Best class?

[Barebarian]

Which class do you think was implemented best in 5e? In terms of mechanics, fluff, role etc?

[Callak_Remier]

Wizard, the subclass split by Spell school is really well done.

[Waazraath]

Which class do you think was implemented best in 5e? In terms of mechanics, fluff, role etc?

Extremely subjective of course, but my take:
- Paladin: very strong mechanics, avoided all the (role play) issues of earlier editions, very clear role, and though very strong, has some parts of the game where it isn't strong (mainly area of effect damage, and skill)
- Cleric: always a tricky one in earlier editions; full casting (or at least coming close, I think a few editions ago they only had up to lvl 7 spells), heavy armor, and since 3e, also the ability to use martial weapons... it always poses the risk of outfighting the fighter, while being a full caster, and being (almost)as good a caster as the wizard, without the drawbacks and while walking around in full plate and shield. It has a specific niche, is strong, but doesn't overshadow others in their own role.
- Fighter: difficult to implement correctly, cause it's a broad archetype that covers a wide variety of types of character. And doesn't use spells (with the exception of EK) and needs to stand its ground at high level next to wish casting wizards. I think they did really well, while at the same time catering to wishes of players who want to keep it very basic with as little as possible moving parts, and on the other hand providing tactical abilities for players who are into that.

Personally I also love the Warlock and the Sorcerer, for the many extra 'moving parts' they have (invocations / metamagic), and I love optimization - but at the same time I acknowledge that they can provide trap options for players who aren't into optimization at all...

[bendking]

I'd say Paladin, Wizard, Cleric are all really well made.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

In my opinion the charisma class.

The warlock still have the flavor of casting all day long, he may not be as good at it like he was in past editions but it's still there.

The Sorcerer is still the caster who do eyes to the universe and the universe fall for him(metamagic).

The Bard may not be the super ultra buffer of the past that was able to charm gods but he still have his versatility and buffing/debuffing.

The paladin is still the walking chunk of steel that keep everyone safe in his light (I hated paladins in past editions to I see improvement here).

I liked the first three better at 3.5e and the paladin better at 5e.
I can see that all 4 were implemented nicely.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

There are a lot of strong contenders. Wizard is well designed and flexible, they were able to fit six subclasses in the basic player's handbook and have it feel natural. Also, I must say that I enjoy Bards being full casters, instead of 2/3 like they were in 3rd.

Fighters are a lot more playable in 5th, too.

[Kane0]

Tough pick between Bard, Cleric and Paladin for me.
Edit: If we're talking 'well designed and mechanically implemented'

[MrStabby]

Best designed (although there are subclass issues on some):

Cleric
Monk
Sorcerer


Worst Designed:

Paladin
Wizard
Druid
Ranger



On the positive side we have three classes that each add something unique to the game and are both thematically and mechanically distinct from other classes. They are well balanced and play well in a lot of different parties without treading on the toes of other specialisms too badly.

They are not without issues - monk stunning strike is too often the best use for Ki, sorcerers don't get any iconic spells of their own that are exclusive to sorcerers, cleric's divine intervention should probably have been tightened up, domain identity should be a bit stronger at higher levels and knowing their whole spell list means adding new spells to the game is a bit harder.

Things like metamagic, Ki and cleric domain abilities are powerful unique features that mean that the classes don't feel to mechanically close to other classes and that playing them is a relatively new experience if you haven't played them before. They also scale well, thematically. They feel they develop rather than just doing the same things better. New uses for Ki, new spells and qualitatively new things they can do drives these classes forwards. I would have happily included the rogue for the former point but it doesn't feel like the rogue can do anything quite so extraordinary at high levels - something that say the right spell couldn't do.


The worst designed classes tend to do the opposite of this and represent poor balance. The paladin outshines most other melee options and does so in a way that steps on the toes of other classes - lay on hands can make the class a better healer than many clerics, divine smite means the paladin can dish out more damage in a round than the fighter, oath spells mean that the paladin has prepared more spells than many full casters whilst proficiency with heavy armour and access to the defence fighting style can make them effectively tougher than a lot of barbarians. An element of exaggeration here but the point is there - the designers went a little over the top in giving the goodies to the paladin class. The iconic auras are maybe just a little too strong as well, they reduce the types of encounter that can be a threat to the party and support the party too much against some of the most interesting and unusual hostile abilities out there which can drive DMs towards more bland enemies.

The Wizard is similar. In any area, in any function their limit is the best spell they have access to to do that job. As long as there is a spell that does a job better than another character can, the wizard can do that. You need someone great at climbing? What can we polymorph into? Need to be really fast to outrun the boulder trap having grabbed the idol? Will a wall of force stop it? Need to use your roguish charm to persuade the guard to unlock the door? Will dominate person work? Grappling fleeing criminals or snapping your finger and using hold person? The wizard highlights the problems of too wide a spell selection and the relative independence of spells - if it is good for one class it is usually good for any other that can take it. Some of this is symptomatic of the bard as well, but the bard has a smaller spell list and can do fewer things with it.

The druid gets an honourable mention for the moon druid alone. On average the class is fine but at low levels the animal forms put any kind of fighter to shame and at high levels unlimited wildshape does the same. If a secondary ability of a class is better than the primary function of another then you have screwed the balance. Druid isn't the most damaging design error in the game but it gets an honourable mention as it should have been the easiest to spot. On a very personal level, wildshape isn't for me. I want to play my character, not a bear or a wolf or whatever - having so much of what the class offers tied up in something I dont want to use doesn't appeal to me. If there are ever alternative class features for the druid then I would be a lot more excited.

Ranger gets a lot of stick. Some say it is underpowered, although it is probably ok. I think the better criticism is that it just doesn't give people what they want from it. Generally I am of the opinion that a class falling off the lower end of the power scale is less of a big deal that one at the top. If something is a weak design error people can just chose to not play it. If something is strong then it needs people to chose to give up that power - you need everyone else at your table to not play it. Ranger just doesn't scale thematically - it doesn't move on from hunting beasts in the forest, it doesn't really have any unique iconic abilities and just gets things that are either not particularly noteworthy or that other classes get sooner. Most of the subclasses are cool but their fun and iconic abilities come online too late to be attractive in most campaigns.

[zinycor]

Bards, rogues and wizards are all pretty powerful and have lots of things they can do in or out of combat.
Paladins, fighters and barbarians are all absolutely beastly in combat situations but are somewhat lackluster when it comes to other situations. Still, a good choice of background and good role-playing go a long way.
Clerics and Druids are very very good, I just have very minor fixes for clerics and very personal complaints in regards to druids. But they are very good.

In the end, I have to go Bard. The amount of options they have is incredible while also being the best at what they do.

[DrLoveMonkey]

Smoothest, self-contained design I think goes to the wizard. Each spell school almost feels like it’s own class, while at the same time still having an enormous base of powers that the wizard class as a whole has access to. You can be a powerful necromancer with a huge army of skeletons and not compromise your ability to Polymorph into a Quetzcoutl and ferry the other four party members around in the sky.

Clerics are a close second though, again each of their many domains feel excellent and very distinct. They’re also super versatile and self reliant.

Most improved goes to bard I think. I’ve always liked the concept but in prior editions, and this may just be because power creep, but I found my attacks barely hit anything and my save DCs barely got failed. I understand bards aren’t supposed to be as good at those things as dedicated classes but I felt useless. In 5e as a full caster who can actually land attacks, feels good man.

Runner up for most improved is probably paladin? They just have so much going on with them now that there’s endless ways to do cool things.

For each of those classes the mechanics do a great job of supporting the fluffy “class fantasy” to borrow a term from World of Warcraft.


The only real design problems with the above is that with magic being easier to wield in a lot of ways, and other aspects of the game not really getting the same treatment, wizards can kind of steal the show. There’s been countless sessions of planning with my group where the only tools anyone considers are what spells are available across the party and for good reason.

[2D8HP]

Champion Fighter by far.

Does what it says on the tin, wit h easy to learn mechanics.

I wish more 5e classes were like more like it.

[Nagog]

Considering the only thing I have the experience to compare it to is Pathfinder, I'd say pretty much every class is more versatile and open to interpretation that Pathfinder has them.

However, as far as implementation in general, I gotta go with Wizards. They have a wide variety of abilities and niches they can fill based on the School subclasses alone, with the other subclasses creating even more playstyles to add to the mix. Considering Wizards are the only class that don't have Int as their dump stat, it seems they have this variety to allow for a wide variety of Intelligent characters without stepping on anyone else's toes.

The worst one (Bar Ranger, the obvious choice), I would say Sorcerer. Perhaps due to how well Wizards were implemented, Sorcerers seem dim in comparison. They make for great multiclassing with other Cha related casters for the benefit of Metamagic, but as a standalone class the only thing less used is a Ranger. In this regard, I'd even say Pathfinder has a better implementation of Sorcerers, as they have more going for them in Sorcerer Bloodlines and Sorcerers and Wizards share a spell list there. Then again, in Pathfinder Metamagic is handled by Feats and can be taken by any spellcasting class (even though nobody seemed to when I played it because for the most part it was far too expensive in Spell Slots)

[Mitsu]

Best by Design: Paladins, Bards and Wizard, hands down.

Giving up on LG alignment of Paladins, adding Oaths and their unique mechanics, spells, Aura, Smites, allowing for playing merciful and good Paladin as well as grim, brutal avenger or evil conqueror that rules with fear was best DnD change up to this date in my opinion. Finally Paladins are free.

They have awesome spells, great passives, great class powers, great subclasses (very different from each other), Smites are great mechanic for giving them finally a great damage output. They are fantastic. And they multiclass so well.

Wizards are simillar. Subclasses based on schools are great, wizard unique spells are great, they are very versatile and they have huge amount of utility and combos that test players creativity.

Bards due to having access to best spells when needed, awesome subclasses that range from evil manipulators, party supporters, gishes through full strong casters. They can get some really nasty multiclass builds, while being skill monkeys, full casters, with strong melee options to take. What is not to like here?

Paladins and Wizards are often considered best 5e classes and I can't argue with that.

Best by Power: Hexblade, Paladins, Wizards, Sorcerers, Fighters.

Paladins of course are powerhouses for powerbuilds. Sorcadin will remain probably most broken build in 5e. Wizards as above and they have some bonkers builds like Nuclear Wizard, Illusionist etc.

Hexblades are broken and everyone know it. This is like THE DIP, 1-3 levels that can fit everywhere, elevate many builds to new levels. They are just best.

Sorcerers are probably worst single-class by design. They suck vs older editions. However due to their kit- they are very strong multiclass options and they are the reason of two builds are that considered by many most broken ones: Sorcadins and Sorlocks. And finally Divine Soul subclass finally made Sorcerers equal to Wizards as now Sorc get's access to two full spell lists, including very good cleric list which combos great with Metamagic. Divine Soul is little too strong, but it's fair considering how bad designed is PHB Sorc...

Fighters seems simple, but when we do things like Xbow Expert Battlemaster, Elf Samurai Archer or PAM Sentinel Battlemaster or 12 EK/8 War Wizard then we can see that there is huge amount of hidden power inside this simplicity.

Worst Designed Class: Sorcerer without Divine Soul or Multiclassing.

[Zetakya]

With the exception of Hexblade, Warlock.

[Misterwhisper]

Best:

Wizard - good class structure in general, phb subclasses make perfect sense with what they do.
Non-phb subclasses not so much.

Close second:

Rogue - it plays exactly like a good rogue feels. Moving in and out of melee and striking hard on well placed hits.

Worst:

Warlock: fluff is the best in the game but mechanics are horrible. No other class is screwed over nearly as much by the VERY common 15 min adventuring day than the warlock.
A Druid is still a full caster with full spells.
A monk has a big enough pool they should not have to worry too much if they play smart.
Fighter only loses action surge.
Warlock becomes just an eldritch blast turret, and it hurts even more out of combat when you can’t afford quality of life spells. Also they are the only class with a bonus spell list that they don’t even get to add they just have the option to pick them.
The spells on short rest is also overshadowed just by sorcerers having spell points, to a lesser extent land Druids and wizards can get some back too.

[Skylivedk]

Best design

Bards: borderline too strong, but I haven't seen the party that felt that way.

Paladins: distinct from other martials, mostly good subclasses, scale well.

Battlemaster: falls off after 11, but should IMO have been the base for the fighter

Cleric: overall very distinct and with good subclasses.

✓
[After reading Trickery's post I have to admit that Wizards are poorly designed in the sense that they can do too much and the problem grows as you level. I leave my original text here to show my first reaction which probably reflects a lot of people's reaction coming from previous editions] Wizards: you, IMO, have to remove a few things (Simulacrum!!!). Schools are really well done though. Except Illusionist (really meh early and way too much later) and transmuter (just meh all the time). I'm not too keen on necromancer.


Worst
Moon druid. Bumpy ride in power and especially too strong 1-4

Shepherd druid. Totems are way over the top, especially considering how strong summoning and healing word already were.

Champion fighter. Trap option for a long time. I liked the brute better.

Purple Dragon Knight: awful trap option.

Frenzy Barbarian. Maybe made for a game without feats. I've worked on so many fixes for this guy I don't know where to start or end.

Storm Herald Barbarian: I think the UA was ok - can't remember it too well. Got needed to unplayability.

Hexblade. Too strong a dip. There's barely a class where it doesn't make sense.

Wish. Simulacrum. Illusionist jumping from DM fiat and then gets a crazy feature "Become DM". Summoning is not really on the money yet either because of how the action economy works. I'm general spell levels above seven. I don't get why they keep a lot of them in their current form (legacy I guess?), but why building armies with Planar Binding can be so easy (and a bunch of the others)... Hard to fathom.

Four elements monk. Too little selection of spells/high cost.

Sorcerer. Too little selection of spells as well especially on lower levels.

Beastmaster. Clunky. Thank Torm they made little furry attacks magical later in the update. Still clunky.

Items, or rather the lack thereof, make what could have been a super cool rogue, way boring. Where's my smoke sticks and tanglefoot bags? Don't tell me it's stepping on the casters. They seem to have a free pass on tap dancing on martials because:
Feats: bad way to gate martial prowess

[Trickery]

I feel like people aren't really qualifying their choices with why they think X is the best designed class, and are instead going off of gut feel. No where is that more apparent than with people picking Wizard. From a game design perspective, Wizards are not designed well. I'm not talking about power or feel here, just mechanical design.

They get two things right: their subclasses are competitive, and their primary mechanic (spells) is the focus of their features. Those elements are good design.

However, Wizards have NO power progression. Their power is in which spells they take such that, in many cases, we cannot even compare two Wizards of the same level as being even remotely close to one another. This is because there is a massive difference between good spells (like find familiar) and bad ones (like almost any necromancy).

To make things even worse, their spells don't have a clear power progression from one spell level to the next. How much better is a ninth level spell than a first level spell? Not nine times. Not even twenty times. What about when combining spells, such as combining force cage with sickening radiance? How do you measure the power of doing that? You don't.

Worst of all, the class has a nasty habit of invalidating other classes. It can competently fill most roles, which is bad enough from a design perspective since classes should be distinct. But the problem is that Wizard is the best at many roles AND can do multiple roles at once on a single build. No other class can do that to the same degree. Other classes that can fill multiple roles competently (such as tank + heals for some Clerics, who are already more powerful than most classes) are far more limited in those roles they can fulfill.

There are also many things that only the Wizard can do. If that were the case with all classes, it would be fine. But it isn't. Wizard is unique among the classes in regard to the sheer number of things that only it can do.

Wizard has always been this way in D&D, and it hasn't escaped other developers' notice. When they ported Wizards to EverQuest, a game heavily inspired by D&D, that team split the class into four: Wizard, Enchanter, Magician, and Necromancer, each with some shared spells but mostly distinct lists and roles. Even in so doing, these were still four of the strongest classes at that game's launch (especially enchanter) simply due to how many things each of them could do that nobody else could. And, if we think of Wizards in D&D and imagine limiting a Wizard to just two schools of magic for spells past second level, we can still say that the Wizard would be powerful.

Basically, the class does too many things and isn't on the same power level as other classes, nor can its power even really be quantified. That's not great design.

[Sigreid]

Wizards and druids are my favorites followed by ranger, fighter then rogue.

[Kane0]

I feel like people aren't really qualifying their choices with why they think X is the best designed class, and are instead going off of gut feel.
Of course we are, the parameters were vague.

Here's what I think
Barbarian: Too focused on combat, combat and more combat. Very nice within that scope however
Bard: Very well designed, aside from some dud features like countersong
Cleric: Also very well designed aside from perhaps divine intervention and overshooting on raw power
Druid: Has only one class feature which is damning, but otherwise is very good
Fighter: Same issues as the barbarian
Monk: Much more cohesive than previous editions, but still needs some polish
Paladin: Very good design, does combat well (excepting ranged combat, which I consider a plus) but does more than just combat
Ranger: We have many, many threads about this
Rogue: Well designed for lower levels, they don't really evolve in the latter half of the game however
Sorcerer: Poor class design masked by metamagic
Warlock: build-a-class (which carries its own problems) that is solid despite some notable issues
Wizard: Poor design in that the class has nigh nothing in terms of features (it's all in the subclasses and capstones) while the spell list allows too much coverage.

Well designed classes for me are competent, can operate in more than one pillar of play and aren't one trick ponies but also can't do anything/everything. They have features (including spells) that support their 'role' but also don't shoehorn them into that role. I suppose Bards and Paladins are my prime examples of this.
Also, if you ask me a class should not be defined or measured solely by its spell list.



Wizard has always been this way in D&D, and it hasn't escaped other developers' notice. When they ported Wizards to EverQuest, a game heavily inspired by D&D, that team split the class into four: Wizard, Enchanter, Magician, and Necromancer, each with some shared spells but mostly distinct lists and roles. Even in so doing, these were still four of the strongest classes at that game's launch (especially enchanter) simply due to how many things each of them could do that nobody else could. And, if we think of Wizards in D&D and imagine limiting a Wizard to just two schools of magic for spells past second level, we can still say that the Wizard would be powerful.

I've had similar ideas on recreating the wizard. The 'mage' would still be one class, but you pick your subclass at level 1 which determines your spell list (including a handful universal to all mages) as well as your features. This reduced spell list would make room for some actual class features between levels 2 and 18. Say you had the Beguiler (Enchantment + Illusion), Binder (Conjuration + Divination), Shaper (Necromancy + Transmutation), and Warmage (Abjuration + Evocation).

[Mikaleus]

I think my favourites are Bard, Cleric and Paladin.

They all have great options and the features to play different styles.

[Amechra]

I would argue Paladin isn't a very well designed class once you throw multiclassing into the ring.

Seriously, imagine if Rogues had a trivial multiclass that doubled their sneak attack progression, or Barbarians had one that let you pick up the ability to regain their Rages as part of a short rest.

The Warlock runs into a similar issue, except it arguably wasn't designed very well in the first place...

[Waazraath]

I would argue Paladin isn't a very well designed class once you throw multiclassing into the ring.

Seriously, imagine if Rogues had a trivial multiclass that doubled their sneak attack progression, or Barbarians had one that let you pick up the ability to regain their Rages as part of a short rest.



Don't they? Multiclass rogue with a dip that provides a reaction attack (Hunter ranger 3, Battlemaster Fighter 3) and they can use SA on another creatures turn, effectively doubling it.

Further: how does multiclassing doubles a Paladin's smite output? (I guess that's what you're refering to?)

[Mitsu]

Further: how does multiclassing doubles a Paladin's smite output? (I guess that's what you're refering to?)

Well, Sorcadin allows for much more slots that can be use for smitting and Font of Magic allow for creating more 4th level slots (where Smite damage is maxed) for more economical smitting. Not only that but they also get quickening Booming Blade which allow them for another attack with already added damage which they can smite with too.

Same in theory is with Padlock, if you have 3 short rests per day you can smite much more freely and often than normal Paladin. However, we all now that there is a problem with 3 short rests per day and more with short adventuring days making long rest classes shine more. But that is imo design fault, not DM, but I digress.

If you also put into mix 2 levels of Fighter to Sorcadin (not best choice, but hey, you can), You can Also Action Surge another two Smites in your turn.

Not to mention that Quicken Hold Person/Monster -> auto crit smites combo allow you to essentially double usage of smites as you deal damage with 2 smites like you would do with 4 smites.

Hence why Sorcadin is so dam good.

[Waazraath]

Well, Sorcadin allows for much more slots that can be use for smitting and Font of Magic allow for creating more 4th level slots (where Smite damage is maxed) for more economical smitting. Not only that but they also get quickening Booming Blade which allow them for another attack with already added damage which they can smite with too.

Same in theory is with Padlock, if you have 3 short rests per day you can smite much more freely and often than normal Paladin. However, we all now that there is a problem with 3 short rests per day and more with short adventuring days making long rest classes shine more. But that is imo design fault, not DM, but I digress.

If you also put into mix 2 levels of Fighter to Sorcadin (not best choice, but hey, you can), You can Also Action Surge another two Smites in your turn.

Not to mention that Quicken Hold Person/Monster -> auto crit smites combo allow you to essentially double usage of smites as you deal damage with 2 smites like you would do with 4 smites.

Hence why Sorcadin is so dam good.

Ah, yes, I definitely won't dispute it's very good. The way I looked at it, quickening a SCAG cantrip was more like 50% extra damage (you already have 2 attacks after all - little more than 50% extra cause extra damage from the cantrip); more spell slots to smite with is true of course, but it doesn't increases your DPR, only damage in the long run; and quicken Hold Something + attack does get close to double damage actually. In this loose way, I can see a claim for 'double' damage in a loose way. But in that same way, the claim for the Rogue could be made, as stated in my post above. Maybe even without having to multiclass: grab a feat for Find Familiar (Owl for regular advantage on attacks), Sentinel and Mage Slayer for a reliable number of reaction attacks, and you're there already.

[Laserlight]

I dislike the paladin because I just can't see Roland, for example, casting spells. I think it should have been a fighter subclass. If you divorce the fluff from the mechanics, I suppose it's fine.

I'd rather that all martials have Battlemaster maneuvers or something of that sort, and I'd have given martials more skills or something to compensate for not having non-combat spells.

[Mitsu]

I dislike the paladin because I just can't see Roland, for example, casting spells. I think it should have been a fighter subclass. If you divorce the fluff from the mechanics, I suppose it's fine.

I'd rather that all martials have Battlemaster maneuvers or something of that sort, and I'd have given martials more skills or something to compensate for not having non-combat spells.

But Paladins always had spells in previous editions?

Also nothing stop you from role-playing crusader/paladin like Fighter, who is deep believer and doesn't have any spells.

[Amechra]

When I said progression, I didn't mean doubled output. I meant that you'll hit higher level slots more quickly, which means that your smite scales more quickly than a single-classed Paladin.

Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2 has 2nd level spell slots, while straight Paladin has to wait until 5th level (one level different, OK).
Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4 has 3rd level spell slots, while straight Paladin has to wait until 9th level (three levels... hrm).
Paladin 2/Sorcerer 6 has capped out Smite by RAW, while straight Paladin has to wait until 13th level, a tier later.

Replace Sorcerer with Warlock if you want native Extra Attack and a short rest recharge.

When the fastest way to advance your class's core combat feature is to take levels in a different class, you've done screwed something up.

[Waazraath]

When I said progression, I didn't mean doubled output. I meant that you'll hit higher level slots more quickly, which means that your smite scales more quickly than a single-classed Paladin.

Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2 has 2nd level spell slots, while straight Paladin has to wait until 5th level (one level different, OK).
Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4 has 3rd level spell slots, while straight Paladin has to wait until 9th level (three levels... hrm).
Paladin 2/Sorcerer 6 has capped out Smite by RAW, while straight Paladin has to wait until 13th level, a tier later.

Replace Sorcerer with Warlock if you want native Extra Attack and a short rest recharge.

When the fastest way to advance your class's core combat feature is to take levels in a different class, you've done screwed something up.

Don't want to hijack the thread with discussion, but this doesn't seem correct.
- Smite is only one of the core offensive combat features, next to Extra Attack
- Pally 2 / Sor 6 only capped out Smite as for a maximum damage, 1 or 2 times/day.
- Lacking extra attack, pally 2/Sor 6 will crit half as much (less opportunities to really double smite damage) and only half as much chances to hit (often won't be able to use smite at all)
- one might argue that this gets compensated with quicken (SCAG cantrip), but that's blowing through rescources at an enormous speed, much faster than a typical adventuring day lasts
- Not to mention that pally 2/Sor6 looses out on the core defensive combat feature/buff feature (the + saves aura)

This argument on smite only looks at this one feature (smite) in a vacuum, without even considering the synergies between smite and other class features. And even then, the multiclass is slightly ahead of the curve on smite, and behind the curve on healing, attacking, defensive buffs, hitpoints...

It would be a problem if the multiclass pally would be obvious better than the single class, but arguing that would be severely underestimating the single class pally imo.

[Laserlight]

But Paladins always had spells in previous editions?

So they did it wrong in previous editions as well. :-)


Also nothing stop you from role-playing crusader/paladin like Fighter, who is deep believer and doesn't have any spells.

I think a Paladin should be different from a straight fighter--the auras are good, for example--but I don't think they should have spell slots and they certainly shouldn't be using them for smites.

[Skylivedk]

I feel like people aren't really qualifying their choices with why they think X is the best designed class, and are instead going off of gut feel. No where is that more apparent than with people picking Wizard. From a game design perspective, Wizards are not designed well. I'm not talking about power or feel here, just mechanical design.

They get two things right: their subclasses are competitive, and their primary mechanic (spells) is the focus of their features. Those elements are good design.

However, Wizards have NO power progression. Their power is in which spells they take such that, in many cases, we cannot even compare two Wizards of the same level as being even remotely close to one another. This is because there is a massive difference between good spells (like find familiar) and bad ones (like almost any necromancy).

To make things even worse, their spells don't have a clear power progression from one spell level to the next. How much better is a ninth level spell than a first level spell? Not nine times. Not even twenty times. What about when combining spells, such as combining force cage with sickening radiance? How do you measure the power of doing that? You don't.

Worst of all, the class has a nasty habit of invalidating other classes. It can competently fill most roles, which is bad enough from a design perspective since classes should be distinct. But the problem is that Wizard is the best at many roles AND can do multiple roles at once on a single build. No other class can do that to the same degree. Other classes that can fill multiple roles competently (such as tank + heals for some Clerics, who are already more powerful than most classes) are far more limited in those roles they can fulfill.

There are also many things that only the Wizard can do. If that were the case with all classes, it would be fine. But it isn't. Wizard is unique among the classes in regard to the sheer number of things that only it can do.

Wizard has always been this way in D&D, and it hasn't escaped other developers' notice. When they ported Wizards to EverQuest, a game heavily inspired by D&D, that team split the class into four: Wizard, Enchanter, Magician, and Necromancer, each with some shared spells but mostly distinct lists and roles. Even in so doing, these were still four of the strongest classes at that game's launch (especially enchanter) simply due to how many things each of them could do that nobody else could. And, if we think of Wizards in D&D and imagine limiting a Wizard to just two schools of magic for spells past second level, we can still say that the Wizard would be powerful.

Basically, the class does too many things and isn't on the same power level as other classes, nor can its power even really be quantified. That's not great design.

Point taken! You're right. Wizards need a redesign and probably a redesign do thorough it would alienate a lot of the 2e players for it to be a well designed class.

[MrStabby]

Point taken! You're right. Wizards need a redesign and probably a redesign do thorough it would alienate a lot of the 2e players for it to be a well designed class.

The problem is that too much of the power comes from the spells and not the class. This means that anyone who gets the spell gets pretty much the full use out of it. In turn this makes generalists far too powerful as they get all the benefits of all the best spells in the game but with little by way of drawbacks. Sometimes there are occasional benefits, such as draconic sorcerers getting a small buff to damage for their chosen element, but these are pretty far between and, more importantly pretty minor improvements.

3rd edition had a nice feature where the same spell was at different levels for different classes (not holding up the edition as a whole as an example of either good balance or elegant design, but this one feature was good). I think something like that would help a lot with overly general classes and to help each class focus on it's core abilities. Something like fireball being a level 3 spell for a sorcerer but a level 4 spell for a wizard would be about right - same with spells like banishment, if you are not a cleric then it is a level higher... It could also strengthen the subclass identity of wizards, if their corresponding spells for their school appeared at the specialist level rather than the generalist level.

Ah well, too late now.

[Willie the Duck]

Which class do you think was implemented best in 5e? In terms of mechanics, fluff, role etc?

The standard I will use is: have a goal in mind, and implement it in a smooth, elegant way. Inter-class power level is not going to be in my criteria, as I think a few classes are both well-designed, but designed for games of genuinely different norms of power level (as and example: fighters in a game with feats, and in a game without feats, are generally both well designed, but of very different power levels).

Overall, I think that Totem Barbarians, Life, Light, and Tempest Clerics, Battlemaster and Eldritch Knight Fighters, Rogues, and some wizards probably meet these criteria. Most others have at least some glitch, although how bit each is is debatable.



Champion Fighter by far.
does what it says on the tin, wit h easy to learn mechanics.

I will say that my only complaint with Champion (again, relative power level is not a criteria in my analysis) is that they are not the most 'general' form of fighter, because they favor crit-fishing builds. I wanted a 'general, AD&D-esque' fighter with no specific gearing towards any specific build type, and the Brute UA archetype would have been more like that.



Giving up on LG alignment of Paladins, adding Oaths and their unique mechanics, spells, Aura, Smites, allowing for playing merciful and good Paladin as well as grim, brutal avenger or evil conqueror that rules with fear was best DnD change up to this date in my opinion. Finally Paladins are free.
They have awesome spells, great passives, great class powers, great subclasses (very different from each other), Smites are great mechanic for giving them finally a great damage output. They are fantastic. And they multiclass so well.

Much of the paladin is elegant. Trading getting more than 2 attacks like a fighter for 1:2 spellcasting is good, as are the aura. Smite is a reasonable solution compared to 3e's implementation, although 'a caster class that rarely uses their spell pool for spells' is questionable in its' elegance. Actually, the multiclassing is my primary argument against this one. You shouldn't be able to lean into a classes' features better by multi-classing out of it.


Bards due to having access to best spells when needed, awesome subclasses that range from evil manipulators, party supporters, gishes through full strong casters.

I'm not sure how I feel about bards. In particular, Magical Secrets is a somewhat problematic mechanic, in that you are borrowing something from another class. It makes the bard (particularly the lore bard) a very useful class, but it also constrains the kind of things you can design into the game because there's a class out there that can include any two spells on one character's spell list.


Hexblades are broken and everyone know it.

Warlocks in general are my ur-example of a class that is quite fun, yet would not fit my criteria for the OP question. The are jagged, break otherwise established norms (ex: Shillelagh seems to have been balanced around the challenge of attaching it to a class with multiple attacks a levels 5-6+, with an attribute someone would want to pump up to ~20, and having a decent AC without already having a decent Str or Dex. Hexblades throw that standard out the window for their Cha-based combat stat-ing), have power levels wildly fluctuating based on build choices, and are in many cases best as a 1-3 level dip as opposed to as a 20-level progression. They are fun, they have great thematic fluff, the decision to make them not specifically infernal was a stroke of brilliance, but they are a IMO mess of a class.


No where is that more apparent than with people picking Wizard. From a game design perspective, Wizards are not designed well. I'm not talking about power or feel here, just mechanical design.

They get two things right: their subclasses are competitive, and their primary mechanic (spells) is the focus of their features. Those elements are good design.

However, Wizards have NO power progression. Their power is in which spells they take such that, in many cases, we cannot even compare two Wizards of the same level as being even remotely close to one another.

I want to qualify this with the disclaimer that I have a high bar for agreement when someone says something is 'bad design' or 'not designed well' based entirely on past experience for which you are not responsible. I've seen entirely too many self-proclaimed internet geniuses treat their preferences as objective qualities of good design or the like, so I take such things with perhaps overmuch suspicion. Regardless, I generally agree that wizards are really dependent upon which spells they have. And I have mentioned above with bards and warlocks that extremely choice-dependent power level is probably not best for the game (heck, there's a reason that Monte Cook has gotten so much flack for that 'system mastery' interview). However, I'm not sure that a class being 'No power progression' and being, effectively, a launching platform for spell-based ordinance is clear case of 'from a game design perspective' bad design. That's a bridge too far for me. Mind you, I don't think it works perfectly in WotC-era D&D --or really, whenever PCs got to choose what spells they took; when spells were treasure and you used whatever you could get (just like the martials were as powerful as the magic weapons they found) it all worked out a little better-- but I can't say it's inherently bad design without some stronger justification.

[Eldariel]

Honestly, most non-casters are so dull to play in combat on higher levels that I don't really think they qualify. Subjective fun is only one of the many metrics to analyse a class by, but any class that fails the test due to tedium shouldn't be in the game as the only option IMHO. The game needs simple and complex classes for both ends of the spectrum, to cater to all sorts of players but complex shouldn't automatically equal better as well. Even Battlemaster Fighter is ultimately restricted to like 5 tricks total, and there's no option to switch maneuvers for more fitting ones midfight. And generally you have approximately one really good trick you'll spam as much as possible if you're a non-caster, and that's what your character is built around. Playing "I attack again" (even if the attack is actually a complex combination of actions and feat effects - the issue is doing the same thing round after round, encounter after encounter, level after level) for 10 levels, even with some use of maneuvers, is ultimately far less interesting than "I can cast about 30 different spells that have completely unique effects and many of which have a lot of room for relevant creativity in use". This is something I've repeatedly run into, in my own experience as well as in many players' stories. In short, I think non-casters of the edition were, while better than in 3e, still categorically a failure far as providing an engaging play experience goes.


Now, casters are done rather well, I find. I think there's a good breadth of variety in the caster line-up and many of those classes are engaging and fulfill their own power fantasies. I love the design of the Bard. I feel this combination of Beguiler and Bard from 3e is the closest Bard has ever been to its mythological forebears and being a full caster really fits the class. It's still got the 1e "jack of all trades"-thing going on, but it's a really strong Jack now. Overall, I find Bard perhaps my favourite design. Though I also really like the design of the Sorcerer and the Wizard. They both feel like what their fluff suggests. However, the Wizard is comparatively a tad too powerful, but that's life. Rituals are cool and I'm all for the Wizard Ritual Casting. Metamagic Sorcerer is also a natural pair; Sorc is magic incarnate of sorts after all so having a more finessed control over magic than say a Wizard fits in perfectly. Though I think a Power Point/Spell Point system ultimately suits the power source of the class more than the vancian system they currently use. Honestly, the vancian system is best suited for Wizards and characters that learn casting the same way (I can let it pass for Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters).

Druid is interesting though I find the lack of a proper "Charm Animal"-effect disturbing given Animal Friendship literally just says "You communicate you mean it no harm" - that's not worth a 1st level spell, that's a cantrip level effect. Druids in fiction are all about the whole forest being their eyes and fighting together with beasts and wild animals and indeed, never being threatened by anything of nature. I feel like that comes into play maybe a bit too late and with too much effort. Overall, I do like this version of the Druid a fair bit though.

Cleric & Warlock I'm not especially fond of. They're both fairly good at what they're supposed to represent though so I won't criticize them overtly much. Ranger is a bit weird; I think spelled Ranger should be an archetype rather than the default. There's need for a non-magical skilled warrior. Pally still fails to have its own niche; I dunno why I'd play one over a Cleric. I find those two classes too close to each other (their mechanical differences don't solve their fluff being basically identical). I like the aura idea but I find Warlord or Marshal a better carrier for the "mundane leader"-class. I don't think that should necessarily have to be something as specific and restricted as Paladin. Pally could honestly exist as a Fighter or a Cleric archetype but I don't think it should have its own class with the way classes in 5e are laid out.

Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight are kinda cool but I feel their spellcasting is a bit too retarded; I liked 3e version better where you got 4th level spells on level 16 and got a significant number of them by level 20. I get that they are versions of their core class with a few magical tricks rather than actual magic users but it just feels a bit meh to have only a single 4th level spell per day even by level 20. On level 20, 4th level spells aren't all that (though they're certainly still good).

[Amechra]

Don't want to hijack the thread with discussion, but this doesn't seem correct.
- Smite is only one of the core offensive combat features, next to Extra Attack
- Pally 2 / Sor 6 only capped out Smite as for a maximum damage, 1 or 2 times/day.
- Lacking extra attack, pally 2/Sor 6 will crit half as much (less opportunities to really double smite damage) and only half as much chances to hit (often won't be able to use smite at all)
- one might argue that this gets compensated with quicken (SCAG cantrip), but that's blowing through rescources at an enormous speed, much faster than a typical adventuring day lasts
- Not to mention that pally 2/Sor6 looses out on the core defensive combat feature/buff feature (the + saves aura)

This argument on smite only looks at this one feature (smite) in a vacuum, without even considering the synergies between smite and other class features. And even then, the multiclass is slightly ahead of the curve on smite, and behind the curve on healing, attacking, defensive buffs, hitpoints...

It would be a problem if the multiclass pally would be obvious better than the single class, but arguing that would be severely underestimating the single class pally imo.

I think we're arguing past each-other. My complaint is literally just "man, you shouldn't be able to advance a core feature of a class faster by taking levels in a different class", with no judgment towards whether or not that necessarily makes you stronger.

[darknite]

I dislike the paladin because I just can't see Roland, for example, casting spells. I think it should have been a fighter subclass. If you divorce the fluff from the mechanics, I suppose it's fine. ...

It already is. It's called a Cavalier. In a world steeped with magic, the D&D Paladin is a valid construct.

[Waazraath]

I think we're arguing past each-other. My complaint is literally just "man, you shouldn't be able to advance a core feature of a class faster by taking levels in a different class", with no judgment towards whether or not that necessarily makes you stronger.

Ah, yeah, probably then. I don't see that as a problem, cause in the bigger picture, it is (in play) compensated by other stuff. If you purely look from design, I can imagine it is weird.

[Nagog]

I've had similar ideas on recreating the wizard. The 'mage' would still be one class, but you pick your subclass at level 1 which determines your spell list (including a handful universal to all mages) as well as your features. This reduced spell list would make room for some actual class features between levels 2 and 18. Say you had the Beguiler (Enchantment + Illusion), Binder (Conjuration + Divination), Shaper (Necromancy + Transmutation), and Warmage (Abjuration + Evocation).

So to me this sounds like the single school subclasses offered currently, but with more restrictions than necessary. I feel like the Wizard is fine as is, and does well in comparison to the other spellcasters (Bar Sorcerers, but I'll get to that in a second)


I would argue Paladin isn't a very well designed class once you throw multiclassing into the ring.

Seriously, imagine if Rogues had a trivial multiclass that doubled their sneak attack progression, or Barbarians had one that let you pick up the ability to regain their Rages as part of a short rest.

The Warlock runs into a similar issue, except it arguably wasn't designed very well in the first place...

Considering Sorcerers are pretty much exclusively a Multiclass choice, Paladin being optimized for smiting with a multiclass is not the biggest issue there.

To be fair, multiclassing changes the dynamic of any class, and some dynamic changes are much better than others. Sure Pally 2/Sorcerer 6 lets you smite things straight to hell at level 8, but you're missing out on things like the Paladin Auras and Oath bonuses and things. You'd be turning your Paladin into a great glass cannon, when a full Paladin would be more akin to a Tank (military tank not gaming style tank), heavy defense and good attack. Tbh you could turn any class into an extremely specialized build with Multiclassing. A Warlock/Abjurer/Paladin could pretty much always save due to Aura, and even without armor they would have Arcane Ward and Armor of Agathys to tank damage and put out damage, Then use wizard slots to Smite. It'd be MAD, involving high Int, Cha, and Str, but it's easily possible, coming fully online with smites at level 5 (Warlock 1/Abjurer 2/Paladin 2). Conversely, Paladin/Barbarian with HAM could tank damage for days, combining HAM's 3 DR with BArbarian Resistances and Paladin's Auras. Could even throw Abjurer on top for an HP based buffer between you and the attacks, and you'll pretty much never die.

[tormund]

Druid: Has only one class feature which is damning, but otherwise is very good


Can't figure out what this feature is, unless you are specifically referring to high-level moon druid invincibility.

[Mitsu]

So to me this sounds like the single school subclasses offered currently, but with more restrictions than necessary. I feel like the Wizard is fine as is, and does well in comparison to the other spellcasters (Bar Sorcerers, but I'll get to that in a second)



Considering Sorcerers are pretty much exclusively a Multiclass choice, Paladin being optimized for smiting with a multiclass is not the biggest issue there.

To be fair, multiclassing changes the dynamic of any class, and some dynamic changes are much better than others. Sure Pally 2/Sorcerer 6 lets you smite things straight to hell at level 8, but you're missing out on things like the Paladin Auras and Oath bonuses and things. You'd be turning your Paladin into a great glass cannon, when a full Paladin would be more akin to a Tank (military tank not gaming style tank), heavy defense and good attack. Tbh you could turn any class into an extremely specialized build with Multiclassing. A Warlock/Abjurer/Paladin could pretty much always save due to Aura, and even without armor they would have Arcane Ward and Armor of Agathys to tank damage and put out damage, Then use wizard slots to Smite. It'd be MAD, involving high Int, Cha, and Str, but it's easily possible, coming fully online with smites at level 5 (Warlock 1/Abjurer 2/Paladin 2). Conversely, Paladin/Barbarian with HAM could tank damage for days, combining HAM's 3 DR with BArbarian Resistances and Paladin's Auras. Could even throw Abjurer on top for an HP based buffer between you and the attacks, and you'll pretty much never die.

That is why you make Paladin 6/14 Sorc build, not 2/18. 6/14 lets you grab almost everything best about Paladin, core Oath features, 2 levels of Oath spells, extra attack, smites, 35 HP Hands pool and Aura.

Sure, it starts off rather slowly, you really start to feel power at 6/3 when you get Shadow Blade + Spiritual Weapon, but at 6/5 when you get Haste, Hypnotic Pattern, Spirit Guardians and Counter Spell you are really starting to be seriously OP. You have great single target offense, AoE offense, AoE CC, Nova, you are extremely tanky, you can heal allies, you have high saving throws, high spell DC, access to cleric and sorc spells, you have Revivify, healing word, greater restoration, geas, banishement, holy weapon, twinning, quicken and much more. Apart from your spell progression being slower than full caster (which is not an issue for a gish build as it's not his main job to cast spells but to be in melee combat with spells as support for his combat power) you are basically a straight up upgraded and boosted Paladin.

Vengeance Paladin 6/14 Divine Soul Sorcerer is beyond broken build that pretty much has no weakness. Even MAD could be solved by 1 Hexblade dip if needed but it's hardly needed but since standard Sorcadin build is Sword n Shield build, there is not that much pressure for 20 STR as in GWM builds.

2/18 Sorcadin is just a caster with option to hit something in melee. It can function as gish in front line but it lacks extra attack, Oath feature that boosts melee like VoE or Sacred Weapon and doesn't have Aura that can support your team and your self in front line. It's more of a caster than gish. It also doesn't have same Nova as 6/14 and while GFB is nice replacement for extra attack, it still depend on single roll and can smite only once.

The standard Sorcadin build is 6/14 and if done correctly (I am saying that as huge Paladin class fan) it just better than pure Paladin in every way. I only ever missed Greater Steed on Sorcadin, but nothing that my party Moon Druid couldn't replace :).

[Mitsu]

I think we can all agree that worst designed subclass is Hexblade.

I mean honestly- who would at this point play CHA-based class without dip in Hexblade?

Paladin X/1 Hexblade allow Paladin to focus on his CHA, be SAD, grab PAM with spear and shield and be happy.

Sword Bard grabs 1 level Hexblade and he is suddenly SAD two, full caster with extra attack, medium armor, shields and martial weapons proficiency.

Sorcerer grabs 2 Levels Hexblade and create broken Sorlock.

Lore Bard grabs 1 level and has melee boost, 2 levels for Agonizing Blast and his single target DPR problem is solved.

You don't even need CHA class:

Fighter can splash 2 levels for Agonizing Blast range magical attack, 2x per short rest Shield spell, getting super darkvision.

Every class can pretty much grab 1 level here and benefit. Wizard? Sure, Nuclear Wizard build with Evocation. Rogue? Shield spell 2x per day, SAD CHA, 19-20 crit range, Hex spell, medium armor, shields?

Come on.....

[KorvinStarmast]

Which class do you think was implemented best in 5e? In terms of mechanics, fluff, role etc?
No multiclassing digression here. In order from 1 to 12, best to worst, class design.

1. Cleric.
Right out of the box in the basic rules, I had my domain (sub class) at level 1, and I had to make a few choices with spells which is what all spell casters needed to do in the editions that I was most used to. When my clerics get to 8th and 9th level, there is still "what spells do I choose and why?" after a long rest. I like this requirement for thinking that this puts on the player. Not everyone likes that kind of decision making. Flexible, durable, can support or attack and has a purpose built into the role play. Lots of domain choices to pick from, there's one that will fit your needs. And if you want to, you can play a bit of a heal bot and still have some more options open. Unlike some of you, I like how Divine Intervention was written, since I work with my DMs (and as I DM, I work with my players) to make that feature fit.

2. Rogue: right out of the box, my only unhappiness with the Rogue was how darned hard getting surprise right is, tactically, which makes the Assassin sub class really have to work to take advantage of some great / lethal features. The Thief I like, but I particularly like Arcane Trickster now that I have seen a couple in play. That's a great sub class, very flexible. Have very small experience with XGtE sub classes, but the Swashbuckler in our Tier 3 group is most excellent to have as a playing companion/battle buddy. I think WoTC mostly got Rogue right.

3. Paladin: as classes go, in terms of unifying the editions and working out bugs, they finally got this one right and is IMO Most Improved Class. (The softening of the edges of alignment for this edition is a contributor). Why an oath choice waits until third level I am not sure, except to allow new players to get used to paladinning before committing.
The mix of features I like a lot, and my favorite Oath is Ancients. (Vengeance is a fine oath for killing bosses and mini bosses, but for me the all around experience of Ancients is best). Paladin can do RP/Social, raw combat, support, a bit of magic ... very flexible in play.

========================================

OK, the harder for me to rate group.

4. Fighter. Mixed feelings. Battle Master is, as some others have noted, a nice kit and ought to be the default template. The combat expert, who knows a lot of tricks. While I like the Champion, because sometimes, you want to climb, run, jump, push, shove, and the hammer away at foes, I really dislike that Fighter gets shorted on Abilities/skills at initial build. I think they need one more skill/ability at class creation. I've seen two EK's in play, in our groups. That's a great sub class, but I've not played one. As far as XGtE goes, I really like Cavalier since they tried to work 'controller' into his kit. A bit of overlap with Battlemaster, perhaps, but a nice option.

5. Wizard: out of the box, eight schools, and a well defined 'feel' for each sub class, I really think they got this one mostly right. My biggest problem with this class is that it is very much not new player friendly, in terms of complexity. Wizard needs some systems mastery, IMO. Also, depending on the magic items they find in adventuring, staves and wands, their power can spike hard. DM needs to think about what treasures to drop.

6. Sorcerer: I really like that you get your sub class at level 1. A lot. I'd otherwise rate this class lower.
I'd like to see a few more spells known, another cantrip known, and an additional meta magic added to increase the max number of meta magics by one. (Add one somewhere between 6 and 10, was a suggestion I made. This is also not a great newbie player choice, but not a horrible one either).

Wild Magic: they almost nailed it in design, but not quite. (I am very biased towards Shadow sorcerer since I am playing one ... so I may be a poor reviewer in this case)

7. Druid. Full caster(circle of land), or Moon, the complaints about "OP at low level" are very annoying to me. This is a team game. Out of the box, I like the way they put this together. OK, so they help the party get through the early levels. It's a team game.

It's OK to have plateaus and power bursts. Paladins get a huge power burst at level 5 with their second attack and bigger smites. Druids get a couple of bursts at 2 and 10, if they are Moon.
My complaint? Concentration / concentration / concentration, and in particular, why the heck is barkskin concentration? Arrgghhh! A sad face here: in featless games, no warcaster, no resilient, concentration gets to be a bigger issue, or it can be. Flexible? Yeah. There's a lot a Druid can do to contribute to the team.
And turning into beasts if fun.

8. Bard. I really ought to rate this higher, because a Lore Bard's flexibliity (particularly if you make it from a half elf) fits a great niche in the game. Not really a specialist, he can do a lot of things and has a lot of tools as a support. But I had to put this somewhere. The XGtE bards I just don't understand well enough.

8. Ranger. Hunter is good. Solid choice for a martial. Beast Master I've not played, I'll not comment. (Love me some gloom stalker ... ) and I am disappointed that Rangers do not have domain spells "out of the box" (as the XGtE ones do). I am also very disappointed that they are not prepared casters the way that paladins, druids and clerics are. Ranger is a divine caster: prepare spells. (Rant aborted here). The MAD issue doesn't bother me the way it bothers some people.

9. Monk. I like Monk. I wish Four Elements did not restrict choices/access to the elemental abilities. I think that's a mistake in design. I haven't played enough at high level to comment further on this class. Monk takes a bit of thinking to play well, but it's solid. Not rated higher due to my silly decision to rank top down.

10. Barbarian. The made a mess of Berserker with how the Exhaustion mechanic recovery is. Right out of the box, they took a good class and screwed up Berserker. So right out of the box, you get one choice. Totem barb. Good choice, IMO. But that exhaustion mechanic's faults really hosed choices for Barbarian.

====================

11. Warlock. I love this class, but am in the camp that says "use Int for casting, not Cha" for Warlock. The longer I see this class the more I wish the structure fit the class description in the PHB. It is my opinion that Pact Magic is properly segregated from all other magic types.Great call on taht one. Yeah, it's a bit clunky with the spell slots/rests thing, but overall what they did with this class for customizabilty is a strong point. (I'd not mind seeing more invocations all said and done, but darnint, Int Based Caster! They really missed a trick here, and they did even worse by not quite getting pact of blade right, and theh over compensating with Hexblade. Another thing I still have mixed feelings about is the "once per long rest cast this spell" invocations. Some days, seems a good idea, some days, not.

OK, I lost track of one, will edit later.

[Trickery]

Back on the topic of best design, my vote is Rogue. Haven't seen as much love as the class deserves.

Feels how it should starting at level 1.
Features build upon each other and work together to fit rhe concept.
Most features are unique. Rogue doesn't feel like another class.
Features are easy to understand and do exactly what they say they do.
Subclass choices are competitive and playstyle-defining. None of them are just more Rogue. They have unique virtues.
Scales perfectly with level. Is neither too strong or too weak at any level.
Can multiclass or stay single-classed and still be effective.
Mechanics paint a clear picture of how the Rogue should play without forcing it to fit a specific concept. Thus, the Rogue can represent many different fantasy characters (like the Fighter).
No front loading of features, but also no dead levels.

From a game design perspective, the Rogue is pretty much perfect. The main opportunity for improvement is the Assassin subclass, but that's mainly due to Surprise mechanics and is easily resolved.

[KorvinStarmast]

From a game design perspective, the Rogue is pretty much perfect. The main opportunity for improvement is the Assassin subclass, but that's mainly due to Surprise mechanics and is easily resolved. You said what I was thinking about rogue a lot better than I did. *tips cap* Not sure about "easily resolved" but with a slight fix in surprise yes, ... Assassin's little hiccup gets repaired.

[bendking]

Back on the topic of best design, my vote is Rogue. Haven't seen as much love as the class deserves.

Feels how it should starting at level 1.
Features build upon each other and work together to fit rhe concept.
Most features are unique. Rogue doesn't feel like another class.
Features are easy to understand and do exactly what they say they do.
Subclass choices are competitive and playstyle-defining. None of them are just more Rogue. They have unique virtues.
Scales perfectly with level. Is neither too strong or too weak at any level.
Can multiclass or stay single-classed and still be effective.
Mechanics paint a clear picture of how the Rogue should play without forcing it to fit a specific concept. Thus, the Rogue can represent many different fantasy characters (like the Fighter).
No front loading of features, but also no dead levels.

From a game design perspective, the Rogue is pretty much perfect. The main opportunity for improvement is the Assassin subclass, but that's mainly due to Surprise mechanics and is easily resolved.

I don't know, I feel like Arcane Trickster overshadows other sub-classes, Assassin is weird, Thief gets good only late-game... Swashbuckler is nice, but Panache is a tanking ability for a Rogue..?
The core class is great, but sub-classes are a mixed bag in my opinion, which is what holds it back from being highly-rated in my mind.

[MrStabby]

Back on the topic of best design, my vote is Rogue. Haven't seen as much love as the class deserves.

Feels how it should starting at level 1.
Features build upon each other and work together to fit rhe concept.
Most features are unique. Rogue doesn't feel like another class.
Features are easy to understand and do exactly what they say they do.
Subclass choices are competitive and playstyle-defining. None of them are just more Rogue. They have unique virtues.
Scales perfectly with level. Is neither too strong or too weak at any level.
Can multiclass or stay single-classed and still be effective.
Mechanics paint a clear picture of how the Rogue should play without forcing it to fit a specific concept. Thus, the Rogue can represent many different fantasy characters (like the Fighter).
No front loading of features, but also no dead levels.

From a game design perspective, the Rogue is pretty much perfect. The main opportunity for improvement is the Assassin subclass, but that's mainly due to Surprise mechanics and is easily resolved.


Pretty much said what was covered the last time this question came up: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?421873-Best-Designed-Classes

Rogue was a popular answer then as well.

The response in the other thread that caught me on the rogue was this:




And it really does come down to low versus high fantasy. What the 5e rogue gains doesn't really push the imagination which makes it a low fantasy rogue.

Look at the 13th Age Rogue, at first level they can gain the Thievery Class Talent which gives them bonuses to steal stuff. At a later level they gain the ability to steal anything. They can steal a dream, vision, a spell, or a memory! This shows a progression from low fantasy to high fantasy. The 13th age rogue doesn't stagnate.

You can have constant abilities which go from low level to high level and show a progression from low fantasy to high fantasy so that you don't have a class that stagnates.

For me this pins down a lot of what I don't like in the rogue. It doesnt progress. You get better at what you do but you don't really do new things, or if you do you do them in a minor manner. If the arcane trickster's spell stealing ability was a much bigger part of the class for example I could really get into it.


From a voting perspective I would expect the rogue to come high, just due to lack of competition. If you want to primarily be a spellcaster you have 6 classes to pick from. If you want to be kicking ass with multiple attacks then you have 5 more classes (plus things like valor bard). If you want a single badass attack, skills and tricks then there isn't much close to a rogue.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

At the risk of being permanently banned from the forum, I'm going to say that I secretly like the Ranger design a lot. Seriously, you can argue that the PHB Ranger is relatively underpowered compared to other classes, but thematically I love pretty much everything they did. Honestly, I don't think there are many great metrics to compare classes 1 to 1 though (they all end up pointing to full casters, especially Wizards, being "better" but other classes are just as fun and enjoyable). The first time I picked up 5e I had a hard time choosing between Monk, Ranger, and Rogue because they all sounded like so much fun. I've now played all of them at different levels, and they're all fun! Go figure.

I love the sub-classes because each one is truly unique. The Hunter and BM are especially fun for me. Picking up different fighting styles based on how your character was shaped by his/her background makes a lot of sense for someone who likely wandered through the wilds. And that will play entirely differently from something like a BM or a Gloomstalker! I feel like each subclass captures a different version of the archetypical fantasy ranger. I love the favored enemy and terrain types as well because they just fit the essence of what a ranger is. Also Feral Senses that gives you the ability to fight blind and always know invisible creatures' locations within 30 feet. Stuff like that is just awesome and ties into the link of martial and magic that a class like Ranger offers.


I also think Monk is a great improvement over 3.5 and 4e for what it's worth.

[Waazraath]

No front loading of features, but also no dead levels.
From a game design perspective, the Rogue is pretty much perfect. The main opportunity for improvement is the Assassin subclass, but that's mainly due to Surprise mechanics and is easily resolved.

Just curious: don't you think it's a bit dissapointing compared to other classes that it is a bit out of sync with them, powercurve wise? I mean, most classes are frontloaded. And all other classes get a huge boost at level 5 (at the very least extra attack or 3rd level spells, sometimes even more features). The Rogue gets uncanny dodge and another 1d6 SA. That's nice, but not on par with Fireball or 2 attacks, it seems.

Or should other classes take an example from the more linear power curve of the rogue?

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Just curious: don't you think it's a bit dissapointing compared to other classes that it is a bit out of sync with them, powercurve wise? I mean, most classes are frontloaded. And all other classes get a huge boost at level 5 (at the very least extra attack or 3rd level spells, sometimes even more features). The Rogue gets uncanny dodge and another 1d6 SA. That's nice, but not on par with Fireball or 2 attacks, it seems.

Or should other classes take an example from the more linear power curve of the rogue?

I've personally thought for a long time that Rogues should get a second attack at Level 5. I haven't seen any opinions or threads on this, but I'm sure they exist somewhere. It just doesn't make sense to me that they're the fastest, most agile fighters in general and yet they can't get a couple of attacks in for one action. They aren't going to overshadow the Fighter with a single extra attack, but it would make sneak attack more reliable, especially for single weapon Rogues (something that already takes teamwork and planning to set up).

I'm interested if I'm alone in thinking this.

[Trickery]

Just curious: don't you think it's a bit dissapointing compared to other classes that it is a bit out of sync with them, powercurve wise? I mean, most classes are frontloaded. And all other classes get a huge boost at level 5 (at the very least extra attack or 3rd level spells, sometimes even more features). The Rogue gets uncanny dodge and another 1d6 SA. That's nice, but not on par with Fireball or 2 attacks, it seems.

Or should other classes take an example from the more linear power curve of the rogue?

Well, fighter and barbarian are pretty linear (though they operate in leaps rather than a smooth progression). It's spellcasters who have quadratic progression. Sure, there's an argument to be made that making two, three, or sometimes five attacks per round all day is better than being able to throw a fireball twice. But there's not much dispute when you're comparing a maximum of nine attacks versus the power of Wish. Things get out of hand the further up the spell list you go.

That said, regardless of the decision of high fantasy or low and when each class gets there, it'd be nice if WotC made up their minds.

[Willie the Duck]

Back on the topic of best design, my vote is Rogue. Haven't seen as much love as the class deserves.

Feels how it should starting at level 1.
Features build upon each other and work together to fit rhe concept.
Most features are unique. Rogue doesn't feel like another class.
Features are easy to understand and do exactly what they say they do.
Subclass choices are competitive and playstyle-defining. None of them are just more Rogue. They have unique virtues.
Scales perfectly with level. Is neither too strong or too weak at any level.
Can multiclass or stay single-classed and still be effective.
Mechanics paint a clear picture of how the Rogue should play without forcing it to fit a specific concept. Thus, the Rogue can represent many different fantasy characters (like the Fighter).
No front loading of features, but also no dead levels.

From a game design perspective, the Rogue is pretty much perfect. The main opportunity for improvement is the Assassin subclass, but that's mainly due to Surprise mechanics and is easily resolved.


2. Rogue: right out of the box, my only unhappiness with the Rogue was how darned hard getting surprise right is, tactically, which makes the Assassin sub class really have to work to take advantage of some great / lethal features. The Thief I like, but I particularly like Arcane Trickster now that I have seen a couple in play. That's a great sub class, very flexible. Have very small experience with XGtE sub classes, but the Swashbuckler in our Tier 3 group is most excellent to have as a playing companion/battle buddy. I think WoTC mostly got Rogue right.

The rogue, as a class, gets just about everything right. In fact, my only real complaint is that certain people I've dealt with need something else (which is really a design flaw in that nonexistent class). The biggest problem is that 'nimble and dexterous, roguish hero or antihero' is a common character type that a new-to-the-game player wants to play, and a rogue isn't quite a newbie-friendly class (because, as KS stated, you are working on getting surprise or otherwise capitalize upon sneak attack). So a Rogue is great, but there really needs to also be a Simple fighter archetype that sacrifices some combat prowess for some of the rogues schtick (skill bonuses, or the like).


At the risk of being permanently banned from the forum, I'm going to say that I secretly like the Ranger design a lot. Seriously, you can argue that the PHB Ranger is relatively underpowered compared to other classes, but thematically I love pretty much everything they did. Honestly, I don't think there are many great metrics to compare classes 1 to 1 though (they all end up pointing to full casters, especially Wizards, being "better" but other classes are just as fun and enjoyable). The first time I picked up 5e I had a hard time choosing between Monk, Ranger, and Rogue because they all sounded like so much fun. I've now played all of them at different levels, and they're all fun! Go figure.


I get it. A ranger, the class itself, is frankly pretty darn well built … for a slightly lower power version of the game than what many of the other classes ended up being. If the power level were recalibrated a bit, a ranger would be a solid build mechanically, and it would really be the rules outside of the class creation portion of the game that really mess with a ranger (simply put, the travel, weather, environmental, sensory, and obstacle rules aren't really built to make 'being good in the wilderness' all that interesting).

[Trickery]

I get it. A ranger, the class itself, is frankly pretty darn well built … for a slightly lower power version of the game than what many of the other classes ended up being. If the power level were recalibrated a bit, a ranger would be a solid build mechanically, and it would really be the rules outside of the class creation portion of the game that really mess with a ranger (simply put, the travel, weather, environmental, sensory, and obstacle rules aren't really built to make 'being good in the wilderness' all that interesting).

The main trouble with the Ranger is that it has a lot of unwieldy features that don't do what you'd expect them to do. The beast master archetype also gets this pretty bad, though the others seem fine (Xanathar's ones are probably too strong). But I won't get into it here any more than to say what my wife has told me: the Ranger class has weird mechanics and doesn't feel like Aragorn, which is what she wanted from it.

[Skylivedk]

Back on the topic of best design, my vote is Rogue. Haven't seen as much love as the class deserves.

Feels how it should starting at level 1.
Features build upon each other and work together to fit rhe concept.
Most features are unique. Rogue doesn't feel like another class.
Features are easy to understand and do exactly what they say they do.
Subclass choices are competitive and playstyle-defining. None of them are just more Rogue. They have unique virtues.
Scales perfectly with level. Is neither too strong or too weak at any level.
Can multiclass or stay single-classed and still be effective.
Mechanics paint a clear picture of how the Rogue should play without forcing it to fit a specific concept. Thus, the Rogue can represent many different fantasy characters (like the Fighter).
No front loading of features, but also no dead levels.

From a game design perspective, the Rogue is pretty much perfect. The main opportunity for improvement is the Assassin subclass, but that's mainly due to Surprise mechanics and is easily resolved.

I'm not following you. At all. To me there's Arcane Trickster and all the others. Thief is good at healing. UMD is meh with printed items (and/or highly DM dependent). By RAW it doesn't even work with scrolls which is a rather big part of the Rogue legacy. Most of the abilities past level 11 are quite unimpressive compared to simple spell equivalents obtained earlier or at the same time (AT and Thief have good level 17 abilities, but damn that's a long wait). Expertise is done by bards.

I'm about to post two new Thief builds, but it's more for the challenge than because I think them to be honestly better than what I could do with a variety of other classes. To each their own. I liked the point with 13th Age scaling rogues into the epic much much better.

[DrLoveMonkey]

I'm not following you. At all. To me there's Arcane Trickster and all the others. Thief is good at healing. UMD is meh with printed items (and/or highly DM dependent). By RAW it doesn't even work with scrolls which is a rather big part of the Rogue legacy. Most of the abilities past level 11 are quite unimpressive compared to simple spell equivalents obtained earlier or at the same time (AT and Thief have good level 17 abilities, but damn that's a long wait). Expertise is done by bards.

I'm about to post two new Thief builds, but it's more for the challenge than because I think them to be honestly better than what I could do with a variety of other classes. To each their own. I liked the point with 13th Age scaling rogues into the epic much much better.

As somebody currently playing a rogue in a high level campaign, I have to agree. We haven't quite gotten to level 17 yet, but they don't scale well with how epic things become later on. I think they do keep up decently as far as damage in combat goes, no complaints there. Slightly behind the fighter but that's a good thing, fighters are fighters, rogues are more of an adventuring class. Well at least in my opinion about what they're supposed to do.

Slippery Mind is kind of cool, but not really epic feeling, and things like Blindsense and Elusive just don't pack a punch compared to 1/day True Polymorph or Mirage Arcane.

My bottom to the top list would probably go like this, although full disclosure I haven't played much of some of these classes.

Ranger
Rogue
Barbarian
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Warlock
Druid
Cleric
Sorcerer
Bard
Wizard

At least for well they scale up, and how good they are at making you really feel like your class. I'm not just bitter either, the last game I played in that went to pretty high level I was a bard and oh my god was it fun. I don't think there was one session of that campaign that went by without me getting a cool spotlight moment. In the current game I think the last time I felt like a cool thief was...maybe six sessions ago? And the same time again past that for the next previous time?

[Sigreid]

I personally think that the surest sign of a well designed class is that it fills its role so well it's a tough sell to multi-class out of it because you always want that next bit.

[Yakmala]

Cleric.

1: Enough sub-class options to fit nearly any story background or roleplay desire.

2: Begins getting their sub-class special abilities at level 1, so you feel like the type of Cleric you wanted to be right from the beginning. Also makes them one of the best single level dips in the game.

3: Can specialize in a wide range of roles. Primary tank, primary healer, secondary healer, buffer, de-buffer, controller, secondary DPS, skill monkey. Make a Nature Cleric that can use Wisdom for both casting and fighting and you'll have enough attribute points left over to be the party face if you want.

4: Access to their entire spell list.

5: Ability to contact your god directly at higher levels. If you're lucky, they might even intervene on your behalf.

[MrStabby]

My bottom to the top list would probably go like this, although full disclosure I haven't played much of some of these classes.

Ranger
Rogue
Barbarian
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Warlock
Druid
Cleric
Sorcerer
Bard
Wizard

At least for well they scale up, and how good they are at making you really feel like your class. I'm not just bitter either, the last game I played in that went to pretty high level I was a bard and oh my god was it fun. I don't think there was one session of that campaign that went by without me getting a cool spotlight moment. In the current game I think the last time I felt like a cool thief was...maybe six sessions ago? And the same time again past that for the next previous time?

When you judge how well designed the class is, is it based on how fun it is to play or the impact that it has on the fun of other people at the table? Comparing your experience of bard and rogue, is it about bards being better designed than rogues - or is the design flaw in classes that obviate a character being good at the stuff rogues are good at?



Cleric.

1: Enough sub-class options to fit nearly any story background or roleplay desire.

2: Begins getting their sub-class special abilities at level 1, so you feel like the type of Cleric you wanted to be right from the beginning. Also makes them one of the best single level dips in the game.

3: Can specialize in a wide range of roles. Primary tank, primary healer, secondary healer, buffer, de-buffer, controller, secondary DPS, skill monkey. Make a Nature Cleric that can use Wisdom for both casting and fighting and you'll have enough attribute points left over to be the party face if you want.

4: Access to their entire spell list.

5: Ability to contact your god directly at higher levels. If you're lucky, they might even intervene on your behalf.

So I agree with a lot of this but points 4 and 5 are a little at odds with my thinking.

Access to the whole spell list makes clerics feel a bit more alike to me. All have the same spells and use the same tools for the same tasks - barring domain spells. I think that having to chose between different good options is what makes characters in the same class feel more distinct.

Direct contact with your god is cool, but I find it either is useless or can screw things up a lot. The king is dying of some kind of magical wasting disease, but as a life cleric you intercede with your god for a cure. Either the king gets better or they don't. If the king does you circumvented a plot arc. If they didn't then your perfectly aligned deity didn't really come through for you. It is a bit sucky. Of course you could be able to invoke divine intervention and not do so... but for many characters that would be an odd choice.

In a battle it is even worse - you can look for a spell from your god but you probably won't get one till level 20 so a wasted action when you really want to be doing something fun/useful with it. If you do get it, then to be worth the high risk of failure it has to be a pretty epic benefit - which effectively means that you dominate the encounter and other people don't get to do meaningfully cool stuff to change the outcome.

I do love it for being kind of a "wish" that can align with your character's desires. I have used it to invoke blessings with a cleric of Chauntea - one village now has very fertile land and I also used this spell to consecrate some land for a temple - a nice addition to hallow (DM gave me some nice healing effects in the temple and a chance for people to recover exhaustion more quickly from staying there). It felt like a good way to leave a mark on the world without stepping on anyone elses toes.

[DrLoveMonkey]

When you judge how well designed the class is, is it based on how fun it is to play or the impact that it has on the fun of other people at the table? Comparing your experience of bard and rogue, is it about bards being better designed than rogues - or is the design flaw in classes that obviate a character being good at the stuff rogues are good at?


I think it might be a system problem actually? I'm not sure. A lot of the stuff just feels really out of proportion. I just know for sure that my experiences playing high level bards and wizards have been a themepark of different fun and exciting things, and my experience with a high level rogue has been an exercise in frustration and redundancy.

It might actually be that a lot of other classes are badly designed, even though they're fun and flavourful, and/or seem to scale well, but I wish playing every class felt like playing those. As a valor bard I was a dashing swordsman who could cross blades with monsters, enchant household items into a small army, and I can't even count how many times I pulled the Loki trick using the mislead spell. It just feels exactly how I want it to feel, which is why I put them so high.

As a rogue I want to feel like a shadow through mist, like no coinpurse is safe from my light fingers, and like there's a hundred people in the world who remember the day they 'almost' caught him. My experience though is that the mechanics do not live up to that idea. I've looked at a bunch of different reasons, some people say it's my DM but he's been the same one for all my magic users, others that the skill system is wonky, but still not sure 100%.

[MrStabby]

I think it might be a system problem actually? I'm not sure. A lot of the stuff just feels really out of proportion. I just know for sure that my experiences playing high level bards and wizards have been a themepark of different fun and exciting things, and my experience with a high level rogue has been an exercise in frustration and redundancy.

It might actually be that a lot of other classes are badly designed, even though they're fun and flavourful, and/or seem to scale well, but I wish playing every class felt like playing those. As a valor bard I was a dashing swordsman who could cross blades with monsters, enchant household items into a small army, and I can't even count how many times I pulled the Loki trick using the mislead spell. It just feels exactly how I want it to feel, which is why I put them so high.

As a rogue I want to feel like a shadow through mist, like no coinpurse is safe from my light fingers, and like there's a hundred people in the world who remember the day they 'almost' caught him. My experience though is that the mechanics do not live up to that idea. I've looked at a bunch of different reasons, some people say it's my DM but he's been the same one for all my magic users, others that the skill system is wonky, but still not sure 100%.

Yeah, or a broader problem than just a couple of classes.

I think a big issue is vancian casting. So you start off with a few spell slots and spells that can do little things. As you level up you get more slots at higher levels but also gain access to spells that do new things. The fact that casters are resource limited means that there is a tendency to say that each spell should be more powerful than an "at will" ability. In isolation this is fine for a particular spell but when a caster's most powerful spells can solve a challenge by themselves it does become an issue. Two spells per day means two problems solved without involving the rest of the party... unless you have a second caster in which case it is four challenges overcome (either violent encounters or otherwise). How are you supposed to compensate for abilities being more limited without making them more powerful? How do you handle balance in a game where some are able to do more powerful things than others? One shot solutions are not that far behind at will solutions when the probalem you are looking to solve happens not more than a couple of times per day. You can use knock for the most important lock you need to pass each day then use a rogue for the less important ones?

I do think low level rogues are very well designed tough. Cunning action is an iconic ability, sneak attack the same. Skills likewise. It seems stacked with things that would be pretty special in a party full of martial characters. I like that rogues play differently to other martial characters - they feel pretty special, all the way until casters have a lot of spells known/prepared and can cover a lot of bases by themselves. There is something cool about the rogue but I think they need access to some more elements appropriate for high fantasy campaigns at level 10+.

[Eldariel]

I think it might be a system problem actually? I'm not sure. A lot of the stuff just feels really out of proportion. I just know for sure that my experiences playing high level bards and wizards have been a themepark of different fun and exciting things, and my experience with a high level rogue has been an exercise in frustration and redundancy.

It might actually be that a lot of other classes are badly designed, even though they're fun and flavourful, and/or seem to scale well, but I wish playing every class felt like playing those. As a valor bard I was a dashing swordsman who could cross blades with monsters, enchant household items into a small army, and I can't even count how many times I pulled the Loki trick using the mislead spell. It just feels exactly how I want it to feel, which is why I put them so high.

As a rogue I want to feel like a shadow through mist, like no coinpurse is safe from my light fingers, and like there's a hundred people in the world who remember the day they 'almost' caught him. My experience though is that the mechanics do not live up to that idea. I've looked at a bunch of different reasons, some people say it's my DM but he's been the same one for all my magic users, others that the skill system is wonky, but still not sure 100%.

That's sadly been the way D&D has always been. Spellcasters have "started off slow" (less or more true depending on the edition; since 3e, low level spellcasters have been godlike as well) but become gods later on while non-casters start off strong and peter off as things proceed. Sadly, 5e did little to address this even though a solution was kind of created in 3e (Tome of Battle). 5e was afraid of the grognard backlash and thus shied away from a versatile, nuanced martial combat system leaving Battlemaster Fighter as its only vestige, and non-casters in general weren't given anything too inspiring on higher levels.

3e, with its clear flaws with martial characters, at least gave Rogues and Rangers proper Hide in Plain Sight so they could actually hide anywhere (in natural terrain) even if someone were spectating them, waltz around unseen and beat people up while they desperately try to find some way to locate their assailant. That was suitably epic but 5e version is only for Rangers and it's a pitiful one at that (well, it's a good bonus but far from the power fantasy of someone who can truly hide anywhere and completely useless in combat). Let alone any more interesting things that were somewhat explored in 4e. But it goes back to the Guy in the Gym fallacy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy) that seems to underlie most of 5e design (as well as earlier editions).

In short, don't expect any non-caster to feel like you think it should on high levels. You're still just a redressing of your low level abilities hitting people a bit harder and able to take more punishment with some seasoning on top. Which I find a real pity: they've had more than enough time to come up with stuff that would be cool and feel epic enough without explicitly being magic. I like Rogue's blinddrndr as much as the next guy but when your familiar has a 6 times better one than what you get on level 14 (and with full vision), you've got a problem.


Yeah, or a broader problem than just a couple of classes.

I think a big issue is vancian casting. So you start off with a few spell slots and spells that can do little things. As you level up you get more slots at higher levels but also gain access to spells that do new things. The fact that casters are resource limited means that there is a tendency to say that each spell should be more powerful than an "at will" ability. In isolation this is fine for a particular spell but when a caster's most powerful spells can solve a challenge by themselves it does become an issue. Two spells per day means two problems solved without involving the rest of the party... unless you have a second caster in which case it is four challenges overcome (either violent encounters or otherwise). How are you supposed to compensate for abilities being more limited without making them more powerful? How do you handle balance in a game where some are able to do more powerful things than others? One shot solutions are not that far behind at will solutions when the probalem you are looking to solve happens not more than a couple of times per day. You can use knock for the most important lock you need to pass each day then use a rogue for the less important ones?

I do think low level rogues are very well designed tough. Cunning action is an iconic ability, sneak attack the same. Skills likewise. It seems stacked with things that would be pretty special in a party full of martial characters. I like that rogues play differently to other martial characters - they feel pretty special, all the way until casters have a lot of spells known/prepared and can cover a lot of bases by themselves. There is something cool about the rogue but I think they need access to some more elements appropriate for high fantasy campaigns at level 10+.

This is the Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards) issue, which is also well documented. Wizards scale by...three main axis. They get more (and more different) spells per day, they get access to higher tiers (which in itself also provides more and more different and more powerful spells per day) and their existing spells keep getting better, since they are cast by a higher level caster. Warriors get one progression: their everything gets better in a linear progression, there are no multipliers of options or anything.

[Sigreid]

This is very much a you can't please everyone situation. Personally I want my wizard to be very magical while I want my fighter to be able to confront the challenges while being expressly not magical. I like my fighter to be the common man struggling and triumphing over the horrors of the world.

I could easily go along with the fighter getting a buff to their resistance, maybe something akin to legendary resistance as they level up.

[Eldariel]

This is very much a you can't please everyone situation. Personally I want my wizard to be very magical while I want my fighter to be able to confront the challenges while being expressly not magical. I like my fighter to be the common man struggling and triumphing over the horrors of the world.

I could easily go along with the fighter getting a buff to their resistance, maybe something akin to legendary resistance as they level up.

It's not hard to imagine superhuman but mundane feats that would make the Fighter-types more competent on high levels. Think of any mythology. Your Achilleus, Perseus, Paris, Diomedes, etc. Those guys do superhuman but non-magical things (and yeah, some talk of divine blood and whatever but ultimately that doesn't need to be a reason for the character's abilities).

[Sigreid]

It's not hard to imagine superhuman but mundane feats that would make the Fighter-types more competent on high levels. Think of any mythology. Your Achilleus, Perseus, Paris, Diomedes, etc. Those guys do superhuman but non-magical things (and yeah, some talk of divine blood and whatever but ultimately that doesn't need to be a reason for the character's abilities).

Fair statement, but my point was we aren't unified. Achileus is not what I want when i play a fighter. When i play a fighter i want closer to what I understand the Winchester boys are in Supernatural, which is they don't do magic but are tough as hell and know how to do damage.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Fair statement, but my point was we aren't unified. Achileus is not what I want when i play a fighter. When i play a fighter i want closer to what I understand the Winchester boys are in Supernatural, which is they don't do magic but are tough as hell and know how to do damage.

I like to play fighter as a block of metal that hit hard(Champion for the win).

[Eldariel]

Fair statement, but my point was we aren't unified. Achileus is not what I want when i play a fighter. When i play a fighter i want closer to what I understand the Winchester boys are in Supernatural, which is they don't do magic but are tough as hell and know how to do damage.

Isn't that more a level difference than anything though? Winchester boys are like level 4-5 tops (and definitely Rogues in my books); their actual combat prowess is minimal and they can't take hits, but they get by with knowledge, preparation and most importantly, a boatload of eldritch weaknesses, items and rituals. In other words, their innate power (level) is low but their equipment, preparation and Arcana/Religion checks are extremely good, allowing them to punch above their weight class.

That's a fine character, but hardly natural for higher levels. After all, HP alone lets high level Fighters get away with absurd stuff like swimming in lava for 6 seconds. Higher level characters need something that lets them keep up without items though. Or at least I don't feel good about external items being 100% of my power unless I'm playing an Artificer kind of character.

[Sigreid]

Isn't that more a level difference than anything though? Winchester boys are like level 4-5 tops (and definitely Rogues in my books); their actual combat prowess is minimal and they can't take hits, but they get by with knowledge, preparation and most importantly, a boatload of eldritch weaknesses, items and rituals. In other words, their innate power (level) is low but their equipment, preparation and Arcana/Religion checks are extremely good, allowing them to punch above their weight class.

That's a fine character, but hardly natural for higher levels. After all, HP alone lets high level Fighters get away with absurd stuff like swimming in lava for 6 seconds. Higher level characters need something that lets them keep up without items though. Or at least I don't feel good about external items being 100% of my power unless I'm playing an Artificer kind of character.

I have only passing knowledge about that show. I think I'm still failing to get my point across which.is there is a wide variety of wants in the gaming universe. Basically, you can't please all of the people all of the time. They seem to have done a pretty good job of hitting acceptable to a large swath of people and the broad appeal would most likely be harmed by further favoring certain wants over others.

[Sception]

My personal favorite is paladin, for a number of reasons. It does a really good job of blending thematic & mechanical elements, it does a little bit of everything (good combat proficiencies, some casting ability, strong secondary cha makes for effective social skill use, features that support both offensive and defensive/supportive combat roles), and rather than being a jack of all trades it actually blends many of its abilities together (most obviously divine smite blends spell slots and weapon attacks, but also aura of protection also props up the paladin's concentration saves, concentration buffs encourage enemies to target the paladin supporting their tanking ability, oath strictures give npcs extra reason to respect the things the paladin is saying with their cha skills, auras encourage allies to rally around the paladin which plays directly into their narrative role AND makes it easier for the paladin to use their other abilities to protect those allies and punish enemies that target them). The subclasses all have highly distinct identities and a handful of key features that change how you look at and use the rest of your features, especially the two added by Xanathar's Guide. None of the subclasses are bad or feel bad. Both the parent class as a whole and all of the subclasses are pretty effective mechanical implementations of the narrative themes and archetypes they represent. Whether you're looking to play the shield of the faithful or the sword of divine retribution, the paladin has you covered.

More generally, blends of magic and weapon use are a popular concept, and no other single class or subclass in 5e does it better. This is because, outside of a couple individual spells, the ranger's combat and casting abilities don't particularly interact much - in general their spellcasting better supports their non-combat roles and even there they lack class features like divine smite that explicitly blend their casting and non-casting. Everything else in 5e that tries to blend combat and casting is a subclass of either a full-caster or non-caster parent class, and while several of these are decent (I quite like arcane tricksters and hexblades in particular), by their fundamental design implementation none of these are going to pull off the blend as effectively as a full class built to do so from the ground up.


That said, paladin does have some flaws that stop me from holding it up as 'the best'. And I'm not talking about weaknesses here - like difficulty dealing with groups of enemies or enemies at long range or that target dexterity, intelligence, or wisdom saves - classes should have weaknesses and it can even be argued that paladin maybe should have maybe a bit more pronounced weaknesses given all their strengths. Rather I'm talking about things like the paladin being maybe a bit too focused on daily resources that are themselves a bit too limited. The paladin does have it's always active auras, solid base proficiencies and HP, and a short-rest-recharging channel divinity to fall back on, so it isn't as bad in this regard as it could be, but between spell casting and divine smite, an awful lot of what makes a paladin a paladin revolves around those relatively few daily half-caster spell slots. It's far too easy to burn through those slots in a single encounter leaving a somewhat less engaging play experience for the rest of the day, and because of that risk many paladin players horde their spell slots and end up with that less engaging play experience for the whole day instead. And if they do burn all their resources in the same encounter, they can nuke their way through a tough enemy that was supposed to provide an engaging combat for the whole party, cutting into everyone's fun a bit. At the very least, divine smite should probably be limited to once per turn. Further restrictions, or a shift of some of their abilities from long rest to short rest timers, would probably be a good idea as well.

Another problem - albeit one limited to games that use the optional multiclassing rules - is that paladins are maybe a bit too easily dipped for multiclassing - divine smite is an awfully powerful ability for other gish types to be able to pick up with just a two level dip - and maybe a bit too prone to multiclassing themselves. The latter paladin levels are nowhere near as barren as they are sometimes made out to be if you actually look at their spell options, especially after Xanathar's guide added 'find greater steed', but the easiest to use and most obviously powerful features of the class are clustered in levels 2 to 6 (depending on subclass maybe 2 to 7), and that makes multiclassing out a little too common, imo. Unfortunately with the way the multiclassing rules are implemented there's no way to restrict divine smite to paladin slots only.

One solution might be to limit the maximum size of a smite based on the paladin's level. Ie, you can smite with first level spells at level 2, 2nd level spells at level 5, and so on, matching the single classed paladin's normal spell progression. This might curb dipping a bit, but given that a lot of paladin multiclasses go to 6 for extra attack and aura of protection, and mostly only use smites on first and second level spell slots anyway, that probably won't do all that much. Maybe make smite a separate ability on a short rest timer that does just d8 additional damage, but lets you spend spell slots for extra damage when you use it? Then you could limit the max level spell slot as already described AND limit the number of uses based on paladin level? Single classed paladins would then be able to smite more often, the short rest limit (combined with the previously mentioned per turn limit) would encourage more use of the ability throughout the day, preventing paladins from saving their whole day's worth of smites to nuke a boss monster and making them a bit more engaging through more of the day, if the paladin used up their spell slots they'd still have some minor smiting ability, etc.

Then again, by making the first d8 damage 'free', the marginal efficiency of spending spell slots on smites would be significantly reduced, so maybe still require the spell slots, but still have a per short rest smite limit tied to paladin level? I don't know, I'm not a game designer. The point I'm trying to make is that the paladin's over-reliance on high power, low use daily resources is a problem. One could call it a good and balancing weakness - but in practice it encourages a play style where the paladin hordes that resource for important fights, which results in a less fun experience for the paladin in most fights and a less fun experience for the rest of the party in those fights where the paladin goes nova and drops a challenging boss too quickly.

...

As a side note, my favorite subclass in terms of game design is the conquest paladin, mostly because of how it puts a twist on the archetype of the paladin that still maintains that perfect blend of mechanics & narrative, how it completely changes and really elevates, the frighten condition from the core mechanics, and in particular how it addresses some of the flaws I see in the parent paladin class.

The way the subclass's signature ability - the level 7 aura of conquest - works requires the paladin to first frighten targets. The paladin's best means of doing so are from the spells Wrathful Smite and Fear, which focuses the player's attention on spell casting. Once their attention is there, they'll naturally take note of some of the paladin's stronger later level spells. This includes offensive spells, since the conqueror needs a high charisma to land frighten effects, so since they have that charisma anyway other offensive spells aren't as iffy as they are for smite-focused paladins who let their charisma lag behind their physical attack stat. Additionally, some of the paladin's other class features are re-contextualized by the conqueror's play style in positive ways. For example, for most paladins the level 10 aura of courage is little more than a ribbon, but for the conqueror who likes to throw around otherwise-party-unfriendly fear cones it's much more meaningful. There is no empty level of paladin for a conqueror, so while they can multiclass effectively if they want to (heighten spell metamagic from a few sorcerer levels or short rest recharging slots for Fear from five levels of warlock are especially tempting), they never feel pushed into doing so (with the arguable exception of a single level hexblade dip, but that's a hexblade problem not a conqueror one).

On the daily resource pacing side, aura of conquest encourages the conqueror to burn one or two spell slots in each combat to inflict frighten on the enemy, and since the ability is particularly effective in locking down groups of weaker foes, conquest players don't feel the same pressure to hoard spell slots for the toughest fight of the day. Even against stronger foes, if they're vulnerable to frighten at all the conqueror is usually better off trying to lock them down with a wrathful smite, protecting their allies but not stealing the party's thunder. Divine Smite becomes more of a fallback ability to use on foes that are immune to frighten or have sky high will saves or legendary resistance - though even there burning through a boss's legendary resistances with first level wrathful smites can be a good tactic if it lets your wizard friend land a fourth level banish a round or two later. Even when the conqueror does have cause to fall back on divine smite, for instance when the party is up against a lich or iron golem or whatever, the fact that they have likely been using their spell slots here and there throughout the day means they usually won't have enough spell slots left to trivialize the fight with pure damage output the way a more smite oriented paladin might.


So yeah, while the paladin in general has some flaws, that, to me, hold it back from being the outright best designed class, the oath of conquest paladin in particular is far and away my choice for best designed subclass, in large part because of how it naturally addresses the few significant complaints I have about its parent class.

[Skylivedk]

This is very much a you can't please everyone situation. Personally I want my wizard to be very magical while I want my fighter to be able to confront the challenges while being expressly not magical. I like my fighter to be the common man struggling and triumphing over the horrors of the world.

I could easily go along with the fighter getting a buff to their resistance, maybe something akin to legendary resistance as they level up.

That's one way of doing it. Another would be to be able to cut through massive objects or get much nicer bonuses for short time. Ie foresight could easily be done as a non magic feature (not that I say it explicitly should). Being able to tell exact hp and AC values would be another; maybe also physical saves and resistances.


I have only passing knowledge about that show. I think I'm still failing to get my point across which.is there is a wide variety of wants in the gaming universe. Basically, you can't please all of the people all of the time. They seem to have done a pretty good job of hitting acceptable to a large swath of people and the broad appeal would most likely be harmed by further favoring certain wants over others.
So you want the martials to be worse off later or you can't see how it can be avoided?
Compare 13th Age/Dragon Age/WoW/Pillars of Eternity progressions with DnD and you'll see that they don't have nearly the same issues

[Sigreid]

That's one way of doing it. Another would be to be able to cut through massive objects or get much nicer bonuses for short time. Ie foresight could easily be done as a non magic feature (not that I say it explicitly should). Being able to tell exact hp and AC values would be another; maybe also physical saves and resistances.


So you want the martials to be worse off later or you can't see how it can be avoided?
Compare 13th Age/Dragon Age/WoW/Pillars of Eternity progressions with DnD and you'll see that they don't have nearly the same issues
I'm saying that I didn't like the 3.x book that made martial characters all super hero magical, though I don't begrudge people who do like it. Look, when it comes to superheroes I've always liked heroes like Hawkeye better than ones like Superman because he was an ordinary man except for his will, skill and determination.

[Dr. Cliché]

Best Classes:

Paladin
Whilst arguably a little on the strong side, I think Paladins do a very good job of meshing theme and function. Their spells and abilities are useful, thematic and allow them to cover for other roles (at least to some degree).

Rogue
Whilst not without its flaws the 5e Rogue gets a lot of points for really feeling like a Rogue. I think a lot of this comes down to Cunning Action which makes feel so much more agile and nimble in combat.


Almost-There Classes

Druid
I think the only issue with most Druids is Wild Shape in that it feels very out-of-place, since only the Moon Druid has any actual interaction with it. IMO it would have been better to make this a generic ability (like the Cleric's Channel Divinity) and have it be different for each subclass - with only the Moon Druid keeping Wild Shape.

Also, regarding the Moon Druid, I'm not a fan of the fact that you have to swap out animal forms in order to stay relevant as you level up. Especially given the fact that few animals are represented at higher CR you're basically forced to throw away any and all thematic elements you've built up in previous levels. Also, the whole 'turning into elementals' thing comes completely out of nowhere. The class has had 0 emphasis on anything remotely elemental but suddenly you can just turn into one. IMO it would have been better for druids to one or two animal forms that get progressively stronger as they level up.


Warlock
I like many aspects of the Warlock but it seems like it really could have done with a final polish. IMO it's stuck with 2 slots for far too long and the weird Arcanum spells you get at higher levels seem unreasonably restrictive. I'm also not fond of Invocations that are once-per-day yet also require a precious spell slot to use them at all. Surely one or the other would have been sufficient? I also dislike that there's little in the way of fun high-level Invocations, especially given the poor spellcasting improvements at these levels. You have to be 15th level just to have the option of casting a crap 2nd level spell (Alter Self) at will. Sure, changing your appearance is useful but bear in mind that you've been able to case Disguise Self at will from the get-go. The last thing I'll say is that Eldritch Blast seems like it should be a class feature, rather than a standard cantrip.



Bad Classes

Bard
My issue with this class is that it feels like it was given far too much candy. So it's a jack-of-all-trades. Okay, makes sense. But then why is it also an expert in several skills *and* a 9th level caster class? I thought the whole point of -jack-of-all-trades was that they're supposed to be masters of none. Yet we have a class that's basically as good as a Rogue when it comes to expertise in skills, but whilst also getting a bonus to all other skills and being a full-caster on top. Not only that but the Bard also gets the ability to steal spells from the list of any other class. You'd think this might be a Warlock thing, what with their trading their souls for dark secrets and forbidden knowledge but nope just be a bard and the universe freely hands you all the forbidden knowledge you could ever want. Imagine how many souls could have been saved if only they'd left the dark talismans alone and picked up a set of bagpipes instead.

Put simply, the Bard feels like the Mary Sue of classes.


Sorcerer
I don't want to go into too much detail as this is something I've said dozens of times before. Basically, I think Metamagic was a huge mistake that is now stuck around the Sorcerer's neck like a lead-weight. It doesn't even feel like a sorcerer ability - it's far too rigid to even come close to representing a more flexible caster - if anything it feels like something that should be a Wizard subclass. Someone who's spent years fine-tuning spells and making minor adjustments.

IMO the real focus of the Sorcerer should be their Bloodline. This is the entire source of their magic. It should have a huge impact on how they play, on how they wield their magic. But instead, because Metamagic takes up so much of the class' design space, the actual Bloodlines are little more than window-dressing.


Ranger
I know some people like it but to my mind it has far too many Ribbons and, especially in the case of the Beast Master, abilities that completely shatter verisimilitude. Why is my faithful guard-dog just sitting on its arse while a bear claws my face off? Why do I have to give up my attack to get it to attack? And why does the dozy sod then immediately stop attacking until I give up another attack to tell it to attack again?

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Best Classes:



Rogue
Whilst not without its flaws the 5e Rogue gets a lot of points for really feeling like a Rogue. I think a lot of this comes down to Cunning Action which makes feel so much more agile and nimble in combat.




I agree. Cunning Action is probably one of the most used and most essential features of the Rogue class. It's criminally underrated (see what I did there?) when thinking about why the class excels and makes you feel like an actual rogue.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is very much a you can't please everyone situation. Personally I want my wizard to be very magical while I want my fighter to be able to confront the challenges while being expressly not magical. I like my fighter to be the common man struggling and triumphing over the horrors of the world.

I could easily go along with the fighter getting a buff to their resistance, maybe something akin to legendary resistance as they level up. They do get this. Here is what it is called:
Indomitable

Beginning at 9th level, you can reroll a saving throw that you fail. If you do so, you must use the
new roll, and you can’t use this feature again until you finish a long rest. You can use this feature twice between long rests starting at 13th level and three times between long rests starting at 17th level. Not quite legendary resistance, but close.

I've always liked heroes like Hawkeye better than ones like Superman because he was an ordinary man except for his will, skill and determination.
Me too.

[Sigreid]

They do get this. Here is what it is called:
Indomitable
Not quite legendary resistance, but close.

Me too.

I was thinking a bit stronger. Old AD&D person here and if I remember right fighters had about the best saves across the board.

[KorvinStarmast]

I was thinking a bit stronger. Old AD&D person here and if I remember right fighters had about the best saves across the board. Yes they did. Maybe that feature was intended as a reach back in that direction.

I am still thinking that "Remarkable Athlete" for the Champion might be improved to "advantage on athletics checks" or "expertise on Athletice checks" but they may have tried that in play test and found it over powered. But that would really make the CHampion shine after 7th level.

[Sigreid]

Yes they did. Maybe that feature was intended as a reach back in that direction.

I am still thinking that "Remarkable Athlete" for the Champion might be improved to "advantage on athletics checks" or "expertise on Athletice checks" but they may have tried that in play test and found it over powered. But that would really make the CHampion shine after 7th level.

I remember in playtest the armored fighting style gave anyone attacking the fighter disadvantage on their attacks. It would have been perhaps a bit too awesome.

[Skylivedk]

I'm saying that I didn't like the 3.x book that made martial characters all super hero magical, though I don't begrudge people who do like it. Look, when it comes to superheroes I've always liked heroes like Hawkeye better than ones like Superman because he was an ordinary man except for his will, skill and determination.

I agree. At the same time, I don't get why Angel is flying with Phoenix or what Hawkeye is doing next to Iron Man, Dr. Strange and Thor. Same in DnD. I dislike that either:
A) crazy time pressure which only really should entice Good characters

Or

B) Simulacrum / Planar Binding Army while I reshape the fabric of reality itself. Oh yeah, Fighter. Maybe you can keep an eye out while I sleep in extra dimensional safe house. I wouldn't want to risk burning my Contingency, one of my 30 Clones or maybe a Teleport.

Or

C) Let's pretend the Wizard couldn't make all of us completely superfluous.


Yes they did. Maybe that feature was intended as a reach back in that direction.

I am still thinking that "Remarkable Athlete" for the Champion might be improved to "advantage on athletics checks" or "expertise on Athletice checks" but they may have tried that in play test and found it over powered. But that would really make the CHampion shine after 7th level.

They could give most of the the lvl 7 ribbons from most of the Fighter subclasses to ALL of the fighter subclasses. Maybe some of them (in improved versions) later. I doubt the guy playing druid would complain about the fighter both having half proficiency to all physical skills AND being able to study his enemies' weaknesses.

"Oh no, how unfair! You found out the general was stronger than you while I flew above the army, counted the amount of troops, spotted their supply lines and friendly reinforcements".

The legacy of having casters be 'weak" early levels and world changing later... I've a hard time aligning myself with it from a game design perspective. Warlocks are slightly better in this regard because their spell list has less of the spells that change power dynamics permanently

[MrStabby]

I have only passing knowledge about that show. I think I'm still failing to get my point across which.is there is a wide variety of wants in the gaming universe. Basically, you can't please all of the people all of the time. They seem to have done a pretty good job of hitting acceptable to a large swath of people and the broad appeal would most likely be harmed by further favoring certain wants over others.

I think this touches on what we mean by it being a problem with the game rather than a specific class. The rogue is probably fine. The bard is probably fine. It is just not fine that they are in the same game.

It could be a personal flaw rather than a game issue, but I don't feel it is my place to tell people what to play. If I want to play a rogue and not be completely superfluous then I don't want to have to ask other people to not play casters. As it is, I am usually the one playing a caster as that is the character I like... but still, it is a problem with the game.

[Eldariel]

I think this touches on what we mean by it being a problem with the game rather than a specific class. The rogue is probably fine. The bard is probably fine. It is just not fine that they are in the same game.

It could be a personal flaw rather than a game issue, but I don't feel it is my place to tell people what to play. If I want to play a rogue and not be completely superfluous then I don't want to have to ask other people to not play casters. As it is, I am usually the one playing a caster as that is the character I like... but still, it is a problem with the game.

Honestly, they're even fine in the same game...up to a certain level. Low level Rogue and Bard get along fine though the Rogue could use few more tricks. High level Rogue doesn't match equal level Bard though. The problem lies in class scaling. High level Rogue doesn't get better enough at Roguing compared to Bard at Barding.

Thus high level Rogue belongs in a game with a midlevel Bard. In short, to solve this the Rogue class needs to be condensed and extended or the Bard needs to be diluted. As it stands though, the key issue is that while Rogue 4 approximately matches Bard 4, Rogue 11 is nowhere near Bard 11. Rogue 11 should adventure with like Bard 7 at tops.

2e and earlier solved this with different XP tables for different classes, but 3.X and later editions have pretended that all levels are equal without actually making it so. Rogue needs to get more and better stuff faster, or Bard needs to get less and worse stuff slower, or one has to accept that past certain level, certain classes just can't equally adventure together.

EDIT: And obviously, you can substitute any mundane for Rogue and any caster for Bard here. You could make Rogues way better at their stuff without hurting peoples' sense of verisimilitude and then you just have to move the Epic barrier lower (or call it Paragon á la 4e) to like level 10 and just state that anyone over level 10 is doing superhuman stuff. This would allow people to gauge their expectations and play the 1-10 range when they wanna play a completely non-superhuman character (or just play a level 10 character and freeze progression while everyone else keeps progressing), while the game system would still support higher levels of play and superhuman but not magical characters.

That's a separate problem from lacking options though: high level warriors and rogues should absolutely have the option of doing more than 1-2 things really well. Instead of Sneak Attack, do a bunch of Sneak Attack effects á la 3e Sneak Attack feats (honestly, the prototype is right there - they'd just need to use it) with more options and scaling with level, and instead of just "I attack again", introduce a mix of different attacks and counters removing some of the unnecessary abstraction from combat making it more engaging for those who get bored doing the same thing constantly.

[Sigreid]

I agree. At the same time, I don't get why Angel is flying with Phoenix or what Hawkeye is doing next to Iron Man, Dr. Strange and Thor. Same in DnD. I dislike that either:
A) crazy time pressure which only really should entice Good characters

Or

B) Simulacrum / Planar Binding Army while I reshape the fabric of reality itself. Oh yeah, Fighter. Maybe you can keep an eye out while I sleep in extra dimensional safe house. I wouldn't want to risk burning my Contingency, one of my 30 Clones or maybe a Teleport.

Or

C) Let's pretend the Wizard couldn't make all of us completely superfluous.



They could give most of the the lvl 7 ribbons from most of the Fighter subclasses to ALL of the fighter subclasses. Maybe some of them (in improved versions) later. I doubt the guy playing druid would complain about the fighter both having half proficiency to all physical skills AND being able to study his enemies' weaknesses.

"Oh no, how unfair! You found out the general was stronger than you while I flew above the army, counted the amount of troops, spotted their supply lines and friendly reinforcements".

The legacy of having casters be 'weak" early levels and world changing later... I've a hard time aligning myself with it from a game design perspective. Warlocks are slightly better in this regard because their spell list has less of the spells that change power dynamics permanently

And I like having the normal mixing it up with the supers. Again, it's ok that we disagree. Especially since my initial point was more about how people can and do disagree.

I'll also say, possibly due to the play style of my group, I've never personally been at a table where the straight martials didn't feel they had a critical role, even at high level.

[MrStabby]

Honestly, they're even fine in the same game...up to a certain level. Low level Rogue and Bard get along fine though the Rogue could use few more tricks. High level Rogue doesn't match equal level Bard though. The problem lies in class scaling. High level Rogue doesn't get better enough at Roguing compared to Bard at Barding.

Thus high level Rogue belongs in a game with a midlevel Bard. In short, to solve this the Rogue class needs to be condensed and extended or the Bard needs to be diluted. As it stands though, the key issue is that while Rogue 4 approximately matches Bard 4, Rogue 11 is nowhere near Bard 11. Rogue 11 should adventure with like Bard 7 at tops.

2e and earlier solved this with different XP tables for different classes, but 3.X and later editions have pretended that all levels are equal without actually making it so. Rogue needs to get more and better stuff faster, or Bard needs to get less and worse stuff slower, or one has to accept that past certain level, certain classes just can't equally adventure together.

EDIT: And obviously, you can substitute any mundane for Rogue and any caster for Bard here. You could make Rogues way better at their stuff without hurting peoples' sense of verisimilitude and then you just have to move the Epic barrier lower (or call it Paragon á la 4e) to like level 10 and just state that anyone over level 10 is doing superhuman stuff. This would allow people to gauge their expectations and play the 1-10 range when they wanna play a completely non-superhuman character (or just play a level 10 character and freeze progression while everyone else keeps progressing), while the game system would still support higher levels of play and superhuman but not magical characters.

That's a separate problem from lacking options though: high level warriors and rogues should absolutely have the option of doing more than 1-2 things really well. Instead of Sneak Attack, do a bunch of Sneak Attack effects á la 3e Sneak Attack feats (honestly, the prototype is right there - they'd just need to use it) with more options and scaling with level, and instead of just "I attack again", introduce a mix of different attacks and counters removing some of the unnecessary abstraction from combat making it more engaging for those who get bored doing the same thing constantly.


I think I agree with your principals, but maybe not your execution.

To stick with the rogue/bard example as it is being threshed out- I think the rogue needs more than a bunch more sneak attack to be good. In a game where PCs are summoning angels and demons, where wall of force is a total physical barrier, where you can reate demiplanes and raise the dead... stabing someone a bit more quickly is just not awesome enough.

If I were to look at a theme of high level abilities I would suggest new ways to interact with magic. As it sits at the moment a non magical problem can generally be solved my magic or by non magical means. A magical problem can usually only be solved by magical means.

So a bunch of living enemies can be solved as effectively by fireball as by hitting them with an axe (give or take). A problem spell needs counterspell, or sometimes dispel magic. The closest the non magical gets is breaking concentration through damage (and guess what else other than non-magic things can do damage). Look at forcecage - powerful spell, but one that can be circumvented in a few ways... misty step, counterspell, disintegrate... yeah, all the answers are magical.

If rogues (or whatever classes, and include NPCs in this) were to take a shift at higher levels I would like them to have more ways to interact with magic effects, to overcome them. Absorbing spells by rolling hit dice for a dispel effect, disrupting spellcasting by shooting the caster in the face as a reaction, extraordinary dodge that allows a move as a reaction to move out of areas of effect, epic skill use. At medium levels (7 to 14ish) I think that non-magical characters should have slightly more means of forcing saves or key skill checks. Part of the problem in the disparity of characters is that some can find a weakness - it only takes one low stat to victimise, whereas others are just left making attack rolls against AC till the enemy dies of blood loss or boredom, whatever happens first.

So to keep in tune with the original question I think it is fair to say different classes are well designed for different campaigns and at different levels.

[Skylivedk]

And I like having the normal mixing it up with the supers. Again, it's ok that we disagree. Especially since my initial point was more about how people can and do disagree.

I'll also say, possibly due to the play style of my group, I've never personally been at a table where the straight martials didn't feel they had a critical role, even at high level.

I agree it's ok, we disagree.

As my signature says I'm actively (and passively) looking for other systems. I've checked a couple. They mostly seem to curb the power exploration of stuff like Planar Binding, Wish, Simulacrum etc by simply not introducing those abilities. I do much the same. At the moment Simulacrum is not in my games except for bad guys. Maybe.

As to you never having experienced it; I don't mean to be condescending, but how do you avoid it without using A) or C)?

Especially in open world campaigns (so more towards the sandbox), I've a hard time seeing it. At least unless spells aren't changed.

Sorry everybody for derailing the thread!

Overall, I find the 5e best designed for lower levels. Maybe just up to 11 or 12. I might have missed something; Magic Jar and Planar Binding are less game breaking without higher level spells for their combos. Past these levels, I probably wouldn't choose playing a non-caster. Up that point, I find a lot of the characters work well together in a group: the level sweet spot I've seen is between 5 and 9 maybe 11. In that range even the ranger (Gloomstalker) has some identity and are fun. Most of other classes also have subclasses that are well designed both mechanically and in fluff terms. There's some notable exceptions going over the curve: Hexblade, Shepherd Druid, probably a couple of the Wizards, and some too far under: Champion, Purple Dragon Knight, maybe a couple the monks, maybe Thief, for sure Frenzy and Storm Barb+Sorc.

[Sigreid]

As to you never having experienced it; I don't mean to be condescending, but how do you avoid it without using A) or C)?



Pretty simple actually, the casters focus on other things than being redundant with the martial classes. Even back in 3.x when the wizard could easily have buffed himself up to do the fighter's job a fraction of those buffs turned the fighter into an unstoppable killing machine. This meant the party could go longer and harder and didn't do the 5 minute work day.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

*snip* (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24062652&postcount=59)

In fairness, who can blame them after the reaction 4e got? The edition made combat fun and varied for pretty much every race, class, and role, taking the best parts of Tome of Battle and spellcasting and balancing them beautifully... and people hated it because it was different. Not everyone, not by a long shot, but enough that they cut its runtime short and scaled things way back towards 3.5 for 5th edition.

EDIT: Whoops, that quote was quite a bit further from the end of the thread than I thought. Included a link to it, but the quoted post was about the design differences between martials and casters, with special mention for how Tome of Battle's fix for that in 3.5 was neglected in 5e.

[Tanarii]

Hands down PHB Warlock is the best designed class. It has a lot of flexibility to become different things, it has a lot of baked in flavor tht it delivers well on, and almost every player I've known to play it in a single class no-feat game loves it. It definitely has potential for problems once you go outside the design parameters of the game, but that's because it's so well designed to work within the parameters of the game.

Near the top is the Barbarian. The base class is fantastic at delivering what's advertised. But of course, it impossible to discuss the PHB barbarian without bring the painful design of Frenzy into light. That one failing is enough to prevent it from having a lock on second best.

My personal favorite is Ranger, but I'd be the first to admit there are parts of it that feel kludge even when you know what you're doing or have a cooperative DM. The part I hate the most is how so many features cry out to play a Str two-handed or S&B warrior, but everyone knows you're supposed to TWF.

Hands down, worst design subclass is the Hexblade. It's on an amazing base class, and it's seriously OP in its own right.

[DrLoveMonkey]

If rogues (or whatever classes, and include NPCs in this) were to take a shift at higher levels I would like them to have more ways to interact with magic effects, to overcome them. Absorbing spells by rolling hit dice for a dispel effect, disrupting spellcasting by shooting the caster in the face as a reaction, extraordinary dodge that allows a move as a reaction to move out of areas of effect, epic skill use. At medium levels (7 to 14ish) I think that non-magical characters should have slightly more means of forcing saves or key skill checks. Part of the problem in the disparity of characters is that some can find a weakness - it only takes one low stat to victimise, whereas others are just left making attack rolls against AC till the enemy dies of blood loss or boredom, whatever happens first.

So to keep in tune with the original question I think it is fair to say different classes are well designed for different campaigns and at different levels.

That's interesting, and I actually think that could be a great design space to look at for classes like ranger, rogue and fighter. In systems like Exalted you've got characters able to pick pockets from 8 feet away, slip past a guard behind a puff of smoke from their pipe, and run up falling leaves raining down in autumn. Now, not to say that low level rogues should do that, I've felt at the lower levels that they feel pretty good, especially if you stick to a solid adventuring day and have a bit of a lenient DM.

It's just that by the time the wizard is stamping his staff on the ground and opening an inter-dimensional gateway to the palace of a genie lord, or conjuring his own personal dimensional pockets filled with clones of himself to ensure his immortality, then at that point it might be more appropriate than the ability to prevent enemies from getting advantage on you, or being able to detect invisible creatures within 10 feet. Blindsense especially is just so situational, it doesn't even let you see in the dark, or avoid ambushes from creatures attacking you from outside 10', and I think RAW it doesn't even prevent creatures from surprising you by initiating combat outside of 10' and moving to close range to attack.

Compare that to Malleable Illusion, and one is just ten times more fun and effective. Plus you have Mirage Arcane by then! Sweep your hand across an entire landscape and change it to your will as an action, for the next ten days, including adding new buildings. You could make an entire city in an instant with that power! You can use it in so many interesting ways, and it's the kind of thing that makes men drop to their knees and bow before you. It's a heady feeling, and one that screams "You are a master of this world." That's awesome! I think it's fantastic and would hate to see it go away.

I've sadly never gotten to play a high level fighter so I have no idea how I'd feel about them from first hand experience, by my guess would be halfway but leaning to the rogue side. A lot of their deal is to be a complete juggernaut which they do accomplish quite well and it something most higher magic classes can't do. At the same time though they don't have any superhuman style feats to draw on, at least from what I've seen. If that was something that is supposed to be possible, it isn't explicit enough, or this topic wouldn't come up as much.

[Eldariel]

I think I agree with your principals, but maybe not your execution.

To stick with the rogue/bard example as it is being threshed out- I think the rogue needs more than a bunch more sneak attack to be good. In a game where PCs are summoning angels and demons, where wall of force is a total physical barrier, where you can reate demiplanes and raise the dead... stabing someone a bit more quickly is just not awesome enough.

If I were to look at a theme of high level abilities I would suggest new ways to interact with magic. As it sits at the moment a non magical problem can generally be solved my magic or by non magical means. A magical problem can usually only be solved by magical means.

So a bunch of living enemies can be solved as effectively by fireball as by hitting them with an axe (give or take). A problem spell needs counterspell, or sometimes dispel magic. The closest the non magical gets is breaking concentration through damage (and guess what else other than non-magic things can do damage). Look at forcecage - powerful spell, but one that can be circumvented in a few ways... misty step, counterspell, disintegrate... yeah, all the answers are magical.

If rogues (or whatever classes, and include NPCs in this) were to take a shift at higher levels I would like them to have more ways to interact with magic effects, to overcome them. Absorbing spells by rolling hit dice for a dispel effect, disrupting spellcasting by shooting the caster in the face as a reaction, extraordinary dodge that allows a move as a reaction to move out of areas of effect, epic skill use. At medium levels (7 to 14ish) I think that non-magical characters should have slightly more means of forcing saves or key skill checks. Part of the problem in the disparity of characters is that some can find a weakness - it only takes one low stat to victimise, whereas others are just left making attack rolls against AC till the enemy dies of blood loss or boredom, whatever happens first.

So to keep in tune with the original question I think it is fair to say different classes are well designed for different campaigns and at different levels.

Oh yes, I 100 % agree that the game needs a better interaction between mundanes and magic. Particularly Rogues, with their UMD and other similar abilities, have always been a very magically inclined far as mundane classes go. In 3e extreme Escape Artist enabled slipping through Walls of Force, and I find a high level Rogue should be able to confound magic in all sorts of ways (Fighter and Barb too; Pathfinder actually introduced some cool stuff like slipping along onto a nearby teleporter's ride and breaking spell effects higher up). That's part of what I include in being "better at Roguing" - Rogues already disable magical traps with their lockpicks so it's a natural expansion to let them do all sorts of stuff.


In fairness, who can blame them after the reaction 4e got? The edition made combat fun and varied for pretty much every race, class, and role, taking the best parts of Tome of Battle and spellcasting and balancing them beautifully... and people hated it because it was different. Not everyone, not by a long shot, but enough that they cut its runtime short and scaled things way back towards 3.5 for 5th edition.

EDIT: Whoops, that quote was quite a bit further from the end of the thread than I thought. Included a link to it, but the quoted post was about the design differences between martials and casters, with special mention for how Tome of Battle's fix for that in 3.5 was neglected in 5e.

4e did it in a way that emphasized everyone having similar power progression though. It advertised the "everyone is the same"-kinda deal. It also didn't delve deep enough into the ToB end in my books: ToB specifically did great things with the interaction of various actions that work against various actions in combat as a sort of Rock-paper-scissors interaction of strikes and counters without the concept of dailies or per-encounters (everyone had a different recovery method, which felt unique). I think that's fairly believable for non-casters but casters are by nature different. Ultimately the game ended up being mostly managing and winning the big fights with your dailies (at least in my experience).

I think WotC got the wrong message; it's not that balance is bad, it's that the dressing and feel matters. There's obviously a middle ground where non-casters still feel like non-casters but are way, way stronger than what they are in 5e/3e. I think PF and Path of War/Spheres of Might did it better but only barely and it would be awesome to have those options in an official baseline system one day (maybe even play some awesome non-caster in a living campaign; so far all my living campaign characters have been casters simply because non-casters become non-awesome too fast and it's not especially rewarding to play non-awesome characters).

And I'm frankly appalled by the fact that we're in 5e and there's still no proper martial buffer/leader type class in spite of that being the natural design space for high level warriors in particular, making everyone else (be it allies, an army, or whatever) more effective by just being there and being an extremely efficient commander with a mastery of everything combat. Warlord was a welcome addition, but I'd want to tie such abilities to base Fighter and Barbarian too (obviously different, Barbarian can inspire frenzy and surpassing one's limits while the Fighter can be the harsh, efficient leader granting extra actions, extra movement and bonuses).

[Waazraath]

I'm seriously surprised about the turn this thread took. My stanspoint about 'linear fighters and quadratical wizards' is and has always been that it has been more of a cliché and something on the optimization boards, then something in real play. Even in 3.x, with serious power differences between martials and casters, the difference was made much bigger on boards like this one (and more extreme ones, like min/max boards).

In part, the 'casters are uber and martials (sorry, 'mundanes' in 3.x optimization slang) suck!!1!' was as much something in the mechanics, as socialization processes on optimization boards. Where this 'truth' about caster superiority was repeated so many times that people weren't willing to look beyond it. For example, martial builds were ridiculed beforehand, without looking at the contents. Where outrages and illogical interpretations of rules were claimed to be 'RAW', as long as it was a spell we were talking about.

Yeah, the power difference was big, and real. But at a real table, you either had:

- a bunch of folks who didn't know and care about optimzing, and then nobody build the perfect specialist wizard with alternative class features for more spells and a broken bs prestige class; and even if power got out of hand somewhere, cause somebody would by accident nerf his character to hell or used got her hands on something out of proportion powerful, the DM just fixed it with items or house rules and nobody cared cause not power gamers;
- a bunch of folks who were optimizers, and who conciously deceided to aim for a likewise power level (either high optimized martials and low op casters, or high op casters aimed at supporting the team), and there was no problem.
- a mixed bag, where the low op folks just played what they wanted, and the high op folks helped them by playing support classes like bard and wizard (and still no problem)
- a situation where some or all folks were optimizers tried to 'win' and 'break the game' ; in which case the game broke down, but that wasn't because of the game but because of annoying people you shouldn't play with in the first place.

I've played 3.x up to lvl 20, and up to 15 with very mxed groups (high op in the same party as low op) and it worked fine, with little effort.

In 5e, all of this really seems like a joke. A vesitige of something that wasn't really real to begin with. Balance in 5e is fine, unless maybe if you don't rule out the nonsense that is coffee locks and simulacrum / wish chains - which all sane DM's do and which the edition fortunately facilitates (rulings not rules!).


In fairness, who can blame them after the reaction 4e got? The edition made combat fun and varied for pretty much every race, class, and role, taking the best parts of Tome of Battle and spellcasting and balancing them beautifully... and people hated it because it was different. Not everyone, not by a long shot, but enough that they cut its runtime short and scaled things way back towards 3.5 for 5th edition.

EDIT: Whoops, that quote was quite a bit further from the end of the thread than I thought. Included a link to it, but the quoted post was about the design differences between martials and casters, with special mention for how Tome of Battle's fix for that in 3.5 was neglected in 5e.

Seriously... don't want to start an edition war, but people didn't 'hate' 4e because it was 'different', at the very least you can't make this as a generalized statement. It was disliked for a very large number of reasons. Read some negative reviews on the core books if you seriously want to know where the dislike came from... I think a few should be available on the internet...

In relation to ToB, also in responds to


That's sadly been the way D&D has always been. Spellcasters have "started off slow" (less or more true depending on the edition; since 3e, low level spellcasters have been godlike as well) but become gods later on while non-casters start off strong and peter off as things proceed. Sadly, 5e did little to address this even though a solution was kind of created in 3e (Tome of Battle). 5e was afraid of the grognard backlash and thus shied away from a versatile, nuanced martial combat system leaving Battlemaster Fighter as its only vestige, and non-casters in general weren't given anything too inspiring on higher levels.


... I think you both really are missing a few points about ToB in 5e. Time Stands Still was a (powerful!) 9th level maneuver (so available at lvl 17, earliest), that gave you another 'full attack'. In 5e, a fighter can take another 'full attack' (given how extra attack works)... from level 2 with action surge. Iron Heart Endurance (6th level maneuver, available at level 11) gave a Martial adept some minor healing as a swift action (bonus action); the 5e fighter has second wind from lvl 1 available. Shield Block (lvl 2 maneuver) is a fighting style now (sort of), that can be used every turn (not a limitid rescource). A lot of Maneuvers (counters) gave bonusses to saving throws; instead, every 5e fighter can reroll a number of saves / day.

A lot of it has been taken into the fighter base class. And really, a lot more is covered with Battle Master. Plenty of different maneuvers helped to hit, or did extra damage, or reduce damage taken... all of it is available. And even stronger; Emerald Razor allowd you to make 1 really strong attack with power attack, but a lvl 5 battle master can make his 2 attacks with GWM, and only needs to spent a Precision Attack when one of them misses. Oh, and unlike ToB, almost all maneuvers also work on ranged attacks.

And even more: a lot of other ToB maneuvers are incorporated in the Monk class, or sub classes, like some of the Shadow Hand stuff in the Shadow monk (swift, eh, I mean bonus action teleports and invisibility). Stillness of mind is a (slightly weaker) iron heart surge. etc. etc.

If you look carefully: a lot of ToB has been incorporated in the logical 5e classes. They just didn't make it another mechanical system, I guess cause it was quite complicated, and that didn't fit the design philosophy.

Of course, you can complain that it's 'weak' compared to 3.5, or that you doesn't have as much choices as you had there, and that's true. But the whole edition is tuned down in power (other classes are much weaker, including casters; and monsters are as well). And the whole idea of 5e is that it is streamlined, and less (needlessly) complex. So you have the Champion Fighter, with very few moving parts, but still with quite a few options that were (powerful!) 'maneuvers' of Warblades and Crusaders in 3.5's Book of 9 Swords (the other name of Tome of Battle). But you can also pick the Battle Master, and have a whole bunch extra maneuvers, and come quite close to playing a martial adept (given what else has changed in the game).

[Misterwhisper]

Best is a little vague.

If you mean a class that needs almost no help from other classes and could make a group of themselves. Cleric or bard.

If you mean a class that and handle every encounter and get things done, wizard.

[Tallytrev813]

I havent played anything but 5e, and im only a few years in so im pretty new to D&D...

Having said that, the class that FEELS the best as far as Balance, Mechanics, etc to me is Barbarian.

The idea is supposed to be a big strong player who isnt the smartest but is a frothingly angry relentless fighter. Tough to bring down, deals big physical dmg, etc.

The class defining ability, Rage, is excellent for what a Barbarian is. Relentless attack is another reeeeeally well designed feature. Unarmored defense fits well. The Archtypes fit well - Totem, Berserker, Zealot, etc.

Not many skills outside of athletics and, maybe, intimidation (Depending on how you use it).

Barbarian can be simply (For a new player), it can be more in depth (For an experienced player trying to so do something in particular). It's capstone FEELS like a capstone (Strong, plays to character), where it may lack is flexibility and variability to play it in many different ways but i think thats OK - thats why there are other classes.


To me, Barbarian feels like they did what the class was meant to be justice.

[MrStabby]

I'm seriously surprised about the turn this conversation took. My stanspoint about 'linear fighters and quadratical wizards' is and has always been that it has been more of a cliché and something on the optimization boards, then something in real play. Even in 3.x, with serious power differences between martials and casters, the difference was made much bigger on boards like this one (and more extreme ones, like min/max boards).

In part, the 'casters are uber and martials (sorry, 'mundanes' in 3.x optimization slang) suck!!1!' was as much something in the mechanics, as socialization processes on optimization boards. Where this 'truth' about caster superiority was repeated so many times that people weren't willing to look beyond it. For example, martial builds were ridiculed beforehand, without looking at the contents. Where outrages and illogical interpretations of rules were claimed to be 'RAW', as long as it was a spell we were talking about.



Without a doubt 5th edition is better balanced than 3rd edition. Just because it is better balanced than 3rd doesn't make it good though (I think 5th edition is fantastic but for reasons other than being well balanced, if I thought it were poor overall I wouldn't care enough to post as I wouldn't be playing it).

However there does seem to be a trend that people who have played 3rd edition a lot seem to think 5th is balanced and don't see any issues. People who liked 4th seem to spot issues everywhere.



At the risk of going down the rabbit hole a bit I think that there is more to this than just optimisation - or at least in the sense of building the "most powerful" character.

3rd edition had options. It had a LOT of options. Now sure, if you wanted something that wouldn't be outshone by others at the table those options were reduced but there were a lot of ways to produce something that had a strong mechanical case for being played. If you wanted to play something new, something not yet seen at your table the options were so vast that you could find something without it feeling strictly worse than other options. In 5th edition there are fewer choices and the classes are a lot less complex - finding a new niche for your latest character is harder. Mechanically a lot of characters are pushed together towards the same point. To differentiate you character mechanically you cant so easily move sideways into an unexplored type of class, you have to be better if you want that limelight (again mechanically speaking, this is ignoring RP but as that isn't really baked into rules or editions it is less relevant to rules discussions).

l also think that some of the feeling of power disparity will vary depending on how you want to build your character. If you say "I want to play a ranger" then look at the ranger you see it isn't too far off other similar classes and you have found something you want to play. If, on the other hand you say "I want to be an assassin" (role not rogue subclass); I want to be able to get past locked doors, traps, kill my target and get out then it leads you towards a class with misty step, knock, maybe invisibility or pass without trace, fly or spider climb, dimension door is great as you go up levels... If you want to be a bounty hunter that tracks people down and brings them to justice then spells like locate person/object become really useful for the concept, maybe hold person if you want to take the target alive. If you go from the side of wanting to play a role then working back to the class that has the best abilities to fill that role then the same classes keep coming up again and again.

I don't think there is a need to chose between these viewpoints. Depending on what makes a character fun for you you can get very different results from 5th edition. I certainly don't think that casters shouldn't be able to be the best at specific things or be powerful but I do think the edition rewards versatility too much. One thing that I think 3rd ed did do right was the preparation of spells - you picked the number of each type of spell you wanted to cast when you rested. The cost of being able to do one extra thing wasn't just a spell prepared by the spell slots that were hypothecated for that purpose. It gave casters more of an incentive to leave other functions to specialists as it saved them spell slots for other purposes.

Do board like this amplify the gap? Maybe. I think there are two factors. One is it speeds optimisation - you can see what other people see and it is quicker to verify something than to deduce it yourself. That said it is probably more of a 3rd edition thing than a 5th edition thing - I have seen no really surprising builds in 5th edition that are really unexpected. The other is language. Does language amplify the gap?

If I am honest I don't think it is language but context. In casual conversation with friends discussing which classes are cool you can respond to what people you know like. On the internet you might want to be as objective as you can be and you are less likely to know what others are looking for. More importantly the way a board like this works is that classes are discussed in the context of a question. Look at this thread for example - what are the best designed classes? Immediately this is asking for a comparison between classes and a ranking (by some metric) which forces people to find something to use to discriminate between classes.

When I look at this thread I look to my answers; in thinking about your point I don't think some introspection is a bad thing. I listed my best designed classes as those that I thought enhanced the experience at the table for everyone - fun to play and fun to have someone else at the table playing with. To me "best designed" was always going to have an element of an assessment of power to it as being overshadowed, especially in a field that you set your character up to excel at, diminishes fun. When heads always turn to the same player to solve a really tough problem with a spell it is taking the spotlight from the rest of the group. In the context of a question inviting a discussion on what separates good design from bad design I don't think it is wrong to pick up on these ability gaps. On the other hand - there are a lot of people for whom it has little impact on their enjoyment of the game, which is probably why there is such a diversity of answers here.

Alternatively some people may have been answering the question "what is your favourite class to play" rather than "what is the best designed class". If it were the former I would probably have piled in with Wizard as well, and put it at the top not the bottom.

[BrusLi]

My personal favorite is paladin, for a number of reasons. It does a really good job of blending thematic & mechanical elements, it does a little bit of everything (good combat proficiencies, some casting ability, strong secondary cha makes for effective social skill use, features that support both offensive and defensive/supportive combat roles), and rather than being a jack of all trades it actually blends many of its abilities together (most obviously divine smite blends spell slots and weapon attacks, but also aura of protection also props up the paladin's concentration saves, concentration buffs encourage enemies to target the paladin supporting their tanking ability, oath strictures give npcs extra reason to respect the things the paladin is saying with their cha skills, auras encourage allies to rally around the paladin which plays directly into their narrative role AND makes it easier for the paladin to use their other abilities to protect those allies and punish enemies that target them). The subclasses all have highly distinct identities and a handful of key features that change how you look at and use the rest of your features, especially the two added by Xanathar's Guide. None of the subclasses are bad or feel bad. Both the parent class as a whole and all of the subclasses are pretty effective mechanical implementations of the narrative themes and archetypes they represent. Whether you're looking to play the shield of the faithful or the sword of divine retribution, the paladin has you covered.

More generally, blends of magic and weapon use are a popular concept, and no other single class or subclass in 5e does it better. This is because, outside of a couple individual spells, the ranger's combat and casting abilities don't particularly interact much - in general their spellcasting better supports their non-combat roles and even there they lack class features like divine smite that explicitly blend their casting and non-casting. Everything else in 5e that tries to blend combat and casting is a subclass of either a full-caster or non-caster parent class, and while several of these are decent (I quite like arcane tricksters and hexblades in particular), by their fundamental design implementation none of these are going to pull off the blend as effectively as a full class built to do so from the ground up.


That said, paladin does have some flaws that stop me from holding it up as 'the best'. And I'm not talking about weaknesses here - like difficulty dealing with groups of enemies or enemies at long range or that target dexterity, intelligence, or wisdom saves - classes should have weaknesses and it can even be argued that paladin maybe should have maybe a bit more pronounced weaknesses given all their strengths. Rather I'm talking about things like the paladin being maybe a bit too focused on daily resources that are themselves a bit too limited. The paladin does have it's always active auras, solid base proficiencies and HP, and a short-rest-recharging channel divinity to fall back on, so it isn't as bad in this regard as it could be, but between spell casting and divine smite, an awful lot of what makes a paladin a paladin revolves around those relatively few daily half-caster spell slots. It's far too easy to burn through those slots in a single encounter leaving a somewhat less engaging play experience for the rest of the day, and because of that risk many paladin players horde their spell slots and end up with that less engaging play experience for the whole day instead. And if they do burn all their resources in the same encounter, they can nuke their way through a tough enemy that was supposed to provide an engaging combat for the whole party, cutting into everyone's fun a bit. At the very least, divine smite should probably be limited to once per turn. Further restrictions, or a shift of some of their abilities from long rest to short rest timers, would probably be a good idea as well.

Another problem - albeit one limited to games that use the optional multiclassing rules - is that paladins are maybe a bit too easily dipped for multiclassing - divine smite is an awfully powerful ability for other gish types to be able to pick up with just a two level dip - and maybe a bit too prone to multiclassing themselves. The latter paladin levels are nowhere near as barren as they are sometimes made out to be if you actually look at their spell options, especially after Xanathar's guide added 'find greater steed', but the easiest to use and most obviously powerful features of the class are clustered in levels 2 to 6 (depending on subclass maybe 2 to 7), and that makes multiclassing out a little too common, imo. Unfortunately with the way the multiclassing rules are implemented there's no way to restrict divine smite to paladin slots only.

One solution might be to limit the maximum size of a smite based on the paladin's level. Ie, you can smite with first level spells at level 2, 2nd level spells at level 5, and so on, matching the single classed paladin's normal spell progression. This might curb dipping a bit, but given that a lot of paladin multiclasses go to 6 for extra attack and aura of protection, and mostly only use smites on first and second level spell slots anyway, that probably won't do all that much. Maybe make smite a separate ability on a short rest timer that does just d8 additional damage, but lets you spend spell slots for extra damage when you use it? Then you could limit the max level spell slot as already described AND limit the number of uses based on paladin level? Single classed paladins would then be able to smite more often, the short rest limit (combined with the previously mentioned per turn limit) would encourage more use of the ability throughout the day, preventing paladins from saving their whole day's worth of smites to nuke a boss monster and making them a bit more engaging through more of the day, if the paladin used up their spell slots they'd still have some minor smiting ability, etc.

Then again, by making the first d8 damage 'free', the marginal efficiency of spending spell slots on smites would be significantly reduced, so maybe still require the spell slots, but still have a per short rest smite limit tied to paladin level? I don't know, I'm not a game designer. The point I'm trying to make is that the paladin's over-reliance on high power, low use daily resources is a problem. One could call it a good and balancing weakness - but in practice it encourages a play style where the paladin hordes that resource for important fights, which results in a less fun experience for the paladin in most fights and a less fun experience for the rest of the party in those fights where the paladin goes nova and drops a challenging boss too quickly.

...

As a side note, my favorite subclass in terms of game design is the conquest paladin, mostly because of how it puts a twist on the archetype of the paladin that still maintains that perfect blend of mechanics & narrative, how it completely changes and really elevates, the frighten condition from the core mechanics, and in particular how it addresses some of the flaws I see in the parent paladin class.

The way the subclass's signature ability - the level 7 aura of conquest - works requires the paladin to first frighten targets. The paladin's best means of doing so are from the spells Wrathful Smite and Fear, which focuses the player's attention on spell casting. Once their attention is there, they'll naturally take note of some of the paladin's stronger later level spells. This includes offensive spells, since the conqueror needs a high charisma to land frighten effects, so since they have that charisma anyway other offensive spells aren't as iffy as they are for smite-focused paladins who let their charisma lag behind their physical attack stat. Additionally, some of the paladin's other class features are re-contextualized by the conqueror's play style in positive ways. For example, for most paladins the level 10 aura of courage is little more than a ribbon, but for the conqueror who likes to throw around otherwise-party-unfriendly fear cones it's much more meaningful. There is no empty level of paladin for a conqueror, so while they can multiclass effectively if they want to (heighten spell metamagic from a few sorcerer levels or short rest recharging slots for Fear from five levels of warlock are especially tempting), they never feel pushed into doing so (with the arguable exception of a single level hexblade dip, but that's a hexblade problem not a conqueror one).

On the daily resource pacing side, aura of conquest encourages the conqueror to burn one or two spell slots in each combat to inflict frighten on the enemy, and since the ability is particularly effective in locking down groups of weaker foes, conquest players don't feel the same pressure to hoard spell slots for the toughest fight of the day. Even against stronger foes, if they're vulnerable to frighten at all the conqueror is usually better off trying to lock them down with a wrathful smite, protecting their allies but not stealing the party's thunder. Divine Smite becomes more of a fallback ability to use on foes that are immune to frighten or have sky high will saves or legendary resistance - though even there burning through a boss's legendary resistances with first level wrathful smites can be a good tactic if it lets your wizard friend land a fourth level banish a round or two later. Even when the conqueror does have cause to fall back on divine smite, for instance when the party is up against a lich or iron golem or whatever, the fact that they have likely been using their spell slots here and there throughout the day means they usually won't have enough spell slots left to trivialize the fight with pure damage output the way a more smite oriented paladin might.


So yeah, while the paladin in general has some flaws, that, to me, hold it back from being the outright best designed class, the oath of conquest paladin in particular is far and away my choice for best designed subclass, in large part because of how it naturally addresses the few significant complaints I have about its parent class.

Very nice love letter to one of the best and most synergistic class+archetype in 5e ^_^

[Eldariel]

*snip*

The crux of this post basically seems to be "my experience is right, yours is wrong". I'm not sure it's worth actually discussing here given nothing new has been presented to the conversation, but the purpose of this post troubles me: are you trying to negate, for instance, my experience by just stating that since games you happened to be in worked mostly fine (at least in your experience), my games actually worked out fine too and I'm just not aware of it?

[Dessunri]

A very subjective question, but I'm going to say that Cleric is the best class purely due to it's versatility. You can be a frontliner, a healer, a spellslinger, a support, a controller, and a party face if needed. Maybe not all at once but with the right domain you can fill any role and no matter your specialization you can always heal so it helps to have one in the party. The only downfall to the Cleric class is that they only regain spells on a long rest so there is more emphasis on playing your cleric smartly and not blowing through spells in the first encounter. But that's what makes it more interesting to me honestly.

[Waazraath]

@MrStabby: Thnx for the thoughtfull reply.


Without a doubt 5th edition is better balanced than 3rd edition. Just because it is better balanced than 3rd doesn't make it good though (I think 5th edition is fantastic but for reasons other than being well balanced, if I thought it were poor overall I wouldn't care enough to post as I wouldn't be playing it).

True, of course, that first part. The second part, I love it as well, also because I do think it is balanced though.


However there does seem to be a trend that people who have played 3rd edition a lot seem to think 5th is balanced and don't see any issues. People who liked 4th seem to spot issues everywhere.

Interesting. I think you're right. 5e is very balanced compared to 3.x, and less balanced then 4. For folks like myself, that did found a play style in which even 3.x was (sort of) balanced in real play, it's logical that 5e doesn't pose balance problems.


At the risk of going down the rabbit hole a bit I think that there is more to this than just optimisation - or at least in the sense of building the "most powerful" character.

3rd edition had options. It had a LOT of options. Now sure, if you wanted something that wouldn't be outshone by others at the table those options were reduced but there were a lot of ways to produce something that had a strong mechanical case for being played. If you wanted to play something new, something not yet seen at your table the options were so vast that you could find something without it feeling strictly worse than other options.In 5th edition there are fewer choices and the classes are a lot less complex - finding a new niche for your latest character is harder. Mechanically a lot of characters are pushed together towards the same point. To differentiate you character mechanically you cant so easily move sideways into an unexplored type of class, you have to be better if you want that limelight (again mechanically speaking, this is ignoring RP but as that isn't really baked into rules or editions it is less relevant to rules discussions).

Agreed; even the amount of systems you could play was quite big: 'normal' magic, incarnum, psionics, soulbinding, truespeak, maneuvers from Tome of Battle... the number of playable races, classes, prestige classes, thousands of feats... it was huge. Lots of junk, lots of overpowered stuff, but in between still an enormous amount of choice.


l also think that some of the feeling of power disparity will vary depending on how you want to build your character. If you say "I want to play a ranger" then look at the ranger you see it isn't too far off other similar classes and you have found something you want to play. If, on the other hand you say "I want to be an assassin" (role not rogue subclass); I want to be able to get past locked doors, traps, kill my target and get out then it leads you towards a class with misty step, knock, maybe invisibility or pass without trace, fly or spider climb, dimension door is great as you go up levels... If you want to be a bounty hunter that tracks people down and brings them to justice then spells like locate person/object become really useful for the concept, maybe hold person if you want to take the target alive. If you go from the side of wanting to play a role then working back to the class that has the best abilities to fill that role then the same classes keep coming up again and again.

Here I beg to differ. One of the things that I find great about 5e is how the combination of feats, backgrounds and (sub)classes give a lot of options for different concepts. My first character was a 'Bard', but actually a dex based Ancients Paladin with Entertainer background and bardy skills/tools. For a bounty hunter, you could go a caster with the spells you mention... but I just as easily can envision a Rogue with expertise in Investigate, Perception and Stealth, and a relevant background (Urban Bounty Hunter, or City Watch Investigator Variant); a barbarian with some ranks in intimidate who beats information about the quarry out of people; or actually almost any other class. Every class can have decent tracking, social skills, get the good backgrounds, bribe people for information, etc. Locate only works within 1000 ft, that's a distance in which either tracking or social skills should do the trick. Hold really isn't needed, cause in 5e you can always choose to knock a target out instead of killing it. Same goes for assassin: yeah, you can make one of a caster, but there are plenty of other routes.


I don't think there is a need to chose between these viewpoints. Depending on what makes a character fun for you you can get very different results from 5th edition. I certainly don't think that casters shouldn't be able to be the best at specific things or be powerful but I do think the edition rewards versatility too much. One thing that I think 3rd ed did do right was the preparation of spells - you picked the number of each type of spell you wanted to cast when you rested. The cost of being able to do one extra thing wasn't just a spell prepared by the spell slots that were hypothecated for that purpose. It gave casters more of an incentive to leave other functions to specialists as it saved them spell slots for other purposes.

Really? I have the impression that 3.x casters could fulfill much more roles than in 5e, despite the preperation thing. After all: spells had much longer durations, the default no. of encounters was only 4, there were much more ways to enable a 5 min. adventuring day, and spells were much, much stronger. You only needed 1 polymorph that changed you into a War Troll (to give 1 example) and you were a better fighter than the martial classes, and that left you with all your other spells left.


Do board like this amplify the gap? Maybe. I think there are two factors. One is it speeds optimisation - you can see what other people see and it is quicker to verify something than to deduce it yourself. That said it is probably more of a 3rd edition thing than a 5th edition thing - I have seen no really surprising builds in 5th edition that are really unexpected.

Oh, it is more of a 3.x thing than a 5e. To be clear, I was talking about 3e, but also not about gitp. But yeah, they do speed up optimization. But they also lead to psycho/social processes like group think and group polarisation - that is what I was talking about in my former post. To give some context: at the height of 3.x optimization boards, casters were uber. Everybody thought so, and of course, casters were stronger. But it got extremer: people who doubted certain spell combo's were ridiculed cause they doubte the power of the Allmighty Wizard. RAW discussions got weird, cause the same argument that was valid when it was about a caster wasn't valid when it was about a 'mundane'. Two examples for context. Wizards were supposed to have almost unlimited rescources, cause there spells allowed them unlimited money. Somebody looked to flesh to salt, from Sandstorm, looked up how expensive salt was, and deceided that the wizard only needed to transform a few cows to be very very rich. This was quite broadly, excepted. People arguing against this (you play in a world, with an economy, supply and demand, all that stuff) was shouted down as House Ruling (a pejorative in that time!), cause there was a table in the book with prices, so Rules As Written, and the DM had to abide. This is weird to begin with, cause the books also had a table with how many wealth a character was supposed to have at every level, which was RAW as well - so a DM call which RAW goes first was mandatory. But at the same time, there were 10 ft. ladders and 10 ft pole's. The latter being much more expensive. Meaning that any creative commoner with a saw could buy a ladder, make 2 10 ft poles out of it, sell them, and earn money. If you do it a lot of times (which you could, if the laws of supply and demand dont count) you could get neigh unlimited wealth and rescources (remember, the edition had rules on how expensive items should be available in every town and city). Funny enough: this was not accepted in builds.

Oh well, I can rant for another hour, but I guess the point is clear. My point was that in 3.x, the discrepancy in power was there, but it was made bigger than it actually was on charop boards. Partly clever optimizers who knew very well what they were talking about, but also a lot of folks just repeating what other folks said, because it had become the norm.

In 5e, here at gitp, I hardly see it. It is also one of the reasons I was surprised by the turn this thread took, because so far, I think most threads about this subject have a majority of folks who don't recognize the caster/martial problems in 5e as a problem.


The other is language. Does language amplify the gap?

If I am honest I don't think it is language but context. In casual conversation with friends discussing which classes are cool you can respond to what people you know like. On the internet you might want to be as objective as you can be and you are less likely to know what others are looking for. More importantly the way a board like this works is that classes are discussed in the context of a question. Look at this thread for example - what are the best designed classes? Immediately this is asking for a comparison between classes and a ranking (by some metric) which forces people to find something to use to discriminate between classes.

When I look at this thread I look to my answers; in thinking about your point I don't think some introspection is a bad thing. I listed my best designed classes as those that I thought enhanced the experience at the table for everyone - fun to play and fun to have someone else at the table playing with. To me "best designed" was always going to have an element of an assessment of power to it as being overshadowed, especially in a field that you set your character up to excel at, diminishes fun. When heads always turn to the same player to solve a really tough problem with a spell it is taking the spotlight from the rest of the group. In the context of a question inviting a discussion on what separates good design from bad design I don't think it is wrong to pick up on these ability gaps. On the other hand - there are a lot of people for whom it has little impact on their enjoyment of the game, which is probably why there is such a diversity of answers here.

Alternatively some people may have been answering the question "what is your favourite class to play" rather than "what is the best designed class". If it were the former I would probably have piled in with Wizard as well, and put it at the top not the bottom.

Ah, now I read your post on page 1. Funny, we do have quite different experiences. I didn't experience much difference in my Cleric (rated as best) and Paladin (rated as worst by you): both fun, versatile classes, with answers to a lot of situans, but not all. Save for wizards: I don't have this experience. For example, Dominate (or charm, for that matter) would never work on a guard; started casting would be 'roll initiative' (one of the reasons 'subtle spell' is so great imo on a sorcerer). But more: all the utility possiblities a wizard has, won't be used that much in games (unless in games with very few combat encounters, maybe). Few wizards, in my experience, will use spells to unlock doors, climb, disable traps, etc., if there is a real possiblity that a number of fights will follow later, and won't even memorize many of those spells if there are other party members that can take care of such challanges. But all this is ymmv, depends on DM, party, campaign, etc.


The crux of this post basically seems to be "my experience is right, yours is wrong". I'm not sure it's worth actually discussing here given nothing new has been presented to the conversation, but the purpose of this post troubles me: are you trying to negate, for instance, my experience by just stating that since games you happened to be in worked mostly fine (at least in your experience), my games actually worked out fine too and I'm just not aware of it?

:smallconfused: Wut? Hostility much? I gave 1) my experience on class balance 2) on how I've seen how these were discussed on optimization boards in the past and 3) noted that in my opinion you missed how quite a lot of ToB has been incorporated in 5e (but nothing personal). So no silly, my experience isn't 'better' then yours, and of course I never wrote that.

[DrLoveMonkey]

Here I beg to differ. One of the things that I find great about 5e is how the combination of feats, backgrounds and (sub)classes give a lot of options for different concepts. My first character was a 'Bard', but actually a dex based Ancients Paladin with Entertainer background and bardy skills/tools. For a bounty hunter, you could go a caster with the spells you mention... but I just as easily can envision a Rogue with expertise in Investigate, Perception and Stealth, and a relevant background (Urban Bounty Hunter, or City Watch Investigator Variant); a barbarian with some ranks in intimidate who beats information about the quarry out of people; or actually almost any other class. Every class can have decent tracking, social skills, get the good backgrounds, bribe people for information, etc. Locate only works within 1000 ft, that's a distance in which either tracking or social skills should do the trick. Hold really isn't needed, cause in 5e you can always choose to knock a target out instead of killing it. Same goes for assassin: yeah, you can make one of a caster, but there are plenty of other routes.


It is true that you can make characters with mundane classes that are bounty hunters or spies, and in a world without magic they’d be some of the greatest information gatherers, infiltrators, spies and hunters in the world. I’m my experience though, you won’t feel like that at the higher levels.

For example a level 13 thief rogue with 14 strength, 20 dexterity, expertise in acrobatics, athletics, stealth, and thieves tools is a very good infiltrator. He can jump up and grab a ledge 19 feet straight up, has advantage and expertise in stealth, with reliable talent there is almost no lock in the world that he doesn’t pick automatically in a single action. That sounds super epic. But in actual high level play I find that it falls apart. For example if you needed to track down the king, but he’d gone into hiding temporarily, maybe political dangers or something. The party might get themselves invited to an actual party at the kings castle, whereupon the bard convinced the kitchen staff to smuggle in the rogues climbing gear and thieves tools. Then fighter and the bard keep everyone downstairs enthralled with epic tales while the rogue sneaks out the back, scale the outer wall, unlock the window to the king’s personal office, sneak in, unlock the hidden drawer in the desk and pull out the letters detailing where he plans to hide. Which I think is great, that’s awesome thief stuff that involves the rest of the party in the plan and it truly does make you an epic spy.

What will usually happen though is the wizard will just cast scrying on the king, and then teleport the whole group right to him. At that level you even get three chances to scry his location and still teleport, as long as you know two other people that are probably with him like the queen and the head of his guard. Which is great! It’s really cool to have the wizard sitting in a darkened room with the party, opening his third eye to pierce the veil of distance, searching through the universe for where your quarry is, and then once you find him using that anchor to tear open a path and send the party after him. Doing that makes you feel exactly like that Daffy Duck Merry Melody where he’s a wizard going on epic adventures. It also accomplished something in less than fifteen minutes that would have taken the spy character an entire evening, and isn’t even as accurate considering who knows if the king was kidnapped on his way to his planned hiding place or not.

It’s not just that though, there’s lots of stuff that ends up being much easier and/or possible. Polymorph is a big offender I think, it’s just one spell you have to prepare, you have 3 slots to cast it in as early as level 9, and most things you might want to do as a rogue an animal can do better. Like, nobody climbs as well as a giant spider, and then can ferry people and/or leave a rope as they do it, infiltrating a place as an insect, ect. At lower level it’s somewhat less of an issue because those spell slots are more precious, although if you’re not expecting a big adventuring day who cares, but at high level a wizard or druid can burn them like candy.

It’s not like it’s impossible to attempt these things as an epic high level mundane character, but in comparison the sorcerer will accomplish the same thing faster and more reliably.

[Eldariel]

:smallconfused: Wut? Hostility much? I gave 1) my experience on class balance 2) on how I've seen how these were discussed on optimization boards in the past and 3) noted that in my opinion you missed how quite a lot of ToB has been incorporated in 5e (but nothing personal). So no silly, my experience isn't 'better' then yours, and of course I never wrote that.

I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, then. The bolded lines seriously read to me like "real play/real table doesn't contain the issues you outlined":

I'm seriously surprised about the turn this thread took. My stanspoint about 'linear fighters and quadratical wizards' is and has always been that it has been more of a cliché and something on the optimization boards, then something in real play. Even in 3.x, with serious power differences between martials and casters, the difference was made much bigger on boards like this one (and more extreme ones, like min/max boards).

In part, the 'casters are uber and martials (sorry, 'mundanes' in 3.x optimization slang) suck!!1!' was as much something in the mechanics, as socialization processes on optimization boards. Where this 'truth' about caster superiority was repeated so many times that people weren't willing to look beyond it. For example, martial builds were ridiculed beforehand, without looking at the contents. Where outrages and illogical interpretations of rules were claimed to be 'RAW', as long as it was a spell we were talking about.

Yeah, the power difference was big, and real. But at a real table, you either had:

- a bunch of folks who didn't know and care about optimzing, and then nobody build the perfect specialist wizard with alternative class features for more spells and a broken bs prestige class; and even if power got out of hand somewhere, cause somebody would by accident nerf his character to hell or used got her hands on something out of proportion powerful, the DM just fixed it with items or house rules and nobody cared cause not power gamers;
- a bunch of folks who were optimizers, and who conciously deceided to aim for a likewise power level (either high optimized martials and low op casters, or high op casters aimed at supporting the team), and there was no problem.
- a mixed bag, where the low op folks just played what they wanted, and the high op folks helped them by playing support classes like bard and wizard (and still no problem)
- a situation where some or all folks were optimizers tried to 'win' and 'break the game' ; in which case the game broke down, but that wasn't because of the game but because of annoying people you shouldn't play with in the first place.

I've played 3.x up to lvl 20, and up to 15 with very mxed groups (high op in the same party as low op) and it worked fine, with little effort.

In 5e, all of this really seems like a joke. A vesitige of something that wasn't really real to begin with. Balance in 5e is fine, unless maybe if you don't rule out the nonsense that is coffee locks and simulacrum / wish chains - which all sane DM's do and which the edition fortunately facilitates (rulings not rules!).

Which felt quite insulting when you've played in multiple tables as the recipient of said issues. I'm sorry for misunderstanding your intent.

To explain my position, one of the most common reasons I've encountered these issues is simply inexperience and the assumption that the edition wouldn't allow for completely broken **** if using spells as written. Like, one two-player game I was running Dervish and my friend was running a Warlock but rerolled a Nar Demonbinder. He bound a Glabrezu ('cause it was a cool demon we had run into in the adventure) and bam, my whole character was useless. In our earlier game, I was a level 15ish Fighter 6/Wizard 1/Arcane Archer (something recommended by the DMG) and our party had a Wizard and a Cleric. Fight after fight I (and my Fighter buddy running a Dwarven Defender) felt in spite of having a ton of gold (majority of the party items), we were more or less irrelevant. Against a Ragewalker, we just beat each other senseless while one of the casters cast Destruction and it died. In an intraparty argument, which came down to blows, the party Wizard just cast Forcecage on me and I was out for a week. In neither case was there any malicious intent in the character builds; we just played what we thought cool and it just so happened what my friends thought cool made me more or less useless.

I've also played a Druid 15 in a party of Rogues, Fighters, etc. and without effort (I didn't even use Wildshape for combat or have an animal companion) ended up soloing our adventures simply because I had actual class features (it was mostly intrigue and spells like Stonetell, Find the Path, Master Earth, etc. basically did everything for us). I didn't try to. It was simply that none of my allies had meaningful abilities that would help us get **** done.

I've also played Bastion of Broken Souls. The party warriors basically hit enemies while the casters try to get to the bottom of the mystery, find all the locations, stop the enemy ambushes, etc. It's a level 17+ adventure, which basically means no matter how you spin it, either you're a caster or you're a borderline extra.

Yes, casters can scale down but it sucks to play a caster and not be able to use your abilities like...at all, if you want to not overshadow party Fighter. Like Planar Binding? Pick anything with a random die and it's gonna be too good if it's near the limit allowed for the level by the spell. So basically, a Demonbinder character is completely unplayable since it's too strong. Same with the illusionist focused around Simulacrum. And that's without going into actual adventure design: if you have to design for high level mundanes, you basically can't use most of the options in the game and are restricted from most kinds of plots simply because high level non-casters are so streamlined and only able to contribute in one kind of encounter (combat, with perhaps some minor social/intrigue thrown in for Rogue-types). I think that's a very real and massive problem: the game has two games in one another and especially on high levels, either one side and the DM has to dumb the game down to the point where the pointy stick wielders can contribute, or the pointy stick wielders have to accept being essentially combat mooks that can't meaningfully contribute to the adventure at large unless there are huge neon signs pointing "go here" and "do this" since they have no way to find out where to go and what to do to accomplish much of anything.

Hell, just now in a level 3 (5e) scenario we ended up in a game where the party Fighter and Barbarian were basically walking extras since the adventure featured little to no combat, while Rogue, Bard and Ranger were actually doing things for 3 hours. This is what I mean with imbalance; the kind of game a DM can run for everyone is awfully restricted, and the restrictions grow worse as the level increases.

EDIT: As for the "DM can DM away the problem"...well, theoretically, yes. However, that requires that:
- The DM has the time to not only create the world and the adventure but also to babysit intra-party balance.
- The DM is aware that the game might have balance problems.
- The DM has some solutions handy and the party agrees with them (for example, I'd never agree to play a Fighter whose important power came from a magic item; that runs contrary to the very reason I picked a Fighter in the first place).

All of which means that it's not always feasible. In our first two games, the DM was new. How was he supposed to know the game would implode around teens? We expected it had been built to remain approximately in balance. In the latter case, the DM simply assumed the rules were fine. Sure, we could try to figure out how to correct things like not letting Demonbinder play Demonbinder but the damage had already been done anyways and some game sessions lost until we realised it wasn't getting any better. In the Druid game, again, nobody did anything wrong but the DM just designed a game that didn't happen to suit the other characters. It's nobody's fault that the characters come with gaping holes in their abilities, and the DM didn't have the time to make any ad hoc fixes since he was busy, was already kinda improing the game and had two other games running simultaneously so little time to go the extra mile for that one.

In short, DM being theoretically able to fix the issues is practically meaningless in many cases since it's simply not possible with the resources and the information afforded to the game.

[Waazraath]

*snip*

Beautiful example/scenario's! Enjoyed reading it. Few things though.

1) in a world where magic is known to exist, and relative common, these spells are known to exist. And especially a king will know about them, at least, one that likes to stay king for a while. And a king has resources. So in this specific case, the king will have taken measures to prevent him being detected in this way. Through an item, the court's wizard, or common anti-measures (don't know if it's still a thing, but in earlier editions certain materials blocked divinations). More in general, it always suprised me that in a world where magic is rather common, there are clerics that can heal, wizards who live in towers, magic academies, etc., players assume nobody knows it exist when they use a spell, and an 'invisiblity' makes them able to whatever they want to do, "cause hey, magic". For me (but I'm aware we're in ymmv-territory already), this negatively effects versimilitude. So in my campaigns, and most campaigns I've played in, if magic is well known, so are the counters against magic (if only in the most basic for, where starting to cast in a social situation is seen as drawing a weapon). That doesn't mean magic never works, or is nerfed, just that it has to be used with some care, and isn't an auto-win.

2) in this specific case, I think things don't go quite as easy for the wizard as you describe. In the first place, there's the saving throw on the Scry, how easy or hard it is really depends on the DM (bonusses and pentalties due to the spell, can you find a lock of hair, did you see the king before, etc.), but also: how well is he protected, what are his saves? If the scry fails, you indeed are dependend on a 2nd or 3rd person being around, guessing correctly which person that is, and that person not saving against the spell. But even if this works (lets say the 2nd try), and you cast teleport while keeping the Scry going so you count as 'very familiar'; you still have 25% chance on failure on this teleport. But lets assume it succeeds. At level 13, that wizard has only 1 level 7 spell slot. So he can't teleport anyone back, until he takes a long rest. Only at lvl 15 he can spent his only lvl 7 and lvl 8 slots to teleport there and back again. So the 15 minutes wont happen.

3) but more important: lets assume the party teleports, finds the hideout of the king (he hid in the attic), they can convince him to reappear (a job for the 'face', Bard probably, adding his skill to the magic prowes shown by the wizard so far), and they walk down.... at that point, the adventure really starts, if your DM follow the guidelines on encounter design. Maybe a palace revolution broke out, political adversaries try to make use of the king's absence to stage a coup. Fight! There will be another 3, 5 or 10 encounters, where people try to take out the king, or his queen, or the party, or whatever. At this point, the wizard spend his highest spell slot on Teleport, and both of his level 5 slots on scry (if it takes him 3 tries, he also loses his only lvl 6 slot). So I really see a case here for not, as a wizard, spend your most important rescources on stuff that other classes could have done (with more effort though) as well.


It’s not just that though, there’s lots of stuff that ends up being much easier and/or possible. Polymorph is a big offender I think, it’s just one spell you have to prepare, you have 3 slots to cast it in as early as level 9, and most things you might want to do as a rogue an animal can do better. Like, nobody climbs as well as a giant spider, and then can ferry people and/or leave a rope as they do it, infiltrating a place as an insect, ect. At lower level it’s somewhat less of an issue because those spell slots are more precious, although if you’re not expecting a big adventuring day who cares, but at high level a wizard or druid can burn them like candy.

It’s not like it’s impossible to attempt these things as an epic high level mundane character, but in comparison the sorcerer will accomplish the same thing faster and more reliably.

Well, yes, if you often know as a player if you have big adventuring days or not, that increases the power/versatility of the caster. After all, they play a resource management mini-game with there slots, much more than other classes do. So I think the DM has a role here, to play that part of the game as intended. Not to have every day consist of an artificial 6-8 encounters, but I think that 1) adventuring days with only 1 or 2 encounters should be rare and 2) that players really shouldn't know at the beginning of the day (or the dungeon) how many encounters they face, be it 1, 5 or 12. The pacing of the game is for a large part a DM's job imo - but also here, I understand ymmv here.

Another thing though: again, I don't think the spells get you as far as you say they will. Polymorph is nice, but for scouting? Technically, you won't be able to change into anything without game stats (so most insects are out) - that won't matter too much though, a rodent or bird will often do. But much more important: you take over their mental scores. If your party lives depends on your scouting the entrance - do you want to depend on a rat with an Intelligence of 2? Are you, in raven form, really still tracking who you think you are, or some other human looking like him? etc.



*snip*

Ok, fair enough, I feel your pain... I formulated too sharp and black/white. My apologies.

Yes, in these cases the game breaks. My own context does play an important part in how I experienced 3.x. Playing with groups of friends knowing each others, always having at least 1 or 2 optimizers around, who know what to do to avoid overshadowing everybody else and who knew who needed a little bit of help. Of course it is different if you end up at your local game store with a lvl 10 monk who picked a weapon focus and improved initiative as feats, and end up in party with a Seven Veiled BS wizard prestige class. I should have formulated that the game, despite its issues, could be played without being broken, if etc.

To add a few points:

- my annoyance against the role of charop boards is that, when 3.5 was younger, the optimization community knew really well what spells needed to be avoided. One of the ground breaking guides, Logic Ninja's Guide To Being Batman (a wizard guide) had a list of stuff that should be avoided, like the polymorph series, cause they broke the game in half. But somehow, in later years, this broken spells and combo's became the norm, and doing anything about them was frowned upon. Instead of "guys lets be reasonable this list of stuff doesn't work with the rest of the game, not with other classes, not with stock monster manual monsters, not with the DMG that says characters should be more or less balanced", the attitude went "ALL THESE AWESOM COMBO'S ARE RAW AND IF YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THEM YOU ARE HOUSE RULING!!1!" (again, which was a prejorative at that time).

- and yes, you definitely need a DM who understands the balance issues, or that has a party that takes care of them themselves. It was a complicated edition, and as a 'master of rules', you really needed to know them.

- as for playing a caster and not being able to play it to its full potential; well, I understand, but then again, no character in 3.x could be played to its full potential, using strict RAW. Cause that led to lvl 1 character with infinite wealth, or worse, lvl 1 characters doing a Pun Pun (having infinite everything and every ability in the game). That is unplayable. So, with the broad RAW in mind (the DMG saying characters should be balanced, and the MM having monsters that a party of a given level should be balanced against), it was pretty clear what combo's, spells and tricks really shouldn't be used to keep the game playable. Casters, being more powerful, needed to hold back more than others though. Hell... at one point, I played with some BS malconvoker build summoning 15+ fiendish tyrannosaurusses rex, completely RAW... fun, once, as a gimmick, but a turn took him 20 minutes. That stuff was obviously not meant to be played for real, and people should have seen it (and boards made it more obvious for new players, I guess).

- example from a positive experience: my last 3.x campaign we had 4 people: DM (optimizer), me (optimizer), 2 friends (totally non-optimizers, not against it but not interested and more into the flavor). I picked a Bard (with some Warblade and Cleric dips), and optimized the hell out of Inspire Courage; my friends picked barbarian and dragon shaman (both seen as weak, tier 4 classes). But with the barbarian nudged towards a bearbarian, and the dragon shaman helped to optimize for breath weapon (metabreath feats and entangling breath), and who could heal decently, and with me providing all of us with +8 / +8 / +5 on to hit, damage and AC, they more than stood their ground in combat. We fought all kinds of level appropriate stuff, Demons, Dragons, Undead, Drow, and could handle the CR's we were supposed to; and a lot of the non-combat encounters were simply made to be Role Played out, without a quick spell bypass (most of the time) - so everybody was involved there as well. Where needed, the DM handed out cool items with extra abilities. Just to say: it can work very well, with effort.

[Eldariel]

Ok, fair enough, I feel your pain... I formulated too sharp and black/white. My apologies.

Yes, in these cases the game breaks. My own context does play an important part in how I experienced 3.x. Playing with groups of friends knowing each others, always having at least 1 or 2 optimizers around, who know what to do to avoid overshadowing everybody else and who knew who needed a little bit of help. Of course it is different if you end up at your local game store with a lvl 10 monk who picked a weapon focus and improved initiative as feats, and end up in party with a Seven Veiled BS wizard prestige class. I should have formulated that the game, despite its issues, could be played without being broken, if etc.

Hell, IotSV is quite playable and even fun in a certain kind of game when the power lever is pulled high enough. But such games are fairly rare indeed. That's a part of the problem though: the game supports hundreds of different power levels and getting to play the one you want to play is a lot of work and negotiation.


To add a few points:

- my annoyance against the role of charop boards is that, when 3.5 was younger, the optimization community knew really well what spells needed to be avoided. One of the ground breaking guides, Logic Ninja's Guide To Being Batman (a wizard guide) had a list of stuff that should be avoided, like the polymorph series, cause they broke the game in half. But somehow, in later years, this broken spells and combo's became the norm, and doing anything about them was frowned upon. Instead of "guys lets be reasonable this list of stuff doesn't work with the rest of the game, not with other classes, not with stock monster manual monsters, not with the DMG that says characters should be more or less balanced", the attitude went "ALL THESE AWESOM COMBO'S ARE RAW AND IF YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THEM YOU ARE HOUSE RULING!!1!" (again, which was a prejorative at that time).

Heh, I would know that all too well. That said, I think Polymorph has its place and so does Planar Binding. Neither makes the game unplayable (unless you're binding for Wishes but that's its own separate issue), it just means the teammates have to be of similar power level. I feel they're too iconic to completely ignore too; every single fairy tale tends to include a Polymorph effect of some kind. The bigger problem is Druid though, with Polymorph (essentially) for 1h/level baked into its core chassis. Someone plays a Druid, they suddenly are ridiculous if they want to do even basic stuff. The whole class is broken if you use even half of your class features semi-reasonably. Which draws back to the earlier problem: you can't pull out the big guns unless your allies are also using them and that means they have to pick out of maybe 7 classes total. Demonbinder Wizard is also a classic fantasy archetype that's completely unplayable if your party has a spread of classes.

That said, I haven't had as poor an experience with forums as you have. My own experience is that people may often mention them online when the question pertains to how best do X (as that tends to be the truthful answer) but if the question is more thoughtful, the answers tend to follow suit.


- and yes, you definitely need a DM who understands the balance issues, or that has a party that takes care of them themselves. It was a complicated edition, and as a 'master of rules', you really needed to know them.

Not only that but you needed a DM with the time to make all the adjudications. Plenty of my problematic experiences have been in conventions, where it's a random DM with a random group of players. Living campaigns are the worst. Hell, Pathfinder Society still runs into the same issue: you pretty much just have to self-censor yourself and not use the overpowered spells because the overall power level tends to be so low.


- as for playing a caster and not being able to play it to its full potential; well, I understand, but then again, no character in 3.x could be played to its full potential, using strict RAW. Cause that led to lvl 1 character with infinite wealth, or worse, lvl 1 characters doing a Pun Pun (having infinite everything and every ability in the game). That is unplayable. So, with the broad RAW in mind (the DMG saying characters should be balanced, and the MM having monsters that a party of a given level should be balanced against), it was pretty clear what combo's, spells and tricks really shouldn't be used to keep the game playable. Casters, being more powerful, needed to hold back more than others though. Hell... at one point, I played with some BS malconvoker build summoning 15+ fiendish tyrannosaurusses rex, completely RAW... fun, once, as a gimmick, but a turn took him 20 minutes. That stuff was obviously not meant to be played for real, and people should have seen it (and boards made it more obvious for new players, I guess).

Well, infinite comboes are another matter and mostly mechanical tricks, them being banned are not really a loss to anybody. But I'd say classic character archetypes ought to be playable and something like a demonbinder definitely qualifies. I don't think Pun-Pun is a real problem but being unable to cast your spells because you have to worry about breaking the game if you do is. Like the example you give with Malconvoker is actually a good one. You don't even need Malconvoker for that; just a straight Wizard casting Summon Monster IX can summon 1d3 a turn and add a Greater Rod of Empower Spell and you're doing 1d3*1.5 a turn already. Malconvoker actually loses a level of casting so a level 17 Malconvoker is substantially worse at this than a level 17 Wizard with no prestige classes. I think in this case the problem is more that high level magic is stupid. Gate wins an encounter alone. Shapechange wins any number of encounters alone. Summon Monster IX is quite strong too as shown here. Of course, the logistics of having dozens of minions are complex, but that tends to come down to player experience.


- example from a positive experience: my last 3.x campaign we had 4 people: DM (optimizer), me (optimizer), 2 friends (totally non-optimizers, not against it but not interested and more into the flavor). I picked a Bard (with some Warblade and Cleric dips), and optimized the hell out of Inspire Courage; my friends picked barbarian and dragon shaman (both seen as weak, tier 4 classes). But with the barbarian nudged towards a bearbarian, and the dragon shaman helped to optimize for breath weapon (metabreath feats and entangling breath), and who could heal decently, and with me providing all of us with +8 / +8 / +5 on to hit, damage and AC, they more than stood their ground in combat. We fought all kinds of level appropriate stuff, Demons, Dragons, Undead, Drow, and could handle the CR's we were supposed to; and a lot of the non-combat encounters were simply made to be Role Played out, without a quick spell bypass (most of the time) - so everybody was involved there as well. Where needed, the DM handed out cool items with extra abilities. Just to say: it can work very well, with effort.

I'm glad you've had positive experiences. I've had my share too, but generally with groups full of optimisers with experienced DMs playing extremely powerful characters against extremely powerful opposition. Of course, the group we had those two games with evolved too, in a totally different direction, and we ran a years long no-magic game (in my signature) and another low-magic one, which were lots of fun and reined the problem in by simply removing magic entirely or mostly.

That said, it's restrictive. It's very possible to pick a weaker class or simply play your class down. In both cases though, you're denied many high-powered character concepts simply because they game doesn't support them on low power levels unless you basically try to pick appropriate limitations by hand yourself. I think that's a critical flaw in a system: I'd like for the base options to at least line up in such a way that I wouldn't have to feel bad about using a spell as written (and building character concepts around spells that represent iconic abilities). 5e has similar issues with Simulacrum among other things (minionmancy more generally); you can't really use them unless the party is quite high powered.

[Kane0]

My personal favorite is paladin, for a number of reasons. It does a really good job of blending thematic & mechanical elements, it does a little bit of everything (good combat proficiencies, some casting ability, strong secondary cha makes for effective social skill use, features that support both offensive and defensive/supportive combat roles), and rather than being a jack of all trades it actually blends many of its abilities together (most obviously divine smite blends spell slots and weapon attacks, but also aura of protection also props up the paladin's concentration saves, concentration buffs encourage enemies to target the paladin supporting their tanking ability, oath strictures give npcs extra reason to respect the things the paladin is saying with their cha skills, auras encourage allies to rally around the paladin which plays directly into their narrative role AND makes it easier for the paladin to use their other abilities to protect those allies and punish enemies that target them). The subclasses all have highly distinct identities and a handful of key features that change how you look at and use the rest of your features, especially the two added by Xanathar's Guide. None of the subclasses are bad or feel bad. Both the parent class as a whole and all of the subclasses are pretty effective mechanical implementations of the narrative themes and archetypes they represent. Whether you're looking to play the shield of the faithful or the sword of divine retribution, the paladin has you covered.

More generally, blends of magic and weapon use are a popular concept, and no other single class or subclass in 5e does it better. This is because, outside of a couple individual spells, the ranger's combat and casting abilities don't particularly interact much - in general their spellcasting better supports their non-combat roles and even there they lack class features like divine smite that explicitly blend their casting and non-casting. Everything else in 5e that tries to blend combat and casting is a subclass of either a full-caster or non-caster parent class, and while several of these are decent (I quite like arcane tricksters and hexblades in particular), by their fundamental design implementation none of these are going to pull off the blend as effectively as a full class built to do so from the ground up.

As a side note, my favorite subclass in terms of game design is the conquest paladin, mostly because of how it puts a twist on the archetype of the paladin that still maintains that perfect blend of mechanics & narrative, how it completely changes and really elevates, the frighten condition from the core mechanics, and in particular how it addresses some of the flaws I see in the parent paladin class.

The way the subclass's signature ability - the level 7 aura of conquest - works requires the paladin to first frighten targets. The paladin's best means of doing so are from the spells Wrathful Smite and Fear, which focuses the player's attention on spell casting. Once their attention is there, they'll naturally take note of some of the paladin's stronger later level spells. This includes offensive spells, since the conqueror needs a high charisma to land frighten effects, so since they have that charisma anyway other offensive spells aren't as iffy as they are for smite-focused paladins who let their charisma lag behind their physical attack stat. Additionally, some of the paladin's other class features are re-contextualized by the conqueror's play style in positive ways. For example, for most paladins the level 10 aura of courage is little more than a ribbon, but for the conqueror who likes to throw around otherwise-party-unfriendly fear cones it's much more meaningful. There is no empty level of paladin for a conqueror, so while they can multiclass effectively if they want to (heighten spell metamagic from a few sorcerer levels or short rest recharging slots for Fear from five levels of warlock are especially tempting), they never feel pushed into doing so (with the arguable exception of a single level hexblade dip, but that's a hexblade problem not a conqueror one).

On the daily resource pacing side, aura of conquest encourages the conqueror to burn one or two spell slots in each combat to inflict frighten on the enemy, and since the ability is particularly effective in locking down groups of weaker foes, conquest players don't feel the same pressure to hoard spell slots for the toughest fight of the day. Even against stronger foes, if they're vulnerable to frighten at all the conqueror is usually better off trying to lock them down with a wrathful smite, protecting their allies but not stealing the party's thunder. Divine Smite becomes more of a fallback ability to use on foes that are immune to frighten or have sky high will saves or legendary resistance - though even there burning through a boss's legendary resistances with first level wrathful smites can be a good tactic if it lets your wizard friend land a fourth level banish a round or two later. Even when the conqueror does have cause to fall back on divine smite, for instance when the party is up against a lich or iron golem or whatever, the fact that they have likely been using their spell slots here and there throughout the day means they usually won't have enough spell slots left to trivialize the fight with pure damage output the way a more smite oriented paladin might.

So yeah, while the paladin in general has some flaws, that, to me, hold it back from being the outright best designed class, the oath of conquest paladin in particular is far and away my choice for best designed subclass, in large part because of how it naturally addresses the few significant complaints I have about its parent class.

Well said.

[DrLoveMonkey]

Beautiful example/scenario's! Enjoyed reading it. Few things though.

1) in a world where magic is known to exist, and relative common, these spells are known to exist. And especially a king will know about them, at least, one that likes to stay king for a while. And a king has resources. So in this specific case, the king will have taken measures to prevent him being detected in this way. Through an item, the court's wizard, or common anti-measures (don't know if it's still a thing, but in earlier editions certain materials blocked divinations). More in general, it always suprised me that in a world where magic is rather common, there are clerics that can heal, wizards who live in towers, magic academies, etc., players assume nobody knows it exist when they use a spell, and an 'invisiblity' makes them able to whatever they want to do, "cause hey, magic". For me (but I'm aware we're in ymmv-territory already), this negatively effects versimilitude. So in my campaigns, and most campaigns I've played in, if magic is well known, so are the counters against magic (if only in the most basic for, where starting to cast in a social situation is seen as drawing a weapon). That doesn't mean magic never works, or is nerfed, just that it has to be used with some care, and isn't an auto-win.


I suppose it might just be a GM instinct not to just give every important person an amulet of proof against detection or something. I find that magical counters being employed by non-magical agents to be really rare, at least at the tables I've sat at. Also at the tables I've DMed actually, I feel like I'd get some really seriously hard looks of "Really? The king and his entire entourage just have amulets of proof against detection?".



2) in this specific case, I think things don't go quite as easy for the wizard as you describe. In the first place, there's the saving throw on the Scry, how easy or hard it is really depends on the DM (bonusses and pentalties due to the spell, can you find a lock of hair, did you see the king before, etc.), but also: how well is he protected, what are his saves? If the scry fails, you indeed are dependend on a 2nd or 3rd person being around, guessing correctly which person that is, and that person not saving against the spell. But even if this works (lets say the 2nd try), and you cast teleport while keeping the Scry going so you count as 'very familiar'; you still have 25% chance on failure on this teleport. But lets assume it succeeds. At level 13, that wizard has only 1 level 7 spell slot. So he can't teleport anyone back, until he takes a long rest. Only at lvl 15 he can spent his only lvl 7 and lvl 8 slots to teleport there and back again. So the 15 minutes wont happen.


I have to admit, my table has been using teleport wrong. I have no idea why but we've been reading the very familiar step of the table as one higher than it is. I don't really see making the case to try the Rogue plan first though. I mean, if the king is booking it across the countryside even once you find his location you need to chase after him, and even with requiring a long rest it's faster to teleport. Plus it could go wrong a ton of different ways, being caught breaking in, giving away your position and/or intention to your enemies. Doing it the magic way takes way less time and it can be done in the safety of your house.



Well, yes, if you often know as a player if you have big adventuring days or not, that increases the power/versatility of the caster. After all, they play a resource management mini-game with there slots, much more than other classes do. So I think the DM has a role here, to play that part of the game as intended. Not to have every day consist of an artificial 6-8 encounters, but I think that 1) adventuring days with only 1 or 2 encounters should be rare and 2) that players really shouldn't know at the beginning of the day (or the dungeon) how many encounters they face, be it 1, 5 or 12. The pacing of the game is for a large part a DM's job imo - but also here, I understand ymmv here.


I've found quite the opposite 1-2 encounter's per day is by far the norm, and then on rare occasions you get a full adventuring day in. I'm actually okay with that as far as combat goes, it's fine if the wizard gets to just end, completely annihilate, an encounter with meteor swarm just as long as every so often there's days where he's completely drained and the fighters and stuff get to kind of shine. It does make it so that the utility of utility magic gets really powerful though, nine times out of ten you're not going to need another spell that day.



Another thing though: again, I don't think the spells get you as far as you say they will. Polymorph is nice, but for scouting? Technically, you won't be able to change into anything without game stats (so most insects are out) - that won't matter too much though, a rodent or bird will often do. But much more important: you take over their mental scores. If your party lives depends on your scouting the entrance - do you want to depend on a rat with an Intelligence of 2? Are you, in raven form, really still tracking who you think you are, or some other human looking like him? etc.


This though I'm really unsure about, and I think that if that was the intention the rules need to make that explicit. I know that you get a low int score, so things like int saving throws wreck you, but how far does that go in how you play your character? Can you not slip through a keyhole as a centipede because once you're int 1 you can't even remember that's what you're supposed to be doing?

[MrStabby]

The problem is that the DM rarely takes complete control over the pacing of the adventuring day.

If the DM puts the evil cult leader at the top of a tower full of guards and summoned demons, and needs their ritual to be stopped by midnight then the party flies to the top of the tower and fixes it in one encounter... then the casters have engineered the day to have fewer encounters and go into the single, most dramatic encounter, not limited by resources but with nearly a full tank of spells. The most problematic spells to me are the spells that enable the parry to go into the final encounter with a full set of resources, rather than the spells they use in that encounter.

The DM can work around this, but not without robbing the players of their agency. "You had a plan to have 2 encounters today instead of 6 so I am going to make it fail by adding gargoils to the top of the tower, harpies attacking you as you go up the side and then an ambush at night time once you get back to camp".

Spider climb and fly mean that a fortress in the classical mould is not a stronghold, but instead an underground bunker is needed. Teleport means every place of strategic importance is covered by forbidance and so on... this is not unreasonable in many ways but it ties the DMs hands. I believe we get better games where the DM is free to focus on awesome plots and describing a great aesthetic for the world rather than proofing their campaign against some of these strategic spell uses.

In order to stop a subset of classes dominating the DM is forced to take actions which feel understandably like they are persecuting some players. If all enemy casters field counterspell for example - the mage equivelant of wearing armour to protect against swords - then it can feel contrived.

Now some of the problems stem from the monster manual. Too many creatures are functionally too close to a bag of HP and some attacks. The MM describes a world where spells like forcecage can win an encounter against a significant majority of level appropriate enemies (assuming that you are looking at encounters up to about 7 enemies fro a party of 4). Too many MM entries have to tools to challenge warriors with high AC, lots of HP and good attacks whilst doing nothing to challenge casters - too few monsters have access to dimension door, counterspell or similar tools to challenge the casters.

Of course the spells themselves seem to have been designed to make this worse than it need be. Look at the unbreakable wall of force - why make it unbreakable rather than tough? Why not allow monsters with siege attacks to break it down in a couple of turns? It would still be good, it would still be awesome as a spell, but it would allow more interaction rather than monsters just sitting there. Yes, you can get through it, but as it specifies the only solution to this magic spell is even more magic in the form of disintegrate it does little to dispell (pun totally intended) the idea that the game is set up for magic to dominate. If a "disintegration attack" were something that some melee monsters and PCs could do and that could demolish the wall then the situation might be different.

But this all comes down to what a well designed class should be. A wizard alone is not a poorly designed class. A lot of the wizard spells are poorly designed but players have a tendency to pick spells that are maybe not the most balanced. If we were to strip out the spells that enabled the wizard to subsume the strengths of other classes (polymorph, invisibility, bigby's hand etc.) then the class might be better positioned.

As it is a core reason why I think a class can be bad is denying other players the ability to use their cool abilities productively. If you obviate the need for stealth or going through locked doors (say by going round them or teleporting to the far side) then you make the rogue suck. If you have sufficient nova capability that you can end a fight, or at least make the outcome certain, before other players get a turn you rob them of their dramatic input.

To me, this is why the cleric is much better designed than the wizard. It isn't to broad - cleric spells are more focussed and the domain is also pretty tight. The spells themselves are good - resurrection doesn't really stop any other character doing their thing. Spirit Guardians won't stop other people participate in killing enemies like a fireball might... not saying there are not problems, planar binding is an example, but also turn/destroy undead will occasionally mean that some other characters are uniportant in some encounters as they are "won" if not over before their turn.

[Waazraath]

That's a part of the problem though: the game supports hundreds of different power levels and getting to play the one you want to play is a lot of work and negotiation.
*snip*


Very true. As for some of the other things you wrote:
- about polymoprhy, yeah, iconic, but I think they got it right in later books, when they made spells that allowed you to polymorph into 1 specific creature. Those were quite balanced, and didn't slow the game as much ('let me go through this pile of books to find the perfect critter to polymorph in for this combat!')
- I've probably been too negative about forums; I had very good discussions there, else I wouldn't have been there. But at times, they were tedious, and for 3.x I think they got a negative influence at one point in the game; on the one hand helping to break it in a milion pieces, on the other hand strongly argueing against solutions.
- my point about pun pun and infinite combo's is: those were RAW as well. And we all accepted that they shouldn't be used (and I don't think any serious campaign ever did). But at that point, you accept that the power level need to be downtuned, that the DM neets to set borders what can be played, and what not. There is a precedent for restrictions, and the logical step is to have a session 0 to discuss what type of game everybody wants to play, where the restrictions should be, and where everybody builds according to what is agreed upon.


I suppose it might just be a GM instinct not to just give every important person an amulet of proof against detection or something. I find that magical counters being employed by non-magical agents to be really rare, at least at the tables I've sat at. Also at the tables I've DMed actually, I feel like I'd get some really seriously hard looks of "Really? The king and his entire entourage just have amulets of proof against detection?".

Really? Its the king! Of course he has some kind of protection against this, I'd say, but ymmv of course. His entire entourage: no, but he was away with only 2 others, right? ;-)


This though I'm really unsure about, and I think that if that was the intention the rules need to make that explicit. I know that you get a low int score, so things like int saving throws wreck you, but how far does that go in how you play your character? Can you not slip through a keyhole as a centipede because once you're int 1 you can't even remember that's what you're supposed to be doing?

Maybe. I'd feel that with int2, there should be some restrictions on what you can do. Maybe justifies a thread of its own. Will boil down to 'dm rulings / different experiences'.


The problem is that the DM rarely takes complete control over the pacing of the adventuring day.

*snip*


But the thing is: the game assumes he does. At least, in such a way that the different resource managment systems of the different classes are more or less balanced. Personally, I favor not going strict for the 6-8 encounters a day, every day (feels very forced indeed) but to vary, sometimes 1, sometimes 4, sometimes 12. That keeps the long rest characters a bit on their toes, even on days with only 1 encounter (cause who knows what will happen later, or during the night).

Agree btw that the monsters in the MM could have been a tad more interesting, concerning abilities they have.

[Reevh]

I'd say Cleric. There's a lot of range and flavor in the sub-classes, and the way they interact with their deities can be really cool.

[Misterwhisper]

Best class could also change depending on point buy or rolled stats.

Ex in point buy rogue is a solid class because it needs so few stats, monk needs a ton.

If I rolled stats and got like 18, 18, 16, 14, 14, 12 monk and paladin would gain a lot more out of it than the rogue or wizard would.

[FabulousFizban]

bard, hands down

[Nagog]

I think we can all agree that worst designed subclass is Hexblade.

I mean honestly- who would at this point play CHA-based class without dip in Hexblade?

Paladin X/1 Hexblade allow Paladin to focus on his CHA, be SAD, grab PAM with spear and shield and be happy.

Sword Bard grabs 1 level Hexblade and he is suddenly SAD two, full caster with extra attack, medium armor, shields and martial weapons proficiency.

Sorcerer grabs 2 Levels Hexblade and create broken Sorlock.

Lore Bard grabs 1 level and has melee boost, 2 levels for Agonizing Blast and his single target DPR problem is solved.

You don't even need CHA class:

Fighter can splash 2 levels for Agonizing Blast range magical attack, 2x per short rest Shield spell, getting super darkvision.

Every class can pretty much grab 1 level here and benefit. Wizard? Sure, Nuclear Wizard build with Evocation. Rogue? Shield spell 2x per day, SAD CHA, 19-20 crit range, Hex spell, medium armor, shields?

Come on.....

For that reason, I think Hhxblade is a great addition. It's a SAD front-line fighting class and spellcaster. Most spellcasters are SAD by definition, and having a way to make a Melee class the same way is very nice, particularly for non-Fighters as without the extra ASIs, maxing out the stats you need takes a good deal longer and carries a lot more ramifications.


I don't know, I feel like Arcane Trickster overshadows other sub-classes, Assassin is weird, Thief gets good only late-game... Swashbuckler is nice, but Panache is a tanking ability for a Rogue..?
The core class is great, but sub-classes are a mixed bag in my opinion, which is what holds it back from being highly-rated in my mind.

I agree that the subclasses are a bit of a mixed bag, but I also think the Rogue is great because they have the best balance of class vs subclass weight. Being a rogue grants you access to a great deal many things not available to other classes, and their subclass also grants them a lot of good and wonderful things. Compare this to something like Wizard, where the subclass grants a lot and the base class is a skeleton of a class, to be filled in by the subclass, and the Sorcerer, who is at the opposite end of the spectrum with their class expected to be the beef of it and the subclass being fairly lackluster (bar Divine Soul of course).

[Sception]

The problem I have with hexblade is that it's too front loaded because it's doing too much. It's a full warlock patron subclass AND a fix to the third level blade pact rolled into one. Take pact warrior out of hexblade, put it into blade pact, and everything's more or less ok.

Of course, the bigger problem is that hexblade really should have been its own class to begin with, a sort of half-pact-caster related to warlock the same way paladin is related to cleric or ranger to druid. That and eldritch blast should have been a class feature scaling with class levels, not a cantrip scaling with character level.

Eh, hindsight.

[jdolch]

Bad Classes

Bard
My issue with this class is that it feels like it was given far too much candy. So it's a jack-of-all-trades. Okay, makes sense. But then why is it also an expert in several skills *and* a 9th level caster class? I thought the whole point of -jack-of-all-trades was that they're supposed to be masters of none. Yet we have a class that's basically as good as a Rogue when it comes to expertise in skills, but whilst also getting a bonus to all other skills and being a full-caster on top. Not only that but the Bard also gets the ability to steal spells from the list of any other class. You'd think this might be a Warlock thing, what with their trading their souls for dark secrets and forbidden knowledge but nope just be a bard and the universe freely hands you all the forbidden knowledge you could ever want. Imagine how many souls could have been saved if only they'd left the dark talismans alone and picked up a set of bagpipes instead.

Put simply, the Bard feels like the Mary Sue of classes.

Couldn't have said it better. The real downside of playing a Bard is that ... you're a Bard. You are a Mary Sue and everybody knows it. You literally have no logical reason to be capable of what you can do except that the rules say so. Also everybody who learns that you're a Bard automatically pictures you in ridiculously colored tights.


Sorcerer
I don't want to go into too much detail as this is something I've said dozens of times before. Basically, I think Metamagic was a huge mistake that is now stuck around the Sorcerer's neck like a lead-weight. It doesn't even feel like a sorcerer ability - it's far too rigid to even come close to representing a more flexible caster - if anything it feels like something that should be a Wizard subclass. Someone who's spent years fine-tuning spells and making minor adjustments.

IMO the real focus of the Sorcerer should be their Bloodline. This is the entire source of their magic. It should have a huge impact on how they play, on how they wield their magic. But instead, because Metamagic takes up so much of the class' design space, the actual Bloodlines are little more than window-dressing.

Also very true.

[Eldariel]

Couldn't have said it better. The real downside of playing a Bard is that ... you're a Bard. You are a Mary Sue and everybody knows it. You literally have no logical reason to be capable of what you can do except that the rules say so. Also everybody who learns that you're a Bard automatically pictures you in ridiculously colored tights.

Bard probably has a far more amiable echo for people versed in traditional folklore. That said, I don't think Bard skill expertise is too much compared to the other casters. Wizards are plenty better than Bards at spellcasting (most spells Wizards don't get aren't really worth learning over things they do get, with Greater Find Steed as the singular exception) and they get their awesome school powers on top of it in exchange for Bard skills. Given spells can very often achieve what you'd want skills for, I'd say the Wizard gets the better deal (honestly, I tried building a Lore Bard with just the most important Wizard tools and it just wasn't feasible). Clerics don't necessarily cast better (fairly competitively though), but they definitely fill a niche the Bard can't, being amazing frontliners. Druids compare fairly similarly to Bards as Clerics do. Overall, the skill system isn't powerful enough to make Bards outshine any casters.

The real issue is, Bard makes it obvious how much better a caster is compared to an equivalent noncaster. Bard and Rogue side-by-side is an absurdly unfair comparison with the Bard simply doing everything better and being capable of a hundred things the Rogue never learns. Which is why I'm miffed about the relative scarcity and weakness of all the goods non-casters get particularly post-10 (compared to the kinds of ridiculous stuff spellcasters get, non-casters might as well get nothing at the current going rate).

[MrStabby]

Bard probably has a far more amiable echo for people versed in traditional folklore. That said, I don't think Bard skill expertise is too much compared to the other casters. Wizards are plenty better than Bards at spellcasting (most spells Wizards don't get aren't really worth learning over things they do get, with Greater Find Steed as the singular exception) and they get their awesome school powers on top of it in exchange for Bard skills. Given spells can very often achieve what you'd want skills for, I'd say the Wizard gets the better deal (honestly, I tried building a Lore Bard with just the most important Wizard tools and it just wasn't feasible). Clerics don't necessarily cast better (fairly competitively though), but they definitely fill a niche the Bard can't, being amazing frontliners. Druids compare fairly similarly to Bards as Clerics do. Overall, the skill system isn't powerful enough to make Bards outshine any casters.

The real issue is, Bard makes it obvious how much better a caster is compared to an equivalent noncaster. Bard and Rogue side-by-side is an absurdly unfair comparison with the Bard simply doing everything better and being capable of a hundred things the Rogue never learns. Which is why I'm miffed about the relative scarcity and weakness of all the goods non-casters get particularly post-10 (compared to the kinds of ridiculous stuff spellcasters get, non-casters might as well get nothing at the current going rate).

I find myself having to say this more and more - maybe it is just a phase... don't believe something is balanced just because it is less powerful than a wizard.

I do think bards are in a good place though (in terms of having lots of power). Look at valor bards - solid AC, great spell list to pick from, great base skills, add on expertise, jack of all trades and importantly with two attacks they have an influential action that doesn't use resources and scales well with magic weapons. But yeah... compare them to rogues and bards really shine. The bard is held back a little by being a spells known kinda caster rather than prepared.

That said, I love the bard as a concept. The wanderer, the outsider, some places feared,some welcomed, with a strange kind of magic all of their own. I think the bard is a tough class to get right as conceptually they have a bit of everything but in D&D your effectiveness is determined by the best thing you can do in a particular situation, not the number of adequate things you can do.

[Daphne]

The best designed classes imo are the Barbarian and the Cleric. As Tanarii stated:


Barbarian. The base class is fantastic at delivering what's advertised.
+1, it's a very focused design and I think that's a good thing. I know, however, some people will find the package too restrictive.

The Cleric is great because it delivers its flavor amazingly well, with most subclasses feeling different from each other. Playing a Tempest Cleric is a totally different experience than playing an Order domain Cleric.

Honorable mentions to the Rogue and the Paladin (which I feel went a little overboard with the number of good features).



Bad Classes

Bard
My issue with this class is that it feels like it was given far too much candy. So it's a jack-of-all-trades. Okay, makes sense. But then why is it also an expert in several skills *and* a 9th level caster class? I thought the whole point of -jack-of-all-trades was that they're supposed to be masters of none. Yet we have a class that's basically as good as a Rogue when it comes to expertise in skills, but whilst also getting a bonus to all other skills and being a full-caster on top. Not only that but the Bard also gets the ability to steal spells from the list of any other class. You'd think this might be a Warlock thing, what with their trading their souls for dark secrets and forbidden knowledge but nope just be a bard and the universe freely hands you all the forbidden knowledge you could ever want. Imagine how many souls could have been saved if only they'd left the dark talismans alone and picked up a set of bagpipes instead.


Sorcerer
I don't want to go into too much detail as this is something I've said dozens of times before. Basically, I think Metamagic was a huge mistake that is now stuck around the Sorcerer's neck like a lead-weight. It doesn't even feel like a sorcerer ability - it's far too rigid to even come close to representing a more flexible caster - if anything it feels like something that should be a Wizard subclass. Someone who's spent years fine-tuning spells and making minor adjustments.

IMO the real focus of the Sorcerer should be their Bloodline. This is the entire source of their magic. It should have a huge impact on how they play, on how they wield their magic. But instead, because Metamagic takes up so much of the class' design space, the actual Bloodlines are little more than window-dressing.

I agree 100% with this, it's sad because I like the flavor of the Sorcerer but not the implementation.

[Eldariel]

I find myself having to say this more and more - maybe it is just a phase... don't believe something is balanced just because it is less powerful than a wizard.

Eh, to borrow 3e terminology, they're balanced for a certain power level. Wizards and Clerics and Druids and Bards are all what you'd call Tier 1 in 3e slang, so they're more or less balanced against one another (well, Wizard may be a bit ahead of the rest since they were made ridiculous in this edition and accessing their abilities harder), while Sorc may be Tier 2ish (though they're really very weak in this edition due to the terrible spells known and no switching). Then all the non-9s casters (Warlock/Pally/Ranger, with Pally perhaps slightly ahead of the pack) and some of the better non-casters (EK and AT potentially too). It's really much the same as with 3e and PF except the weakest classes aren't quite as bad (there's no 3e Monk or Fighter in this game, thankfully).

But again, this just comes down to the preferred level of play. Most of the full caster classes (barring Sorcerer) are somewhat balanced against one another, but you might (or might not, depending on how much of class power is being wielded) run into problems combining them with non-casters. Really, nothing meaningfully changed from 3e - it's still playing classes with the same power level or a gentlemans' agreement to keep the game enjoyable for everyone.

[Ignimortis]

Best design: Monk, Paladin. Both have a lot of baggage being borderline unusable, and come back strong from that.

Monk with Mobile is the best skirmisher in the game, has good CC options and fun combat/noncombat tricks with all subclasses.

Paladin also has a slew of powerful features and isn't nearly as restrictive as before. You can fluff a paladin almost as anything, too, and they still work. No WIS dependency helps to limit the MADness.

Worst design: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard - mostly because their old problems aren't actually fixed.

Fighter is weighed down by the Extra Attack (2 and 3) curse. These features are supposed to be SO GOOD that the Fighter doesn't get anything notable outside of them, but you don't even see EA 2/3 before the game's almost over 90% of the time! And if EA 3 comes online, well, it's just...another attack at what, 2d6+7 at this point? Whoa. It's the most boring class in the game outside of subclasses, and half the subclasses are boring too.

Cleric and Wizard go in the same boat. Huge lists of spells and the easiest access to them that's ever been in D&D. Clerics are still not reliant on their god enough for actual class features/casting (same large list for everyone and then another small list per domain). Wizards still capable of taking every single school of magic and using it expertly.