But he isnt very interesting mechanically and he can only perform well in combat.

[qube]

I've yet to see evidence supporting that fighter is as strong as people think. In an other thread I demonstrated that against a tarrasque, a fighter without magic items barely does more damage per turn than a sacred flame.wow ... you ACTUALLY went out of your way to prove that, against the monster with the single most highest AC of the game, and a +0 on dexterity saves

... a dexterity spell that deals 4d8 is better then an attack roll, if you don't use magic items

<sarcasm>let me bask in your ability to make an objective comparison</sarcasm>


Edit: Oh yeah, how about pitting a fighter without magic weapons against a creature with immunity to nonmagical weapons.
:confused:

[LaserFace]

Well, ye. Welcome to DnD, and forums about DnD. They're all inane.

Or did you think you were doing sooper serious stuff that benefits humanity on the internet when you log onto these forums?


Really?

You've ridiculed people in this very thread for disagreeing but with you, but now you throw your hands up and declare it all a wash, anyway?

Yes, D&D is not as important to humanity as, say, medical research. But it is a hobby people enjoy, and helps to fulfill their desire for social engagement. People come here to participate in honest discussion relating to that hobby.

I'm not sure why you come here, but your persona strikes me as more of a construct made for a social behavior experiment than that of an actual hobbyist.

Maybe practice your satire somewhere else?

[Finieous]

My first 5e campaign as DM just concluded at 20th level: Human Fighter (Battlemaster), Half-Elf Rogue (Thief), Gnome Wizard (lllusionist), Dwarf Cleric (Life), Human Bard (Lore), Half-Elf Warlock (Archfey). Good players, so they were all able to leverage their strengths to claim spotlight time in the situations I presented them throughout the campaign.

Second campaign, just starting: Human Rogue, Goliath Barbarian, Half-Elf Bard, Human Wizard, Water Genasi Druid, Half-Elf Monk.

I'm very satisfied with the selection of classes my players are enjoying, so that's good "balance." From a design perspective, there might a bias toward humans and half-elves, but I'm okay with that from a world-building perspective.

[mephnick]

The only interesting thing about the class is action surge

Eh, the extra feat at 6 helps a lot a strong builds come online early and the third attack at level 11 makes you feel pretty badass. I like being front and center knowing my abilities don't rely on a rage that can get easily countered, concentration that can be easily broken or spell slots that dry up quickly in a real adventuring day.

If everyone played the game properly, fighters would be a lot more popular. But nope, no one wants to worry about rests and how the system works, so paladins and casters get to nova all day in the two encounters per long rest the incompetent DM throws at his players.

[qube]

On the comparison with the Tarrasque though ... something doesn't sit right
archer champion (because we all know champions are OP as f*** :smallwink:):
+6 prof, +5 dex +2 class feat = +13 vs AC 25 = 30% hit, 15% cirt
1d8+5 dex = 9.5 damage
4 attacks = DPR avr 22.8
sacred flame
DC 8+6prof+5 wis (19); Tarrasque has +0 on dex saves, advantage on saves vs spells = 81% hit chance.
4d8 = 18 average damage
DPR avr 14.58

... well , dispite the messed up compare, apparently the fighter STILL deals more then 50% more damage, but hey ... haters gonna hate, I suppose.


Yes, D&D is not as important to humanity as, say, medical research. I would disagree with out. This is a D&D forum. D&D is vastly more important here then medical research is.

[Finieous]

If everyone played the game properly, fighters would be a lot more popular.

Fighter is the most popular class.

[mephnick]

Fighter is the most popular class.

Good to see it's doing well other places. I guess my area is just weird because I never see them. Even new players gravitate towards Paladins or Barbarians if they want to go melee.

[Finieous]

Good to see it's doing well other places. I guess my area is just weird because I never see them. Even new players gravitate towards Paladins or Barbarians if they want to go melee.

I'm basing that on the survey. It's not scientific, but it's the best info we have.

[MeeposFire]

Fighters have always been popular even in 3e when they were pretty bad (relative to their usual quality). Their broad application works well in their favor rather than the paladin and barbarian which while effective are seen to be restrictive in their use for various concepts (I can make characters outside the box using those classes but for many people paying a barbarian or paladin leads you to much more specific types of characters).

People like to play warrior types and in 5e it lets you do that pretty well. They are fun and effective. Complaining that they do not do things like plane shift natively is inane as that is not the sort of thing that somebody who wants to play the classic warrior type is going to do (that is what items are for and characters like the warrior are all about using tools).

The important bit is to make sure that your warrior types are actually the best overall warriors and not be completely overshadowed in their job by non-warriors. In most editions of D&D this is true (3e is the major exception) and I feel that in 5e warrior types work quite well as warriors.

[Gtdead]

wow ... you ACTUALLY went out of your way to prove that, against the monster with the single most highest AC of the game, and a +0 on dexterity saves

... a dexterity spell that deals 4d8 is better then an attack roll, if you don't use magic items

<sarcasm>let me bask in your ability to make an objective comparison</sarcasm>


Edit: Oh yeah, how about pitting a fighter without magic weapons against a creature with immunity to nonmagical weapons.
:confused:

This is exactly the faulty logic people use when talking about the fighter. Dpr is the only thing he brings to the table. If he can't perform well in every instance, what's the point? Paladin is way more reliable. Rogue, especially AT, has the highest dpr against high ac targets. Yet people drool over fighter because he can destroy 0 ac targets better than anyone.

Destroying mooks isn't important, especially when talking Max level. A bladesinger has good chances soloing the damn tarrasque in melee and can do well in other aspects. Yes, he has to spend resources and can't keep it up for every encounter, but he is damn effective. Fighter is limited and needs help to perform well. His scaling makes him a niche, not an overall top tier class mechanically.

The best part is that martials are overtuned in this edition compared to 3.5, from inate abilities to magic items available. Oathbow increases fighter's damage by 200% or something in the chosen target. There is nothing like that for casters, and even if there was, the strongest monsters are immune to attack roll cantrips.

Get it already? The game favors him so much, and there are still classes that the dm will consider bigger threats.

My view is that this "tier list" has a point only if the comparisons are based on excellence. We need the class to perform well under every condition, low or high magic, feats or no feats, short rests or no short rests.

[JNAProductions]

How is Paladin more reliable? They have highly limited resources. (Don't get me wrong, they hit HARD, but they don't hit for long periods of time.)

And Rogues can't win jack without an ally nearby, because they need someone to proc Sneak Attack. (Excepting Swashbuckler, but you didn't mention them.)

[SharkForce]

How is Paladin more reliable? They have highly limited resources. (Don't get me wrong, they hit HARD, but they don't hit for long periods of time.)

And Rogues can't win jack without an ally nearby, because they need someone to proc Sneak Attack. (Excepting Swashbuckler, but you didn't mention them.)

minor correction: arcane trickster rogues can, as a bonus action, set up their own sneak attacks very easily.

[JNAProductions]

minor correction: arcane trickster rogues can, as a bonus action, set up their own sneak attacks very easily.

Ah, that's my bad. I forgot that ability.

[TheUser]

How is Paladin more reliable? They have highly limited resources. (Don't get me wrong, they hit HARD, but they don't hit for long periods of time.)

2 of the 3 PHB sub classes can improve their odds of hitting for 10 straight rounds

Vengeance gets advantage and Devotion adds Charisma to hit


And Rogues can't win jack without an ally nearby, because they need someone to proc Sneak Attack. (Excepting Swashbuckler, but you didn't mention them.)

Rogues don't need an adjacent ally if they have advantage on the attack (can be easy to hide with bonus action)

[JNAProductions]

Yes. Paladins hit hard, and part of that is being accurate.

But that's highly limited in terms of how often you can do it.

[Vaz]

Really?

You've ridiculed people in this very thread for disagreeing but with you, but now you throw your hands up and declare it all a wash, anyway?

Yes, D&D is not as important to humanity as, say, medical research. But it is a hobby people enjoy, and helps to fulfill their desire for social engagement. People come here to participate in honest discussion relating to that hobby.

I'm not sure why you come here, but your persona strikes me as more of a construct made for a social behavior experiment than that of an actual hobbyist.

Maybe practice your satire somewhere else?
Sure. I can disagree with people for being wrong. I still donnt believe it is anything other than inane.

Don't get panties bunched bro. Don't worry, it's all inane.

Also, the gatekeepers are leaking. I'm apparently not an actual hobbyist now. Pray, tell me, what qualifications you have to determine who is an "actual hobbyist". Let me guess, it's an inane degree, from an inane university?

I also wonder if you've grasped the issue of you criticising the thread as being inane, and then saying it's not inane because people like to discuss the hobby.

Also lol@ qube saying that on this forum, Medical Science is less useful, because it's a D&D forum. This forum wouldn't exist without medical science allowing 3/4 of the population to have survived this far.

[qube]

I've yet to see evidence supporting that fighter is as strong as people think. In an other thread I demonstrated that against a tarrasque, a fighter without magic items barely does more damage per turn than a sacred flame.Wait ... what exactly HAVE you been calculating? because I just calced another "way OP fighter combo": the greatsword champ

+6 prof +5 dex = +11 vs AC 25 = 20% hit, 15% cirt
2d6+5 (r1/2 once) = 13.333 avr damage (crit 21.666)
4 attacks: chance on at least 1 crit: 47.8%, at which point GWM gives extra attack as bonus action -> 4.478 attacks
4.478 x (20% 13.333 + 15% 21.666 ) = average 26.5 damage
savage attacker:
the chance there's 1/2/3/4 hits times the chances there's at least 1 below average damage one = 53.7%
the average 'below average damage' is 11.71.
26.5 damage + ( 53.7% * (13.33- 11.71) ) = 26.5 + 0.87 = 27.4 damage
sacred flame
DC 8+6prof+5 wis (19); Tarrasque has +0 on dex saves, advantage on saves vs spells = 81% hit chance.
4d8 = 18 average damage
DPR avr 14.58

... 26.5 or 27.4 vs 14.6 is 82% or 88% more damage! "Barely more" !? It's almost double ! Against the highest AC monster with a abyssal reflex save

[Rhedyn]

Fighter is one of the weaker classes in the game.

That barely matters though. It functions just fine in this edition which you really can't say about 3.5

Yeah you do the same thing for the most part from 1-20 with narrative items being the only true variation to tactics.

That is a player niche and it doesn't make the class bad. The fighter being weaker in pure power to other classes like the paladin or barbarian is a design flaw, but I think the answer is making those classes weaker not the fighter stronger.

[qube]

This is exactly the faulty logic people use when talking about the fighter. Dpr is the only thing he brings to the table.This is exaclty the faulty logic called "moving the goalpost" - as the issue is not if all they bring to the table is DPR, but how their DPR compares to the ideal cantrip against an extremely high AC monster

Secondly It's also moving the goalpost, because people bring more to the table then just their class. Perhaps the fighters YOU play only bring DPR to the table, but that's YOUR problem. MY fighter is a bastion of defense, and secondairy healer, with full sneak attack! Namely the a protection fighter with the inspiring leader feat ('cause I got feats to burn), and commanding strike, being both the flanker enabler for the rogue, AND the one who gives him an extra attack out out of his turn (and thus again enabling him to sneak attack). And oh, yeah, I got f***ing got magic items. Unlike your logic of "oh, I'm a wizard, I just cast fly" When I'm flying, I can get hit without plumetting to my death because my concentration broke. That sure as heck is a nifty feature when you're tanking for the weaker character.

And I don't give a rats *ss that "it's technically the rogue who attacks with your commanding strike, not you" . Dead dragon is dead dragon.

[Vaz]

Wait ... what exactly HAVE you been calculating? because I just calced another "way OP fighter combo": the greatsword champ

+6 prof +5 dex = +11 vs AC 25 = 20% hit, 15% cirt
2d6+5 (r1/2 once) = 13.333 avr damage (crit 21.666)
4 attacks: chance on at least 1 crit: 47.8%, at which point GWM gives extra attack as bonus action -> 4.478 attacks
4.478 x (20% 13.333 + 15% 21.666 ) = average 26.5 damage
savage attacker:
the chance there's 1/2/3/4 hits times the chances there's at least 1 below average damage one = 53.7%
the average 'below average damage' is 11.71.
26.5 damage + ( 53.7% * (13.33- 11.71) ) = 26.5 + 0.87 = 27.4 damage
sacred flame
DC 8+6prof+5 wis (19); Tarrasque has +0 on dex saves, advantage on saves vs spells = 81% hit chance.
4d8 = 18 average damage
DPR avr 14.58

... 26.5 or 27.4 vs 14.6 is 82% or 88% more damage! "Barely more" !? It's almost double ! Against the highest AC monster with a abyssal reflex save

You forgot to carry the 1.

And by that I mean the "Immunity to Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing Non-Magical Attacks"

And you forgot to carry another 1.

The fact that the Fighter is likely to have Disadvantage on its attacks due to being Restrained. And that if it's Restrained, and cannot escape (as an action, reducing its damage), it gets swallowed, and cannot, using average damage deal those 60pts of damage - meaning it has to wait until the Tarrasque dies of old age or something, I dunno.

And you also forgot that something using Sacred Flame is either a Warlock or Cleric, which has a further +5 to damage, so there's 19.8, vs 0, which is, like. I dunno. Maybe we can get DivisbleByZero to help us with the calculation. I'm struggling.

Meanwhile, Elf Wizard 7 (any) jumps on their Phantom Steed and uses Magic Weapon on their Longbow.

But ye, "almost double"

[jas61292]

You forgot to carry the 1.

And by that I mean the "Immunity to Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing Non-Magical Attacks"

And you forgot to carry another 1.

The fact that the Fighter is likely to have Disadvantage on its attacks due to being Restrained. And that if it's Restrained, and cannot escape (as an action, reducing its damage), it gets swallowed, and cannot, using average damage deal those 60pts of damage - meaning it has to wait until the Tarrasque dies of old age or something, I dunno.

And you also forgot that something using Sacred Flame is either a Warlock or Cleric, which has a further +5 to damage, so there's 19.8, vs 0, which is, like. I dunno. Maybe we can get DivisbleByZero to help us with the calculation. I'm struggling.

Meanwhile, Elf Wizard 7 (any) jumps on their Phantom Steed and uses Magic Weapon on their Longbow.

But ye, "almost double"

Ok, so a wizard does better in the one situation most biased against a fighter, so long as we don't give the fighter anything reasonable at all whatsoever, and assume he is also dumb. Sounds good to me.

[Finieous]

"I'm convinced this discussion is inane. Allow me to demonstrate."

[JNAProductions]

Yes, if you have no magic weapons (not even a "Is magical, but does nothing other than be magical") weapon, the magic-user is better against the Tarrasque.

However, give that Fighter a bow that's magic and, say, a horse, and he can solo the Tarrasque from 600' away. Sacred Flame is only a 60' spell, so farthest away a Cleric can be is 120' with Spell Sniper.

[qube]

@Vaz ... I am not going to waiste my time on trolls who

And by that I mean the "Immunity to Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing Non-Magical Attacks"
think they are smart becasue the mention what I already pointed out
cannot, using average damage deal those 60pts of damage - meaning it has to wait until the Tarrasque dies of old age or something
Are not intelectually honest enough to understand how average damage works
+5 to damage, so there's 19.8
Have the decency to accept that, no, not all classes get +5 damage to their cantrips. It is afighter vs cantrip comparison. Live with it.
nor have the mathematical knowhow to get how
(81% of 18 average damage) = 14.58 ... +5 is in no way, shape, or form is 19.8. Not 81% of (18+5), nor (81% of 18)+5
Meanwhile, Elf Wizard 7 (any) jumps on their Phantom Steed and uses Magic Weapon on their Longbow.
Nor have the f***ing decency, in a comparisons of at will damage, to stay away from long rest resources

[Vaz]

Ok, so a wizard does better in the one situation most biased against a fighter, so long as we don't give the fighter anything reasonable at all whatsoever, and assume he is also dumb. Sounds good to me.

Okay. So what does the Fighter do when it needs to get to another plane? He begs the DM to give him a Plane Shift item.
So what does the Fighter do when it needs to get to the top of the sheer cliff? He either climbs - risking falling thanks to a poor roll. Or he begs the DM for an item of Fly/Teleport variant of choice
So what does the Fighter do to find his Magic Weapon? Just go into a shop and hope that there is one made for him, and that he's not being ripped off and handed a nonemagical weapon?
So how does the Fighter recognise a trap?
How does the Fighter do anything other than Fight?
How does the Fighter disguise themselves in town?
How does the Fighter see in the Dark?
How does the Fighter escape from the belly of a Tarrasque?
How does the Fighter track invisible foes?
How does the Fighter get people to do what the Fighter wants them to do, but is against their ethos?
How long does it take a Fighter to get from one end of the continent to the other?
How long does it take a Fighter to build a castle or a defensive wall?
How does a Fighter talk to someone in a language they don't speak?

The Fighter is meant to be the best Fighter. It's meant to be better at Fighting that any other class that Fights, because it's good enough to get the name "Fighter". No other class gets the name "Fighter", but a Fighter gets a "Battle Master" and a "Champion". Against the supposed hardest monster in the game to fight, the Fighter loses, because it doesn't have access to the things that allow it to operate at that level.

It's like hiring a plumber, only the plumber can't plumb, because he doesn't have the tools to hand, and has to outsource elsewhere - and that depends on those tools being available for him, at which point you might as well say that the Wizard gets access to Candles of Invocation or Scrolls of True Polymorph, because hey why have arbitrary limits that only favour an individual?

The game works best when there is a group of different people fulfilling different roles. The God Wizard doesn't exist in 5E like it did in 3.5E. However, the Wizard is the utilitarian. He is the one who can slot into any party, and fulfil a role; Conjuring Elementals, Bulk AoE, Trap Finding (Mundane and Magical through various detections), Healing (True Polymorph Ki-Rin, or Theurgy Wizard), he can Sneak Attack in the same way a Fighter can, or enable it better via Hold Person/Power Word Stun, can Heal like a Fighter can - in fact, anything that's viable via Feat can be accessed by a Wizard.

[qube]

It's like hiring a plumber, only the plumber can't plumb,yeah, it's link a pumber ... without a plunger.

The idea that a you have to face a CR 30 monster, and you don't even get basic magic items, is - in one word - stupid


in fact, anything that's viable via Feat can be accessed by a Wizard.Oh funny, 'cause you COMPLETELY ignore that virtually anything worth of note via Spell is accessable to the fighter as item.

[cotofpoffee]

I'm generally not a person that likes anecdotal evidence, and I generally do think casters have more influence on a game, but I am currently running an exclusive level 20 game and I don't see huge imbalances between martials and caster.

So far, what I've been finding in combat is that casters tend to be relegated into one of two roles: support (through buffs or limited battlefield control) or doing AoE damage to wipe out mooks. They've found it difficult to meaningfully affect high level enemies who tended to have high base saves, resistances to magic, and often legendary saves. I believe only the Diviner Wizard has managed to land spells on enemies because he could ignore spell resistances and force enemies to roll low using his Portent. The rest of the time, casters tended to just be supporting the martials, who were the ones performing the actual task of removing monsters that were getting in their way.

That being said, we don't have an Eldritch Blasting Warlock or a weapon wielding Cleric or Bard, who probably would perform pretty well killing monsters. But they probably would still fall behind a martial in how much damage they could deal and take. We also don't have a Ranger in the party, which I suspect would take over the AoE damage job from the caster pretty well.

Outside of combat, though, I've found that casters were dominating. When the obstacles are something like "Get to a moon base you've never heard about," or "Find x object guarded by a million wards," casters just had so much more options. I imagine it'd be a little different if we had a Rogue in the party, who could perform well outside combat, but they'd still be competing against casters who have a million tricks up their sleeve.

[Vaz]

@Vaz ... I am not going to waiste my time on trolls who
And by that I mean the "Immunity to Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing Non-Magical Attacks"
think they are smart becasue the mention what I already pointed out
1. You did "waiste" your time
2. I'm still not wrong.


cannot, using average damage deal those 60pts of damage - meaning it has to wait until the Tarrasque dies of old age or something
Are not intelectually honest enough to understand how average damage works
Okay, sure. You need to deal additional damage more than your average, while Blinded, having to force a DC20 Con Save when it has a +10 and 3 Legendary Resistances, leading to needing to do 60 damage ~7 times, while taking 56 damage a turn (Fighter Max = 365).


+5 to damage, so there's 19.8
Have the decency to accept that, no, not all classes get +5 damage to their cantrips. It is afighter vs cantrip comparison. Live with it.
nor have the mathematical knowhow to get how
(81% of 18 average damage) = 14.58 ... +5 is in no way, shape, or form is 19.8. Not 81% of (18+5), nor (81% of 18)+5
Oh, you got me, it's 18.63 instead. And yes. It's a Fighter against a Cantrip. Who uses that cantrip? Ah, yes. Clerics and Warlocks. Live with it.


Meanwhile, Elf Wizard 7 (any) jumps on their Phantom Steed and uses Magic Weapon on their Longbow.
Nor have the f***ing decency, in a comparisons of at will damage, to stay away from long rest resources
Check the thread title bro. But yeah, deal at will damage, the true measure of a classes power.

[N810]

Okay. So what does the Fighter do when it needs to get to another plane? (he does a quest to find a portal)
So what does the Fighter do when it needs to get to the top of the sheer cliff? (Grappling hook + rope.)
So what does the Fighter do to find his Magic Weapon? (kill things until you get one or have enough gold to buy one)
So how does the Fighter recognise a trap? (let the wizard go first)
How does the Fighter do anything other than Fight? (how does the wizard do anything but wiz ?)
How does the Fighter disguise themselves in town? shady looking cloak
How does the Fighter see in the Dark? (torch)
How does the Fighter escape from the belly of a Tarrasque? (also torch... It worked in Pinocchio)
How does the Fighter track invisible foes? (pocket sand)
How does the Fighter get people to do what the Fighter wants them to do, but is against their ethos? (um... fight them)
How long does it take a Fighter to get from one end of the continent to the other? (boat)
How long does it take a Fighter to build a castle or a defensive wall? (a while)
How does a Fighter talk to someone in a language they don't speak? (hand gestures and body language and talking loudly)

...tldr.

oh I like these games...

[EvilAnagram]

Fighter is one of the weaker classes in the game.
By what metric?


Yeah you do the same thing for the most part from 1-20 with narrative items being the only true variation to tactics.
This simply isn't true. Aside from the fact that various fighter builds play nothing alike, tactics will vary from encounter to encounter within those builds for every class but the Champion because they all have combat abilities that allow for greater variability in their actions.


That is a player niche and it doesn't make the class bad. The fighter being weaker in pure power to other classes like the paladin or barbarian is a design flaw, but I think the answer is making those classes weaker not the fighter stronger.
The fighter's DPR is higher than the paladin's and the barbarian's! Over the course of a standard adventuring day, he is much more consistent! You are speaking crazy!

[qube]

Check the thread title bro. But yeah, deal at will damage, the true measure of a classes power.complain to Gtdead. The math is solid, your arguments not.

[Rhedyn]

Fighter with a bow on a griffon auto kills the tarrasque at basically any level.

Same goes for a wizard

"I can solo a badly designed monster" is not an accomplishment.

Now take an ancient red dragon, wizard has a snow cone, an undead army, army hiding illusions, CC spells and bonded outsiders ready to slay the creature.

The fighter hired a mercenary army to barrage the dragon as he jumps into its mouth to block the breath weapon.

The wizard is in basically no danger while the fighter either needs more toys or has to risk life and limb just to minimize damages to mortal men. Both get the job done. The fighter is less likely to be seen as a threat by the Lords of the realm when all is said and done.

[LaserFace]

Sure. I can disagree with people for being wrong. I still donnt believe it is anything other than inane.

Don't get panties bunched bro. Don't worry, it's all inane.

Also, the gatekeepers are leaking. I'm apparently not an actual hobbyist now. Pray, tell me, what qualifications you have to determine who is an "actual hobbyist". Let me guess, it's an inane degree, from an inane university?

I also wonder if you've grasped the issue of you criticising the thread as being inane, and then saying it's not inane because people like to discuss the hobby.


I can criticize the thread's premise and still participate. I presented my argument and you didn't reply then, and nobody else did either (and that's fine). I didn't start calling people idiots for it.

What I did was step in to disagree with you for a later comment; yes, because I can also disagree with you for being wrong, too. And when I did, you made a really weak, evasive response.

Do you really expect me to take someone like you seriously?

Get real.

[FinnS]

Edit: Oh yeah, how about pitting a fighter without magic weapons against a creature with immunity to nonmagical weapons.
:confused:

That wouldn't work for them cause they know if a Fighter doesn't have any magical weapons then that means they're lower level and the Fighter will own the Wizard at lower levels.

[Vaz]

Okay. So what does the Fighter do when it needs to get to another plane? (he does a quest to find a portal)
Ah. "DM please give me something so I can compete against other classes who have this ability.


So what does the Fighter do when it needs to get to the top of the sheer cliff? (Grappling hook + rope.)
Are you actually serious?

So what does the Fighter do to find his Magic Weapon? (kill things until you get one or have enough gold to buy one)
Ah. "DM please give me something so I can compete against other classes who have this ability.


So how does the Fighter recognise a trap? (let the wizard go first)
Yup. The Wizard does it better.


How does the Fighter do anything other than Fight? (how does the wizard do anything but wiz ?)
It fights better than a Fighter for one.


How does the Fighter disguise themselves in town? shady looking cloak
Okay, sure. Until the guards order him to take the hood off. And then the disguise is blown one way or the other, because a shady looking cloak is not suspicious, oh no.


How does the Fighter see in the Dark? (torch)
Wonderful. 10ft Vision is such a dream.


How does the Fighter escape from the belly of a Tarrasque? (also torch... It worked in Pinocchio)
TIL Torches can do 60pts of damage.


How does the Fighter track invisible foes? (pocket sand)
And has to rely on pinpointing and being within 5ft? Good one.


How does the Fighter get people to do what the Fighter wants them to do, but is against their ethos? (um... fight them)
But then they're dead and no use whatsoever.


How long does it take a Fighter to get from one end of the continent to the other? (boat)
Q. How long?
A. A Boat.


How long does it take a Fighter to build a castle or a defensive wall? (a while)
As opposed the the action it takes to make a 5ft cube ditch and mound with Mold Earth. Really useful.


How does a Fighter talk to someone in a language they don't speak? (hand gestures and body language and talking loudly)
Really useful when on diplomatic missions. You can tell a Prince that you're hungry. Cute.


oh I like these games...
Really? You kinda suck at them.


complain to Gtdead. The math is solid, your arguments not.
My arguments are not solid that a Fighter has to get not Swallowed, and "on average" survive 56pts of Acid Damage/turn when they do, and attempt to deal 60pts of damage when they lack any way of dealing Magic Damage without pleading to a DM in order to stay relevant and not get shut down?

"Look at me I'm just as capable as a Wizard because my DM gives me magical gear, but a Wizard cannot beat me because I have no actual legitimate reason why, and now I'm calling you wrong"

Sit down.


I can criticize the thread's premise and still participate. I presented my argument and you didn't reply then, and nobody else did either (and that's fine). I didn't start calling people idiots for it.

What I did was step in to disagree with you for a later comment; yes, because I can also disagree with you for being wrong, too. And when I did, you made a really weak, evasive response.

Do you really expect me to take someone like you seriously?

Get real.
If you think because I'm poking fun at you what I'm saying is incorrect, more fool you.

[Mbarbs]

Just the core classes with core mechanics, acknowledging up front that (except at very high levels) nothing is so much stronger than anything else that it really matters. I'm also just going to consider what I think of as the strongest subclass if multiple are available.

A
--------
Bard*, Wizard

B
--------
Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric*

C
--------
Warlock, Rogue, Paladin*

D
--------
Fighter, Monk*, Ranger, Barbarian

I'm pretty fuzzy on the Paladin rating, because I don't have much direct experience with them and haven't given as much attention to them as to other core classes, and I understand that Paladins and Warlocks are hurt by considering them primarily in the single-class case. It speaks to 5e's balance that I would be happy to play any of the lowest-tier classes in a party with several of the higher-tier ones, but I still think that there are pretty clear differences. I'm generally unimpressed by arguments to the effect that a Fighter (or other mundanes) is great because it can do a bunch of things that a commoner can do; "can do things that any warm body is capable of" comes for free with every character, and isn't a special property of characters who are limited in the number of other options they have. I'm also generally discounting very high-level spellcasting shenanigans, just because they're exhausting to think about, and I don't think that anybody seriously disagrees that Wizards (and co.) go nuts at very high levels if played to the edges of their capacity.

I put a star next to my personal favorite classes, if you want to know what my biases might be. It's a coincidence that I ended up putting one on each tier.

[toapat]

I'm pretty fuzzy on the Paladin rating, because I don't have much direct experience with them and haven't given as much attention to them as to other core classes, and I understand that Paladins and Warlocks are hurt by considering them primarily in the single-class case. It speaks to 5e's balance that I would be happy to play any of the lowest-tier classes in a party with several of the higher-tier ones, but I still think that there are pretty clear differences. I'm generally unimpressed by arguments to the effect that a Fighter (or other mundanes) is great because it can do a bunch of things that a commoner can do; "can do things that any warm body is capable of" comes for free with every character, and isn't a special property of characters who are limited in the number of other options they have. I'm also generally discounting very high-level spellcasting shenanigans, just because they're exhausting to think about, and I don't think that anybody seriously disagrees that Wizards (and co.) go nuts at very high levels if played to the edges of their capacity.

I put a star next to my personal favorite classes, if you want to know what my biases might be. It's a coincidence that I ended up putting one on each tier.

Paladin's Tier is really dependent on Subclass. Ancients and Crown are actually decent in expanding class capacity, and Redemption puts them at a step below wizard for power, but they balance that power mostly by being very technically intensive to play effecctively, and probably have a permanent -1 tier skill penalty simply because of how they have to utilize mechanics.

Monk probably is designed implicitly wrong, focusing first on making a single idea of a martial artist (bruce lee) and then letting you graft other characters onto that even though Bruce Lee would really only extrapolate into Open palm.

Ranger honestly is a design mistake. every other class is a character archetype, even badly handled like fighter, druid, and monk. Ranger is really a specific character with their extra little quirks added on. everyone else is painting in broad strokes with a large brush, Ranger is painting fine details with a fine brush

[jas61292]

Ah. "DM please give me something so I can compete against other classes who have this ability.
Ah, so you have a player vs DM mentality, and the DM is clearly out to give you situations you cannot complete without specific spells. Unless you can "beat" their situation, you are bad. Ok. Now I see. Some of us play games where using the world around you rather than just your own class features is not considered losing.


Are you actually serious?
I forgot, getting up cliffs is something that humanity has never achieved because we don't have magic. Guess the fighter is stuck. Yup. Totally.


Ah. "DM please give me something so I can compete against other classes who have this ability.
See above.


Yup. The Wizard does it better.
Obviously this was a sarcastic comment. But, on a more serious note, not everyone can detect every trap, and when they fail to do so, the fighter is generally going to be better off, because they have better HP (not to mention potentially better Dex and likely better Con plus Con save proficiency, which are some more common trap saves).


It fights better than a Fighter for one.
Well, obviously your entire point of view is based on this obviously false point, but its funny that you think its true.


Okay, sure. Until the guards order him to take the hood off. And then the disguise is blown one way or the other, because a shady looking cloak is not suspicious, oh no.
Fighters can get disguise kit proficiency from background or training, just like anyone else. Unlike a lot of other effects social spells are honestly weaker the higher level you are, since those you have to deal with are more likely to be protected from them or able to see through them. Over reliance on magic can easily be a character's downfall.


Wonderful. 10ft Vision is such a dream.
So you clearly don't know the actual rules for torches. 20 bright light, 20 dim. Same as the wizard's light spell. And you know, the fighter could have racial darkvision just like anyone else. But, contrary to popular belief, actual light, is often a lot better than darkvision, as you actually can see well. Enemies not being able to see you is not nearly as important when you can't see them either cause you failed your perception check. But that's its own topic and not relevant to this thread.

Anyways, I could go on, but this is really pointless. Mundane means can overcome any challenge magic means can, unless the DM designs it that way. But the measure of a class is how well it fares in normal play, not how well it fares against a bad DM.

[LaserFace]

If you think because I'm poking fun at you what I'm saying is incorrect, more fool you.

You poking fun at anyone doesn't make you incorrect. You have to make an argument to have a chance at being literally incorrect. You just keep sidestepping me, which I can't stop you from doing, so, whatever.

For anyone actually interested in discussion, I'll repeat my opinion: Wizards > Fighters > Rangers and none of it matters.

The game isn't designed to punish you for picking the "trap" class. People keep losing their head over having the correct build, or they feel the need to declare class options garbage, potentially fueling a negative attitude within a gaming environment that increasingly engages its participants online, and I predict the gaming community will be only more prone to being swayed by the opinions of people irrationally stuck in in 3.x-mode if there aren't contrary opinions voiced. That's the only reason I'm even here.

If you enjoy number crunching, absolutely, go and have fun doing it. If certain classes or class options don't appeal to you, that's also completely understandable.

But, you read enough of this stuff and it seems like a stone's throw away from folks complaining about how we need a 5.5th edition because 5E was just such an unbalanced mess, when in truth it's actually incredibly accommodating: not requiring DMs to arbitrarily hose particular classes just to make sure everyone has a good time; or not demanding a set value of wealth/magical items by a given level; or not requiring players to put hours of thought into their Build just so they can go to sleep at night knowing that when their campaign finally starts, they'll be "allowed" to have fun.

This game actually works. I don't want to encounter more bright young D&Ders who feel restricted in what they can sit down and play at a table with friends, simply because some guys did some white-room statistical analysis that proves Class / Race Combo A is marginally less potent than Class / Race Combo B in a scenario that not only won't come up in play, but doesn't even correctly model similar scenarios to offer much of anything useful in terms of extrapolation. The only real examples of differences come in terms of options, such as when the Wizard casts Fly, or the Cleric heals wounds; but, the options afforded other classes don't make a Fighter less fun or useful, because 5E is not a mess. If you don't want to be a Fighter, don't be a Fighter. But don't pretend like the Fighter offers nothing, or doesn't work in the context of a campaign. If you find that's true, maybe ask your DM to stop hosing the Fighter.

[Vaz]

Ah, so you have a player vs DM mentality, and the DM is clearly out to give you situations you cannot complete without specific spells. Unless you can "beat" their situation, you are bad. Ok. Now I see. Some of us play games where using the world around you rather than just your own class features is not considered losing.
No. Because not every game relies on having a magic mart. And 5E is one of them which especially doesn't have a need for Magic items. Well, at least supposedly.


I forgot, getting up cliffs is something that humanity has never achieved because we don't have magic. Guess the fighter is stuck. Yup. Totally.
Yep. Because a "Grappling Hook" was the way they did it. For reference (https://www.thoughtco.com/ways-to-die-climbing-756069). Because having to make several Very Hard/Near Impossible ability checks over an ascent can be overcome by simply having Athletics Expertise, right.


See above.
Apply as relevant.


Obviously this was a sarcastic comment. But, on a more serious note, not everyone can detect every trap, and when they fail to do so, the fighter is generally going to be better off, because they have better HP (not to mention potentially better Dex and likely better Con plus Con save proficiency, which are some more common trap saves).
Animate Dead. Conjure Minor Elementals. Divination. Detect Magic. Suggestion.


Well, obviously your entire point of view is based on this obviously false point, but its funny that you think its true.
Fighters out DPS over a hundred Necrobuffed skeletons? Or a bunch of True Polymorphed creatures? Or a Gated in Ancient Dragon/Tarrasque? Or even being able to hunt down a creature which can jump through planes?


Fighters can get disguise kit proficiency from background or training, just like anyone else. Unlike a lot of other effects social spells are honestly weaker the higher level you are, since those you have to deal with are more likely to be protected from them or able to see through them. Over reliance on magic can easily be a character's downfall.
Anything skill proficiency related a Fighter can do, a Wizard can do also. Oh, and you mean protected from something - i.e Magic. While a spell as simple as Detect Thoughts can get through to Fighter? Unless you're saying that this particular fighter is now not only a Fighter, but has time to get decent bonuses to Disguise, Wisdom Saves, and still fight? My my, how schrodinger is impressed.


So you clearly don't know the actual rules for torches. 20 bright light, 20 dim. Same as the wizard's light spell. And you know, the fighter could have racial darkvision just like anyone else. But, contrary to popular belief, actual light, is often a lot better than darkvision, as you actually can see well. Enemies not being able to see you is not nearly as important when you can't see them either cause you failed your perception check. But that's its own topic and not relevant to this thread.
Excuse the slip of the finger. And yes. You have only a small ability to see only what's in front of you - while also telegraphing to anyone for dozens of miles around that you're travelling. Or do you mean Daylight? Or Dancing Lights providing Dim Illumination up to 120ft away? Or use Darkvision? Or racial darkvision?


Anyways, I could go on, but this is really pointless. Mundane means can overcome any challenge magic means can, unless the DM designs it that way. But the measure of a class is how well it fares in normal play, not how well it fares against a bad DM.
How does a Mundane get to another plane again, without begging a DM to do it for them?

Also, lol. Any DM who doesn't give me everything I want is a bad DM. Gotcha.


But, you read enough of this stuff and it seems like a stone's throw away from folks complaining about how we need a 5.5th edition because 5E was just such an unbalanced mess, when in truth it's actually incredibly accommodating: not requiring DMs to arbitrarily hose particular classes just to make sure everyone has a good time; or not demanding a set value of wealth/magical items by a given level; or not requiring players to put hours of thought into their Build just so they can go to sleep at night knowing that when their campaign finally starts, they'll be "allowed" to have fun.
Ref Bolded; has anyone actually said in this thread that they want a 5.5? I don't, I enjoy it.

I also agree that Fighters > Rangers, and that Wizards > Fighters, and that ergo Rangers < Wizards, and that of the many Wizards out there Lore Mastery is a clear top dog, able to overcome the primary weakness of the Wizard class, in that it is limited to it's spells prepared, but during a Short Rest can change a spell to overcome any challenge that they didn't foresee, even going as far as casting non-wizard spells without needing to prepare them, as well as having any damaging spell dealing nigh unresisted Force or Radiant damage for free, and can even make it target Str or Intelligence. Shortly after that is the Theurgy Wizard, which lets the Wizard cast any Cleric Spells mid-late game after preparing them, and domain spells before that, and getting access to Capstone Cleric Domain abilities at Level 14, in addition to their own capstone abilities. After that, you've got Illusion, Enchantment, Divination, Conjuration, and Necro Wizards, with War, Evocation, Abjuration, and Transmutation "bringing up the rear", sharing tiers with the still very powerful sorcerer chassis, mystic, bard and cleric.

They can adapt on the fly, and fulfil various roles, even within their strict subset, in ways that even Paladins, Rangers, Fighters and Barbarians fail to match in versatility. That was how tiering worked in the past. There's no F grade like Fighter and Truenamer were in 3.5, but there are those who struggle to do much to contribute outside of combat on their class abilities; while, like those mentioned earlier, can contribute not only with any spell they can learn while they are building their character, may be similar to a Wizard or Cleric in that they can swap out high utility spells or combat spells daily from a huge list, and that they're often nothing more than a long rest from completing anything that's not time sensitive - or in the case of some classes, little more than a short rest from overcoming an obstacle.

[FinnS]

So since we're picking out completely relevant CR 30 stuff (big LOL on that btw), can I pick Tiamat instead, redo the whole Wizard vs Fighter thing and see how that works out?
Good luck on that Casters :smallcool:

[qube]

My arguments are not solid that a Fighter has to get not Swallowed, and "on average" survive 56pts of Acid Damage/turn when they do, and attempt to deal 60pts of damage when they lack any way of dealing Magic Damage without pleading to a DM in order to stay relevant and not get shut down?

"Look at me I'm just as capable as a Wizard because my DM gives me magical gear, but a Wizard cannot beat me because I have no actual legitimate reason why, and now I'm calling you wrong"

Sit down.indeed, our argument is not solid. Not only does the afact you try to pull a fallacy from emotion ("pleading to the DM" for magical equipment to fight a CR 30 monster, my *ss)
You try to move the goalpost. But guess what? No matter how much you cry, it's still a Fighter's dpr vs cantrip. And oh yeah.
chance 4d8 (dex safe negates) does 60 damage in a turn: 0.000%
chance 4d8+5 (dex safe negates) does 60 damage in a turn: 0.000%
chance greatsword fighter does 60 damage in a turn: infinitely more
So, how about you sit down.


So since we're picking out completely relevant CR 30 stuff (big LOL on that btw), can I pick Tiamat instead, redo the whole Wizard vs Fighter thing and see how that works out?
Good luck on that Casters :smallcool:<sarcasm>nooooo! not a creature with a saving throw more then +0 !? </sarcasm>

considering she also has an AC of 25, Just like the Tarraque
GWM/savage attacker greatsword champ: 27.4 damage
archer champ 22.8 damage
(note: damage immunity to non-magical weapons, again, the game again presumes that by the time the party faces CR30 monsters, the characters have magical gear)

sacred flame
DC 8+6prof+5 wis (19); vs +9 on dex saves with advantage (20.25% hit chance).
4d8 = 18 avr, and thus a DPR of 3.645
4d8+5 = 23 avr, and thus a DPR of 4.657
(as I'm unaware of the ability (be it item or feat) to boost cantrips over 6th level, Tiamats limited magic immunity, makes her immune to sacred flame - and thus technically, wizards at-will damage, will be how much he's able to hit her with his staff. (5% hit 5% crit for 1d8 (4.5) damage = DPR 0.675 ) )

but aside from the purple, the fighter puts out 5 or 6 times as much damage ...

[FinnS]

indeed, our argument is not solid. Not only does the afact you try to pull a fallacy from emotion ("pleading to the DM" for magical equipment to fight a CR 30 monster, my *ss)
You try to move the goalpost. But guess what? No matter how much you cry, it's still a Fighter's dpr vs cantrip. And oh yeah.
chance 4d8 (dex safe negates) does 60 damage in a turn: 0.000%
chance 4d8+5 (dex safe negates) does 60 damage in a turn: 0.000%
chance greatsword fighter does 60 damage in a turn: infinitely more
So, how about you sit down.

<sarcasm>nooooo! not a creature with a saving throw more then +0 !? </sarcasm>

considering she also has an AC of 25, Just like the Tarraque
GWM/savage attacker greatsword champ: 27.4 damage
archer champ 22.8 damage
(note: damage immunity to non-magical weapons, again, the game again presumes that by the time the party faces CR30 monsters, the characters have magical gear)

sacred flame
DC 8+6prof+5 wis (19); vs +9 on dex saves with advantage (20.25% hit chance).
4d8 = 18 avr, and thus a DPR of 3.645
4d8+5 = 23 avr, and thus a DPR of 4.657
(as I'm unaware of the ability (be it item or feat) to boost cantrips over 6th level, Tiamats limited magic immunity, makes her immune to sacred flame - and thus technically, wizards at-will damage, will be how much he's able to hit her with his staff. (5% hit 5% crit for 1d8 (4.5) damage = DPR 0.675 ) )

but aside from the purple, the fighter puts out 5 or 6 times as much damage ...

Bingo!!!
I mean as long as we're pulling CR 30s out of our butts and all for this completely rational and fair discussion heh

Oh wait a minute, the Wizard could summon their vaunted Elemental to handle damage.
Oops *slaps forehead* Tiamat is immune to all elemental damage...nevermind...

[Vaz]

So since we're picking out completely relevant CR 30 stuff (big LOL on that btw), can I pick Tiamat instead, redo the whole Wizard vs Fighter thing and see how that works out?
Good luck on that Casters :smallcool:

Divination Wizard waits each day out until it's got Snake Eyes for Portent. Goes to a Demiplane which has a prepared Glyph of Warding (Contingent (Resilient Sphere)), with the trigger set to "When I start casting Imprisonment". Sends in a horde of Simulacrum who open Demiplane's with prepared Symbol (Hopelessness) spells tied to the doors against her until the Legendary Resistances are burned up (again, using any Portent rolls they may have for that day). Cast's Imprisonment.

https://media.tenor.com/images/939e400cabb2bf62ee2a0db825e6a3a4/tenor.gif

[qube]

Divination Wizard waits each day out until it's got Snake Eyes for Portent. Goes to a Demiplane which has a prepared Glyph of Warding (Contingent (Resilient Sphere)), with the trigger set to "When I start casting Imprisonment". Sends in a horde of Simulacrum who open Demiplane's with prepared Symbol (Hopelessness) spells tied to the doors against her until the Legendary Resistances are burned up (again, using any Portent rolls they may have for that day). Cast's Imprisonment.Tiamat uses an additional legendary Resistance against your Imprisonment, and you get kicked of the table for meta-gaming.


https://media0.giphy.com/media/1xucXbDnMIYkU/giphy.gif

[Waazraath]

Ah, so you have a player vs DM mentality, and the DM is clearly out to give you situations you cannot complete without specific spells. Unless you can "beat" their situation, you are bad. Ok. Now I see. Some of us play games where using the world around you rather than just your own class features is not considered losing.

....

Anyways, I could go on, but this is really pointless. Mundane means can overcome any challenge magic means can, unless the DM designs it that way. But the measure of a class is how well it fares in normal play, not how well it fares against a bad DM.

This. The funny thing is: the wizard, that Vaz seems so fond of, is the no. 1 class in 5e that is build on DM fiat. Expensive components? The DM decides the amount of money you have. Rare components, like for planeshift? DM fiat. All that spells the wizard knows, from meeting other wizards and copying in spellbooks? DM fiat.

But somehow, in his magical universe, all these are taken for granted. But A fighter having a magical sword at level 20 is 'begging'. At that point, discussion makes no sense, because somebody already has deceided that the DM's role is to cuddle the caster and punish the fighter for being mundane. In those games, the wizard will be superior, yeah.

But all this takes us quite far away from the OP. And that goes the same as most of these tier/power discussions over the past year. A majority of the people doesn't see the addes value of them, for a number of reasons already given.

The best suggestion comes from Waterdeep Merch somewhere on page 3, who suggests to focus more on what roles a class can fullfil (it's a bit like something Personman did in 3.x, as a (imo better) alternative for the tier-system). For 5e, I wouldn't use more than 3 different scores, and I would include subclasses (because they are quite a bit thing), but that's the way to move to a more sensible list, for those who like lists.

[Rhedyn]

Tiamat can be solo'd by a well prepared and well funded wizard by binding a lot of outsiders (make sure they have magical attacks).

The fighters comparable cost army of mundanes isn't effective. He has nothing to spend the money on that is useful.

Now both would be better off by training up an army of level 1 wizards to cast magic missile and just explode tiamat off the map. Any class in the right setting with enough money can do this.

[qube]

Now both would be better off by training up an army of level 1 wizards to cast magic missile and just explode tiamat off the map. Any class in the right setting with enough money can do this.Tiamat is immune to spells of 6th level or lower.

[Vaz]

Tiamat uses an additional legendary Resistance against your Imprisonment, and you get kicked of the table for meta-gaming.


https://media0.giphy.com/media/1xucXbDnMIYkU/giphy.gif

Ah. So "DM fiat" is your answer to not being able to do what a Wizard can do? Glad to see that you've come around to the fact that a Wizard is better than a Fighter.


This. The funny thing is: the wizard, that Vaz seems so fond of, is the no. 1 class in 5e that is build on DM fiat. Expensive components? The DM decides the amount of money you have. Rare components, like for planeshift? DM fiat. All that spells the wizard knows, from meeting other wizards and copying in spellbooks? DM fiat.

But somehow, in his magical universe, all these are taken for granted. But A fighter having a magical sword at level 20 is 'begging'. At that point, discussion makes no sense, because somebody already has deceided that the DM's role is to cuddle the caster and punish the fighter for being mundane. In those games, the wizard will be superior, yeah.
Yep. DM fiat is the only way in which a Fighter is more superior than a Wizard. But because the Fighter gets a +1 Sword, they're superior than a Wizard. Or, alternatively, a Fighter uses Gold to purchase a Wizard for hire, or replicate what a Wizard can do, in which case you're not actually talking about a Fighter, you're talking about completely obviating a fighter to do a tiny portion of what the wizard can do.

Ergo,

Wizard > Fighter.

[qube]

Ah. So "DM fiat" is your answer to not being able to do what a Wizard can do? Glad to see that you've come around to the fact that a Wizard is better than a Fighter.no - DM fiat is my answer to you cheating.

If you believe wizards are superior because somehow, it's OK to metagame while playing them ... that's down right pathetic.

[Vaz]

no - DM fiat is my answer to you cheating.

If you believe wizards are superior because somehow, it's OK to metagame while playing them ... that's down right pathetic.

How is waiting until Tiamat has spent multiple minutes taking no offensive action metagaming? I never specified a figure.

As a Wizard, it has high Intelligence, and has fought many creatures with Legendary Resistance before (being that we're talking about threatening a CR30 here), and that she's actually a God, it serves to reason she'd be well defended and guessing that the typical 3 that has been seen before could help. Could even have a Simulacrum use Astral Projection or some other divination to learn how many legendary resistance Ms. Tiamat has before going in. Possibly by hiring Adventuring Groups to kill her and watching them fail.

[N810]

@VAZ

I see sarcasm and humor are foreign concepts to you...
https://ci.memecdn.com/8741497.jpg

[Waazraath]

*snip*

Loads of text, having nothing to do with my statement that the wizard is the class most needed to be DM-fiated.

Nice try, but at least try to pretend you're partaking in a discussion, and not trolling.

Which is exactly what you've been doing 5 or something pages, trying to turn this in a "fighter vs wizard" thing. Which the OP wasn't about. It's about the different power levels, and so far, a majority of the people sees they are so close together that 7 tiers is nonsense, sees that power levels differ between 1-20, that a list like this is not really possible in 5e due to classes being so balanced, etc.

The fact that to prove caster superiority, you need to:
- spend 5 pages turning this into a fighter vs wizard thing
- need to resort to highest levels (where casters are stronger), with cr 30 opponents
- need to convieniently forget that d&d isn't a solo game, and an adventuring day has more encounters, which benefits fighters
- need to stack the DM in favor for casters
- AND in the end need a bloody simulacrum army to make your point....

Means you already lost, lost, lost.

[Rhedyn]

Tiamat is immune to spells of 6th level or lower.
Ah true facts.

Tiamat falls exclusively under the wizards preview then. Unless the DM let's the fighter perform demon summoning, which is outside of the rules for any class.

[qube]

How is waiting until Tiamat has spent multiple minutes taking no offensive action metagaming? I never specified a figure.

... to learn how many legendary resistance Ms. Tiamat has before going in. ...
yeah ... recall when I said "If you believe wizards are superior because somehow, it's OK to metagame while playing them ... that's down right pathetic. " ? Your only digging that hole deeper and deeper.

Your character has no knowledge about the legendary resistances game mechanic. Heck, you as a player wouldn't even know about them as player if you hadn't read the MM/DMG and the DM rolled behind a screen.


As a Wizard, it has high Intelligence, and has fought many creatures with Legendary Resistance beforeOh? That's an excuse now? Great. Well, Tiamat has 26 intelligence AND 26 wisdom, and as god, the amount of creatures you fought, is peanuts compared to her.

... and you gonna claim to outsmart that with your "high Intelligence" and having fought a few critters before? Nonsense is nonsense.

[Vaz]

Loads of text, having nothing to do with my statement that the wizard is the class most needed to be DM-fiated.
Okay mate. My argument is wrong because there are lots of words?


Nice try, but at least try to pretend you're partaking in a discussion, and not trolling.
I'm sire there's something perfectly ironic about trolling by calling someone a troll.



I've done nothing of the sort. I've stated from the start that Wizards were the top class. They have access to be best spell list in the game, (with the top 2 subclasses able to select from others), which they can change daily (holding the Bard back) and through the use of various spells, prepare adequatelyor take a long rest to change up an unexpected/unforeseen snag.

I've defended my position from the start with the rules, to which the only answer has been "but, but mister dm massur, Vaz is using rules, please stop him". As you defend your own point, by saying Game Expectations mean Fighters have Magic Weapons the same applies to Wizards.

But then again, Fighters having Magic Weapons is hardly a function of the class, is it?

[quote]It's about the different power levels, and so far, a majority of the people sees they are so close together that 7 tiers is nonsense, sees that power levels differ between 1-20, that a list like this is not really possible in 5e due to classes being so balanced, etc.
Because a car can go 200mph, another car that can go 201 should be lumped in the same tier? What the defines that tier? One who was so inclined could make an individual tier consisting of one entrant (ie, a table) listing top to bottom which one is better.


The fact that to prove caster superiority, you need to:
- spend 5 pages turning this into a fighter vs wizard thing
- need to resort to highest levels (where casters are stronger), with cr 30 opponents
- need to convieniently forget that d&d isn't a solo game, and an adventuring day has more encounters, which benefits fighters
- need to stack the DM in favor for casters
- AND in the end need a bloody simulacrum army to make your point....

Means you already lost, lost, lost.
I never brought up the Tarrasque or Tiamat. I never brought up (explicitly) Caster vs Fighter dicussion, other than to say that Wizard is better, here's why, do not need to acknowledge the point that DND isn't solo play because why is judging the merits of one class compared to another required to take in overall party makeup, and the fact that a Simulacrum army can even exist as a Wizard would mean that a Wizard is more superior than a Fighter, not least because of the multitude of ways in which a Wizard can replicate a Fighter.

Lol@ qube.


@VAZ

I see sarcasm and humor are foreign concepts to you...
https://ci.memecdn.com/8741497.jpg
Nope, just lacking in your post.

[Byke]

Wizard is more superior than a Fighter, not least because of the multitude of ways in which a Wizard can replicate a Fighter.



Staying out of this discussion as I said my piece in the first few pages. But I will re-iterate Simulacrum/Wish is a broken combo/mechanic. "Most" tables will house rule it away.

JC should errata this **** already. That it hasn't been, just points to WoTC's bias towards wizards.

[N810]

"I'm sire there's something perfectly ironic about trolling by calling someone a troll."
<----
You are aware that you are currently a "Troll in the playground" ?

[Byke]

Ah true facts.

Tiamat falls exclusively under the wizards preview then. Unless the DM let's the fighter perform demon summoning, which is outside of the rules for any class.

umm....Check the forum..the thought exercise has been done many times already. A 20th level Battle Master Archer can chew through Tiamat's hitpoint in 1 -2 rounds . With minimal gear - the only cheese item is an oath bow.

[Vaz]

"I'm sire there's something perfectly ironic about trolling by calling someone a troll."
<----
You are aware that you are currently a "Troll in the playground" ?

Archer would be proud.

[Waazraath]

Okay mate. My argument is wrong because there are lots of words?

Sigh. No. Your argument is wrong cause it doesn't adresses the point I made. Despite using a lot of words. Neither does the post that I reply to now, btw.



I've defended my position from the start with the rules, to which the only answer has been "but, but mister dm massur, Vaz is using rules, please stop him". As you defend your own point, by saying Game Expectations mean Fighters have Magic Weapons the same applies to Wizards.


No, the problem is not 'using rules'. The problem is you're totally biased. You see DM fiat with optional magical weapons rules, but continue to ignore all the the DM fiat any wizard (from the early levels) is bound to encounter. And ignore all rules in the DM guide that it's the DM's bloody job to create challanging encounters. Implying that a DM that makes an adventure for a party without planshift, that needs planeshift, and doesn't provide said planeshift any other way, simply sucks as a DM. Just like the DM that allows armies of simulacra. Just like the DM that creates a challange needing a magic weapon, without providing it.



Because a car can go 200mph, another car that can go 201 should be lumped in the same tier? What the defines that tier? One who was so inclined could make an individual tier consisting of one entrant (ie, a table) listing top to bottom which one is better.



If only it was as simple as this, yes, this would be a point. Though the example you use (200 vs 201) says a lot about the difference in power levels in this edition. But we don't have a simple number that we can compare, having 3 different pillers, that include a number of roles within those pillers that characters can fulfill. Which makes a list with rankings from 'best' too 'worst' misleading at best.

[Cybren]

Staying out of this discussion as I said my piece in the first few pages. But I will re-iterate Simulacrum/Wish is a broken combo/mechanic. "Most" tables will house rule it away.

JC should errata this **** already. That it hasn't been, just points to WoTC's bias towards wizards.

Or perhaps that WotC feels that errata isn't meant as a balancing patch mechanism and is only meant to address printing errors and similar mistakes. You know, that thing errata is

[Byke]

Or perhaps that WotC feels that errata isn't meant as a balancing patch mechanism and is only meant to address printing errors and similar mistakes. You know, that thing errata is

My bad as that should have been in a different thread. but to reply then they should stop making balances changes and calling them erratas.

[Cybren]

My bad as that should have been in a different thread. but to reply then they should stop making balances changes and calling them erratas.

They.... don't? Not that I recall in 5th edition. They've made clarifications of intent and fixed misprints, but they haven't deliberately changed something in errata for powerlevel reasons

[Gtdead]

umm....Check the forum..the thought exercise has been done many times already. A 20th level Battle Master Archer can chew through Tiamat's hitpoint in 1 -2 rounds . With minimal gear - the only cheese item is an oath bow.

You do understand that Oathbow literally triples a fighter's output in that particular instance, right? Do the same calculations with just a +3 weapon and you will notice that something is seriously wrong.

Oathbow's active ability is broken way beyond reason for a single target calculation. It provides a boost that in a party setting, you would need 3 casters to replicate it. And in every argument for fighter superiority, this thing is prevalent like it's a class ability or something.

Yet people are always quick in pointing out than when a high level caster uses simulacrum to double his spell slots and output for possibly a whole adventuring day, the DM will kill it fast. I can be equally fast in saying that the DM can counter oathbow with an Illusion. But everyone would agree that this is an extremely dirty thing to do even if it's the simplest thing in the world.

And again, even with the oathbow, fighter is a niche with good single target damage.
Assume a fight against 3 pitfiends. What good is a fighter now compared to a single divination wizard who can cast banish? Assume a fight against a horde of melee enemies. How does fighter stack up against a blaster, a cleric or even a ranger.

[KorvinStarmast]

For anyone actually interested in discussion, I'll repeat my opinion: Wizards > Fighters > Rangers and none of it matters.

The game isn't designed to punish you for picking the "trap" class. People keep losing their head over having the correct build,

This game actually works. bravo your whole post.

Staying out of this discussion as I said my piece in the first few pages. But I will re-iterate Simulacrum/Wish is a broken combo/mechanic. "Most" tables will house rule it away. Or play in a desert, where there's no snow and ice? :smallbiggrin:

You do understand that Oathbow literally triples a fighter's output in that particular instance, right? Is there a reason a 20th level fighter would not have an oath bow? It seems to be an item that fits that character level if the character had played from 1 to 20. (If there is an oath bow in the DM's world).

[Rhedyn]

umm....Check the forum..the thought exercise has been done many times already. A 20th level Battle Master Archer can chew through Tiamat's hitpoint in 1 -2 rounds . With minimal gear - the only cheese item is an oath bow.
I've taken the situation as no magic items, mundane gear, and lots of money.

The wizard gets unique ways to spend that money via spells while the fighter does not.

Now silver weapons could work against tiamat, if you consider her a devil variant. That swings things back to the fighters favor.

I think the point of this exercise is to show how wizards get all the nice things while fighters are much easier to control as a DM.

[JNAProductions]

You do understand that Oathbow literally triples a fighter's output in that particular instance, right? Do the same calculations with just a +3 weapon and you will notice that something is seriously wrong.

Oathbow's active ability is broken way beyond reason for a single target calculation. It provides a boost that in a party setting, you would need 3 casters to replicate it. And in every argument for fighter superiority, this thing is prevalent like it's a class ability or something.

Yet people are always quick in pointing out than when a high level caster uses simulacrum to double his spell slots and output for possibly a whole adventuring day, the DM will kill it fast. I can be equally fast in saying that the DM can counter oathbow with an Illusion. But everyone would agree that this is an extremely dirty thing to do even if it's the simplest thing in the world.

And again, even with the oathbow, fighter is a niche with good single target damage.
Assume a fight against 3 pitfiends. What good is a fighter now compared to a single divination wizard who can cast banish? Assume a fight against a horde of melee enemies. How does fighter stack up against a blaster, a cleric or even a ranger.

Assuming a DC of 19, a Pit Fiend has a 64% chance of passing the save. So, let's assume you Portent one of them (needing an 11 or lower), one fails normally, and one succeeds. You're left with one Pit Fiend, who casts Hold Monster on you (DC 21). You will likely need a 12 or so to succeed (assuming a Wisdom of 16 or better) so most of the time, you fail. You then get another save to throw it off at the end of your turn, but in that time, the Pit Fiend WILL be in your face. Your AC (assuming Mage Armor and 16 Dex-gosh you rolled well on stats!) is 16, so he hits on 2s. (With advantage, if you're still Paralyzed.) He has four attacks, so let's be nice and assume all four hit. That's an average of 99 damage-survivable, yes, with a +1 Con bonus, but not by much.

If you have a +1 Con, you have a... 60% chance of survival, about.
If you have a +2 Con, you have a... Much better, around 99% chance of survival, assuming you aren't still paralyzed.

Because if you are? At +3 Con, you have an about 2% chance of survival.

So yes, if everything goes very well and every Pit Fiend fails its save, you have a chance of winning! But if even ONE Pit Fiend makes its save, your odds don't look so good, and if two make it? Hoo boy, you're dead.

[jas61292]

Assume a fight against 3 pitfiends. What good is a fighter now compared to a single divination wizard who can cast banish?
While I agree on the oathbow parts, I just want to say that divination wizards are perhaps the most overrated of all wizards, and bringing them up here is kinda silly unless you are making assumptions similar to the oathbow one. I mean great, they can cast banishment, but what happens when the days portent rolls were between 12 and 16? People like to assume a diviner is always packing natural 1s to throw on things, and that is usually not going to be the case.

Sure, a wizard typically does better against groups than a fighter, but that is fine. Each class should have their own advantages. Blasting is a magic users role.

Really though, why are you fighting 3 pit fiends? I don't have the encounter planning tables handy, but that seems a bit... extreme. For any party.

[Vaz]

Sigh. No. Your argument is wrong cause it doesn't adresses the point I made. Despite using a lot of words. Neither does the post that I reply to now, btw.
Your consideration of what is a lot of words is far below mine. Maybe there's some dissonance there between what is written and what you're capable of understanding.


No, the problem is not 'using rules'. The problem is you're totally biased. You see DM fiat with optional magical weapons rules, but continue to ignore all the the DM fiat any wizard (from the early levels) is bound to encounter. And ignore all rules in the DM guide that it's the DM's bloody job to create challanging encounters. Implying that a DM that makes an adventure for a party without planshift, that needs planeshift, and doesn't provide said planeshift any other way, simply sucks as a DM. Just like the DM that allows armies of simulacra. Just like the DM that creates a challange needing a magic weapon, without providing it.
Vaz is using core rules with core materials considered available, non magical in nature, and not using optional variants a DM approves. How dare he, for shame!


If only it was as simple as this, yes, this would be a point. Though the example you use (200 vs 201) says a lot about the difference in power levels in this edition. But we don't have a simple number that we can compare, having 3 different pillers, that include a number of roles within those pillers that characters can fulfill. Which makes a list with rankings from 'best' too 'worst' misleading at best.
But they are 201 vs 200 is better than 200. Maybe you could judge by other metrics, ie cost, boot capacity, fuel capacity, etc.

And what are you left with? A Land Rover Defender. It can't hit the heady heights of Simulacrum armies. It can't literally Wish for anything to happen. It can't even scale a mountain with a thought. But it does its job, and it does it well.

Noone is deny that.

The wizard still does it better; and compared to 3.5, at least no longer does that better at the same time as doing anything and everything else, simply because it takes too many resources (namely, Concentration) and that high level gaming where most broken abuses (Glyph of Warding, Simulacrum Wish Economy, True Polymorph etc) can take place.

Edit; kinda agree with Jas; I'll happily defend wizard abilities where I can, but trying to state that any class can counter 3 Pit Fiends solo is a joke, right?

[Byke]

They.... don't? Not that I recall in 5th edition. They've made clarifications of intent and fixed misprints, but they haven't deliberately changed something in errata for powerlevel reasons


See Sorcerer Elemental Affinity from the PHB and see the Errata .....and before you say they were clarifying intent....why wasn't the same change made to Evo Wizards or Warlock as the wording was exactly the same.

[EvilAnagram]

And again, even with the oathbow, fighter is a niche with good single target damage.
Assume a fight against 3 pitfiends. What good is a fighter now compared to a single divination wizard who can cast banish? Assume a fight against a horde of melee enemies. How does fighter stack up against a blaster, a cleric or even a ranger.

Aside from the obvious flaws others have pointed out, you're deliberately picking situations in which the ability to affect multiple targets is paramount. If a fifteenth level party is up against a single Pit Fiend in the hells (which is more likely by far), then the most effective use of a Wizard's concentration will probably be buffing the Fighter. In fact, in most combats in which there is one big nasty and a few little nasties, the fighter will do the most damage against the big nasty while the casters help a bit and take out the minions. Everyone has a role to play, and acting as though the fighter is worse for only being able to take out the single biggest threat is ridiculous.

[Gtdead]

While I agree on the oathbow parts, I just want to say that divination wizards are perhaps the most overrated of all wizards, and bringing them up here is kinda silly unless you are making assumptions similar to the oathbow one. I mean great, they can cast banishment, but what happens when the days portent rolls were between 12 and 16? People like to assume a diviner is always packing natural 1s to throw on things, and that is usually not going to be the case.

Sure, a wizard typically does better against groups than a fighter, but that is fine. Each class should have their own advantages. Blasting is a magic users role.

Really though, why are you fighting 3 pit fiends? I don't have the encounter planning tables handy, but that seems a bit... extreme. For any party.

I'm using divination as the general purpose wizard. He does have a bit of an edge on save or suck compared to the others. Luck dependant though.

As for the encounter, I'm creating them based on my simulations. 1 pit fiend is an easy fight for most classes at lvl 20, even solo. I hardly consider 3 of them extreme, especially for a party.

[MeeposFire]

See Sorcerer Elemental Affinity from the PHB and see the Errata .....and before you say they were clarifying intent....why wasn't the same change made to Evo Wizards or Warlock as the wording was exactly the same.

Those abiities are similar but they do not have the same language. For instance the warlock version specifies on hit which is very significant whereas a different ability says per spell and that makes a big difference.

[jas61292]

1 pit fiend is an easy fight for most classes at lvl 20, even solo.

I find this very hard to believe. It's hold monster with DC 21 alone can wreck most characters who are alone. Add in magic resistance and all its other traits and I don't think it will ever be an easy encounter without a ton of assumptions gong against it.

[Byke]

Those abiities are similar but they do not have the same language. For instance the warlock version specifies on hit which is very significant whereas a different ability says per spell and that makes a big difference.


Original PHB

ELEMENTAL AFFINITY
Starting at 6th level, when you cast a spell that deals
damage of the type associated with your draconic
ancestry, add your Charisma modifier to that damage.
At the same time, you can spend 1 sorcery point to gain
resistance to that damage type for 1 hour.

AGONIZING BLAST
Prerequisite: eldritch blast cantrip
When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma
modifier to the damage it deals on a hit.

EMPOWERED EVOCATION
Beginning at 10th leveI, you can add your Intelligence
modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation
spell you cast.
PART

Errata

Elemental Affinity

Starting at 6th level, when you Cast a Spell that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry, you can add your Charisma modifier to one damage roll of that spell. At the same time, you can spend 1 sorcery point to gain Resistance to that damage type for 1 hour.

I'm belaboring the point....but I was called out that WOTC doesn't use Erratas to make balances changes...In the sorcerer's case it was a major nerf to there damage (specifically with upcasting scorching rays). If it's only to clarify intent in the case of warlock it could be interpreted that the damage would only be applied once. "A" hit vs 'EVERY hit" or "Every Ray" ....as for Evo Wizard - MM /Scorching Ray "cheese" seems to be ok. If the intents of the erratas are to clarify, then they should do it universally instead of singling out a class.

[Waazraath]

Your consideration of what is a lot of words is far below mine. Maybe there's some dissonance there between what is written and what you're capable of understanding.

Lol. You started this thread with insults, moved on to not adressing the topic at hand, proceeded with silly memes, and failing to convince anybody, you're back with insults again.

You can try to twist yourself out of this and pretend your failure to answer is another person's failure to read. Again, classy. But you're fooling nobody. And you still haven't adressed this: "The funny thing is: the wizard, that Vaz seems so fond of, is the no. 1 class in 5e that is build on DM fiat. Expensive components? The DM decides the amount of money you have. Rare components, like for planeshift? DM fiat. All that spells the wizard knows, from meeting other wizards and copying in spellbooks? DM fiat.

But somehow, in his magical universe, all these are taken for granted. But A fighter having a magical sword at level 20 is 'begging'. At that point, discussion makes no sense, because somebody already has deceided that the DM's role is to cuddle the caster and punish the fighter for being mundane. In those games, the wizard will be superior, yeah."



Vaz is using core rules with core materials considered available, non magical in nature, and not using optional variants a DM approves. How dare he, for shame!


Nope, Vaz isn't (oh my, talking about yourself in 3rd person). Vaz is still missing the part where the DM has the job to provide an adequate adventure. A DM who doesn't get that, is incompetent for his job. And not using core rules.



But they are 201 vs 200 is better than 200. Maybe you could judge by other metrics, ie cost, boot capacity, fuel capacity, etc.

And what are you left with? A Land Rover Defender. It can't hit the heady heights of Simulacrum armies. It can't literally Wish for anything to happen. It can't even scale a mountain with a thought. But it does its job, and it does it well.


Bla bla. Still running around with corner cases like wish and simulacra. Whatever, if you still think this proves anything, you're beyond help. Also if you really think that Wish makes you can 'literally wish for anything' you might want to re-read your PHB.

[SharkForce]

Tiamat uses an additional legendary Resistance against your Imprisonment, and you get kicked of the table for meta-gaming.


https://media0.giphy.com/media/1xucXbDnMIYkU/giphy.gif

tbh, i'm pretty sure a divination wizard waiting until the omens are favourable before acting is the exact *opposite* of metagaming :P

in any event, putting a lone wizard against a lone monster is largely missing the point. the wizard could be alone, but doesn't need to be. a variety of spells can gain them powerful minions in a fraction of the time, and with far less visibility (which i'd think is fairly important when you're gearing up to take down an ancient dragon or a demon lord or whatever) and can be used to gain far more effective minions in most cases.

now, fighters can hire mercenaries too... but first off, that isn't a class ability, and secondly, i'd expect to need to pay a gigantic premium to get mercenaries to go after something like an ancient red dragon, if you can even find people willing to go.

the same tends to apply to other scenarios as well. there is often some means where it is plausible for a non-spellcaster to accomplish many of the same things as spellcasters, sort of. but they're generally a lot slower, or require external resources that have nothing to do with the class, and so forth. given a bit of preparation, many spellcasters (wizards in particular, but not exclusively) can perform a lot of tasks much better than a non-spellcaster, while still being designed to typically perform just as well without the benefit of that preparation as a non-spellcaster without the benefit of preparation.

a high level spellcaster played to maximum potential is generally much more frightening than a high level non-spellcaster played to maximum potential. they start off fairly equal in base capabilities, but the spellcaster has far superior ability to alter the playing field to favour themselves in a way that non-spellcasters cannot do.

[MeeposFire]

Original PHB

ELEMENTAL AFFINITY
Starting at 6th level, when you cast a spell that deals
damage of the type associated with your draconic
ancestry, add your Charisma modifier to that damage.
At the same time, you can spend 1 sorcery point to gain
resistance to that damage type for 1 hour.

AGONIZING BLAST
Prerequisite: eldritch blast cantrip
When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma
modifier to the damage it deals on a hit.

EMPOWERED EVOCATION
Beginning at 10th leveI, you can add your Intelligence
modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation
spell you cast.
PART

Errata

Elemental Affinity

Starting at 6th level, when you Cast a Spell that deals damage of the type associated with your draconic ancestry, you can add your Charisma modifier to one damage roll of that spell. At the same time, you can spend 1 sorcery point to gain Resistance to that damage type for 1 hour.

I'm belaboring the point....but I was called out that WOTC doesn't use Erratas to make balances changes...In the sorcerer cases it was a major nerf to there damage (specifically with upcasting scorching rays). If it's only to clarify intent in the case of warlock it could be interpreted that the damage would only be applied once. "A" hit vs 'EVERY hit" or "Every Ray" ....as for Evo Wizard - MM cheese seems to be ok. If the intents of the erratas are to clarify, then they should do it universally instead of singling out a class effecting there power..

As I said each ability is worded slightly differently and it does make a difference. The reason magic missile works with evocation wizard but scorching ray does not is due to a very technical reading of the wording which for whatever reason (despite initial talk about using common language) is how the designers are going in their reading of the abilities. Notice that evocation wizard talks about modifying the damage roll and that how magic missile is technically used that means it applies to the whole spell where it does not for others. Notice that sorcerer does not use the exact same language which means to Mr. Crawford that you have to read it differently and it applies slightly differently. The warlock one specifies on a hit whereas if it used the language in the sorc ability then instead of applying on each bolt that hits you would likely only get it once because the sorc ability specifies that you add your cha mod to the damage dealt by a spell and dealing cha per bolt would actually be applying more than your cha mod of damage to a spell so it would not work.


Case in point I actually made the point about the sorc reading before the SAGE column came out though at the time I thought they would not go that route because it required a very technical reading of the ability rather than a more common language one. At the time Mr. Crawford had not shown yet that he wanted to read everything in very technical rules lawyer type language hence things like the magic initiate ruling that is actually correct but only in really technical language that requires a really hard look to find and that does not follow what generally happen in the game.

The Crawford ruling typically have less to do with balance and more to do with highly technical readings. Mearls on the other hand tends to make rulings for theme/what he thinks is balance rather than more technical readings.

[Rhedyn]

Against 3 pitfiends a wizard with his snowcone uses summons to crush the boss while not even being on the battle map.

Fighter could not hire a sufficient army at the same cost.

[jas61292]

The one other issue that is never discussed as much as it should be is that a day should have many encounters. Yeah, we mention this a lot, but when we actually get into the real details of an encounter, we revert back the the wizard feeling free to use his 1 per day slots as if they were at will.

Even ignoring the tendency to assume every scenario is a random encounter (so the enemy is not specifically prepared for you), which you knew would happen in advance somehow (so you can specifically prepare for the enemy), taking place in neutral territory, with the player always winning initiative, you still need to take into account what happens next. Maybe the wizard does beat the dragon easier. But what about the second dragon? Or the third?

[Byke]

The Crawford ruling typically have less to do with balance and more to do with highly technical readings. Mearls on the other hand tends to make rulings for theme/what he thinks is balance rather than more technical readings.

Balance > Technical Reading/Interpretation which impacts the balance of a class vs others.

[MeeposFire]

Balance > Technical Reading/Interpretation which impacts the balance of a class vs others.

You say this but the evidence is stacked against you. For instance take crossbow expert where they explicitly said the technical reading is correct and therefor you only need one hand crossbow to be able to attack using the attack action and get your bonus action attack too. In addition due to the technical reading all ranged attacks work in melee range not just crossbow ones. If balance was more important to them they would have have changed the feat to only apply to crossbows and/or require you to attack with a separate one handed weapon before getting your crossbow bonus action attack.

On the other side is that magic initiate ruling is in the middle it is stronger than the 1/day and that is it thought but weaker than the it becomes a spell known and so it could be used with your spell slots.

In all these cases the common thread is Crawford coming up with very technical rulings not that they are trying to nerf all the various exploits because they left some and later said they were done on purpose.

[Cybren]

Balance > Technical Reading/Interpretation which impacts the balance of a class vs others.

Your example is one of clarification of intent and not balance changes. Using errata for balance changes i fraught with problems, not the least of which the way it will quickly make $50 hardbacks obsolete

[MeeposFire]

Your example is one of clarification of intent and not balance changes. Using errata for balance changes i fraught with problems, not the least of which the way it will quickly make $50 hardbacks obsolete

Well they have done such things before in other editions but currently they have seemed to avoid that so far in 5e.

The closest to it would be the ranger rewrite but even then that is actually less balance and more about just making people happier with it. They have shown they will potentially rewrite a concept if it is unpopular enough.

[Byke]

Your example is one of clarification of intent and not balance changes. Using errata for balance changes i fraught with problems, not the least of which the way it will quickly make $50 hardbacks obsolete

Ok so it was a clarification of intent that was errata'd and impacted the balance of a class. Is that better?

Good point on Ranger as well...an even better example.

[MeeposFire]

Ok so it was a clarification of intent that was errata'd and impacted the balance of a class. Is that better?

Good point on Ranger as well...an even better example.

The rulings can impact how powerful certain abilities are (though not everybody played with sorcs getting the bonus on every ray on scorching ray so keep that in mind their power was in flux back then) but that is different than what you are saying. You are making an assertion that they are making these decisions based on balance reasons when the evidence has been that is not the reason they have made these choices. So far they have been making very technical readings and using that for rulings which can make some things weaker (sorcs), stronger (crossbow expert), or in the middle (magic initiate). Balance does not seem to be the primary concern even though their choices can impact a class's potential power.

[Byke]

The rulings can impact how powerful certain abilities are (though not everybody played with sorcs getting the bonus on every ray on scorching ray so keep that in mind their power was in flux back then) but that is different than what you are saying. You are making an assertion that they are making these decisions based on balance reasons when the evidence has been that is not the reason they have made these choices. So far they have been making very technical readings and using that for rulings which can make some things weaker (sorcs), stronger (crossbow expert), or in the middle (magic initiate). Balance does not seem to be the primary concern even though their choices can impact a class's potential power.

No my assertion is making a technical reading without taking into account balance is the problem. Also not applying the intent of the ruling universally is another problem. Balance should be the primary concern not the legaleze.

[Cybren]

No my assertion is making a technical reading without taking into account balance is the problem. Also not applying the intent of the ruling universally is another problem. Balance should be the primary concern not the legaleze.

No, you're saying wizards should regularly use errata, a tool to fix printing errors, to make changes to the games balance. They went down this road in 4E and it largely made the original printings of the books worthless over time.

[Byke]

No, you're saying wizards should regularly use errata, a tool to fix printing errors, to make changes to the games balance. They went down this road in 4E and it largely made the original printings of the books worthless over time.

I'm done arguing this silly point. This originally argument started with Simulacrum, let me change the statement from "JC should errata Simulacrum"....to JC should clarify the intent of Simulacrum so that Wizards stop using the cheesy Simulacrum/Wish combo to make an infinite army of duplicates and we can have some balance at higher levels...ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?

[MeeposFire]

No my assertion is making a technical reading without taking into account balance is the problem. Also not applying the intent of the ruling universally is another problem. Balance should be the primary concern not the legaleze.

I am going off your initial post and in that you do assert that they made a change due to balance which I am arguing is incorrect, however as for your opinion about whether rulings should be about balance or not it is fine that you think that. Everybody will not agree and there are advantages and disadvantages to that idea but either way I am not trying to argue the virtues of that merely how WotC so far has not used that as a guiding principle to its rulings.

As for intent of the ruling and applying universally you are once again making a mistake. All three abilities use different wording and therefor are not exactly the same. Crawford has shown that he does read things in a very technical manner and so your assertion that the intent was designed to have them all work the same does not follow. If they wanted them all to work the same then they would have worded them the same clearly they WANT them to work differently.

You may want them to base rulings on balance rather than what is written but that is not what they have done nor what they have said they would do.

[Cybren]

I'm done arguing this silly point. This originally argument started with Simulacrum, let me change the statement from "JC should errata Simulacrum"....to JC should clarify the intent of Simulacrum so that Wizards stop using the cheesy Simulacrum/Wish combo to make an infinite army of duplicate and we can have some balance at higher levels...ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?

not really, but impacting my mood is really beyond your control anyway.

[MeeposFire]

Honestly I don't know if they care about that exploit considering that it is easily shutdown by DMs who do not want it to happen with no difficulties in running the game.

Yea some can say it is a cop out or that you should not have to make a choice like that but more than likely in their view that is really just not that big a deal. It is a simple "no" rather than something that mechanically difficult. I do not think it is a sinister attempt at making wizards uber but rather they would just say it does nt work and lets you choose why or if you WANT it to work you can let it work. It makes things nasty on message boards since people here like to argue but in an actual game it is just not that big a deal.

[Byke]

I am going off your initial post and in that you do assert that they made a change due to balance which I am arguing is incorrect, however as for your opinion about whether rulings should be about balance or not it is fine that you think that. Everybody will not agree and there are advantages and disadvantages to that idea but either way I am not trying to argue the virtues of that merely how WotC so far has not used that as a guiding principle to its rulings.

As for intent of the ruling and applying universally you are once again making a mistake. All three abilities use different wording and therefor are not exactly the same. Crawford has shown that he does read things in a very technical manner and so your assertion that the intent was designed to have them all work the same does not follow. If they wanted them all to work the same then they would have worded them the same clearly they WANT them to work differently.

You may want them to base rulings on balance rather than what is written but that is not what they have done nor what they have said they would do.

So round and round we go....They aren't taking balance into consideration when making these "technical reading" which impact class power, this is a problem. This is a matter of opinion that can be debate...I don't see the merits of making a technical reading without taking balance into consideration. I will leave it at that.

s for intent, all three abilities are similar, while the wording is different there intent is similar enough that it could require interpretation. JC made his ruling on the INTENT of Elemental Affinity, but failed to take it to the next step and apply similar logic to the other abilities.

[MeeposFire]

So round and round we go....They aren't taking balance into consideration when making these "technical reading" which impact class power, this is a problem. This is a matter of opinion that can be debate...I don't see the merits of making a technical reading without taking balance into consideration. I will leave it at that.

s for intent, all three abilities are similar, while the wording is different there intent is similar enough that it could require interpretation. JC made his ruling on the INTENT of Elemental Affinity, but failed to take it to the next step and apply similar logic to the other abilities.

Why would he apply it to the other abilities if they are worded differently and they have a different intent on what they do? You are assuming that they are supposed to be the same and so that clearing up the intent on one should have been applied to all of them when the evidence is that each ability was written with a different set of expectations and so clarifying the intent on one would not apply to the others. They apparently want the invoker to have a special bonus to magic missile, warlocks on EB, and sorcs to not have those specific advantages.

[Rhedyn]

Sage advice has no bearing on the RAW or any sort of theorycraft.

Particularly 5e dev clarifications tend to be obvious or just not what the rules say.

Using SA is bad DMing, unless you are treating it as a brainstorming session for houserules you may like.

[SharkForce]

The one other issue that is never discussed as much as it should be is that a day should have many encounters. Yeah, we mention this a lot, but when we actually get into the real details of an encounter, we revert back the the wizard feeling free to use his 1 per day slots as if they were at will.

Even ignoring the tendency to assume every scenario is a random encounter (so the enemy is not specifically prepared for you), which you knew would happen in advance somehow (so you can specifically prepare for the enemy), taking place in neutral territory, with the player always winning initiative, you still need to take into account what happens next. Maybe the wizard does beat the dragon easier. But what about the second dragon? Or the third?

it's quite simple really. the wizard (or other spellcaster; druids get planar binding too, for example, and clerics can also create undead, and bards can do all kinds of tricks provided they decided they wanted to be able to when they picked their magical secrets) can essentially use their spell slots during downtime to gain power later. the fighter cannot use, say, extra attack in the same way (nor can a barbarian do that with rage, and so forth).

so, for example, the second dragon probably also gets rolled by the army of summoned minions the wizard set up when they decided to go on a mass dragon hunt in the first place (considering the wizard most likely has a lot of control over whether or not to stick around and face any additional dragons)

that's the difference. put them both into combat as sport, and they're reasonably close, though i still think a spellcaster played to their absolute maximum potential is more dangerous than a non-spellcaster played to their absolute maximum potential, they're certainly close enough that the non-spellcasters can be useful. put them into combat as war, and a spellcaster probably has an assortment of ways to change the playing field in their favour. even if that second dragon wants to attack them in their home when they go rest, that's fine, they've got a few dozen symbol spells (or various glyphs, and who knows what else) ready to ruin the second dragon's day on top of a bunch of other defensive tools.

[jas61292]

it's quite simple really. the wizard (or other spellcaster; druids get planar binding too, for example, and clerics can also create undead, and bards can do all kinds of tricks provided they decided they wanted to be able to when they picked their magical secrets) can essentially use their spell slots during downtime to gain power later. the fighter cannot use, say, extra attack in the same way (nor can a barbarian do that with rage, and so forth).

so, for example, the second dragon probably also gets rolled by the army of summoned minions the wizard set up when they decided to go on a mass dragon hunt in the first place (considering the wizard most likely has a lot of control over whether or not to stick around and face any additional dragons)

that's the difference. put them both into combat as sport, and they're reasonably close, though i still think a spellcaster played to their absolute maximum potential is more dangerous than a non-spellcaster played to their absolute maximum potential, they're certainly close enough that the non-spellcasters can be useful. put them into combat as war, and a spellcaster probably has an assortment of ways to change the playing field in their favour. even if that second dragon wants to attack them in their home when they go rest, that's fine, they've got a few dozen symbol spells (or various glyphs, and who knows what else) ready to ruin the second dragon's day on top of a bunch of other defensive tools.

But most summoning really doesn't work well like that in 5e. I mean, either they are concentration, which a dragon or similar enemy should be able to easily break, or its something like animate dead, which, while easy to set up, in theory, is usually ineffective against something like a dragon, as a single powerful AoE (such as breath weapon) kills them all. As I mentioned, there is also the tendency to assume only the wizard can be prepared. Not the enemy. But in most situations where a player can prepare, the enemy can too. The battlefields will not be in their favor, and weaker combatants, like summons usually are, do not fare nearly as well in practice as they do in white room theory.

[Vaz]

Lol. You started this thread with insults, moved on to not adressing the topic at hand, proceeded with silly memes, and failing to convince anybody, you're back with insults again.

You can try to twist yourself out of this and pretend your failure to answer is another person's failure to read. Again, classy. But you're fooling nobody. And you still haven't adressed this: "The funny thing is: the wizard, that Vaz seems so fond of, is the no. 1 class in 5e that is build on DM fiat. Expensive components? The DM decides the amount of money you have. Rare components, like for planeshift? DM fiat. All that spells the wizard knows, from meeting other wizards and copying in spellbooks? DM fiat.

But somehow, in his magical universe, all these are taken for granted. But A fighter having a magical sword at level 20 is 'begging'. At that point, discussion makes no sense, because somebody already has deceided that the DM's role is to cuddle the caster and punish the fighter for being mundane. In those games, the wizard will be superior, yeah."



Nope, Vaz isn't (oh my, talking about yourself in 3rd person). Vaz is still missing the part where the DM has the job to provide an adequate adventure. A DM who doesn't get that, is incompetent for his job. And not using core rules.



Bla bla. Still running around with corner cases like wish and simulacra. Whatever, if you still think this proves anything, you're beyond help. Also if you really think that Wish makes you can 'literally wish for anything' you might want to re-read your PHB.

If DM fiat is the absolute answer for the Wizard, why is that the Fighter is still gibbed by the same? The Fighter is still fudged for the fact the DM throws a creature that the Fighter cannot handle. It throws an AC too high. It makes the creature unkillable unless it deals X type elemental damage. It just is flat out immune to the damage types the Fighter does. Sit down, and stop acting like a child. It's clear you should let adults handle this.

And yes. Corner Cases. Oh no. It's a shame that the fighters corner case involves "I HIT WITH STICK HURDUR". God you're a weapon. Also, ref Bolded, it's almost as if you're saying that the DM needs to prop up the fighter by providing challenges the Fighter can do to make it worthwhile. For shame. The same thing I've been advocating since day 1, while a Wizard of any stripe can adapt.

[SharkForce]

But most summoning really doesn't work well like that in 5e. I mean, either they are concentration, which a dragon or similar enemy should be able to easily break, or its something like animate dead, which, while easy to set up, in theory, is usually ineffective against something like a dragon, as a single powerful AoE (such as breath weapon) kills them all. As I mentioned, there is also the tendency to assume only the wizard can be prepared. Not the enemy. But in most situations where a player can prepare, the enemy can too. The battlefields will not be in their favor, and weaker combatants, like summons usually are, do not fare nearly as well in practice as they do in white room theory.

many summon spells are like that. but not all. for example, planar binding can remove the concentration requirement. it takes a big chunk of money (or a wish spell) and doesn't last forever, but money in high level D&D is basically as common as dirt, and while it may not last forever it can certainly last long enough to build up an impressive army. furthermore, while dragons in particular certainly have a method of clearing large numbers of weak enemies at once, that is definitely not true for all creatures; a pit fiend, for example (which is not immune to necrotic damage, so an army of zombies made with finger of death to ensure permanent loyalty, with half of the zombies being polymorphed into violet fungus to deal necrotic damage while the rest of the zombies provide mobility, once sufficiently large can potentially work) can't clear dozens of zombies per action. a lich certainly could (and probably would have at least some form of AoE on their spell list), but will eventually run short on spell slots (at which point, the caster can step in and have a much easier fight). true polymorph can also give you a potentially loyal CR 9 or lower creature from dirt. geas spells on moderately strong creatures with less than 40 HP can be used as well, or on something like a shadow demon which risks getting one-shotted in spite of their higher HP). they can shapechange into something which can create useful minions, like a myconid sovereign or an aboleth, and this is without highly debatable cheese (like creating clay golems or shield guardians that are loyal to their creator via true polymorphing regular objects).

and if we're assuming the target has prepared, it shouldn't matter whether the PC is prepared or not; the dragon hasn't been sitting around for 700 years waiting for the PC to start preparing before it starts preparing, just to keep things fair. neither has the lich, or the demon lord, or whatever else. if it is something that would prepare, it will be prepared whether the character prepares or not, so the PC preparing (whether they're a caster or not) is pure advantage regardless... it's just *more* of an advantage for a caster than it is for a non-caster, because the caster can often use unneeded spell slots today to buy power for another day when they need it... at least, once they get to high levels.

[JNAProductions]

Pit fiends have fireball. At-will.

[Rhedyn]

"Can easily break concentration"

The wizard is on the battle mat because?

[SharkForce]

Pit fiends have fireball. At-will.

blech, forgot about that. still, a sufficiently large horde of minions will eventually work.

and the general point still remains; not every powerful monster has great AoE.

[Waazraath]

If DM fiat is the absolute answer for the Wizard, why is that the Fighter is still gibbed by the same? The Fighter is still fudged for the fact the DM throws a creature that the Fighter cannot handle. It throws an AC too high. It makes the creature unkillable unless it deals X type elemental damage. It just is flat out immune to the damage types the Fighter does. Sit down, and stop acting like a child. It's clear you should let adults handle this.

And yes. Corner Cases. Oh no. It's a shame that the fighters corner case involves "I HIT WITH STICK HURDUR". God you're a weapon. Also, ref Bolded, it's almost as if you're saying that the DM needs to prop up the fighter by providing challenges the Fighter can do to make it worthwhile. For shame. The same thing I've been advocating since day 1, while a Wizard of any stripe can adapt.

More insults. Again, not responding to the point that was made, but making a strawman out of it (I never said DM fiat is the 'absolute answer' for a wizard, I pointed out your logic is flawed because you wave the DM-fiat stick in the face of the fighter, instead of the wizard for which DM fiat applied more often). Pretending that a DM making adventures appropriate for the party is somehow supporting your flawed logic, instead of core rules.

(and pretending it somehow has something to do with martials, while the same goes for a party of casters: a DM that uses magic resistant monsters, doesn't give the needed spell components, doesn't let the wizard learn new spells, uses ambush tactics all the time against low hp low ac casters, is just as bad in his job as the DM that doen't give the fighter a magic weapon when running monsters needing a magic sword to be defeated).

And again ignoring this is all white room theory garbish, while in the real game, there is a caster that casts 'magic weapon' if it would be really needed, while the martial prevents the caster from being hit in the dust in 1 or 2 rounds. Team game, you know? But judging from your replies so far, you'll know doubt try to turn this into "HAH the weak pathetic martial needs the caster to cast a spell for him, CASTER SUPERIORITY".

Yes, a very mature respons you give. Oh, the shame that not more people on this forum are like you! :smallsigh:

[qube]

tbh, i'm pretty sure a divination wizard waiting until the omens are favourable before acting is the exact *opposite* of metagaming :P I'm sorry, but "I'm a divination wizard" is no excuse to metagame.

Even more so, if Vaz considers getting a +1 sword at level 20 to fight a level 30 monster as "begging the DM" ... then what are the divination spells, if not begging the DM for useful info?


now, fighters can hire mercenaries too... but first off, that isn't a class ability,Remind me again, which class ability do you use to buy material components for the summoning rituals?


it takes a big chunk of money (or a wish spell) and doesn't last forever, but money in high level D&D is basically as common as dirt, and while it may not last forever it can certainly last long enough to build up an impressive army.Starting gold of a level 20 character: 20K gp + 1d10 x 250 gp. (edit: plus the 10(?) gold from your starting equipment, depending on background)

So, Planar binding gives you that's 20 to 22 + one wizard, who's now all out of cash.

That's not a army, legion, battalion, or even company. That's platoon size.

[Vaz]

A class feature.

Also lol @ Fighter is now viable because it has a +1 magic weapon.

[Waazraath]

A class feature.

Also lol @ Fighter is now viable because it has a +1 magic weapon.

More replies to things not said. Well done. Another strawman beaten!

[qube]

A class feature.what class feature? cause 'purchase' ain't one of them - not of the wizard, cleric, bard, druid or warlock


Also lol @ Fighter is now viable because it has a +1 magic weapon.Sure. Now he can kill Tiamat, the tarrasque AND that hypocritical metagaming wizard :p