What are 5th editions character tiers?

[Chaosticket]

http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=11990.0

In that link it shows different tiers of characters from Pathfinder aka Dungeons and Dragons 3.75 and an explanation of what character tiers are.

I am trying to find out what the tiers in 5th edition are so far.

[Unoriginal]

http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=11990.0

In that link it shows different tiers of characters from Pathfinder aka Dungeons and Dragons 3.75 and an explanation of what character tiers are.

I am trying to find out what the tiers in 5th edition are so far.

There are no tiers in 5e.

If you absolutely wants to push this concept from a different game into 5e, then all the classes are Tier 3 by those standards.


Tier 1: levels 1-4
Tier 2: 5-10
Tier 3: 11-16
Tier4: 17-20

Also this.

[lunaticfringe]

Tier 1: levels 1-4
Tier 2: 5-10
Tier 3: 11-16
Tier4: 17-20

[lunaticfringe]

There are no tiers in 5e.

Not really true it's in the PHB & people reference it. There are power boosts at the start of a new tier usually. Extra Attack, Higher slots, subclass final features, etc.

[Unoriginal]

Not really true it's in the PHB & people reference it. There are power boosts at the start of a new tier usually. Extra Attack, Higher slots, subclass final features, etc.

Yes, but those are the actual official tiers, not the 3.PF concept that people are trying to push into a different game.

[lunaticfringe]

Yes, but those are the actual official tiers, not the 3.PF concept that people are trying to push into a different game.

Ah okay I understand your post now. I don't mind a bit o pathfinder on occasion but I'm now down with their lingo.

[Malifice]

http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=11990.0

In that link it shows different tiers of characters from Pathfinder aka Dungeons and Dragons 3.75 and an explanation of what character tiers are.

I am trying to find out what the tiers in 5th edition are so far.

Doesnt exist in 5E.

They largely nailed the class balance in this edition.

Any residual problems are often due to crap DMing (the 5MWD still exists when DMs let it exist, and this will obviously favor spellcasters, paladins and other 'nova' classes, when it's allowed to happen).

[sithlordnergal]

So, despite what the people seem to be saying there are tiers in 5e, and some subclasses are stronger then others. That said it is not always super clear cut, and the tiers change with levels. Though I can say this, at level 20 Druid is probably one of the deadliest classes in the game, and the hardest to kill.

[ad_hoc]

Though I can say this, at level 20 Druid is probably one of the deadliest classes in the game, and the hardest to kill.

Level 20 doesn't matter.

Significantly less than 1% of campaigns will get there, and the ones that do will spend very little of total campaign time there.

It's also when everything is bonkers anyway. Really everything at level 17+ is completely bonkers.

As for class/subclass tiers...Everything is fine except for a few subclasses which don't play as advertised.

Berserker, Assassin, 4 Elements, Beastmaster come to mind.

Assassin and Beastmaster are fine powerwise but they play differently than how they appear. For example, the best thing about the Beastmaster is that their pet is a big bag of hit points. It's not fun to just have your pet be a big target though.

[Specter]

There are two tiers:
Tier 1: classes that work as planned.
Tier 2: classes that don't.


Level 20 doesn't matter.

Significantly less than 1% of campaigns will get there, and the ones that do will spend very little of total campaign time there.

It's also when everything is bonkers anyway. Really everything at level 17+ is completely bonkers.

As for class/subclass tiers...Everything is fine except for a few subclasses which don't play as advertised.

Berserker, Assassin, 4 Elements, Beastmaster come to mind.

Assassin and Beastmaster are fine powerwise but they play differently than how they appear. For example, the best thing about the Beastmaster is that their pet is a big bag of hit points. It's not fun to just have your pet be a big target though.

Some subclasses that don't work as planned are listed above. I disagree on some of those, but whatever.

Another important point is considering how well classes do across all 'milestone' levels (5, 11, 17). Moon Druids, for instance, do very well on some levels and sadly on others. Their boon in those OP levels makes up for those where they don't.

[Kane0]

People that are really set on going down this path usually opt for an A-F scale rather than T1-T5.

Besides, there's really only a small selection of outliers (Elements monk is the poster child) and the rest are pretty much even or within one rank of each other.

[Naanomi]

I agree with the idea that much differentiation beyond ‘slightly above average’; ‘about average’; and ‘slightly below average’ doesn’t have much meaning.

[Malifice]

People that are really set on going down this path usually opt for an A-F scale rather than T1-T5.

Besides, there's really only a small selection of outliers (Elements monk is the poster child) and the rest are pretty much even or within one rank of each other.

Even the crappy 4E Monk sits on the (pretty awesome) Monk chassis. Still retains all of its 4 attacks per turn from 5th level/ and 4 stun saves thank you Mr BBEG goodness.

Archetypes are really just icing on the base class (where most of the goodness resides).

[Sigreid]

This discussion again? Really?

As Mal said, who's top dog really depends on who the DM is setting up the adventure to favor. Run long days wit lots of battles, there's a good argument the fighter is top dog. Run short days with few encounters, the casters are tops. Run an adventure with lots of exploration, Ranger or Rogue is likely king. etc. Run a campaign with a variety of challenge setups and everyone can be king for a day now and then.

[Malifice]

This discussion again? Really?

As Mal said, who's top dog really depends on who the DM is setting up the adventure to favor. Run long days wit lots of battles, there's a good argument the fighter is top dog. Run short days with few encounters, the casters are tops. Run an adventure with lots of exploration, Ranger or Rogue is likely king. etc. Run a campaign with a variety of challenge setups and everyone can be king for a day now and then.

Yup.

And run a campaign with a mix of those kinds of days (longer and shorter, more short rests and sometimes less) and you move the spotlight around between the classes.

There is no 'objective standard' to apply here. It depends a lot on the DM.

See also: DMs that dont police the AD, and allow 5MWD and never allow for short rests. Warlocks and Fighters suck here.

DMs that run multiple encounter AD's with plenty of opportunities for short rests, the opposite happens.

[Naanomi]

Which isn’t to say that everything is exactly equal. There may be times Undying Patron Warlock really rocks it above the Hexblade... but even under a wide variety of GMs, adventures, and styles; I wouldn’t expect it often

[mgshamster]

Using the definitions described in the OPs link, all 5e classes are Tier 3.

Some people try to break this down further by adding a S, A, B, C, D tier system, but every analysis of this kind I've seen has been opinion without any real analysis or comparison - often ignoring actual analysis in favor of surveys. It's a pseudo-tier system.

[Talamare]

There are absolutely vast power difference between the classes.

Anyone who tries to push the narrative that everything is perfectly balance and everything is equal is deceiving you or themselves.

However, in most cases its pointless...
You don't need the mechanically most powerful/most useful character to have fun.
The game isn't competitive.

[Grod_The_Giant]

There are absolutely vast power difference between the classes.
Yeah GODS no. Not compared to the kinds of 3.5/PF differences the original tier system was meant to explain. Everything in 5e falls in the T3/T4 range by that standard, I think, with vaguely comparable combat capabilities and slightly varying noncombat ones. Without game-breakingly strong and utterly dysfunctionally weak classes to take into consideration, 3.x tiers are just not a useful way of looking at the game.

[Sigreid]

Which isn’t to say that everything is exactly equal. There may be times Undying Patron Warlock really rocks it above the Hexblade... but even under a wide variety of GMs, adventures, and styles; I wouldn’t expect it often

Things don't really need to be equal. You do need to not have one option completely invalidate another. I think they've done a decent job there.

[Willie the Duck]

Anyone who tries to push the narrative that everything is perfectly balance and everything is equal is deceiving you or themselves.

Good thing no one said that.

And frankly, I've never seen that said with regards to 5e (4e yes, but then it is in fact false).

However, when the relative value of a wizard and warlock (or even champion archetype fighter) can be switched in who's better based on minor things like expected # of encounters in a dungeon between plausible rests... and in a system with enough variance in playstyle that some tables include feats and/or multiclassing and other tables don't... the 3e concept of class tiers simply doesn't hold up

[thereaper]

I would classify it as full caster tier, paladin and rogue tier, then everybody else tier. It doesn't neatly map to the 3.5 tier system, though, since the lower tiers have higher dpr (they just suffer so much in other areas they're still weaker overall).

[UrielAwakened]

Top tier classes:

Sorcadins, Hexblades, Coffeelocks, anything that uses Darkness/Devil's Sight, anything that uses GWM or Crossbow Expertise, Moon Druids, Lore Bards, Diviner Wizards

Beyond that most things kind of glut around the middle with the bottom tiers being the subclasses that should have never left the drawing board.

[ad_hoc]

There are absolutely vast power difference between the classes.

Anyone who tries to push the narrative that everything is perfectly balance and everything is equal is deceiving you or themselves.

This


However, in most cases its pointless...
You don't need the mechanically most powerful/most useful character to have fun.
The game isn't competitive.

And this are contradictory statements.

5e is based around 3 pillars. Power in RPGs in general is measured in amount of spotlight.

One class might be a little less powerful in combat but as long as they get just as much spotlight as another class then they are just as powerful.

[Specter]

Top tier classes:

anything that uses Darkness/Devil's Sight,

How is that better than someone using Greater Invisibility?

[lunaticfringe]

How is that better than someone using Greater Invisibility?

Well Darkness + Devil's Sight comes online sooner and can be used more often. Which honestly makes it get old a lot faster. I eventually openly target Repetitive Tactic Cheesmongers, I don't give a ****.

[Chaosticket]

Top tier classes:

Sorcadins, Hexblades, Coffeelocks, anything that uses Darkness/Devil's Sight, anything that uses GWM or Crossbow Expertise, Moon Druids, Lore Bards, Diviner Wizards

Beyond that most things kind of glut around the middle with the bottom tiers being the subclasses that should have never left the drawing board.

Thanks for actually pointing out some builds.

Okay some confusion here. a major part of the tiers are about versatility.
Ill use the Barbarian as an example. a Barbarian could get up to 24 strength and constitution, but only 20 STR/CON before level 20. The problem with that is that getting that high would have most of you Feats exchanged with Ability Scores increases. That means it would be harder to take say the Skilled feat. Even after those choices being a strength based class you wouldnt be much good outside the range of Thrown Weapons. So its a melee specialist class. A Fighter with 7-8 Feats can branch out quite a bit more and still reach its peak with melee, or even use ranged combat.

Or in other words it is a class that can do combat and non-combat well.

The Bard or Druid are quite versatile. the Lore Bard having up to 12 skills, 4 of them double-proficient and even skills youre not-proficient with getting half the bonus. a Valor Bard has fewer skills and spells but is still a decent warrior. The Druid can easily focus on their casting as it doesnt need strength and then transform if the Druid needs to get into melee or just Fly. Both are also full spell casters that can be used in and out of combat.

[mephnick]

Top tier classes:

Darkness/Devil's Sight, Moon Druids, Diviner Wizards

Meh, meh , meh.

Darkness/Devil's sight is a white room thing that I haven't seen work that effectively at the table. It's ok if you stand in a corner and throw out EB's, but that's just damage, nothing game shattering. Melee Darkness/Devil's sight basically destroys any synergy you could possibly have with your own party.

Moon Druids are the most overrated thing in the history of D&D forums. I've DMed lots and they rarely stand out other than the couple of power spike levels, but all classes have those. I'd rather play a Land Druid.

Portent is great, but really doesn't put Diviner any higher than any other wizard. You don't just automatically get 20's and 1's every day. They're better now with Mind Spike, as before that Expert Divination was useless.

[Bloodcloud]

How is that better than someone using Greater Invisibility?

I'll add that many people fail to consider just how many monsters can bypass darkness with blindsight/tremorsense (maybe? Unsure how tremorsense works in 5e), all devils and many demons, all dragons, etc. And the fact that it takes an action to cast, is easy to counterspell/dispell... It's good, but I wouldn't base my build on that, especially since it'll most likely fail you at the final boss... (Again, dragons, beholders, devils and demons, most very high CR monsters are immune and spellcasters have counters aplenty).

Darkness/devil sight is a decent combo thats pretty useful at low level and still situationally gamechanging, but it's waaaay overrated on these board.

[lunaticfringe]

I think you are focusing more on being individually awesome in a white room and not considering team play.

No one really expects the Barbarian to be a skill monkey, he breaks stuff. Also having 18 & getting 22 is fine. Grabbing Skilled is pretty meh. A single feat generally gets the job done for Barbarians maybe 2, which is easy if you are a Variant Human. I just assume you're going to be playing a lot of Variant Humans because you have admitted to being a Power Gamer and that is the Official Race of Power Gaming.

Also taking the Eagle Barb thing gets you Super Jump, couple that with Bonus Action Dash & and a Feather Fall Ring & you're good. Also winged boots & someone upcasting Fly on the Melees, happens more often in 5e. At least imx.

[Bloodcloud]

Thanks for actually pointing out some builds.

Okay some confusion here. a major part of the tiers are about versatility.
Ill use the Barbarian as an example. a Barbarian could get up to 24 strength and constitution, but only 20 STR/CON before level 20. The problem with that is that getting that high would have most of you Feats exchanged with Ability Scores increases. That means it would be harder to take say the Skilled feat. Even after those choices being a strength based class you wouldnt be much good outside the range of Thrown Weapons. So its a melee specialist class. A Fighter with 7-8 Feats can branch out quite a bit more and still reach its peak with melee, or even use ranged combat.

Or in other words it is a class that can do combat and non-combat well.

The Bard or Druid are quite versatile. the Lore Bard having up to 11 skills, 4 of them double-proficient and even skills youre not-proficient with getting half the bonus. a Valor Bard has fewer skills and spells but is still a decent warrior. The Druid can easily focus on their casting as it doesnt need strength and then transform if the Druid needs to get into melee or just Fly. Both are also full spell casters that can be used in and out of combat.

But your Totem barb might fly and speak with animals and use commune spell.

They really did broaden just about every class.

[UrielAwakened]

Meh, meh , meh.

Darkness/Devil's sight is a white room thing that I haven't seen work that effectively at the table. It's ok if you stand in a corner and throw out EB's, but that's just damage, nothing game shattering. Melee Darkness/Devil's sight basically destroys any synergy you could possibly have with your own party.

Not at all. If something is blind and attacking something that can't see it, it's a wash and it's still a normal attack without disadvantage.

Also very few battles have exactly one front anyway.


I'll add that many people fail to consider just how many monsters can bypass darkness with blindsight/tremorsense (maybe? Unsure how tremorsense works in 5e), all devils and many demons, all dragons, etc. And the fact that it takes an action to cast, is easy to counterspell/dispell... It's good, but I wouldn't base my build on that, especially since it'll most likely fail you at the final boss... (Again, dragons, beholders, devils and demons, most very high CR monsters are immune and spellcasters have counters aplenty).

Darkness/devil sight is a decent combo thats pretty useful at low level and still situationally gamechanging, but it's waaaay overrated on these board.

Those types are foes aren't that common. Also you can easily cast Darkness at the start of a dungeon and be good until a short rest, it lasts 10 minutes. It's not even worth tracking that on a turn-by-turn basis. You fire it and more or less you're good till you have to rest.

I've been using it from levels 6-8 on a melee Warlock/Wizard and I think the only times I've been hit in that timeframe were times where I purposely left it down to concentrate on something else.


Moon Druids are the most overrated thing in the history of D&D forums. I've DMed lots and they rarely stand out other than the couple of power spike levels, but all classes have those. I'd rather play a Land Druid.

To each their own. They spike early though in terms of power.


Portent is great, but really doesn't put Diviner any higher than any other wizard. You don't just automatically get 20's and 1's every day. They're better now with Mind Spike, as before that Expert Divination was useless.

Even 8s and 9s are great for things like Concentration checks and guaranteed saves when you have proficiency in the given skill though. I've never seen a Diviner go a day without using all of his dice effectively. All Wizards are high-tier, the diviner is just the highest of the high tier wizards.

[UrielAwakened]

Thanks for actually pointing out some builds.

Okay some confusion here. a major part of the tiers are about versatility.
Ill use the Barbarian as an example. a Barbarian could get up to 24 strength and constitution, but only 20 STR/CON before level 20. The problem with that is that getting that high would have most of you Feats exchanged with Ability Scores increases. That means it would be harder to take say the Skilled feat. Even after those choices being a strength based class you wouldnt be much good outside the range of Thrown Weapons. So its a melee specialist class. A Fighter with 7-8 Feats can branch out quite a bit more and still reach its peak with melee, or even use ranged combat.

Or in other words it is a class that can do combat and non-combat well.

The Bard or Druid are quite versatile. the Lore Bard having up to 12 skills, 4 of them double-proficient and even skills youre not-proficient with getting half the bonus. a Valor Bard has fewer skills and spells but is still a decent warrior. The Druid can easily focus on their casting as it doesnt need strength and then transform if the Druid needs to get into melee or just Fly. Both are also full spell casters that can be used in and out of combat.

Versatility matters a whole lot less in 5e than 3.5 because there's a lot less enemies are capable of doing.

In 3.5 most of the best tactics for eliminating threats didn't even involve hit points. In 5e, dead is once again the best status effect. And a GWM Barbarian can inflict a whole lot of dead.

[Unoriginal]

Thanks for actually pointing out some builds.

Okay some confusion here. a major part of the tiers are about versatility.
Ill use the Barbarian as an example. a Barbarian could get up to 24 strength and constitution, but only 20 STR/CON before level 20. The problem with that is that getting that high would have most of you Feats exchanged with Ability Scores increases. That means it would be harder to take say the Skilled feat. Even after those choices being a strength based class you wouldnt be much good outside the range of Thrown Weapons. So its a melee specialist class. A Fighter with 7-8 Feats can branch out quite a bit more and still reach its peak with melee, or even use ranged combat.

Or in other words it is a class that can do combat and non-combat well.

The Bard or Druid are quite versatile. the Lore Bard having up to 12 skills, 4 of them double-proficient and even skills youre not-proficient with getting half the bonus. a Valor Bard has fewer skills and spells but is still a decent warrior. The Druid can easily focus on their casting as it doesnt need strength and then transform if the Druid needs to get into melee or just Fly. Both are also full spell casters that can be used in and out of combat.

All classes get enough proficiencies and other capacities do to combat and non-combat.


Versatility matters a whole lot less in 5e than 3.5 because there's a lot less enemies are capable of doing.

In 3.5 most of the best tactics for eliminating threats didn't even involve hit points. In 5e, dead is once again the best status effect. And a GWM Barbarian can inflict a whole lot of dead.


This is true.

[Waazraath]

Thanks for actually pointing out some builds.

Okay some confusion here. a major part of the tiers are about versatility.
Ill use the Barbarian as an example. a Barbarian could get up to 24 strength and constitution, but only 20 STR/CON before level 20. The problem with that is that getting that high would have most of you Feats exchanged with Ability Scores increases. That means it would be harder to take say the Skilled feat. Even after those choices being a strength based class you wouldnt be much good outside the range of Thrown Weapons. So its a melee specialist class. A Fighter with 7-8 Feats can branch out quite a bit more and still reach its peak with melee, or even use ranged combat.

Or in other words it is a class that can do combat and non-combat well.

The Bard or Druid are quite versatile. the Lore Bard having up to 12 skills, 4 of them double-proficient and even skills youre not-proficient with getting half the bonus. a Valor Bard has fewer skills and spells but is still a decent warrior. The Druid can easily focus on their casting as it doesnt need strength and then transform if the Druid needs to get into melee or just Fly. Both are also full spell casters that can be used in and out of combat.

As already mentioned, all classes can do combat and non-combat. Said barbarian that can fly and use some divinition spells, can also get 2 free skills, AND buff all alies in melee with permanent advantage (always good, great for rogues or crit builds). And that's just class features, no race/feats yet.

As for what the best classes are, I agree with the already mentioned "every class is tier 3". There are some better, and some worse, but nothing overpowerd and nothing incompetent. As for "best classes", I'd sooner go with classes like paladin and cleric, than bard or wizard, since the latter are really squishy and tend to die a lot in the early levels. Classes like cleric and paladin have (due to spells and other class abilities) a great amount of versatility in and out of combat, but without the low hp / ac that for example bard and wizard have. But still: that doesn't justify a tier system imo.

[Grod_The_Giant]

All classes get enough proficiencies and other capacities do to combat and non-combat.
The value of proficiency alone is fairly low, unless the GM is using proficiencies-as-permissions or some such houserule. You need proficiency to match with an ability score you've invested in, and/or some other boost, before you're any real sort of competent. A Strength/Con-based Champion Fighter or Berserker Barbarian probably won't have much noncombat ability, for instance.

[RSP]

Not at all. If something is blind and attacking something that can't see it, it's a wash and it's still a normal attack without disadvantage.

Technically the attack still has Disadvantage, it just competes with the Advantage of not being seen yourself, and per the RAW, if you have both, you're considered to have both. Usually this is a wash, but is significant in that it means a rogue will be unable to Sneak Attack (outside of subclass abilities that offer different ways to get SA).

[Waazraath]

The value of proficiency alone is fairly low, unless the GM is using proficiencies-as-permissions or some such houserule. You need proficiency to match with an ability score you've invested in, and/or some other boost, before you're any real sort of competent. A Strength/Con-based Champion Fighter or Berserker Barbarian probably won't have much noncombat ability, for instance.

But a str/con champion fighter could easily start with (for example) 14 or 16 cha, max that stat out with all ASI's, and be quite competent as a cha skill user? With a race like half elf or variant human, you can even start 16/16/16 (str/con/cha), and have one or two extra skills on top?

[2D8HP]

[I am trying to find out what the tiers in 5th edition are so far..
I've had a blast playing a single class "Champion" Fighter, which is often regarded as "weak" or "dull", and I've also had fun playing Thieves and Swashbucklers (a Rogue sub-class from the SCAG or Xanathar's), so I don't want to harsh your mellow on any builds that look fun to you, but FWIW, the

Ultimate Optimizer's Multiclassing Guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502248-Ultimate-Optimizer-s-Multiclassing-Guide)

rates combinations of Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer and/or Warlock as the "optimal" multi-classes as well as a Warlock/Fighter (a Fighter/Warlock is less "optimal" apparently).

While I've never seen any level 20 PC's, the "capstone" of an "Ancients" Paladin looks neat to me, and if I had the mental agility to better handle the spell casting rules, I would single-class Paladin, but I've no experience playing any magic-using classes in 5e so take my suggestions with a mountain of salt.

You may also find this helpful:

Guides, Tables, and other useful tools for 5E D&D (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377491)

[lunaticfringe]

The value of proficiency alone is fairly low, unless the GM is using proficiencies-as-permissions or some such houserule. You need proficiency to match with an ability score you've invested in, and/or some other boost, before you're any real sort of competent. A Strength/Con-based Champion Fighter or Berserker Barbarian probably won't have much noncombat ability, for instance.

One of my players had a totem barb and she took Acolyte & Ritual Caster (Wizard) and played a Shaman in Training. She brought a lot of added utility and was the default Identifier. You make a good point it's not set in stone.

[SharkForce]

as has been noted... there are "tiers" of a sort in 5e. but those tiers pretty much all fit into tier 3 of the 3.x era. certainly, some classes and/or subclasses are stronger than others, and the difference can certainly be distinct enough to quantify, but even the strongest build played to its fullest potential is probably only going to feel like a 3.x tier 2, and even the very weakest* builds played poorly will probably feel at least as useful as a low tier 3, provided they haven't gone out of their own way to sabotage themselves (that is, if you make a dex-based barbarian that uses a long sword and wears plate mail with no proficiency, you'll have problems, but if you just put a decent strength on your barbarian and use reasonable equipment, you'll be an effective barbarian).

* weakest is somewhat subjective. some of the "weaker" builds aren't necessarily extremely weak so much as extremely unsatisfying. for example, many people will find wild mage extremely unsatisfying, because their DM never gives them wild surges (which, in turn, doesn't recharge their tides ability). the subclass isn't terrible (though now with the new XGtE subclasses out, i would guess it is a bit weaker in general than those), but it also isn't without problems. similarly, berserker plays reasonably well if 99% of the time you completely ignore its signature ability to enter a frenzy, 4 elements monk works moderately well if most of the time you pretend you don't have any subclass at all and only pull out your elemental abilities on the rare occasion it is actually worthwhile, and beastmaster rangers (the non-revised version) actually do have competitive damage if you choose the right companions, but just doesn't feel like you have an independent companion so much as a remote control robot to many people.

[Malifice]

Not at all. If something is blind and attacking something that can't see it, it's a wash and it's still a normal attack without disadvantage.

Yeah, but do you actually (as DM) rule that they all keep tripping over and stuff? And cant often precisely target each other? Dex Saves or fall over. Wisdom saves or be disoriented.

You know; beyond 'advantage to hit/ disadvantage to hit' stuff.

They're fighting in darkness.

Do it properly and your PCs will find its really not a very good tactic at all.

Unless all of them have Devils sight that is.

[Kane0]

I did that once! Whole party of warlocks, everyone had darkness and devil's sight.

EB laser raves that only we could see. Good times.

[UrielAwakened]

Yeah, but do you actually (as DM) rule that they all keep tripping over and stuff? And cant often precisely target each other? Dex Saves or fall over. Wisdom saves or be disoriented.

You know; beyond 'advantage to hit/ disadvantage to hit' stuff.

They're fighting in darkness.

Do it properly and your PCs will find its really not a very good tactic at all.

Unless all of them have Devils sight that is.

Yeah but they know I'm in the center of it and it's pretty easy to call a location of a creature you can see so they can effectively target the right square.

[Malifice]

Yeah but they know I'm in the center of it and it's pretty easy to call a location of a creature you can see so they can effectively target the right square.

Try it one day. See how you go.

Darkest I've ever had it was the Malay jungles at night. Literally cant see your hand in front of your face.

You get disoriented, fast.

[RSP]

Yeah but they know I'm in the center of it and it's pretty easy to call a location of a creature you can see so they can effectively target the right square.

So long as no rogues want to use SA, or casters needing sight to target, it works, RAW.

I'd not allow questions such as "Where is So-and-So located?" to be answered out of turn, but I'm stickler for such things, and tend to emphasize the idea of the 6-second combat round.

[Nargrakhan]

I'm no expert on this topic, but I think the major misconception is that a lot of "Tiers Rating" is based on the idea of the classes being used for gladiatorial PvP'ing. For example a level 16 Fighter vs a level 16 Rogue. That's the wrong way to look at things for 5e.

In Pathfinder a vast amount of enemy encounters in official adventure material are legit Character Classes (with higher gold budget for gear and a larger point buy pool for the "bosses"). For example most anything in the NPC Codex and Villan Codex can be reproduced by a player with the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and a few sourcebooks. Also class balance in Pathfinder is completely bonkers.

5e isn't built on that sort of chassis.

I also agree with the others that Tiers have a lot to do with the GM and Player culture. I play at a table with a lot of Legend of the Five Rings experience, so in our adventures "raw power" that Tier Listers like to use, can be rendered completely moot and meaningless in many situations.

* Recalls a L5R session, where two members of our group messed up a tea ceremony and had to commit seppuku to restore our family honor - new toons were rolled to continue the campaign *

[ad_hoc]

That's the wrong way to look at things for 5e.



Yeah, I have 2 main factors for evaluating the strength of a class/subclass

1) Spotlight time
2) How close it is to playing as advertised

[Malifice]

Yeah, I have 2 main factors for evaluating the strength of a class/subclass

1) Spotlight time
2) How close it is to playing as advertised

Both those factors (1 in particular) is super DM dependent.

If your playing in a campaign where the Adventuring day isnt policed (5MWD is in effect) for whatever reason (the DM doesnt know or care about the underlying resource mechanics and assumptions of the game) then a Warlock gets no time in the spotlight (its hogged by the Long rest classes like Paladin and Casters) and is a million miles away from playing as advertised.

Thats a weakness and a strength of 5E. A DM can simply increase the number of short rests/ encounters to long rests (or can implement a rest variant) to improve both those factors.

Is your Warlock sucking bad in comparison to the party Wizard? The DM just simply dials in more short rests (and fewer long rests).

You dont have to change anything mechanical or nerf anything, or buff anything. Just vary the encounter and rest rates and you're done.

[SharkForce]

I'm no expert on this topic, but I think the major misconception is that a lot of "Tiers Rating" is based on the idea of the classes being used for gladiatorial PvP'ing. For example a level 16 Fighter vs a level 16 Rogue. That's the wrong way to look at things for 5e.

you're right. you're no expert on this topic.

tier ratings in D&D have absolutely nothing to do with PvP. it revolves entirely around two things:

1) how many things can you do.
2) how good are you at doing those things.

so for example, tier 1 is basically "does almost everything well, often better than other classes that are designed entirely around that one thing", and tier 5 is "you're not good at doing anything". tier 2 is you're good at one thing and can do other stuff but not super ridiculously well, tier 3 is you're either good at doing one thing or you're good at doing a variety of stuff but not better than others, tier 4 is you can do one thing but you're not great at it and you don't have other things you can do.

and to be clear, optimization and skilled use of your options can to some extent push you up or down a tier; a well-built fighter played well can be pretty good at one thing, a poorly built fighter played poorly can be good at nothing.

so yeah, absolutely not in the tiniest bit based on PvP matches, it is entirely based on PvE.

3.x wizards are tier 1 because they do everything well, and they do a few things exceptionally well. same with clerics and druids, artificers, archivists, and a few others.

[Naanomi]

How easy it is to ‘steal that spotlight’ is a factor to consider however...

my biggest complaint about the ranger, for example, (a class I’ve played from 1-20 and enjoyed a lot) is how immensely easy it was to cut out what made me unique... it was possible to have the spotlight when on the Coast, Fighting Sahuagin, with my Giant Crab at my side; but at the bottom of a tomb, fighting mummies, my Crab long dead with no viable replacement in sight; kind of hard to take your turn in the sun

[ad_hoc]

Both those factors (1 in particular) is super DM dependent.


I would argue all factors are DM dependent.

[Malifice]

I would argue all factors are DM dependent.

Thats what I said. I just placed a greater emphasis on 'spotlight'.

[ad_hoc]

Thats what I said. I just placed a greater emphasis on 'spotlight'.

We might be misunderstanding each other.

You said 'both' of the factors I listed are DM dependent. I am stating that in that regard all potential factors, not just the 2 I provided, are DM dependent.

[Specter]

tier ratings in D&D have absolutely nothing to do with PvP. it revolves entirely around two things:

1) how many things can you do.
2) how good are you at doing those things.

so for example, tier 1 is basically "does almost everything well, often better than other classes that are designed entirely around that one thing", and tier 5 is "you're not good at doing anything". tier 2 is you're good at one thing and can do other stuff but not super ridiculously well, tier 3 is you're either good at doing one thing or you're good at doing a variety of stuff but not better than others, tier 4 is you can do one thing but you're not great at it and you don't have other things you can do.

Based on this, we can be confident that there are no tiers 1, 4 and 5 in 5e, which is a good thing.

[mgshamster]

Based on this, we can be confident that there are no tiers 1, 4 and 5 in 5e, which is a good thing.

I think all classes fall within tier 3, but it is debatable whether some classes are actually a high tier 3 or a low tier 2. Likewise, it's debatable whether some classes are a low tier 3 or a high tier 4.

Either way, the goal of the tier system was to help DMs find game balance. The most common recommendation was to only allow classes within a three tier range if you wanted to keep decent balance so your players wouldn't feel OP or UP compared to each other during play. When designing a game, the DM should only allow, say, tiers 5-4-3, or maybe tiers 3-2-1. Or a DM could base it on what the players wanted to play. But if you allows both a tier 1 class and a tier 5 class, the tier 1 player would hog the spot light more often than not and the tier 5 player would struggle to have the spotlight at all. There's a very strong likelihood that the tier 1 player would feel OP and the tier 5 player would feel UP.

It is possible for a DM to eliminate that power difference during gameplay, but it requires a lot of skill and it's very challenging to do. If you use published adventures, it won't happen at all. If you're unaware of the tier system, it won't happen at all.

I have experienced this first hand when I played a tier 5/6 PC - I had thought I was playing a tier 2/3 PC, but I misjudged the class and after a few months of playing the class I realized just how poorly designed the class was (it was that Tactician class in Ultimate Psionics, a 3PP book for Pathfinder - all the other classes in that book we're tier 2/3, but this class was tier 5 or 6).

Regardless, the goal is still to ensure all players are playing within a three tier range So whether all the 5e classes are all tier 3, or if they range from high 4 to low 2, they're still within the recommended range of the tier system.

This means that the 5e classes are balanced well enough for player enjoyment, and no one class will give the OP or UP feeling compared to other classes when playing the game. There may be some quantifiable differences that we can detect when analysing classes, but it's unlikely you'd notice them in game - especially if you're not aware of the power differences. Even as someone who is very aware of the power differences, I still find it challenging to notice the difference in actual gameplay.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Based on this, we can be confident that there are no tiers 1, 4 and 5 in 5e, which is a good thing.
It's a very good thing. Tier 1 and 2* are both gone; Tiers 5 ("can't do anything very well, or only good at useless things") and 6 ("just plain dysfunctional") are also missing. Whether you place 5e classes in Tier 3 (can do a few things well, and other things okay/many things decently) or Tier 4 (good at one thing and nothing else/sort of okay at many things) depends a lot on how your GM handles ability checks, and to a lesser extent rests. Since both contribute to the game without needing any special mechanical consideration, I don't think it's really worth caring about.

The spellcasters all hit Tier 3 pretty easily, methinks. They can cover lots of ground, but most of the really game-breaking stuff is gone.

The Rogue is easily T3 too, methinks, with strong combat ability and great skills.
The Paladin is T3...ish-- they can fight like anyone's business, they can heal, and they need Cha enough to have good social skills (probably the most important set). On the other hand, they don't get skill-boosters and they only have a few bad utility spells.
The Ranger is probably T3 as well, perhaps falling to T4 at higher levels. The biggest weakness is their low spells known; they have trouble balancing utility spells with the combat ones they need to remain on-track there.
The Barbarian is somewhere between T3 and T4, depending on subclass, methinks. The Berserker and its ilk can't do much but kill stuff, but Totem Barbarian grants some solid utility options via things like rituals and the lv 6 abilities.
The Fighter is probably T4, with the exception of a few UA-only subclasses like Scout. They hit things and not much else, unless you make external effort to acquire capabilities.
The Monk is somewhere around T3/T4. They can fight well and scout well. Things like the Shadow Monk clearly land you in T3 with the added utility; things like Open Hand, maybe not so much.

(And as per the original system, it's important to remember that you can easily slide up a tier with an effective build, and fall a tier with a poor one, and that clever play can make a big difference)

-----------------

*Slight correction to SharkForce's explanation: Tiers 1 and 2 are distinguished from T3 (and arguably sometimes 4) by campaign-breaking ability-- a class like the Wizard or Sorcerer can not just contribute to any challenge, they can solve any challenge, easily, often in ways that bypass significant amounts of adventuring. To keep things fresh, GM has to warp the entire game around their capabilities. A T1 can do that with anything, given some prep time ("today I'm using divinations to find the tomb and teleports to get there; tomorrow I'm creating hordes of undead and bound demons to clear it with no risk to me; Wednesday I'm using divinations to find the artifact's weakness and teleports/Plane Shift to drop it in the volcano.") A T2 can only do a subset of those things.

[Knaight]

There are no tiers in 5e.

If you absolutely wants to push this concept from a different game into 5e, then all the classes are Tier 3 by those standards.


Yes, but those are the actual official tiers, not the 3.PF concept that people are trying to push into a different game.
Tiers aren't a 3.PF concept. They're a broad game concept that exists for basically any game which involves a set of mutually exclusive character/faction options large enough to make creating subcategories useful, provided that there are enough fans of the product to make and refine tier lists. They're endemic to fighting video games, show up in strategy games (although the large enough set often prevents this, if you've got three whole factions you can discuss every matchup individually pretty manageably), and absolutely apply to 5e.

Class systems produce the discrete options, and 5e has that. The number of classes alone is pretty borderline for establishing tiers, but subclasses easily push that number high enough.

It's just that you can't transfer a tier system from one game to another and expect it to hold up unless the analysis involved is extremely abstract and high level (statistical matchups and the like). The metrics behind 3.x tiers don't work well for 5e. The metrics behind Civilization tiers don't even scan transported to Smash Bros.


Using the definitions described in the OPs link, all 5e classes are Tier 3.

Some people try to break this down further by adding a S, A, B, C, D tier system, but every analysis of this kind I've seen has been opinion without any real analysis or comparison - often ignoring actual analysis in favor of surveys. It's a pseudo-tier system.
5e is still a relatively young game. It took years to accumulate the knowledge embedded in the 3.x tier system, and while 5e is a simpler game that doesn't mean that it's by any means simple. It's all still being hashed out.

[mgshamster]

5e is still a relatively young game. It took years to accumulate the knowledge embedded in the 3.x tier system, and while 5e is a simpler game that doesn't mean that it's by any means simple. It's all still being hashed out.

We're at year 3-1/2 right now. How much time is needed to do mathematical analysis of classes? I've read quite a lot of analysis on these boards, so I'm going to say the time requirement is less than 3 years.

I started playing 5e a few months after it's release date. Within the first six months, people were applying the S-D tier system to 5e. I've read every one I can find, because I've always been fascinated with the tier system coming from Pathfinder. PF's tier system is one if the reasons I left that game and gave 5e a try.

I haven't found a single S-D tier system that's based on actual analysis or provides any meaningful insight to the power differences in the game. It's all just: "there classes are strong, and those classes are weak." What's the point of them?

There's no useful information; unlike the PF tier system where it had guidelines for which tiers to allow for balanced play, the S-D system provides no such guidelines. Since all classes fall within tier 3 (arguably tiers 3-4), they'll all play relatively well with each other. The S-D system doesn't grant that knowledge. It doesn't help DMs. It doesn't help Players.

At best, the S-D tier system for 5e creates the impression of power differences without giving the reason why or the explanation on whether it will even be noticed.

Even the most recent "analysis" was just a survey with poor methodology, and continued to lay out a false narrative of power differences.

Counter to that, I have seen a lot of actual analysis on certain aspects of the game. -5/+10 has a lot of analysis, as do various fighting styles and feats. I wrote an entire background section comparing and contrasting background features and a guide for how to design new ones that fall within the current power structure of the background features.

There's been a ton of actual real analysis. And a lot of it has been very useful. It's helped people adjust their game and improve their experiences.

It's the S-D tier system itself which is lacking. Every S-D tier system analysis I've read has had poor methodology and has not provided and real value or benefit to the game. If you can find me one that actually has decent analysis and isn't just an opinion piece with no value, I'll happily read it.

[Grek]

5e's tiers aren't based on class, they're based on political power. Having an army trumps anything you get from your class abilities.

[mgshamster]

T3/T4.

One of the things I love about 5e is the background features. I love how they provide narrative power to a PC.

As we all know, the PC is more than just the class, and the background features help exemplify that in spades.

Take a high T3 class, and the background feature doesn't really add much. A high T3 class already has a lot of variability, and the feature is a drop in the bucket.

But a low T3/high T4 class? That additional boost of narrative power is what's needed to bring it up into a solid T3 PC.

So when we look at the classes by themselves, I've always admitted that it is debatable that some classes can fall into a high T4, but once you make that class into a PC, it becomes a solid T3 in options and playability. Especially when we consider the three pillars and aim to make them relatively equal in a game.

[Matticusrex]

Casters>Paladin> everything else

By ether playing enough games or just comparing numbers and utility, casters will always be the strongest in dnd till they completely revamp the whole game.

[Unoriginal]

5e's tiers aren't based on class, they're based on political power. Having an army trumps anything you get from your class abilities.


https://youtu.be/m3n5iiG_SIY


Casters>Paladin> everything else

By ether playing enough games or just comparing numbers and utility, casters will always be the strongest in dnd till they completely revamp the whole game.

That's impossible to prove, and you know it.

[Willie the Duck]

Casters>Paladin> everything else

By ether playing enough games or just comparing numbers and utility, casters will always be the strongest in dnd till they completely revamp the whole game.

Yes, we've heard that rant before, and it was certainly true in 3e/PF, and 4e was the 'completely revamped game' built around fixing that issue (and that worked out so well for WotC, right?). Whether it is true in 5e is very much up for debate. And it certainly wasn't true in much of TSR-era D&D for the levels where many people mostly played.

[Naanomi]

At high level play, casters get toys that warp gameplay in ways no martial characters get access to... so a tier system at level 13+ might have some more standing to me; though one with no where near the variation of past editions (people who say that 1e didn’t have ‘tiers’ never played a Thief who could do her schtick 13% if the time for much of her career...)

Let’s not idolize the tier systems of 3.X/Pathfinder... they were made by fiat more or less as well, and then heavily debated after they made their appearance. People with demands for ‘mathematical proof’ and the like are asking for things that didn’t exist in the system we are comparing it with in the first place.

[UrielAwakened]

By definition everything can't be tier 3 or lower.

Tier 3 requires you not be the best at something. If everyone is tier 3 some of them have to be the best at something which bumps them up to tier 2.

Most things in 5e are between tier 2 and tier 4. Some builds are arguably tier 1 in the context of a normal 6-encounter adventuring day (I'd argue any caster that can melee as effectively as a fighter is tier 1 in the context of 5e, so Sorcadin or Hexblade, or even some Clerics, Druids, and Wizards). Others are easily tier 5 or even tier 6, like the 4E Monk or the Assassin if you use the surprise rules as written.

[Chaosticket]

Healthy discussion is nice.

Okay can we agree in 5th edition the range between character classes isnt as large?

[mgshamster]

Healthy discussion is nice.

Okay can we agree in 5th edition the range between character classes isnt as large?

Absolutely. 5e has a much smaller delta value.

If we were to rank the 5e classes on a scale of 1 to 10, then the PF classes would be on a scale of -50 to 50.

There *are* power differences in 5e. They're just usually not as noticable, and the individual player style will have a much greater impact on PC power than the class will.

[Unoriginal]

It's not really a question of if we "can" agree. Most people do agree about that, and have done so for a long time.

[Sception]

4e was the 'completely revamped game' built around fixing that issue (and that worked out so well for WotC, right?).

To be fair to 4e, it had a ton of problems stacked against it that had nothing at all to do with game design, in particular the e-tools, which were very very nice, but also made purchasing the actual books irrelevant if even one person per group bought the subscription for even one month out of the year. And even without that, they had the problem of 3e's open license, which they couldn't retroactively withdraw, which meant any old company could just go on making 3e content, a particular problem given that both tabletop gamers and fantasy fans are, by and large, of a rather conservative disposition, personally if not politically.

As a result, they were stuck competing essentially against themselves at least two times over, while also trying to sell a dramatic change to a very change-averse customer base.

Sure, 4e's design was flawed on a number of painful levels (they didn't figure out how to design monsters in the system until like MM3, there was no consistency what so ever in striker damage, from day one of 4e to the day it was abandoned the designers could never figure out what it was exactly that "controllers" were supposed to be doing, tracking and rolling saves for a hundred conditions every turn made combats take forever, etc etc etc). But even if it had been an unparalleled masterpiece of perfect game design, it still would have crashed and burned financially.

[Easy_Lee]

Casters>Paladin> everything else

I've seen a Ranger significantly outperform a Vengeance Paladin in SKT. You don't want to stand close to giants even with 22AC, but it turns out giants are very susceptible to long-range hit and run tactics. All of their lairs are big enough to allow movement.

The trouble with general tier systems is that they don't consider the campaign. A sun soul monk is below the curve against most creatures but excels when fighting undead, particularly vampires. Paladins are great against most targets, but struggle when they can't get into melee or don't want to be in melee with a particular target.

It's impossible to predict DM decisions, but not impossible to analyze different encounters. An ideal tier system would consider enemy type.

[Specter]

I've seen a Ranger significantly outperform a Vengeance Paladin in SKT. You don't want to stand close to giants even with 22AC, but it turns out giants are very susceptible to long-range hit and run tactics. All of their lairs are big enough to allow movement.

The trouble with general tier systems is that they don't consider the campaign. A sun soul monk is below the curve against most creatures but excels when fighting undead, particularly vampires. Paladins are great against most targets, but struggle when they can't get into melee or don't want to be in melee with a particular target.

It's impossible to predict DM decisions, but not impossible to analyze different encounters. An ideal tier system would consider enemy type.

This.
Also, even without considering tactics, Rangers will always be better than Paladins when it comes to hordes; trouble is most DMs don't run mass combat, so that strenght is diminished.

[sithlordnergal]

Level 20 doesn't matter.

Significantly less than 1% of campaigns will get there, and the ones that do will spend very little of total campaign time there.

It's also when everything is bonkers anyway. Really everything at level 17+ is completely bonkers.


Heh, I keep forgetting not everyone plays AL where you can use your character at any game, as long as they're in the right tier. Which makes it very easy to reach level 20. X3

Even before level 20, Moon Druids are exceptionally dangerous, especially in Tomb of Annihilation with the dino forms open to you. Full spell casting, plenty of powerful spells, a decent amount of temp hp. They may not have the nova power of a Soradin, but they make up for it with versatility and their spells.

[GlenSmash!]

This.
Also, even without considering tactics, Rangers will always be better than Paladins when it comes to hordes; trouble is most DMs don't run mass combat, so that strenght is diminished.

I always lean towards hordes. A single goblin can make an encounter harder than maxing HP on the Big Bad (at least a big bag with no legendary actions), just due to the action economy.

I can make a Barbarian that will go toe to toe with a Giant or Balor, but against an equivalent CR of Hobgoblins? Man that gives me nightmares.

[SharkForce]

I've seen a Ranger significantly outperform a Vengeance Paladin in SKT. You don't want to stand close to giants even with 22AC, but it turns out giants are very susceptible to long-range hit and run tactics. All of their lairs are big enough to allow movement.

The trouble with general tier systems is that they don't consider the campaign. A sun soul monk is below the curve against most creatures but excels when fighting undead, particularly vampires. Paladins are great against most targets, but struggle when they can't get into melee or don't want to be in melee with a particular target.

It's impossible to predict DM decisions, but not impossible to analyze different encounters. An ideal tier system would consider enemy type.

they kind of do account for that. not perfectly of course, but again, how many different things you can do and how well you do them factors in the possibility that some of the things you can do are not always going to be relevant.

but in any event, as has been said... there are definitely differences in class/subclass power in 5e... but they're much too small to use the 3.X tier system. it would need a different system... people who like champions or barbarians or 4 element monks are generally finding themselves enjoying the play experience alongside people who like )divination) wizards and lore bards and arcana clerics and druids (i refuse to specify moon druids; they have 2 power spikes that make them substantially better than any other druid; one probably lasts from 1-3 sessions, the other is never seen by the great majority of players).

now, that said, i do think some sort of tier system is useful... some classes simply don't feel as good, and generally speaking that is paired with the class struggling to perform mechanically (though not always). it is *far* easier to screw yourself over as a sorcerer than it is to screw yourself over as a druid, for example, and many people don't understand exactly what it is that a monk is supposed to do, which is a problem because monks are pretty bad if you don't make good use of their abilities. that kind of information is valuable, especially from a design perspective. but it wouldn't serve the same purpose as the 3.x tiers at all.

[Matticusrex]

I've seen a Ranger significantly outperform a Vengeance Paladin in SKT. You don't want to stand close to giants even with 22AC, but it turns out giants are very susceptible to long-range hit and run tactics. All of their lairs are big enough to allow movement.

The trouble with general tier systems is that they don't consider the campaign. A sun soul monk is below the curve against most creatures but excels when fighting undead, particularly vampires. Paladins are great against most targets, but struggle when they can't get into melee or don't want to be in melee with a particular target.

It's impossible to predict DM decisions, but not impossible to analyze different encounters. An ideal tier system would consider enemy type.

The point of paladins being better is that they have more situations that allow them to outperform a ranger than the reverse. High-tier tanking with incredible support abilities with no sacrifice to damage. Also that SKT example is anecdotal.

[ProseBeforeHos]

I'd say there's basically four tiers in DnD 5e, though everything is campaign dependent and overall the game is pretty well balanced.

I'd break it down like so:

Above Curve: Life Cleric, Lore Bard, Divination Wizard, Oath of Ancients/Vengeance Paladins, Moon druid, maybe UA Ranger etc.

Playable: Vast majority of classes/subclasses go here.

Poorly Designed: Berserker Barb, Wild Magic Sorcerer, Whispers bard, Kensai etc.

Virtually Unplayable/Major Design Fail: Four Elements Monk and most egregiously, PHB Beastmaster.


At high level play, casters get toys that warp gameplay in ways no martial characters get access to.

Though this is also true. At a high enough level every dedicated caster becomes amazing.

[Easy_Lee]

The point of paladins being better is that they have more situations that allow them to outperform a ranger than the reverse. High-tier tanking with incredible support abilities with no sacrifice to damage. Also that SKT example is anecdotal.

A paladin might overshadow a ranger in more campaigns, or might not. What matters is the campaign and the DM.

It's misleading to say X is better than Y when there are situations where Y is better than X. What you should say instead is that X excels in these ways, and Y excels in those.

Longbow wielding hunter rangers excel at dealing with powerful but slow targets, hordes of weak creatures, ranged opponents, and scouting in wilderness situations. Paladins excel at damage mitigation, single target melee damage, and have decent healing capabilities. Knowing that, an individual player can decide which is better in his campaign.

[Knaight]

Okay can we agree in 5th edition the range between character classes isnt as large?
This point is pretty unanimous.


It's misleading to say X is better than Y when there are situations where Y is better than X. What you should say instead is that X excels in these ways, and Y excels in those.

That two distributions have some overlap in no way prevents one from saying that one distribution skews higher, and requiring an option to totally eclipse another option in every regard to be called generally better is inane.

[Easy_Lee]

That two distributions have some overlap in no way prevents one from saying that one distribution skews higher, and requiring an option to totally eclipse another option in every regard to be called generally better is inane.

These aren't distributions, they're characters in completely different scenarios. That's not a scientific test, you don't graph it. And it isn't that one option eclipses another in every regard in this case, but that the options have different strengths.

We can say the Paladin is better than the Ranger in dungeons when fighting enemies with low to-hit bonuses who favor melee. We can also say the Ranger is better at fighting slow, powerful enemies outdoors.

Tiers are not useful. Statements of strengths and weaknesses are.

We might come up with tiers for specific attributes, such as AC. That would be useful. But ordering the classes by their presumed effectiveness in an unknown and unknowable campaign does not help anyone.

[Knaight]

These aren't distributions, they're characters in completely different scenarios. That's not a scientific test, you don't graph it. And it isn't that one option eclipses another in every regard in this case, but that the options have different strengths.

Sure, and if you take a large set of scenarios, apply them to characters, and sort the resultant power across scenarios from least to most you get a distribution out of it. It's a very soft, qualitative distribution but it's a distribution.

[Easy_Lee]

Sure, and if you take a large set of scenarios, apply them to characters, and sort the resultant power across scenarios from least to most you get a distribution out of it. It's a very soft, qualitative distribution but it's a distribution.

Sure, but it says nothing about the individual player in the individual campaign. Bringing a Vengeance Paladin is great in some campaigns, but not so great in others (such as SKT where giants have +11 to hit and kill anyone in two or three swings). In that campaign, you'd much rather bring a Sharpshooter Rogue, for instance.

If players know the strengths and weaknesses of each class and archetype, they can pick one which suits their specific campaign.

[Naanomi]

I’ve yet to see an AL campaign situation where I would greatly prefer to have a Beastmaster on my team over a... let’s say Rogue/Barbarian. The recognition of relative capabilities has to have some recognition even if in some corner case the ‘weaker’ option is superior. I’ll bet there were scenarios in which a Truenamer in 3.5 was preferable to a Druid. But that doesn’t mean comparing the two is fruitless

[Easy_Lee]

I’ve yet to see an AL campaign situation where I would greatly prefer to have a Beastmaster on my team over a... let’s say Rogue/Barbarian. The recognition of relative capabilities has to have some recognition even if in some corner case the ‘weaker’ option is superior. I’ll bet there were scenarios in which a Truenamer in 3.5 was preferable to a Druid. But that doesn’t mean comparing the two is fruitless

Base BM is particularly awful and hard to work with, but it doesn't necessitate general character tiers by itself. It's possible to build characters with no real strengths. WotC just happens to have done so for us in some specific archetypes.

[mgshamster]

Virtually Unplayable/Major Design Fail: Four Elements Monk and most egregiously, PHB Beastmaster.

This is what bothers me about supposed tier systems in 5e. This claim right here that these classes are virtually unplayable.

This is demonstratively false. These classes are not unplayable - they keep up perfectly fine with other classes.

The BM doesn't even have a lower power level, and as far as the 3.X tier system, they're actually more powerful in the exploration pillar than many other classes. Mechanically, they work just fine when they have their companion, and are even better when they're in their terrain or dealing with a favored enemy. They do their thing well, and can do other things fairly ok.

The four elements monk is also rather playable. It's slightly behind the power curve, but it's by no means unplayable or a major design flaw. All it needs is a small boost in ki points, say an extra point every 3-5 levels, and it's right at par. And even then, it's still a full on Monk, which is a fantastic class.

The pseudo tier system people have generated for 5e continues to repeat these misguided claims that these classes absolutely suck, but they don't suck. Especially compared to some of the tier 5 and 6 classes of Pathfinder.

People repeat the claims with zero understanding of why they're considered below par, and then exaggerated them to the point where they blindly claim they're unplayable. It's a false narrative.

[Naanomi]

Rangers don’t actually have a whole lot of advantages in the exploration pillar, which is kind of a big part of why they feel like a bummer. Not enough spells known or per day to utilize them for a lot of utility, at least not consistently... some stealth/scouting abilities far later than the rogue gets the same thing or better...

Favored Enemy is a language and the equivalent of the Help action in most situations; and Natural Explorer is bonuses on certain checks if you were lucky to know what terrain the campaign was in (and that isn’t city, extraplanar, tombs, more than three types of places, etc)... even the special bonuses of Natural Explorer are pretty fringe in most cases, or likely replicatable with a good Survival check.

Compound that with a Subclass that can be killed, and you have the makings for disappointment on more than one occasion. I played one from 1-20, and enjoyed the character; but went into it knowing it would rarely shine, and I was correct in that assumption

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is what bothers me about supposed tier systems in 5e. This claim right here that these classes are virtually unplayable.

This is demonstratively false. These classes are not unplayable - they keep up perfectly fine with other classes.

The BM doesn't even have a lower power level, and as far as the 3.X tier system, they're actually more powerful in the exploration pillar than many other classes. Mechanically, they work just fine when they have their companion, and are even better when they're in their terrain or dealing with a favored enemy. They do their thing well, and can do other things fairly ok.

The four elements monk is also rather playable. It's slightly behind the power curve, but it's by no means unplayable or a major design flaw. All it needs is a small boost in ki points, say an extra point every 3-5 levels, and it's right at par. And even then, it's still a full on Monk, which is a fantastic class.

The pseudo tier system people have generated for 5e continues to repeat these misguided claims that these classes absolutely suck, but they don't suck. Especially compared to some of the tier 5 and 6 classes of Pathfinder.

People repeat the claims with zero understanding of why they're considered below par, and then exaggerated them to the point where they blindly claim they're unplayable. It's a false narrative.


Rangers don’t actually have a whole lot of advantages in the exploration pillar, which is kind of a big part of why they feel like a bummer. Not enough spells known or per day to utilize them for a lot of utility, at least not consistently... some stealth/scouting abilities far later than the rogue gets the same thing or better...

Favored Enemy is a language and the equivalent of the Help action in most situations; and Natural Explorer is bonuses on certain checks if you were lucky to know what terrain the campaign was in (and that isn’t city, extraplanar, tombs, more than three types of places, etc)... even the special bonuses of Natural Explorer are pretty fringe in most cases, or likely replicatable with a good Survival check.

Compound that with a Subclass that can be killed, and you have the makings for disappointment on more than one occasion. I played one from 1-20, and enjoyed the character; but went into it knowing it would rarely shine, and I was correct in that assumption

Rangers, and BM rangers especially, are probably the most DM-dependent class. Warlocks depend on getting enough short rests, but otherwise are flexible. Rangers need the right balance of exploration (and in the right terrains), large-group combat, and BM rangers need mercy on the DM's part toward the pet.

But they're not unplayable by any stretch of the imagination. They're no truenamers, no warriors, no CW samurai. Not even a 3.5 monk, who had many mutually-contradictory features leading to self-anti-synergy.

[Specter]

This is what bothers me about supposed tier systems in 5e. This claim right here that these classes are virtually unplayable.

This is demonstratively false. These classes are not unplayable - they keep up perfectly fine with other classes.

The BM doesn't even have a lower power level, and as far as the 3.X tier system, they're actually more powerful in the exploration pillar than many other classes. Mechanically, they work just fine when they have their companion, and are even better when they're in their terrain or dealing with a favored enemy. They do their thing well, and can do other things fairly ok.

The four elements monk is also rather playable. It's slightly behind the power curve, but it's by no means unplayable or a major design flaw. All it needs is a small boost in ki points, say an extra point every 3-5 levels, and it's right at par. And even then, it's still a full on Monk, which is a fantastic class.

The pseudo tier system people have generated for 5e continues to repeat these misguided claims that these classes absolutely suck, but they don't suck. Especially compared to some of the tier 5 and 6 classes of Pathfinder.

People repeat the claims with zero understanding of why they're considered below par, and then exaggerated them to the point where they blindly claim they're unplayable. It's a false narrative.

Yep.

In a worst case scenario, BM Ranger has an NPC that will defend him after he's down, or a meat shield that got damaged before he did.

Four Elements Monk is still the only monk that can spend ki to boost the damage of his attack when needed, and also the only monk that has a horde option (other than Long Death's Hour of Reaping, but that's too unselective).

[Naanomi]

and also the only monk that has a horde option (other than Long Death's Hour of Reaping, but that's too unselective).
Sunsoul has some AoE

Also, ‘guy that has some more HP last session, and may have some more if you find another beast in this crypt’ is not an impressive character... less so on the ranger chassis even

[sithlordnergal]

People seem to be using outlier cases to try and make a case for there being no tiers abd that all the classes are relativly equal strength. For this I ask you these questions:

If I snagged lets say...100 random combat scenarios from all of the current hard cover campaigns, which would be more useful in a majority of thise fights. Your long ranged ranger, or your paladin? Which would have the higher survival rating, the ranger or the paladin? Which would be more effective in combat, the ranger or the paladin?

Now, while I have not played all of the hardcovers for 5e, I have played enough to notice a trend. Most combat does not happen at long range. I can name four times we had a purely ranged battle. Those times were:

1) When my paladin got stuck on top of a 200 ft. tall cliff because the only rope leading down was cut before I could climb it

2) when my paladin was on an airship in Storm King's Thunder and we were attacked in the air.

3) When the DM had us fight a dragon that could get total cover in areas we could not easily get to. I.E. we had to spend a dash just to reach it, then it disengaged and flew to a different spot. Fun fact, the ranger in the party was instantly killed by an ice breath from the dragon near the begining of the fight. So he ended up being rather useless

4) Our DM was kind and allowed us to lure out the flail snail in Underworld Speculation, the Xanathar's Guide adventure, so we hid in the castle and shot it from a distance.

Other then that, all fights have been within melee range. Not because we wanted to do melee mind you. When we started SKT we wanted to see if a party of only wizards could survive it. So we tried to stay at range as much as possible. No, it was melee because that is what most of the combats in the modules and books are.

You can't take an outlier case and use it as the basis for Rangers being just as good as Paladins. Yes, Paladins have a weakness that Rangers do not. A Ranger is generally going to do better at ranged combat then the Paladin. However the Paladin is going to have much more utility and versatility then the Ranger. Without dealing any damage the Paladin can:

-Buff an ally's saves

-Heal an ally for a fair amount of hp without spending a spell slot

-Buff the party with spells such as Bless, Heroism, Shield of Faith, and more as they gain higher level spells

-Heal an ally with Cure Wounds

-Revive an ally with Revivify if needed or remove a curse with remove Curse

-Has one of the better out of combat healing spells

-Literally gains their own Animal Companion with Find Steed. While the Find Steed spell may not improve the steed's hp, attack, and such, the Paladin also doesn't have to spend an attack action to get it to attack. Also, if the steed dies the Paladin can get it back with a 10 minute spell, the Ranger gets an animal back with 8 hours

And depending on your Oath

- You can provide resistance to all spell damage to all allies, or you can have advantage on an enemy for 10 rounds


And the same holds true with all of the above curve subclasses. They have versatility along with the normal things their base class offers. A Diviner Wizard can dramatically change a fight by possibly forcing a spell save to fail, or force a save to succeed, while still having the power of a Wizard.

The Moon Druid has a stronger Wild Shape that eventually allows them to turn into full Elementals along, and eventually lets them cast in beast/elemental form, while still having all the spells of a full caster Druid.

The Lore Bard is capable of debuffing enemy attack and damage rolls, gains two extra spells from any spell list they want, and gains about as many skills as a Rogue, all while having the buffing power of Inspiration, Expertise, full access to the Bard Spell list, and the slots of a full caster.

Meanwhile the below curve classes can do amazing things, but they won't shine as bright unless they are in very specific circumstances. The Four Elements Monk can do some awesome things, but is plagued by how much their awesome things cost in Ki points, and the fact that everything else about their class besides Martial Arts and their Unarmored AC revolves around burning Ki Points.

The Beastmaster can be great, but only if you have a kind enough DM to give you a really good 1/4 cr beast. And even if you get the best 1/4 CR beast in the game, you might still struggle.

Like it or not, the Four Elements Monk and PHB Beastmaster Ranger are going to generally be weaker then the classes that are above curve except in very specific circumstances. And that is the point of a tier system in 5e. It is to show you which classes are going to do better 8-9 times out of 10. Yes, one or two times the top tier class will fall flat. Which is good, it means even the best classes have a weakness. They aren't like the 3.5 Wizard who was essentially a God when they reached a high enough level. But at the same time, if a class is great 8-9 times out of 10, then that means they are a stronger class. And if one thing is stronger then the other, then you now have a tier.

EDIT: Also, many of the issues the above curve subclasses face can be easily fixed with a dip of 1-2 levels. Need a ranged attack for Paladins? 1 level of Sorcerer or Warlock fixes it. Snag 2 levels of warlock to get him a ranged attack competative to most other ranged attackers.

Need more AC for your Lore Bard or Wizard? A single level of Fighter fixes that instantly, giving you the Defense Fighting Style and access to Medium or Heavy Armor. And if you are a Lore Bard in need of cantrips that don't rely on saving throws, snag Draconic Sorcerer instead.

Druid having some issues with staying in Wild Shape? Well, as long as you know you aren't going to level 20, snag a level of Barbarian to rage. Or snag a few levels of Barbarian, go Bear Totem, and gain Resistance to all damage but psychic while raging along with extra damage with strength based attacks.

Is your Life Cleric having trouble because everyone makes their Dex save against Sacred Flame, or their Wisdom Save against Toll of the Dead? A feat fixes that. And technically there are no consequences to Druids wearing metal armor in RAW, and Sage Advice simply says "If you feel strongly about your druid breaking the taboo and donning metal, talk to your DM". So technically you could take a level of Druid, wear plate armor, and have no bad side effects by RAW.

Where as it is far harder to fix the lack of Ki Points for a Four Elements Monk, and harder to gain more then two attacks in a round that you can use to order your beast to attack with through mutliclassing and feats

[mgshamster]

100 random combat scenarios...

Your entire post is wasted on the fact that 5e has three pillars, and you're only addressing one of them to determine your tier system.

That's another problem with the 5e tier system - every single one I've seen proposed only addresses combat and completely ignores the social and exploration pillars.

[sithlordnergal]

Your entire post is wasted on the fact that 5e has three pillars, and you're only addressing one of them to determine your tier system.

That's another problem with the 5e tier system - every single one I've seen proposed only addresses combat and completely ignores the social and exploration pillars.

Alright, lets look at social and exploration. Let's continue to use Ranger and Paladin for the sake of consistency.

Exploration: This I will give to the ranger, but it might not be for the reasons you think. The Ranger doesn't get this due to Natural Explorer. Why? Because sadly, the way it works and the way it is worded makes it difficult to use, and most DMs I meet ignore it.

First you need to be in your favored terrain. Now, the ease of getting to your favored terrain varies by campaign. For example, Tomb of Ahnniliation is pretty easy to guess. You're in the jungles of Chult, you had best choose forest. Out of the Abyss mostly takes place in the Underdark, easy enough there. But outside of those two, the terrain can vary greatly. You might choose forest only to spend levels 1-5 in the mountains. Then at level 6 the campaign ends up sending you to the ocean. Unless you know exactly the terrain of the campains you're playing, it's a crap shoot. And it is even worse with the modules.

Next, you have to travel in that terrain for an hour before you recieve any of the other benefits, which include not getting lost, not being effected by difficult terrain while traveling, remaining "alert to danger", you find twice as much food, and you can track things easier.

Welp, not even counting the fact that I have yet to see an adventure that doesn't just handwave most travel times, unless there is a story reason not to like in ToA, most of the effects aren't very useful.

You can't get lost! But oh...a survival check generally helps prevent you from getting lost. And again, unless there is a story reason, like in ToA, you aren't going to get lost during travel time because few players enjoy being told you got lost and now have to make a few rolls to get where you're going. Since most sessions aren't that long to begin with, you have better uses of your limited time then getting lost.

You're not effected by difficult terrain!! But oh, that doesn't come into effect during combat. It only occurs during the travel time. Which, again, will usually be hand waved unless there is a veru important clock running in the world. I doubt most players would be concerned with reaching the city in two days rather then one day if there is no timer.

You remain alert to danger. Welp, they certainly left that open for interpretation. Does it mean you can't be surprised? It can't have much to do with passive perception since that is always on unless you're asleep. Maybe active perception? Who knows. Even if it did have things to do with not being surprised, so few DMs actually follow Surprise Round rules that it, along with Alert, the Sentinal Shield, and Weapons of Warning, are close to useless anyway.

The only useful one is forging for food, but Goodberry is better because it supplies nourishment for an entire day. So no need to forage for food.

Now, why did I give Rangers the exploration? Because they are likely to have a higher Wisdom Mod then a Paladin due to their spell casting, which means their perception is better, and they have Favored Enemy that lets them remember details about their Favored Enemy. Which, again, is highly difficult to use 100% of the time. And that's it, that's what they get. And honestly, the Rogue and Bard outshine both of them thanks to Expertise.


Next up, social: I am giving the Paladin this one. They are generally seen as the party face when the Sorcerer or Bard isn't around. And even if the Sorcerer is nearby, the Paladin is still considered the party face. And Paladins have all the right tools to do it. Rangers have traditionally been the "Outdoor loner who can survive in the wilderness on their own". They aren't usually much for talking.

Now don't get me wrong, any character can be great at social aspects with the right skill selection and ability scores. And the social aspect relies just as much on the player as the character. If you aren't good at picking up on things that your character might, then your character might have that issue too. Even if they have plenty of insight, persuasion, and what have you. But even then the Paladin will likely be the party face more often then the Ranger.

Not to mention the Paladin has more spells that can be used in social settings then the Ranger. Detect Evil and Good, Purify Food and Drink, Detect Magic, ect. They are all handy little social spells.

The only time the Ranger beats the Paladin in the social gameplay is if animals are involved.


So, once again we are left in a situation where the Ranger outshines the Paladin in areas that are very specific, and are practically tailor made for the Ranger to shine. And in at least one of those situations, the Paladin could be better depending on respective Wisdom scores.

[SharkForce]

Virtually Unplayable/Major Design Fail: Four Elements Monk and most egregiously, PHB Beastmaster.



Though this is also true. At a high enough level every dedicated caster becomes amazing.

i would remove "virtually unplayable" from that category. major design fail, yes. PHB beastmaster is a subclass that can be taken away from you trivially, simply by monsters not being stupid, and while it is actually reasonably powerful when you have it (but not dramatically more so than other ranger subclasses), still frequently feels bad. four elements monk has barely any synergy at all with the base class it is a subclass for, and costs so much that using your subclass features will substantially reduce the effectiveness of your base class. but neither is really unplayable. they *are* failures in design, though. and perhaps worst of all, they're on base classes that were already struggling (ranger could use a bit more mechanical oomph imo, even something as simple as being able to change spells daily and a bit more help with skills, maybe expertise in a skill of their choice from a small list or something, and as i mentioned a lot of people don't seem to understand what exactly it is that a monk does in the first place, and a monk who stands next to the fighter punching the skeletal ogres in the front line while the enemy necromancer behind that ogre spams debuffs and nukes is just not going to shine).

but unplayable? no. the 4 elements monk is still a monk. if you completely ignore your subclass, you can do the job of a monk. that's still a design failure, because you shouldn't have to forget about being a 4 elements monk just so that you can be a monk, but it isn't unplayable. even a beastmaster ranger without their pet can be built to function reasonably effectively in combat, and will contribute. and i don't mean "grab sharpshooter and crossbow expert and go to town" either (although that will probably be more effective than not having those feats), simply using their basic ability to make attacks will allow them to be useful in combat. again, this is still a design failure, because it feels clunky and unsatisfying even with the pet unless you ride it and your entire subclass can disappear if the enemies attack it. but it isn't unplayable, just a lot worse than it needs to be.

[Sir_Leorik]

I am trying to find out what the tiers in 5th edition are so far.

There aren't any tiers of classes the way there was in 3.X/PF. No class or build is able to god mode the game the way 3.X Wizards and CoDzilllas could, and even a 4Elements Monk can contribute to the game if he chooses Elemental Disciplines wisely. (I have actually seen an inexperienced player choose 4Elements, so I can say that it really does depend on what you're doing. If you choose Ride the Wind you will be contributing much more to a group than if you are trying to benefit from pumping all your ki into Fangs of the Fire Snake.) There is really only one subclass that I've never seen chosen in play, and that is Berserker Barbarian because Frenzy can be lethal.


Or in other words it is a class that can do combat and non-combat well.

You're stuck in a binary way of thinking. In 5E combat is one of three pillars of the game, the other two being the environment and social interaction. A smart player builds their PC to excel at at least two pillars. My SKT PC is a Half-Elf Devoted Paladin with the City Watch background who fights with a glaive using the Polearm Master feat. He is proficient in Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Medicine, Perception, and Persuasion. He's effective in combat, is ideal in social situations, speaks Giant in a campaign involving Giants, and can climb. That covers aspects of all three pillars.

A PC that can only contribute in combat, but can't spot enemies, talk to people, or even climb over a wall, are not optimally designed for a 5E campaign. Take for example, Tomb of Annihilation. It has a social component (finding a guide, interacting with natives) and a very involved exploration component. Combat occurs but at times you will spend more time exploring than fighting.


Okay can we agree in 5th edition the range between character classes isnt as large?

It barely exists. The difference between subclasses is also miniscule. A Divination Wizard may play differently than a Bladesinger, but at the end of the day neither really outshines the other.

[Unoriginal]

It's funny how people who talk about character builds for 5e almost always forget backgrounds. Unless as a way to grab a couple proficiencies

[Matticusrex]

It's funny how people who talk about character builds for 5e almost always forget backgrounds. Unless as a way to grab a couple proficiencies

Because you can just craft the perfect one for your character with the custom background rules, so there's no reason to really discuss it much.

[Unoriginal]

Because you can just craft the perfect one for your character with the custom background rules, so there's no reason to really discuss it much.

Aside from, you know, even a custom background being part of the character.

[mgshamster]

Exploration:.

Every example you gave has been heavily included in nearly every 5e campaign I've played in. It's very prominent in Out of the Abyss - the first 5e game I DMd, and the exploration pillar comes up quite a bit in AL games. It's come up all quite often in the SKT game I'm in. It's come up in two of the three homebrew games I've played in, and the one that didn't come up was run by an inexperienced teenager who was DMing for the first time. In fact, the only game I've been in where the combat pillar was the only one used was a game of LMoP where all we did was combat after combat and completely ignored everything else in the book.

Which means that, basically, you're claiming your own personal experience trumps my experience and the design of the game, and that just because you personally handwave away the exploration pillar means that the pillar isn't that important. This means that your analysis is based not on how the game is designed, but how you personally play.

Which means that once again, I'm accurate in my assessment that 5e tier systems are based on personal opinion and not any sort of real analysis of the game.

[mgshamster]

It's funny how people who talk about character builds for 5e almost always forget backgrounds. Unless as a way to grab a couple proficiencies

You may have missed it, but earlier I claimed backgrounds as a way to bring high tier 4/low tier 3 classes up to the mid tier 3 range when accounting for a whole PC rather than just looking at a class.

That extra bit of narrative power from the background feature is enough to provide the extra versatility needed in a narrow minded class.

But in general, yes, most people ignore backgrounds when looking at builds. They probably either forget about them or don't see the potential they provide. Or - in the case of many a power gamer - believe that anything with DM dependency is bad and is therefore discounted.

[Unoriginal]

Doesn't help that a good part of exploration and social aren't strictly mechanical, or at least not in a character class-dependant way.

But yeah, try doing Tomb of Annihilation without exploration or social.

[Specter]

Alright, lets look at social and exploration. Let's continue to use Ranger and Paladin for the sake of consistency.

Exploration: This I will give to the ranger, but it might not be for the reasons you think. The Ranger doesn't get this due to Natural Explorer. Why? Because sadly, the way it works and the way it is worded makes it difficult to use, and most DMs I meet ignore it.

First you need to be in your favored terrain. Now, the ease of getting to your favored terrain varies by campaign. For example, Tomb of Ahnniliation is pretty easy to guess. You're in the jungles of Chult, you had best choose forest. Out of the Abyss mostly takes place in the Underdark, easy enough there. But outside of those two, the terrain can vary greatly. You might choose forest only to spend levels 1-5 in the mountains. Then at level 6 the campaign ends up sending you to the ocean. Unless you know exactly the terrain of the campains you're playing, it's a crap shoot. And it is even worse with the modules.

Next, you have to travel in that terrain for an hour before you recieve any of the other benefits, which include not getting lost, not being effected by difficult terrain while traveling, remaining "alert to danger", you find twice as much food, and you can track things easier.

Welp, not even counting the fact that I have yet to see an adventure that doesn't just handwave most travel times, unless there is a story reason not to like in ToA, most of the effects aren't very useful.

You can't get lost! But oh...a survival check generally helps prevent you from getting lost. And again, unless there is a story reason, like in ToA, you aren't going to get lost during travel time because few players enjoy being told you got lost and now have to make a few rolls to get where you're going. Since most sessions aren't that long to begin with, you have better uses of your limited time then getting lost.

You're not effected by difficult terrain!! But oh, that doesn't come into effect during combat. It only occurs during the travel time. Which, again, will usually be hand waved unless there is a veru important clock running in the world. I doubt most players would be concerned with reaching the city in two days rather then one day if there is no timer.

You remain alert to danger. Welp, they certainly left that open for interpretation. Does it mean you can't be surprised? It can't have much to do with passive perception since that is always on unless you're asleep. Maybe active perception? Who knows. Even if it did have things to do with not being surprised, so few DMs actually follow Surprise Round rules that it, along with Alert, the Sentinal Shield, and Weapons of Warning, are close to useless anyway.

The only useful one is forging for food, but Goodberry is better because it supplies nourishment for an entire day. So no need to forage for food.

Now, why did I give Rangers the exploration? Because they are likely to have a higher Wisdom Mod then a Paladin due to their spell casting, which means their perception is better, and they have Favored Enemy that lets them remember details about their Favored Enemy. Which, again, is highly difficult to use 100% of the time. And that's it, that's what they get. And honestly, the Rogue and Bard outshine both of them thanks to Expertise.

Next up, social: I am giving the Paladin this one. They are generally seen as the party face when the Sorcerer or Bard isn't around. And even if the Sorcerer is nearby, the Paladin is still considered the party face. And Paladins have all the right tools to do it. Rangers have traditionally been the "Outdoor loner who can survive in the wilderness on their own". They aren't usually much for talking.

Now don't get me wrong, any character can be great at social aspects with the right skill selection and ability scores. And the social aspect relies just as much on the player as the character. If you aren't good at picking up on things that your character might, then your character might have that issue too. Even if they have plenty of insight, persuasion, and what have you. But even then the Paladin will likely be the party face more often then the Ranger.

Not to mention the Paladin has more spells that can be used in social settings then the Ranger. Detect Evil and Good, Purify Food and Drink, Detect Magic, ect. They are all handy little social spells.

The only time the Ranger beats the Paladin in the social gameplay is if animals are involved.

So, once again we are left in a situation where the Ranger outshines the Paladin in areas that are very specific, and are practically tailor made for the Ranger to shine. And in at least one of those situations, the Paladin could be better depending on respective Wisdom scores.

Obviously, the Paladin is more social than the Ranger. But the Ranger is the best at wilderness exploration, while the Paladin is just good in the social department (not great).

Rangers get 3 skills instead of Paladin's 2. This needs no explanation. With the combination of Natural Explorer (especially the expertised skills, which you seem to have forgotten), Favored Enemy, and the spells they get, no one can get you 'there and back again' as the Ranger. The only one who can compete is a dedicated Rogue (which has expertised skills in any terrain), but they would still lack the spells goodness.
You mentioned foraging is made useless by Goodberry. Then I guess it's a good thing that Rangers do have Goodberry, and if they don't pick it, then they can still forage.

In the social department, what you want are the skills, Expertise on them, ways to give yourself and/or dice boosts, and the spells to do it (too many to even mention). Bard is king in all of these departments, followed by Arcane Trickster, then regular rogues, then Sorcerers/Warlocks (for their spell list), and then Paladin. The only thing they bring to the table in that department is skill proficiency. The paladin spells you mentioned have nothing to do with social ability, except maybe for PFaD, but that's just anecdoctal.

You can't build a social god based on a Paladin, but you can build the exploration king based off a Ranger. Which is why Rangers don't need to keep up damage-wise with Fighters and Paladins, they can bring something else to the table.

[mgshamster]

You can't build a social god based on a Paladin, but you can build the exploration king based off a Ranger. Which is why Rangers don't need to keep up damage-wise with Fighters and Paladins, they can bring something else to the table.Even with that, I've seen some math here on GitP and other forums that shows the BM ranger is equal or even exceeds the damage output of many other classes. Even then - look at the premise of his combat analysis. It's all based on guessing how often ranged combat comes into play, and then discounting a ranged ranger based on that guess. I built a melee ranger for SKT, and have found myself using my bow way more often than I use my flail. And I've seen ranged options come up in almost every AL game I've played so far (only one that didn't was a cave exploration one that specifically had small rooms). So I'm disinclined to believe his opinion that ranged combat doesn't really come up in 5e.

Amusingly, that same ranger has a -2 int check, and I still make most of my knowledge checks on giants thanks to having advantage on all knowledge checks on my favored enemies.

[Unoriginal]

Ranged combat is generally considered really powerful in 5e.

Being targeted by 15 goblin arrows isn't laughing matter.

[Zalabim]

By definition everything can't be tier 3 or lower.

Tier 3 requires you not be the best at something. If everyone is tier 3 some of them have to be the best at something which bumps them up to tier 2.

Most things in 5e are between tier 2 and tier 4. Some builds are arguably tier 1 in the context of a normal 6-encounter adventuring day (I'd argue any caster that can melee as effectively as a fighter is tier 1 in the context of 5e, so Sorcadin or Hexblade, or even some Clerics, Druids, and Wizards). Others are easily tier 5 or even tier 6, like the 4E Monk or the Assassin if you use the surprise rules as written.
That's not the tier definitions being talked about. The definitions are in the linked post, and by those definitions, no one is Tier 2 in 5e. Nor is anyone easily tier 5 or 6. The actual characters will usually be really good at something useful, good and versatile (end tier 3) really good at something not always useful, OR good or versatile (end tier 4). Grod also gives a good explanation of what sets Tier 1 and 2 apart here:
*Slight correction to SharkForce's explanation: Tiers 1 and 2 are distinguished from T3 (and arguably sometimes 4) by campaign-breaking ability-- a class like the Wizard or Sorcerer can not just contribute to any challenge, they can solve any challenge, easily, often in ways that bypass significant amounts of adventuring. To keep things fresh, GM has to warp the entire game around their capabilities. A T1 can do that with anything, given some prep time ("today I'm using divinations to find the tomb and teleports to get there; tomorrow I'm creating hordes of undead and bound demons to clear it with no risk to me; Wednesday I'm using divinations to find the artifact's weakness and teleports/Plane Shift to drop it in the volcano.") A T2 can only do a subset of those things.

[I had to cut a lot here]...
You remain alert to danger. Welp, they certainly left that open for interpretation. Does it mean you can't be surprised? It can't have much to do with passive perception since that is always on unless you're asleep. Maybe active perception? Who knows. Even if it did have things to do with not being surprised, so few DMs actually follow Surprise Round rules that it, along with Alert, the Sentinal Shield, and Weapons of Warning, are close to useless anyway.
...[on this end too]
It means you can keep your passive perception available and working to notice dangers even when your ranger is performing other activities while traveling, like Navigating (except rangers don't typically navigate since they cannot usually get lost), Mapping, Tracking, Foraging, or some other activity with the DMs permission. Ref: Activity While Traveling, Pg 182/183. Not saying it changes the value of Natural Explorer, just answering that it is not left open for interpretation.

The spellcasters all hit Tier 3 pretty easily, methinks. They can cover lots of ground, but most of the really game-breaking stuff is gone.
I do think it's easy to build a tier 4 sorcerer and hard to build a tier 3 sorcerer though.

The Barbarian is somewhere between T3 and T4, depending on subclass, methinks. The Berserker and its ilk can't do much but kill stuff, but Totem Barbarian grants some solid utility options via things like rituals and the lv 6 abilities.
The Fighter is probably T4, with the exception of a few UA-only subclasses like Scout. They hit things and not much else, unless you make external effort to acquire capabilities.
I think these two very often push combat supremacy to Tier 3 levels, especially the barbarian, and the Fighter is especially build dependent for whether they're going for a high degree of specialization or a more rounded group of abilities. "You can't solve everything with violence," but the barbarian regularly tests that maxim. The fighter really proves the "You can build up or down," part of the list.

[ProseBeforeHos]

i would remove "virtually unplayable" from that category. major design fail, yes.

Alright fair enough. They are playable, insofar that they can do damage and take hits.


That's another problem with the 5e tier system - every single one I've seen proposed only addresses combat and completely ignores the social and exploration pillars.

I really don't think that's true at all. I would personally say Lore Bard is my number 1 pick for the strongest class/subclass in the game partially because as well as being a powerful primary caster it also has some of the best out of combat utility of any class in the game. It can be as good as a rogue at sneaking and disarming traps, and with the right expertise picks, better than a ranger at tracking and survival.

In fact with magical secrets a valor bard can often abusing higher level ranger spells way before the ranger could hope to do so.

If you look at my guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?541992-Prose-s-Guide-to-Xanathar-s-Guide-to-Everything) you'll see I rate abilities such as Emissary of Peace quite highly, precisely because I know how much pain can be avoided with good social skill checks.

Problem with BM is... how good is the pet really? In combat it's garbage (dies way too easily), as a scouting tool it's arguable worse than a wizard's familiar (especially the owl), nevermind the warlock's chain pet (perma-invis, flying imp).

I think a lot of people who sing the praises of the BM have not seen how it plays in a real game. First game I ever ran I had a BM ranger - ended up being a un-fun experience for the player and an ongoing problem for me as the DM.

[Naanomi]

Rangers get 3 skills instead of Paladin's 2. This needs no explanation. With the combination of Natural Explorer (especially the expertised skills, which you seem to have forgotten),
To make use of those class abilities, you need Survival, Stealth, Perception, probably an Intelligence Skill related to your Favored Enemy, and arguably the Nature Skill. Rangers don’t have a lot of versatility in their skill selection to expand to other pillars; unless they want to neglect the skills required to support their class abilities.


Even with that, I've seen some math here on GitP and other forums that shows the BM ranger is equal or even exceeds the damage output of many other classes.
If you choose the ‘right pet’; by which I mean your GM let’s you track down a flying snake or the like... and even then only if an enemy doesn’t decide to take a few swings at your squishy pet and *kill your subclass* until you have downtime or your GM throws you a bone to replace it (hopefully with that same flying snake again, right? They are all over the ancient tombs in the mountains)


Amusingly, that same ranger has a -2 int check, and I still make most of my knowledge checks on giants thanks to having advantage on all knowledge checks on my favored enemies.
Don’t have any friends to use the Help action for you? Or... you can’t Help a smarter member of the party for even better results? And how did you find room in your build for History Skill to be good at the checks to begin with? Advantage on skills in non-combat situations is trivial; and using them in combat is generally a wasted action (unless you are homebrewing they happen instantly in combat)

[Specter]

To make use of those class abilities, you need Survival, Stealth, Perception, probably an Intelligence Skill related to your Favored Enemy, and arguably the Nature Skill. Rangers don’t have a lot of versatility in their skill selection to expand to other pillars; unless they want to neglect the skills required to support their class abilities.

Survival, Stealth, Perception: check (you're not a ranger without these).
Knowledge skill (Arcana/Nature/etc.) - check.
Here you still have room for one more skill, which should be Athletics or Acrobatics depending on your build.

After that, you might want something, but you definitely don't need anything. There are better people to be a party face, so we can rule all CHA skills pretty quickly.
If you want a skill like Investigation, then you can be a Human. If you want more than that, Half-Elf is there for you.
You don't need to 'expand to other pillars' if you're doing yours better than others.

[Naanomi]

There are better people to be a party face, so we can rule all CHA skills pretty quickly.
Exactly, there is some discussion above about classes using backgrounds and skills to expand to support pillars they are not the best at. Ranger lacks that flexibility because of how skill dependent their class abilities are

[Unoriginal]

I'm getting the feeling 90% of the problems players find with the Beastmaster would be solved if the animal companion was something they could easily summon any time it was killed, and if they could select any of the animals of a given CR.

[mephnick]

Alright fair enough. They are playable, insofar that they can do damage and take hits.

Yeah, there's nothing Monks and Rangers can do outside of combat. I can't think of a single thing. Nope.

[Naanomi]

I'm getting the feeling 90% of the problems players find with the Beastmaster would be solved if the animal companion was something they could easily summon any time it was killed, and if they could select any of the animals of a given CR.
I wouldn’t say 90%, but it is a big factor in what makes it all feel meh. Of course, it is also a big flavor change from ‘guy with cool animal’ to ‘mystic spirit summoner’ that isn’t necessarily a good thing...

[mephnick]

I'm getting the feeling 90% of the problems players find with the Beastmaster would be solved if the animal companion was something they could easily summon any time it was killed, and if they could select any of the animals of a given CR.

The pet needs a little more survivability and the subclass is mechanically fixed. Everything with it "feeling wrong" is just stubborn people not accepting that D&D is a game first and simulator like...8th. Sharing attacks is perfectly fine and kind of cool.

[Unoriginal]

The pet needs a little more survivability and the subclass is mechanically fixed. Everything with it "feeling wrong" is just stubborn people not accepting that D&D is a game first and simulator like...8th. Sharing attacks is perfectly fine and kind of cool.

What about shared HPs between the pet and the Ranger?

[CantigThimble]

Yeah, there's nothing Monks and Rangers can do outside of combat. I can't think of a single thing. Nope.

And in combat, they're pretty well known for only ever using their subclass features.


But seriously, for most classes, even if if every subclass feature was so bad that you literally never used them they'd still be pretty much playable. Maybe they'd be 70-80% as good as a character with a good subclass (I'd honestly put that percentage higher for most classes) but that's nowhere near unplayable, and they'd still have plenty of chances to shine in a party from their base class features alone.

IDK, maybe people just have different thresholds for 'unplayable' than I do? It just seems odd to use the 3.5 idea of 'tiers', where the difference in power level ranged from god to peasant, to 5e where the power level ranges from 'pretty good at 3-4 things' to 'only okay at 2-3 things' at the most extreme.

Edit: Also, I think we should consider how people use tier lists. For the 3.5 tier lists, its pretty much known that you should never pick something on the bottom tier if you want to have any impact on the game and you should look long and hard at anyone picking something on the top because they're probably going to break your game. That just isn't going to be the case in 5e at all.

[Naanomi]

Subclass matters more to some classes than others. Rogue, Bard... it is like an awesome cherry on top of already good stuff. Sorcerer, Ranger... a lot of what makes you unique will come from your Subclass. And a bad subclass can make you feel bad even if your base class is objectively good enough to carry your build (Undying Patron...)

[Sception]

IMO a foundational problem with the beastmaster ranger is the idea that the pet is supposed to be a normal animal. that just isn't going to allow for very good scaling without constantly trading out the beast, and even then not so much. The other issue is I really think people who want to play a pet user want most of their character's mechanical functionality to be channeled through the pet in some way, and doing so would require a pet-using class, not a pet using subclass.

Something thematically more like 4e's shaman would work better, imo, where all of the core mechanics of the class revolve around the pet, and the subclass is a matter of which pet you have, not whether you have one in the first place. Or maybe a 'shadowcaster' class with most of the classes abilities channeled through their own animate shadow pet. Or a dr. frankenstein sort of class built on creating & controlling a golem, with subclasses based on different golem archetypes (flesh/iron/clay/stone/etc). Regardless, Ranger will probably always be too much of a Ranger to also have a satisfying pet subclass. At best you'll get something like the chain warlock familiar, a neat and cool thing to have, but not a major focus of your combat mechanics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

IMO a foundational problem with the beastmaster ranger is the idea that the pet is supposed to be a normal animal. that just isn't going to allow for very good scaling without constantly trading out the beast, and even then not so much. The other issue is I really think people who want to play a pet user want most of their character's mechanical functionality to be channeled through the pet in some way, and doing so would require a pet-using class, not a pet using subclass.

Something thematically more like 4e's shaman would work better, imo, where all of the core mechanics of the class revolve around the pet, and the subclass is a matter of which pet you have, not whether you have one in the first place. Or maybe a 'shadowcaster' class with most of the classes abilities channeled through their own animate shadow pet. Or a dr. frankenstein sort of class built on creating & controlling a golem, with subclasses based on different golem archetypes (flesh/iron/clay/stone/etc). Regardless, Ranger will probably always be too much of a Ranger to also have a satisfying pet subclass. At best you'll get something like the chain warlock familiar, a neat and cool thing to have, but not a major focus of your combat mechanics.

I've made several attempts at an elemental-based pet class, but never been happy. My current attempt is basically on the warlock chassis, where most of the invocation-equivalents are alterations to the pet (which comes at 1st level). DPR would come from cantrips + pet, and the subclasses would set whether you're offensive support (control) or defensive support (buffs/mobility) focused. The idea is that the pet is one of a) very durable, with a squishy master or b) very easily replaced (like a short-rest) and disposable. The very durable pets would basically die IFF the master dies (basically being autonomous weapons, rather than a separate entity), the disposable variant would have abilities to use it as a bomb/sacrifice.

[sithlordnergal]

Obviously, the Paladin is more social than the Ranger. But the Ranger is the best at wilderness exploration, while the Paladin is just good in the social department (not great).

Rangers get 3 skills instead of Paladin's 2. This needs no explanation. With the combination of Natural Explorer (especially the expertised skills, which you seem to have forgotten), Favored Enemy, and the spells they get, no one can get you 'there and back again' as the Ranger. The only one who can compete is a dedicated Rogue (which has expertised skills in any terrain), but they would still lack the spells goodness.
You mentioned foraging is made useless by Goodberry. Then I guess it's a good thing that Rangers do have Goodberry, and if they don't pick it, then they can still forage.

In the social department, what you want are the skills, Expertise on them, ways to give yourself and/or dice boosts, and the spells to do it (too many to even mention). Bard is king in all of these departments, followed by Arcane Trickster, then regular rogues, then Sorcerers/Warlocks (for their spell list), and then Paladin. The only thing they bring to the table in that department is skill proficiency. The paladin spells you mentioned have nothing to do with social ability, except maybe for PFaD, but that's just anecdoctal.

You can't build a social god based on a Paladin, but you can build the exploration king based off a Ranger. Which is why Rangers don't need to keep up damage-wise with Fighters and Paladins, they can bring something else to the table.

But again, you are only the exploration "King" in your specific terrains, which you only get 3 of, and you know a ton about 3-6 specific enemies types depending on if you grabbed Humanoids as your Favored Enemies. Now, I did forget about the Expertise, so you are correct there, but at the same time you can only get Expertise in your three terrains.

So again, you need to know you will be in those terrains before hand, because if you aren't then you have none of those above mentioned bonuses. And while Goodberry is on the Ranger spell list, it is also on the Druid and Cleric spell list, or you can take it with Magic Initiate. It trivializes rations and forging. That said, I did give Rangers the edge on exploration for a general setting.

Next, I'd never try to say the Paladin is better then the bard when it comes to Social settings. I even mention that the Paladin is generally the party face when the Bard or Sorcerer is not around, and the same holds true of the Warlock as well. Depending on chosen spells, the Sorcerer and Warlock can outshine the Paladin in a social setting. Though there is a trend to leave social aspects to Bards and Paladins. Also, I would consider Detect Evil and Good and Detect Magic to be more social spells then exploration or combat. Well...Detect Magic can easily be used in all pillars, but it is sort of special that way.

I chose to leave the Rogue out of both exploration and social because the Rogue can be the best at whatever skills they want. You even admitted that if the Rogue wanted to, they could equal the Ranger's exploration abilities due to Expertise in all terrains, though they do lack the spells. I think their skills make up for the spell loss though.

Finally, when I look at a class I don't look at a specific point where the class is sure to shine. In their favored terrain, tracking their favored enemy, the ranger will outshine everyone but the rouge, no questions asked. Rather, I look at what they can do outside of that specific thing. I don't need a one trick pony that is great at doing this one thing in this one area. A stronger class is going to be more of a Jack of All Trades. I.E. a class that can take on as many party roles as possible to help the party fill in any gaps they may have.

[ProseBeforeHos]

The argument seems to go "yes the pet is terrible in combat, but it's not meant to be a combat machine it's meant to give the ranger additional out of combat utility";

What can a beastmaster pet do in terms of scouting that a ranger with high stealth and perception can't do on it's own? (or any skill based character, really)

What can a beastmaster pet do in terms of scouting that a wizard's owl familiar can't?

" " that a Warlock's chain pact pet can't?

" " that a druid in animal form can't?

***

Even if we accept that idea on face value that there's some sort of trade off going on - BM still sucks since it's utility is barely better than a normal ranger (actually, scratch that, some of the XGTE subclasses really can do some unique utility options, like monster hunter detecting enemy weaknesses/resistances).

After all for all the utility a wizard/warlock/druid gains from their special abilities they don't seem to lose much in terms of in combat 'kick' why is the ranger special in that regard?

The subclass was just poorly designed and suffered from a lack of real playtesting, that's it. Nothing illustrates that quite as well as the UA beastmaster which is good without being overbearing, showing that is it is very possible to make a playable beasmaster class, that's just not what's in the PHB.

[Zalabim]

IMO a foundational problem with the beastmaster ranger is the idea that the pet is supposed to be a normal animal. that just isn't going to allow for very good scaling without constantly trading out the beast, and even then not so much. The other issue is I really think people who want to play a pet user want most of their character's mechanical functionality to be channeled through the pet in some way, and doing so would require a pet-using class, not a pet using subclass.

Something thematically more like 4e's shaman would work better, imo, where all of the core mechanics of the class revolve around the pet, and the subclass is a matter of which pet you have, not whether you have one in the first place. Or maybe a 'shadowcaster' class with most of the classes abilities channeled through their own animate shadow pet. Or a dr. frankenstein sort of class built on creating & controlling a golem, with subclasses based on different golem archetypes (flesh/iron/clay/stone/etc). Regardless, Ranger will probably always be too much of a Ranger to also have a satisfying pet subclass. At best you'll get something like the chain warlock familiar, a neat and cool thing to have, but not a major focus of your combat mechanics.
There's no push for it, but I think the ranger would have worked with Animal Companion as its level 1 or 2 unique feature or identifier. Like the paladin gets Lay on hands and Divine Sense, the ranger would have a minor animal companion (either a free-to-act animal like a familiar, or a resource pool to spend on "my animal companion helped" stuff) and something favored enemy/natural explorer like. Then a beast master subclass option could either go bigger or add more, but all rangers would have this animal friend to build on with later class features instead of giving more ribbons (more favored enemies and terrains). As a temporary consideration, maybe put Find Familiar, and/or other animal companion spells, on the ranger spell list?

[TheUser]

I think that just because there is less distinction between the power levels of classes doesn't mean there aren't tiers for them.

However, many of the tiers for classes change dramatically based on subclass/archetype (good example of this is how much I feel the Arcane Trickster out performs the other Rogue options significantly). Additionally, there will be bias that comes from ones own experiences; even when play across multiple tables occurs there are clear cut preferences I see between players.

A good example is the melee vs ranged preference; Having played Rise of Tiamat, I can definitively say that weak ranged options severely hamstrings a character. Barbarians and Paladins might be great classes loaded with features but if you haven't the means to attack a flying dragon at range all those bells and whistles you bring to the table suddenly feel stifled.

I digress, in a game where multi-classing both exists and is ideal in many cases, a tier list such as this becomes very difficult because often something like "weak ranged options" can be band-aid fixed with a 2 level warlock dip (by charisma classes), other weaknesses like lack of armor proficiency or constitution saves are also fixed with a starting level in fighter. These dips obviously delay progression but provide a very meaningful solution to the weaknesses endemic to their primary class.

[Specter]

A good example is the melee vs ranged preference; Having played Rise of Tiamat, I can definitively say that weak ranged options severely hamstrings a character. Barbarians and Paladins might be great classes loaded with features but if you haven't the means to attack a flying dragon at range all those bells and whistles you bring to the table suddenly feel stifled.

This. Interestingly, this is a good argument for 4 Elements Monk, since they've got Fly.

[Regitnui]

(good example of this is how much I feel the Arcane Trickster out performs the other Rogue options significantly).

And this is why tiers in 5e are largely pointless beyond "has mechanical problems", "feels kinda off" and "works well". Trying to sort these mostly evenly balanced classes into distinct tiers will bring in personal feelings. Looking at it as a whole, 90% of the classes balance out.

[mgshamster]

I think that just because there is less distinction between the power levels of classes doesn't mean there aren't tiers for them.

What's the point of the tier system, then?

In 3.x, it was to help people identify different power levels of classes so they could have a reasonably balanced game. The general guideline was to ensure you didn't extend beyond two to three tiers.

Since all of 5e falls within Tier 3 (and maybe a high Tier 4), all classes follow the tier recommendation for balanced play.

Once we dig beyond that, we start creating a ranked system based off of technical power, but it doesn't really help anyone. All it really does is convince people that they shouldn't play a fairly balanced class because they falsely believe it's out of balance, either too powerful or too weak. It removes options and limits the enjoyment of the game.

Contrary to what seems like common sense, creating a tier system for 5e harms the 5e community.

[ad_hoc]

(good example of this is how much I feel the Arcane Trickster out performs the other Rogue options significantly).

I think the Thief is the best archetype but Arcane Trickster is close enough that I'd be fine calling it even.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the Thief is the best archetype but Arcane Trickster is close enough that I'd be fine calling it even.

"Best" requires a statement of "for what purpose." In a campaign in the desert, Second Story Work is useless. In a campaign where arcane magic is viewed with suspicion, an Arcane Trickster is less useful.

5e archetypes are close enough that breaking it down into a one-dimensional ranking like a tier list is pointless. On that scale, the differences between characters based on the player are >>>>>> the differences based on the build. Instead, they're distributed around a multi-dimensional parameter space, where the parameters involve things like "importance of single-monster combat," "number of short rests per long rest," "local customs toward necromancy," etc.

[ad_hoc]

"Best" requires a statement of "for what purpose." In a campaign in the desert, Second Story Work is useless. In a campaign where arcane magic is viewed with suspicion, an Arcane Trickster is less useful.


Sure.

I just kept it simple since the post I was responding to also kept it simple.

FWIW I feel this way about rogues in the published adventures.

[Easy_Lee]

What's the point of the tier system, then?

In 3.x, it was to help people identify different power levels of classes so they could have a reasonably balanced game. The general guideline was to ensure you didn't extend beyond two to three tiers.

Since all of 5e falls within Tier 3 (and maybe a high Tier 4), all classes follow the tier recommendation for balanced play.

Once we dig beyond that, we start creating a ranked system based off of technical power, but it doesn't really help anyone. All it really does is convince people that they shouldn't play a fairly balanced class because they falsely believe it's out of balance, either too powerful or too weak. It removes options and limits the enjoyment of the game.

Contrary to what seems like common sense, creating a tier system for 5e harms the 5e community.

Want to add to this: the 3.5e tier system is a tool for DMs to use to ensure that the players are all able to contribute. If someone brought a fighter to a wizard-cleric-druid party, that player was going to have a bad time if the others had any clue what they were doing.

You don't have to do that in 5e. Several design decisions (bounded accuracy, in particular) ensure that there is a minimum competence level. A clever player could have D6 HP and no spells or features, but still be able to contribute in any given endeavor (using tools, simple weapons, and relying on his D20).

With that in mind, the tier system in 5e is useless. It's just a way for people to say, "I think this class is usually better than that one." "Usually better" is a far-cry from "not even playing the same game."

[SharkForce]

This. Interestingly, this is a good argument for 4 Elements Monk, since they've got Fly.

you mean, at level 11 they can make one person fly, or 2 at level 13 (at the expense of 5 stunning attacks, with no con save proficiency, and no feats to spare to spend on improving con saves most likely). something an actual spellcaster could have done 6 full levels earlier.

that isn't exactly great. now, eventually monks get con save proficiency, and even more eventually they'll be able to actually manage 3 people, but i doubt it comes into play in most people's campaigns.


What's the point of the tier system, then?

In 3.x, it was to help people identify different power levels of classes so they could have a reasonably balanced game. The general guideline was to ensure you didn't extend beyond two to three tiers.

Since all of 5e falls within Tier 3 (and maybe a high Tier 4), all classes follow the tier recommendation for balanced play.

Once we dig beyond that, we start creating a ranked system based off of technical power, but it doesn't really help anyone. All it really does is convince people that they shouldn't play a fairly balanced class because they falsely believe it's out of balance, either too powerful or too weak. It removes options and limits the enjoyment of the game.

Contrary to what seems like common sense, creating a tier system for 5e harms the 5e community.

i can't entirely agree. it isn't a useful tool for players choosing a class for most games (i do think there are some games where it could be useful).

it is a *very* useful tool for someone designing for the game, because it tells you what classes are not as well received, which in turn tells you where to look for problems. and given that "someone designing for the game" could easily mean people in your group trying to homebrew something, that can ultimately be relevant to everyone.

[ad_hoc]

With that in mind, the tier system in 5e is useless. It's just a way for people to say, "I think this class is usually better than that one." "Usually better" is a far-cry from "not even playing the same game."

Yeah,

I think far better is to divide the classes/subclasses into 2 columns:

Plays as it reads and meets archetype/theme expectations

AND

Doesn't play as it reads and doesn't meet archetype/theme expectations

I put most classes/subclasses in the former, and Berserker, Assassin, 4 Elements, Beastmaster in the latter (with a bunch from SCAG, XgtE too)

[Naanomi]

Yeah,

I think far better is to divide the classes/subclasses into 2 columns:

Plays as it reads and meets archetype/theme expectations

AND

Doesn't play as it reads and doesn't meet archetype/theme expectations

I put most classes/subclasses in the former, and Berserker, Assassin, 4 Elements, Beastmaster in the latter (with a bunch from SCAG, XgtE too)
There is probably room for a middle ground of ‘kind of meets expectation’... Oath of Crown hits that for me, for example, as does Trickery Cleric

[Regitnui]

Yeah,

I think far better is to divide the classes/subclasses into 2 columns:

Plays as it reads and meets archetype/theme expectations

AND

Doesn't play as it reads and doesn't meet archetype/theme expectations

There is probably room for a middle ground of ‘kind of meets expectation’

Then we do like WotC and get opinions from as many people as humanly possible before we even think about getting tiers. Because 90% of this is just opinion.

[ad_hoc]

Because 90% of this is just opinion.

Only 90%?

....

[Talamare]

Nothing is 'virtually unplayable' because a character with 20 Dex, a Bow, and the Sharpshooter feat...

Will still be an effective character in combat

[Luccan]

What's the point of the tier system, then?

In 3.x, it was to help people identify different power levels of classes so they could have a reasonably balanced game. The general guideline was to ensure you didn't extend beyond two to three tiers.

Since all of 5e falls within Tier 3 (and maybe a high Tier 4), all classes follow the tier recommendation for balanced play.

Once we dig beyond that, we start creating a ranked system based off of technical power, but it doesn't really help anyone. All it really does is convince people that they shouldn't play a fairly balanced class because they falsely believe it's out of balance, either too powerful or too weak. It removes options and limits the enjoyment of the game.

Contrary to what seems like common sense, creating a tier system for 5e harms the 5e community.

Have to agree and not just because of that snazzy avatar. The classes and subclasses are fine, even if they "don't meet expectations" (I'm as disappointed in Beastmaster Ranger as anyone), they don't unbalance the game enough that it's a real concern. If you want to warn players that a subclass might not be exactly what they're hoping, a tier-list isn't the way to go, at least not in 5e. I'd say the best way is to just tell your fellow players and advise those looking into it.

[Specter]

you mean, at level 11 they can make one person fly, or 2 at level 13 (at the expense of 5 stunning attacks, with no con save proficiency, and no feats to spare to spend on improving con saves most likely). something an actual spellcaster could have done 6 full levels earlier.

isn't exactly great. now, eventually monks get con save proficiency, and even more eventually they'll be able to actually manage 3 people, but i doubt it comes into play in most people's campaigns.

You're thinking about this the wrong way. It's not flying vs. 5 stunning strikes. It's flying vs. doing nothing productive in a fight. That's not a choice.

Monks have a lot of horizontal mobility, but no ranged goodness. Sun Soul is an exception, but the range of their attacks is too short to be meaningful against flyers. If flying is not what you want in terms of versatility, I don't know what it could be.

[Naanomi]

So, in the classic use of Tiers... if I had a team of ‘top-tier’ types... a Sorc/Pally, a Moon-druid, a Diviner Wizard... would a low-tier character be consistently and noticably less useful? Would a 5-E Monk consistently take a back seat to the others?

Or, reverse... a team of an Undying Warlock, Berserker Barbarian, and a Beastmaster are joined by a Lore Bard... will they be consistently outshined?

[Luccan]

So, in the classic use of Tiers... if I had a team of ‘top-tier’ types... a Sorc/Pally, a Moon-druid, a Diviner Wizard... would a low-tier character be consistently and noticably less useful? Would a 5-E Monk consistently take a back seat to the others?

Or, reverse... a team of an Undying Warlock, Berserker Barbarian, and a Beastmaster are joined by a Lore Bard... will they be consistently outshined?

No and No. Even if you chose 4-Elements, unless your DM is doing something that consistently made all the monk's abilities worthless they'd still contribute fine. It should be noted in 5e that even without "optimal" subclass choice, the monk chassis is actually good.

And as for the other case, that's still no because being a martial is acceptable in this edition and a Lore Bard is not that. Even then, the other characters will have proficiency in different skills than the Bard, most likely. Lastly, even in 5e where they are now full 9th level casters, Bards don't have the capacity to replace every other character in a party.

[Naanomi]

Then within specialties... a Scout-Rogue, a Shepard-Druid, and a Totem Barbarian are joined by a Beastmaster... what opportunities will that Beastmaster have to shine compared to his party?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Then within specialties... a Scout-Rogue, a Shepard-Druid, and a Totem Barbarian are joined by a Beastmaster... what opportunities will that Beastmaster have to shine compared to his party?

Ranged combat, mostly. Although if you intentionally choose a character that has heavy overlap with the rest of the party, any resulting redundancies are kinda your fault, not the system's.

[Naanomi]

Ranged combat, mostly. Although if you intentionally choose a character that has heavy overlap with the rest of the party, any resulting redundancies are kinda your fault, not the system's.
Sort of, yes... although if we started with the party having the Beastmaster and added anyone else in that list they would bring something unique to the table... damage or tanking or spellcasting... I think it speaks to the Beastmaster that it is even possible to create a party where they struggle to add something to it; I don’t think it would be possible with many other subclasses

[Specter]

So, in the classic use of Tiers... if I had a team of ‘top-tier’ types... a Sorc/Pally, a Moon-druid, a Diviner Wizard... would a low-tier character be consistently and noticably less useful? Would a 5-E Monk consistently take a back seat to the others?

Or, reverse... a team of an Undying Warlock, Berserker Barbarian, and a Beastmaster are joined by a Lore Bard... will they be consistently outshined?

In the first example, the Monk would be acting like a Monk, controlling the battlefield, reaching difficult targets and stunning the most annoying. The elemental disciplines would be used in three scenarios. 1) he really needs to deal more damage asap (Fist of Unbroken Air), 2) there are many enemies and he wants to take the mob out (Shatter or Fireball), and 3) he wants to do something he couldn't otherwise (Fly). If played like that, such a Monk would be in line with the party and still annoy the DM occasionally.

In the second example, the Bard would definitely the most versatile party member, but he would rely on the other members for blasting and straight-up murderdamage.

[ad_hoc]

Sort of, yes... although if we started with the party having the Beastmaster and added anyone else in that list they would bring something unique to the table... damage or tanking or spellcasting... I think it speaks to the Beastmaster that it is even possible to create a party where they struggle to add something to it; I don’t think it would be possible with many other subclasses

People overlook the pet's ability to soak damage. That is a huge bonus, esp. early on. The pet is esp. good with ranged attacks as it can help the Ranger stay out of melee.

Beastmaster Ranger is one of the best tanks in the game. The problem is that most people's idea of fun doesn't involve killing their pets over and over again.

Even without their other abilities the Ranger is still a Ranger, just without a +1d8 on creatures that are already hurt.

[Talamare]

People overlook the pet's ability to soak damage. That is a huge bonus, esp. early on. The pet is esp. good with ranged attacks as it can help the Ranger stay out of melee.

Beastmaster Ranger is one of the best tanks in the game. The problem is that most people's idea of fun doesn't involve killing their pets over and over again.

Even without their other abilities the Ranger is still a Ranger, just without a +1d8 on creatures that are already hurt.

4 * Level HP isn't survivable at all, let alone Tanky, let alone one of the best Tanks in the game...
Not to mention after each one dies, you need to spend 8 hours training the next one.

You're better off playing a Druid who can Conjure Animals at lv5, sending waves after wave after wave of disposable 8 Giant Bats who have 22 HP each (176 HP total)
... and this is coming from like a Land Druid... Before Xanathar's even existed!

Post Xanathar, at 6th level we have Mighty Summoner! That grants each Giant Bat another 8 HP! Now they have 30 HP each! (240 HP total)

[Naanomi]

Even without their other abilities the Ranger is still a Ranger, just without a +1d8 on creatures that are already hurt.
Which is just not all that impressive or difficult to replicate by other classes

Not to mention after each one dies, you need to spend 8 hours training the next one
And that is after you find a replacement... not always easy in the depths of a tome or out on then Planes... my giant crab died once, I went two sessions with no pet, then two more with a Vulture (not a giant vulture, just a vulture) before we got back to wilderness where I could find something more combative

[Specter]

4 * Level HP isn't survivable at all, let alone Tanky, let alone one of the best Tanks in the game...
Not to mention after each one dies, you need to spend 8 hours training the next one.

You're better off playing a Druid who can Conjure Animals at lv5, sending waves after wave after wave of disposable 8 Giant Bats who have 22 HP each (176 HP total)
... and this is coming from like a Land Druid... Before Xanathar's even existed!

Post Xanathar, at 6th level we have Mighty Summoner! That grants each Giant Bat another 8 HP! Now they have 30 HP each! (240 HP total)

Or you can be a 9th-level Ranger with a 36hp wolf and 8 others with regular HP. If the enemy is focusing on the beasts, he's not damaging the party, and that's decent enough to annoy people on the battlefield.

[Naanomi]

Or you can be a 9th-level Ranger with a 36hp wolf and 8 others with regular HP. If the enemy is focusing on the beasts, he's not damaging the party, and that's decent enough to annoy people on the battlefield.
Sounds like something that Druid was doing much easier and earlier; and if a Shepard Druid... better?

[Specter]

Sounds like something that Druid was doing much easier and earlier; and if a Shepard Druid... better?

Obviously. But that's considering just one aspect of both classes. Ranger is a martial half-caster, Druid is a full caster. As I'm sure we all know, there are times when you want to be a martial and times where you want to be a caster.

To summarize my point: I wouldn't play a PHB Beastmaster, but addressing specific issues where it's miserable doesn't cover the whole. Worst case scenario, your dead wolf took hits instead of someone else, and that's alright.

Also Merry Christmas btw!

[mgshamster]

And that is after you find a replacement... not always easy in the depths of a tome or out on then Planes... my giant crab died once, I went two sessions with no pet, then two more with a Vulture (not a giant vulture, just a vulture) before we got back to wilderness where I could find something more combative

That always confused me considering how vibrant ecosystems are underground. Especially ones full of D&D creatures.

I think this is along the lines of claiming wizards suck because my DM once put us in an antimagic zone for several sessions.

[Luccan]

In regards to Beastmaster, I recall a player whose Beastmaster just already owned a bunch of dogs and one was specifically his animal companion. When it died, he switched over to one of the other dogs. The training time is still a pain, but that's definitely something that can be handled so long as your current journey isn't time sensitive (I forget, does it have to be consecutive or just total?)

[Naanomi]

That always confused me considering how vibrant ecosystems are underground. Especially ones full of D&D creatures.

I think this is along the lines of claiming wizards suck because my DM once put us in an antimagic zone for several sessions.
Caves, yes... but not undead filled tombs, or elemental planes of fire, or etc. And I’ve never seen an adventure with several sessions in an anti-magic zone...

[PhoenixPhyre]

On the topic of the Beastmaster, how much of an effect would the following idea have?

Instead of a single pet that has to be laboriously replaced, what if they had a scaling number of pets (1 at 3rd, 2 at ??, etc), where each attack given up by the BM results in each pet attacking? This would allow the ranger to have say a war dog, a hawk, etc. The ranger could keep several out of the fray or take the risk for more output. Or allow them to have a small menagerie "in training", but only one "trained" (the rest staying out of combat). That's gamist, but reduces the fragile subclass issue.

Just a wild thought. Probably barking mad (pun intended).

Merry Christmas everyone.

[mgshamster]

Caves, yes... but not undead filled tombs, or elemental planes of fire, or etc. And I’ve never seen an adventure with several sessions in an anti-magic zone...

The opening to Out of the Abyss.

[Naanomi]

The opening to Out of the Abyss.
Haven't played it, how many sessions does the pit scene run?

[Easy_Lee]

On the topic of the Beastmaster, how much of an effect would the following idea have?

Instead of a single pet that has to be laboriously replaced, what if they had a scaling number of pets (1 at 3rd, 2 at ??, etc), where each attack given up by the BM results in each pet attacking? This would allow the ranger to have say a war dog, a hawk, etc. The ranger could keep several out of the fray or take the risk for more output. Or allow them to have a small menagerie "in training", but only one "trained" (the rest staying out of combat). That's gamist, but reduces the fragile subclass issue.

Just a wild thought. Probably barking mad (pun intended).

Merry Christmas everyone.

I imagine that would be too much to track.

That said, the beast master is not as bad as people say simply because it's still a ranged (usually) martial with decent spells. Even if we ignore the pet, a BM can cast Swift Quiver and make four attacks with a bow + Sharpshooter (when applicable). A halfling BM, should he pick up a pteranodon and ride it, can do so from the air while his mount dashes in and out of range.

That goes for all of the worst archetypes. A four elements monk can still use stunning strike and flurry of blows. An undying warlocks can still cast Hold X and agonizing EB. A purple dragon knight fighter, possibly the weakest option in all of 5e, can still action surge, use every weapon, and utilize bonus feats / ASIs.

Nothing in 5e is outright terrible except maybe someone who multiclasses excessively.

[Naanomi]

Even if we ignore the pet, a BM can cast Swift Quiver and make four attacks with a bow + Sharpshooter (when applicable).

A halfling BM, should he pick up a pteranodon and ride it, can do so from the air while his mount dashes in and out of range.
Swiftquiver... 1-2 time a day at level 17...

And what campaign setting do you play in where you can reasonably find dinosaurs to tame in the middle of adventures when the last one dies?

[Easy_Lee]

Swiftquiver... 1-2 time a day at level 17...

And what campaign setting do you play in where you can reasonably find dinosaurs to tame in the middle of adventures when the last one dies?

What DM do you play with where you bring a character concept that relies upon going out and finding a particular beast companion and your DM won't let you? Regardless, a similar thing can be done with a panther - climb speed plus 100 feet of movement per round.

And yes, obviously Swift Quiver is once per day. You use it when you need a lot of damage as opposed to spike growth, hunter's mark, or some other damage spell. The base ranger doesn't deal the most damage, but doesn't deal the least either.

[Naanomi]

What DM do you play with where you bring a character concept that relies upon going out and finding a particular beast companion and your DM won't let you?
Finding one to begin with or during downtime, most GMs I know are flexible (including me)... but mid-adventure? Only Tomb of Annihilation really has opportunities to find dinosaurs of the existing campaigns. I had a hard time replacing my Giant Crab on more than one occasion and had to make due with different random nonsense in the meantime

[2D8HP]

....I chose to leave the Rogue out of both exploration and social because the Rogue can be the best at whatever skills they want. You even admitted that if the Rogue wanted to, they could equal the Ranger's exploration abilities due to Expertise in all terrains, though they do lack the spells. I think their skills make up for the spell loss though....
Unless you have dreams of a single class "capstone" (the one for "Ancients" Paladin looks tasty), is there ever a reason to not take Rogue levels?

I know my favorite class to have been at 1st level is Fighter, but my favorite class to be at 1st level is Rogue.


I think the Thief is the best archetype but Arcane Trickster is close enough that I'd be fine calling it even..
Thief is nice.

So is Swashbuckler.

I want to try Scout.



..Nothing in 5e is outright terrible except maybe someone who multiclasses excessively.


Can you multiclass too much?

Yes single-class PC's can be big fun (my first 5e PC was a Champion.Fighter), but I love my Fighter1/Rogue (Swashbuckler)4, and; I wouldn't trade for a Fighter5 or Rogue5.

I freely admit that others have more "in-the-weeds" rules knowledge (I know little about spell-casting rules fot example), but I know what's fun for me.

An extra attack would be sweet, as would Uncanny Dodge and a 3d6 Sneak Attack, but what does one gain be giving them up?

As I wroten my favorite 1st level class to play is Rogue (I like Sneak Attack, and I just really love Expertise), but unless the party is too full of martials, with no Rogues, I usually take Barbarian (sometimes) or Fighter (mostly) first.

Barbarian gets me more hit points, more weapons proficiency, Rage, and Unarmored Defense which gives, if my PC had good DEX and CON, a damn fine AC.

Fighter gets me more HP than a Rogue, more weapons proficiency, and all armor proficiency, plus Second Wind (not too shabby), and a sweet Fighting Style (I just love +2 to hit for bows, or a +1 AC).

Good stuff, however you mix it.

What's interesting for me to play is someone who can wield a bow (always), and a warhammer, or a sword, and can sneak and perceive so that when Mr.Thinks-he's-all-that-high-and-mighty-McMagic-User kicks your puppy and eyes your lover, you sneak up behind them while they're incanting and gesturing and then BAM! Knock 'em on the backside of the head and then shout "Power to the people!, down with the Spell Casting oppressors!", and then kick 'em repeatedly.

That's some serious character-driven-role-playing!

For me anyway.

What build is best for that?

My guess is a level of Barbarian (unarmored defense, Rage, and a sweet 12 HP plus CON), 5 or more levels of Fighter (second wind, action surge, extra attack), and levels of Rogue.

Expertise?

Awesome.

Sneak Attack?

Awesome.

Uncanny Dodge?

Also awesome!

Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue.

Damn good combination.

[RedMage125]

And I’ve never seen an adventure with several sessions in an anti-magic zone...

3.5e Forgotten Realms adventure Aunauroch.

Players cross a huge Dead Magic Zone (worse than AMZ). Took 3 sessions. I played a wizard. It was rough. We were about level 15.

Then again, as soon as we reached our objective (a tomb that was underground and under the DMZ), I stopped to prepare all my spells, and promptly blew 2 5th lvl, 1 7th lvl, and one 8th lvl slot (as well as both of my Incantatrix Instant Metamagic uses) in 2 rounds of combat to reduce a EL 17 encounter to one creature with 50% hp. So I never thought wizards were underpowered, either, lol.

[MxKit]

Can you multiclass too much?

I agree with basically everything you said after this, fwiw, but at the same time I do think you can multiclass too much, and/or multiclass badly.

Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue is fine, especially since depending on what sort of thing you're going for you can concentrate mostly on either Strength or Dexterity, just chuck a 13 into the other, prioritize Constitution after your main stat, and not worry too much about anything else. Intelligence and Charisma should be your two worst stats in some order or other given that Wisdom is always going to be useful for Perception, but that build is totally viable. Especially if you go with a bow and a shortsword over a warhammer, to get the most out of the Sneak Attack.

But if you're trying to go for something like a Ancients Paladin with a three or four level dip into Hunter Ranger, both for flavor and for the Hunter's Prey feature (and maybe the ASI you would have lost otherwise), and you're also realllly tempted by the Diviner Wizard's Portent feature and think a two level dip there won't hurt... You're multiclassing the same amount as the Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue, but you're multiclassing badly. Unless you rolled ungodly starting stats, you're going to suffer badly from having to have a 13 in Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma just to meet the multiclassing stats. You just flat-out can't start with your attributes where they need to be using standard array, and you'll be incredibly badly off using point buy (best you can do there is 13, 13, 10, 13, 13, 13).

Similarly, I had a lot of fun recently trying to figure out a character that a)comes online fairly early with a ton of cantrips and b)gets a ridiculously huge amount of cantrips by the end of their adventuring career. I figured the best you can do is get 27 cantrips by lv10, and probably your max of 33 by lv15, by being a Variant Human (with Magic Initiate) Sorcerer/Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Bard/Warlock. This is a hilarious and stupid build, and I loved making it, but I'd never actually play it not just because it's pretty MAD (needs Charisma, Wisdom, and Intelligence all at 13 to multiclass, shouldn't dump Constitution, and probably shouldn't dump Dexterity either) but because it probably won't play very well outside of non-combat games, and won't really excel in any of the other pillars of play either.

Basically, three classes is usually pushing it, but can be done if their attribute scores mesh well (a Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock focusing on Charisma first and foremost is one example; a Cleric/Rogue/Ranger archer with the Dexterity and Wisdom focus any Cleric or Ranger would already have is another), while even two classes can be awful if they don't match up well (a Paladin/Monk needs Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom, and Charisma all at 13 just to multiclass, and the two classes just don't benefit each other much in the first place), so it's hard to say that three classes is automatically "too much." But four classes or more is pretty much always going to be a bad idea, and not just because of being MAD, but because you actually start losing efficacy even outside of MADness at that point.

[Talamare]

What build is best for that?

My guess is a level of Barbarian (unarmored defense, Rage, and a sweet 12 HP plus CON), 5 or more levels of Fighter (second wind, action surge, extra attack), and levels of Rogue.

Expertise?

Awesome.

Sneak Attack?

Awesome.

Uncanny Dodge?

Also awesome!

Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue.

Damn good combination.

... I mean...
BeaRogue is arguably one of the top 5 strongest builds you can make in DnD...
Do a forum search