Which classes aren't worthwhile to take to level 20

[Necroanswer]

I've started playing a warlock and was not planning on doing any multi-classing with him. I starting planning out levels and came to the conclusion there would be little point in going beyond lvl 17 in this class (not that its likely I will be playing this character that long). At that point I would have 4 spell slots (the max) and my 9th level spell. I only found 7 invocations I really wanted, so the 8th would be 'meh' at best. From a mechanics pov I feel I would get more from taking levels in sorcerer, bard or paladin at the point.

What other classes are probably not worth it to go to level 20, assuming you solo classed up to that point?

What is the break off point for those classes where you would switch away from it and never go back?

[Man_Over_Game]

I've started playing a warlock and was not planning on doing any multi-classing with him. I starting planning out levels and came to the conclusion there would be little point in going beyond lvl 17 in this class (not that its likely I will be playing this character that long). At that point I would have 4 spell slots (the max) and my 9th level spell. I only found 7 invocations I really wanted, so the 8th would be 'meh' at best. From a mechanics pov I feel I would get more from taking levels in sorcerer, bard or paladin at the point.

What other classes are probably not worth it to go to level 20, assuming you solo classed up to that point?

What is the break off point for those classes where you would switch away from it and never go back?

The ones I hear the most about on this topic are Bards, Barbarians and Rangers.

[Necroanswer]

The ones I hear the most about on this topic are Bards, Barbarians and Rangers.

But lvl 20 Barbarians get +4 Str and Con and unlimited rages, which sounds pretty good to me; maybe its the levels preceding #20 are what makes it not worthwhile

[Edea]

Any Charisma-based class is a hard sell to take all the way up to 20. Warlock is too good of a dip, and the Warlock itself benefits greatly from dips in any of the other Charisma classes.

I'm not sure I'd want to take Ranger 1 or Monk 1, much less Ranger 20 or Monk 20.

Barbarian, though, that one surprises me. Rage precludes casting spells, so one of the biggest reasons for dipping on a martial generally doesn't apply to them (also they have an actual capstone). I think the main multi's probably Fighter?

[Man_Over_Game]

But lvl 20 Barbarians get +4 Str and Con and unlimited rages, which sounds pretty good to me; maybe its the levels preceding #20 are what makes it not worthwhile

From my understanding, it mostly stems from the fact that:


You're not ever going to use all of your Rages anyway
The bonus to stats doesn't quite compare with what other classes get for shear quantity (which is more valuable)


For example, one of your core mid-high level Barbarian features is a bonus to crits, which happen 5% of the time (9.75% if you have Advantage). The bonus to stats is nice, but it's not all that much different or better than the Fighter getting extra ASIs, especially when the Barbarian is already MAD from Unarmored Defense.

[Amechra]

The problem isn't that Barbarian 20 isn't good - it's that Barbarian 7-19 is so lackluster.

[Draz74]

I had the same thought process with my Celestial Warlock. Was planning on going all the way, but after looking at Levels 18-20, decided he'd eventually dip Swords Bard 3 instead.

If we're asking just about going all the way to Level 20, then we should look at each class's Level 20 capstone feature.

Artificer has a good capstone.
Barbarian has a good capstone but its levels 13-19 are lackluster.
Bard has a lame capstone.
Cleric has an amazing capstone.
Druid has a capstone that is ... broken for Moon Druid, ok for Spore Druid, lackluster otherwise.
Fighter has a powerful but boring and combat-slowing capstone.
Monk has a lame capstone.
Paladin has a different capstone for each Oath. Not going to spend the time to analyze them all.
Ranger has an awful capstone. Probably going to change in Tasha's though (which could be true of others as well).
Rogue has a somewhat weak capstone; fun to use but only 1/rest is too restrictive.
Sorcerer has an ok capstone, highly DM-dependent (how many short rests you get per day). But I think everyone agrees it's hard to stick with Sorcerer that long; 17 for wish is already impressive.
Warlock has a lame capstone.
Wizard has ... a good capstone, just not as good as its Level 18 feature.

Personally I love multiclassing in general, so I'm probably not the one to give the final say about which classes are tolerable to take all the way to 20.

[Valmark]

For example, one of your core mid-high level Barbarian features is a bonus to crits, which happen 5% of the time (9.75% if you have Advantage). The bonus to stats is nice, but it's not all that much different or better than the Fighter getting extra ASIs, especially when the Barbarian is already MAD from Unarmored Defense.

That's quite a strange example since the capstone is worth more then double the Fighter's extra ASIs.

I do think it's getting to 20 that makes it hard for the barbarian.

As for other classes... Probably monk and ranger. I'm surprised you'd take the warlock as high as 17- if I'm making a melee warlock I get to 12th, but otherwise reaching that level is already too much for me. And that's from someone who usually likes playing warlocks.

[Edea]

...sounds like the 14th level path feature for Barbs should always be written to kind-of define what the late-game barb's doing, if 13th-19th are the problem levels of the core chassis.

[Satori01]

That's quite a strange example since the capstone is worth more then double the Fighter's extra ASIs.

I do think it's getting to 20 that makes it hard for the barbarian.

I also find it strange saying a Barbarian is MAD due to Unarmored Defense. Unless one has the stats to make Unarmored Defense payoff..stick to medium armor/shield.

Ranger has Feral Senses at 18th level, which is better then what most 3 level dips will get you.

Luckily a Hunter-Horde Breaker Ranger only needs 1 level of Arcane Cleric for BB and GFB Cantrips.

[cutlery]

That's quite a strange example since the capstone is worth more then double the Fighter's extra ASIs.

I do think it's getting to 20 that makes it hard for the barbarian.

As for other classes... Probably monk and ranger. I'm surprised you'd take the warlock as high as 17- if I'm making a melee warlock I get to 12th, but otherwise reaching that level is already too much for me. And that's from someone who usually likes playing warlocks.

Is it the spell choice from 6th up?

I feel like the number of 6-9th spells per day isn’t so bad, but the SRD list s awful, and the PHB list isn’t much better, if it is indeed diirfferent XGtE offers some nice options (or maybe it was the variant caster/class UA), but without that... meh.

[Draz74]

Ranger has Feral Senses at 18th level, which is better then what most 3 level dips will get you.

Uh ... wut?

Feral Senses is pathetic at Level 18. I'd be hard-pressed to find a 3-level dip that wasn't better than it.

[MaxWilson]

That's quite a strange example since the capstone is worth more then double the Fighter's extra ASIs.

That depends entirely on how you spend them.

Remember also that Barb has only half as many attacks per action as a Fighter. +4 to Strength is only +4 damage for a Barb, but +8 for a Fighter. (Times hit rate against enemy AC of course.)

I see no appeal in going beyond Barb 3, except for Zealots.

[x3n0n]

There was a recent thread about the capstones in specific: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?616942-Rank-the-level-20-feats

[Valmark]

...sounds like the 14th level path feature for Barbs should always be written to kind-of define what the late-game barb's doing, if 13th-19th are the problem levels of the core chassis.
*Looks at Berserker Barbarian*

To be fair, the problems with a barbarian come much earlier.


Ranger has Feral Senses at 18th level, which is better then what most 3 level dips will get you.

If at 18th level you still lack means to fight against unseen enemies either you're dead or invisible enemies aren't a problem anyway.

Though you can spot someone spying through Invisibility I guess.

Is it the spell choice from 6th up?

I feel like the number of 6-9th spells per day isn’t so bad, but the SRD list s awful, and the PHB list isn’t much better, if it is indeed diirfferent XGtE offers some nice options (or maybe it was the variant caster/class UA), but without that... meh.
Yeah, that's exactly it. I'm the kind of person that always worries about mantaining resources for when you need them, so a single spell for levels 6-8 each long rest is so limiting I end up never using it (no problem with the 9th level one, since nobody gets more then one 9th level slot anyway. But full casters can afford to be more "wasteful" with theirs then). Everything before that is good.

That depends entirely on how you spend them.

Remember also that Barb has only half as many attacks per action as a Fighter. +4 to Strength is only +4 damage for a Barb, but +8 for a Fighter. (Times hit rate against enemy AC of course.)

I see no appeal in going beyond Barb 3, except for Zealots.

I find it hard to beat +4 to your main stats that increases beyond the normal character's limits. You can't possibly get more mileage out of those without feats, and in my experience you get enough feats as a barbarian to take whatever it is you want.

Also note that the capstone gives more then just two limit-breaking +4 to main stats.

And... Yeah, Zealot's good. An high level Berserker is also pretty good- when you get to use Retaliation and/or your immunities. Having played a campaign with no fear or charme effects before getting Retaliation that subclass felt totally useless or close to that.

[Edea]

...off-topic, but I find myself half-wondering if 5e's designers balanced the sorcerer around the idea that the person playing that class would be the type to chew the 6th-to-9th level spell slots up for sorcery points rather than actually casting spells from them.

Moon Druid's probably one of the few where it's better-than-OK to go all the way to 20th...wow, that's just like 3.5e's Druid, I guess some things never change.

[Pex]

But lvl 20 Barbarians get +4 Str and Con and unlimited rages, which sounds pretty good to me; maybe its the levels preceding #20 are what makes it not worthwhile

Yes, that. Personal opinion, past level 8 for the ASI barbarian is underwhelming. Level 20 is fantastic, but to get there is boring leveling. Your subclass has to be really juicy at the higher levels to be worth it. With bias playing a bear totem barbarian I multiclassed at level 9 and have no regrets. I took fighter levels and then rogue, and their class features proved quite useful and fun.


I also find it strange saying a Barbarian is MAD due to Unarmored Defense. Unless one has the stats to make Unarmored Defense payoff..stick to medium armor/shield.



For some people it's hard not to want to be the shirtless hero. Grognards want to be like Arnold Schwarzeneggar Conan. Modern gamers want to be like Hugh Jackman Wolverine.

Colloquially speaking.

[Satori01]

*Looks at Berserker Barbarian*
If at 18th level you still lack means to fight against unseen enemies either you're dead or invisible enemies aren't a problem anyway.

Though you can spot someone spying through Invisibility I guess.
.

An Invisible Raksasha is immune to See Invisibility via Spell Immunity....not Feral Senses. Tier 4 is where custom monsters with no concern for CR balance are unveiled. An 18th level Ranger knows where you are whenever you are within 30' of the Ranger, and suffers essentially no penalty for being blind, without assistance from magic.

See Invisibility is not the same.

[Valmark]

An Invisible Raksasha is immune to See Invisibility via Spell Immunity....not Feral Senses. Tier 4 is where custom monsters with no concern for CR balance are unveiled. An 18th level Ranger knows where you are whenever you are within 30' of the Ranger, and suffers essentially no penalty for being blind, without assistance from magic.

See Invisibility is not the same.

You can upcast it if you need to (by the time you are supposedly challenging rakshasas you can do it, as inefficient as it is, and by level 18th when the ranger gets their Senses you can do that much more easily).

Also a ranger knows where invisible, not hiding creatures are. If that rakshasa or any other invisible enemy is hiding then that ability fails. And an invisible creature can always hide, ironically it could stand next to the ranger and not be spotted (assuming it got there without being seen in the first place).

[heavyfuel]

I can't think of any full caster I'd take to 20.

After level 17th, you just gain sooo much for dipping other full casting classes.

Similarly, Str based martials benefit too much from a Barb 2 dip, so I'd definitely rather have that than whatever their capstone is.

[Willie the Duck]

Yes, that. Personal opinion, past level 8 for the ASI barbarian is underwhelming. Level 20 is fantastic, but to get there is boring leveling. Your subclass has to be really juicy at the higher levels to be worth it. With bias playing a bear totem barbarian I multiclassed at level 9 and have no regrets. I took fighter levels and then rogue, and their class features proved quite useful and fun.

That tends to be what I see as well. People either bib and bop about with other classes like fighter/ranger/rogue (or caster, 'can't cast while raging' be damned, for outside-of-combat/rage benefits). or they just play barbarians for games that don't go that high (or where you have the opportunity to change out characters).

Honestly, I think barbarians needed a third attack in there somewhere (and, yes, probably having to re-balance some things around that change). Even if it came online 2-3 levels after it did for fighters.

[Yakk]

All non spellcasters have a "back 10" problem. Martial builds (weapon using) tend to thin out feature wise.

Which leads to multi-dipping.

Spellcasters are going for access to higher level spells, so thin other features can sustain interest. The last 3 levels are then defined by the capstone draw.

Fighters have 9 levels after 3rd attack, barbarians 13 or 14 levels, Rogues 9 after reliable or 14 after roll, Rangers 17 after level 3 subclass feature, paladins 14 after cha-to-saves, monks 20 levels after character creation.

[Valmark]

I can't think of any full caster I'd take to 20.

After level 17th, you just gain sooo much for dipping other full casting classes.

I understand wizards and sorcerers (though wizard 18th is very good) but why druids and clerics? Their capstones are extremely good (cleric's though is DM-dependant I guess).

[Dienekes]

I can't think of any full caster I'd take to 20.


Moon Druid.

On martials, I honestly am growing to think that the number of attacks made was a poor way to try and differentiate the classes. It doesn’t scale at all evenly. Leads to some truly strange dissonance that the 20 Rogue Master Assassin greatest killer in the world with a rapier, can make 1 attack. While the fully armored knight with an oversized maul can make 4. Or the raging Barbarian who has developed their body beyond human limits can use that same weapon to make 2.

It’d have been cleaner and more multi class friendly if the Martials got Extra Attacks at about 6, 11, 17 roughly. If you get EA in a second class it stacks. So we all get the nice benchmark of good damage that roughly correlates with when mages get their cantrip boosts. Make the first EA at 6 so it’s still beneficial to go straight class and one guy can’t jump through all the martial classes to for 5 levels to get an extra attack above everyone else.

That doesn’t really solve the problem with how barren the tail end of martial classes are. But that’s a different problem that probably requires a much more rigorous rework.

[Eldariel]

Let me think. The lowest break-off point:

Fighter: level 3 is the latest they get a meaningful ability (though the 3rd attack on level 11 is kinda cool)
Barbarian: level 3 is the latest they get a meaningful ability (though you could make an argument for Zealot's immortality on level 20 being noteworthy)
Warlock: level 3 is the latest they get a meaningful ability (though their spellcasting gives decent abilities all the way up until level 17)
Rogue: level 5/11 is the latest they get a meaningful ability (the level 11 ability is meaningful but probably not worth 6 levels of mediocrity)
Wizard: level 17 is the latest they get a meaningful ability
Sorcerer: level 17 is the latest they get a meaningful ability
Ranger: level 18 is the latest they get a meaningful ability
Monk: level 18 is the latest they get a meaningful ability
Bard: level 18 is the latest they get a meaningful ability
Cleric: level 20 is the latest they get a meaningful ability
Druid: level 20 is the latest they get a meaningful ability
Paladin: level 20 is the latest they get a meaningful ability



Even Cleric is often questionable since while Divine Intervention is undeniably great, Wish isn't much worse and Divine Intervention is only 1/week. Moon Druid gets way more out of their high level stuff than other Druids and Paladin depends on their Oath (but none of the Oaths are probably as strong as a Sorcadin/Bardadin casting Wish).

So...none, really. Which is kind of pity. Since spellcasting maxes out at 17, the last 3 levels are kinda filler you don't really care about. Fighter does get Extra Attack on level 20 but it's a 9 level slog to get there and it isn't even that good anymore (since anyone with decent casting can just Shapechange into Marilith and attack 7 times a turn instead while being able to cast Counterspell per turn).

Note, this isn't to say that the level 20 abilities aren't worth anything: just that they are worth so much less than the level 17-18 abilities (such as 9th level spells) that nobody really cares. It's hard to argue that a Wizard 20 would be stronger than a Wizard 18/Fighter 2 for instance.

[Valmark]

Let me think. The lowest break-off point:

Fighter: level 3 is the latest they get a meaningful ability (though the 3rd attack on level 11 is kinda cool)
Barbarian: level 3 is the latest they get a meaningful ability (though you could make an argument for Zealot's immortality on level 20 being noteworthy)

Wizard: level 17 is the latest they get a meaningful ability

So...none, really. Which is kind of pity. Since spellcasting maxes out at 17, the last 3 levels are kinda filler you don't really care about. Fighter does get Extra Attack on level 20 but it's a 9 level slog to get there and it isn't even that good anymore (since anyone with decent casting can just Shapechange into Marilith and attack 7 times a turn instead while being able to cast Counterspell per turn).

Note, this isn't to say that the level 20 abilities aren't worth anything: just that they are worth so much less than the level 17-18 abilities (such as 9th level spells) that nobody really cares. It's hard to argue that a Wizard 20 would be stronger than a Wizard 18/Fighter 2 for instance.
Fighter's second Action Surge at 17th and/or Samurai's additional attack at 15th? Or Samurai's additional turn on 0 hp at 18th.
Barbarian's Berserker getting two immunities at 6th and reaction attack at... 14th I think it is.
Wizard's 18th level feature is a bomb.

Yeah aside from these specifications I agree more or less fully.

[Warlush]

I'm not sure I'd want to take Ranger 1 or Monk 1, much less Ranger 20 or Monk 20.

Lol, same. I'll add that other than Wizard, Barbarian, Druid, and maybe certain Paladin archetypes, most class's level 20 features are kinda lame.

[Eldariel]

Fighter's second Action Surge at 17th and/or Samurai's additional attack at 15th? Or Samurai's additional turn on 0 hp at 18th.

Samurai 15 I'll give you though it means trading an attack at Elven Advantage for two at normal advantage. Not that amazing though I guess it's worth mentioning. The second Action Surge is nice but it comes so damn late, we're talking like 7 levels of nothing.


Barbarian's Berserker getting two immunities at 6th and reaction attack at... 14th I think it is.

Berserker...yeah, kinda, but the cost of being a Berserker in the first place is so big that I'm not sure it's worth mentioning. Especially since it still doesn't blanket any particular array of attack though I guess it's good against like...Wizards who rely on Hypnotic Pattern and Suggestion too much. But even there, the fact that it's Rage only and that your costs of raging are so big and the fact that it doesn't allow you to ignore any particular stat far as survivability is concerned makes me think it's just meh.

The level 14 feature is just one in a hundred ways to get reaction attacks so I don't think it's worth noting that much; Polearm Master gets you pretty reliable Reaction Attacks from level 1 for instance.


Wizard's 18th level feature is a bomb.

Well yeah, but it's still often quite similar to just two invocations or whatever. Though it's convenient as hell, I'm not sure it's really that powerful. Misty Step lets you not walk which is stylish enough I'll give you and Pyrotechnics lets you walk around with a smoke curtain and Longstrider is a small speed boost and Shield/etc. save you few slots I guess (I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I'd run out of slots for Shield though) but overall most low level slots aren't that impressive even at will (a billion Unseen Servants is nice but they still take a bonus action to command).

Disguise Self at will is literally just Mask of Many Faces though that's not bad. Primarily the issue here is Concentration: all the truly busted things you could be doing are Concentration anyways which is kinda meh. False Life, Disguise Self, Unseen Servant, Longstrider, Magic Missile, Pyrotechnics, See Invisibility, etc. are all rather low level effects while stuff like Detect Thoughts and company gets knocked down a peg due to being incompatible with the high power high level spells. It's not a bad class feature and probably the strongest outside Spellcasting itself on Wizard chassis but still, it's not much better than like 5 levels of Warlock (and seriously, who takes 5 levels of Warlock when 3 will do?)

[OldTrees1]

Invert the question. Which classes are worth 20th level?
Bard might be worth levels 18-20.
Cleric is not worth level 18, but maybe you suck it up just to get to 20?
Druid might be worth levels 18-20.
Sorcerers might be worth levels 18-20 but I kinda doubt it. 18 does let you learn a 3rd 9th level spell.
Wizard looks worth levels 18-20.
However you will note that I have serious doubts about these levels.

Everything else (even Warlock) stops being worth it before level 15.

[heavyfuel]

I understand wizards and sorcerers (though wizard 18th is very good) but why druids and clerics? Their capstones are extremely good (cleric's though is DM-dependant I guess).

I'd honestly rather have Portent or Metamagic for the entirety of level 19 than either capstone at only level 20 since even campaigns that do reach level 20 usually end very shortly after that landmark.


Moon Druid.

Would rather have the Domain.

Onion druid is great, in theory. But by the time you reach level 20, a lot of enemies have ways of killing you that go beyond HP damage.

You already got your "capstone" for druid back at level 18.

[Draz74]

I'm no expert in actual play of Barbarians, but I'm surprised how many people analyzing the class don't value its Level 11 cheat-death feature. I thought that one was pretty good.

[Satori01]

You can upcast it if you need to (by the time you are supposedly challenging rakshasas you can do it, as inefficient as it is, and by level 18th when the ranger gets their Senses you can do that much more easily).

Also a ranger knows where invisible, not hiding creatures are. If that rakshasa or any other invisible enemy is hiding then that ability fails. And an invisible creature can always hide, ironically it could stand next to the ranger and not be spotted (assuming it got there without being seen in the first place).

Upcasting See Invisibility into a 7th level slot isn't a win for the party it is a win for the Raksasha.

As for the distinction between 18th level Rangers knowing the location of invisible creatures but not hidden Creatures , in real play, with experienced players, I suspect the feature is adjudicated as Blindsight 30'.

I know I would run it that way. A successfully Hidden creature is in effect invisible and thus the ranger knows their location.

A poorly Hidden creature is not invisible, but likely just seen by the ranger.

Either way the ranger knows where you are at. The DM just has to decide how much time, and how convoluted they want to make a 18th level ability be for practical usage.

If a rogue gets 10' Blindsense at 14th level, 30' Blindsense for an 18th level ranger seems appropriate.

[Valmark]

Berserker...yeah, kinda, but the cost of being a Berserker in the first place is so big that I'm not sure it's worth mentioning. Especially since it still doesn't blanket any particular array of attack though I guess it's good against like...Wizards who rely on Hypnotic Pattern and Suggestion too much. But even there, the fact that it's Rage only and that your costs of raging are so big and the fact that it doesn't allow you to ignore any particular stat far as survivability is concerned makes me think it's just meh.

The level 14 feature is just one in a hundred ways to get reaction attacks so I don't think it's worth noting that much; Polearm Master gets you pretty reliable Reaction Attacks from level 1 for instance.

Well yeah, but it's still often quite similar to just two invocations or whatever. Though it's convenient as hell, I'm not sure it's really that powerful. Misty Step lets you not walk which is stylish enough I'll give you and Pyrotechnics lets you walk around with a smoke curtain and Longstrider is a small speed boost and Shield/etc. save you few slots I guess (I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I'd run out of slots for Shield though) but overall most low level slots aren't that impressive even at will (a billion Unseen Servants is nice but they still take a bonus action to command).

Disguise Self at will is literally just Mask of Many Faces though that's not bad. Primarily the issue here is Concentration: all the truly busted things you could be doing are Concentration anyways which is kinda meh. False Life, Disguise Self, Unseen Servant, Longstrider, Magic Missile, Pyrotechnics, See Invisibility, etc. are all rather low level effects while stuff like Detect Thoughts and company gets knocked down a peg due to being incompatible with the high power high level spells. It's not a bad class feature and probably the strongest outside Spellcasting itself on Wizard chassis but still, it's not much better than like 5 levels of Warlock (and seriously, who takes 5 levels of Warlock when 3 will do?)
While true that Berserker's Frenzy is terrible due to the costs I should point out that the immunity cares not about it- it's triggered on Rage, not Frenzy.

Polearm Master's reaction attack is pretty weak damage-wise though (also it's only when they get into melee, so prolonged melee will waste it).

Yeah, I can see why it doesn't look that good the wizard's (though at-will Misty Step is basically monk's Step of the Wind free improved version, I wouldn't discount that)

Also something I forgot, Arcane Recovery follows your wizard level so you'd lose two levels' worth of slots.

Invert the question. Which classes are worth 20th level?
Bard might be worth levels 18-20.
Cleric is not worth level 18, but maybe you suck it up just to get to 20?
Druid might be worth levels 18-20.
Sorcerers might be worth levels 18-20 but I kinda doubt it. 18 does let you learn a 3rd 9th level spell.
Wizard looks worth levels 18-20.
However you will note that I have serious doubts about these levels.

Everything else (even Warlock) stops being worth it before level 15.
Bard is surely worth it at least at 18th level for the last Magical Secrets. Arguably druid too in general.

Yeah agreed on the rest.


Onion druid is great, in theory. But by the time you reach level 20, a lot of enemies have ways of killing you that go beyond HP damage.

You already got your "capstone" for druid back at level 18.

Onion druid?

How come the capstone is at 18th (magic while wildshaped) but the unlimited wildshape isn't good? Isn't that a contradiction?

[OldTrees1]

I'm no expert in actual play of Barbarians, but I'm surprised how many people analyzing the class don't value its Level 11 cheat-death feature. I thought that one was pretty good.

That cheat-death feature feels like a 7th level feature to me. Which is pretty good as far as 5E martial features go.
I think the issue is more the levels before 11th.

I value Barbarian levels 1-6, 8th, 11-12, and 14th
I value Rogue levels 1-8, 10-12, and 14th
I value Paladin levels 1-14th



Onion druid?

A druid that recursively wildshapes and thus has infinite hp.

[Valmark]

A druid that recursively wildshapes and thus has infinite hp.

Oh alright, so the moon druid. I'd rather turn into something small and hide away (or if on open plains a bird and fly up too high/dig underground as a mole or some such thing).


Upcasting See Invisibility into a 7th level slot isn't a win for the party it is a win for the Raksasha.

As for the distinction between 18th level Rangers knowing the location of invisible creatures but not hidden Creatures , in real play, with experienced players, I suspect the feature is adjudicated as Blindsight 30'.

I know I would run it that way. A successfully Hidden creature is in effect invisible and thus the ranger knows their location.

A poorly Hidden creature is not invisible, but likely just seen by the ranger.

Either way the ranger knows where you are at. The DM just has to decide how much time, and how convoluted they want to make a 18th level ability be for practical usage.

If a rogue gets 10' Blindsense at 14th level, 30' Blindsense for an 18th level ranger seems appropriate.

It's not that much of a win when you lose your surprise round honestly (which is really what the rakshasa was using Invisibility for). Or when you lose your chance to sneak past, either works.

If you give them Blindsight that's a houserule, though. And an hidden creature isn't at all invisible- Feral Senses specifies that it doesn't work on hidden creatures, even. It's explicitely impossible for Feral Senses to spot the monster hidden in the darkness of a corner, for example. Or behind a wall, etc.

In fact if I'm Invisible AND Hidden in, say, darkness Feral Senses doesn't work anyway (though that's the same for See Invisibility but not True Seeing).
And that's again just to have something to hide in- you don't need it if you're already invisible in the first place.

[Naanomi]

Ranger is the only that there are *very* few circumstances I would take it to 20. The others... usually you are at least getting spell slots/high level spells known

[MaxWilson]

You already got your "capstone" for druid back at level 18.

FYI, Druid 20 gives you infinite wildshape AND componentless casting, even in human shape. A lot of people overlook that second benefit due to PHB page layout issues.


Polearm Master's reaction attack is pretty weak damage-wise though (also it's only when they get into melee, so prolonged melee will waste it).

You can use melee kiting via Shoving or Mobile feat to force reaction attacks repeatedly.

[Valmark]

You can use melee kiting via Shoving or Mobile feat to force reaction attacks repeatedly.

So you need to either consume one of your attacks to Shove or spend another feat to still have a worst reaction attack in most situations.

[diplomancer]

That cheat-death feature feels like a 7th level feature to me. Which is pretty good as far as 5E martial features go.
I think the issue is more the levels before 11th.

I value Barbarian levels 1-6, 8th, 11-12, and 14th
I value Rogue levels 1-8, 10-12, and 14th
I value Paladin levels 1-12, and 14th


A druid that recursively wildshapes and thus has infinite hp.

Paladin 13 is Find Greater Steed. If you don't value THAT, your games are very different from mine.

[Satori01]

It's not that much of a win when you lose your surprise round honestly (which is really what the rakshasa was using Invisibility for). Or when you lose your chance to sneak past, either works.

If you give them Blindsight that's a houserule, though. And an hidden creature isn't at all invisible- Feral Senses specifies that it doesn't work on hidden creatures, even. It's explicitely impossible for Feral Senses to spot the monster hidden in the darkness of a corner, for example. Or behind a wall, etc.

In fact if I'm Invisible AND Hidden in, say, darkness Feral Senses doesn't work anyway (though that's the same for See Invisibility but not True Seeing).
And that's again just to have something to hide in- you don't need it if you're already invisible in the first place.

Blindsense doesn't necessarily mean auto detect. Blindsense just allows a creature to perceive it's environment out to the specified distance.

One does not need Blindsense to foil a creature 'Hidding' by using environmental effects that Heavily Obscure, like hiding in a dark corner, you just need a torch.

The commoner stat scullery maid sees you, when she has a torch.

Feral Senses means as soon as a a creature that you can't see, and is Hidden from you, does something that stops that creature from being Hidden, the Ranger knows where they are at.

Attacks, (with very few exceptions), always remove being Hidden.

Casting a spell with a verbal component does as well, technically.
One can't be unheard, when chanting mystical verses. XGE introduces some Stealth rules for quiet casting, but *cough* Rangers tend to be proficient in Perception. Many take the Observant feat.

As for the Raksasha...anytime the party expends a precious few of their 7th level spell slots to mitigate the effects of 2nd level spell....especially for an effect so underwhelming as a 7th level See Invisibility, that Raksasha is winning the battle of Resource attrition.

[Mr Adventurer]

Zealot's immortality on level 20 being noteworthy).

Do you mean Rage Beyond Death plus unlimited Rage uses per day? Because I thought the consensus was you can't Rage while Raging, which means that after 1 minute, you stop Raging until you take the action to Rage again. Maybe inconsequential in the course of an encounter, but it does put a hard cap on RBD (and other Rage-linked abilities you might like to have continuously).

[Valmark]

Blindsense doesn't necessarily mean auto detect. Blindsense just allows a creature to perceive it's environment out to the specified distance.

One does not need Blindsense to foil a creature 'Hidding' by using environmental effects that Heavily Obscure, like hiding in a dark corner, you just need a torch.

The commoner stat scullery maid sees you, when she has a torch.

Feral Senses means as soon as a a creature that you can't see, and is Hidden from you, does something that stops that creature from being Hidden, the Ranger knows where they are at.

Attacks, (with very few exceptions), always remove being Hidden.

Casting a spell with a verbal component does as well, technically.
One can't be unheard, when chanting mystical verses. XGE introduces some Stealth rules for quiet casting, but *cough* Rangers tend to be proficient in Perception. Many take the Observant feat.

As for the Raksasha...anytime the party expends a precious few of their 7th level spell slots to mitigate the effects of 2nd level spell....especially for an effect so underwhelming as a 7th level See Invisibility, that Raksasha is winning the battle of Resource attrition.
...I'm not sure why you're pointing out the limitations on Blindsight? It's not a factor for the ranger in the first place.

Everybody as soon as a Hidden creature does something to stop being Hidden discovers the creature. In fact, in the rakshasa example it even stops from being Invisible in the first place (unless it's just moving)- a creature would need Greater Invisibility.

True on the quiet casting I guess, although again that's not something restricted to rangers- doesn't even have anything to do with Feral Senses.

While that is true, if the party needs to upcast the spell then it's not so much of a loss- otherwise they wouldn't do that in the first place. It's not even a fight in that case, since the rakshasa would turn visible upon doing something noteworthy.

[OldTrees1]

Paladin 13 is Find Greater Steed. If you don't value THAT, your games are very different from mine.

I misremembered 4th levels spells as 14th. I edited in the correction.

I value Barbarian levels 1-6, 8th, 11-12, and 14th
I value Paladin levels 1-14th
(Good job WotC, Ancients Paladin 14th feels like a 10th level character but there are no dead levels.)
I value Rogue levels 1-8, 10-12, and 14th
I value Warlock levels 1-5th, and 7-9th

[MaxWilson]

Paladin 13 is Find Greater Steed. If you don't value THAT, your games are very different from mine.

Or you got something better from multiclassing.

E.g. if a scenario where Find Greater Steed is valuable, Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Spear + regular Find Steed is probably quite valuable too, and doesn't have the same risk of getting knocked off your steed and falling to your death. (Or maybe you just took the Fly spell, or have Divine Soul wings for inherent flying.)

I find that Find Greater Steed is better on bards/sorcs/wizards than on Paladins, because the opportunity cost for Paladins is too high.


So you need to either consume one of your attacks to Shove or spend another feat to still have a worst reaction attack in most situations.

You get more out of Shove prone than just a single attack. You get advantage on all of your attacks, and in many cases you deny the enemy all attacks except an opportunity attack due to the movement cost of standing up from prone. Two, three, or four attacks at advantage (depending on Fighter level) + a reaction attack if the enemy approaches, all with GWM potential, in exchange for taking a single opportunity attack at disadvantage (instead of a full Multiattack sequence), is quite a bargain. And if you don't want to Shove you can just take Mobile--as a Fighter you've got the feats for it.

[Fnissalot]

I had the same thought process with my Celestial Warlock. Was planning on going all the way, but after looking at Levels 18-20, decided he'd eventually dip Swords Bard 3 instead.

If we're asking just about going all the way to Level 20, then we should look at each class's Level 20 capstone feature.

Artificer has a good capstone.
Barbarian has a good capstone but its levels 13-19 are lackluster.
Bard has a lame capstone.
Cleric has an amazing capstone.
Druid has a capstone that is ... broken for Moon Druid, ok for Spore Druid, lackluster otherwise.
Fighter has a powerful but boring and combat-slowing capstone.
Monk has a lame capstone.
Paladin has a different capstone for each Oath. Not going to spend the time to analyze them all.
Ranger has an awful capstone. Probably going to change in Tasha's though (which could be true of others as well).
Rogue has a somewhat weak capstone; fun to use but only 1/rest is too restrictive.
Sorcerer has an ok capstone, highly DM-dependent (how many short rests you get per day). But I think everyone agrees it's hard to stick with Sorcerer that long; 17 for wish is already impressive.
Warlock has a lame capstone.
Wizard has ... a good capstone, just not as good as its Level 18 feature.

Personally I love multiclassing in general, so I'm probably not the one to give the final say about which classes are tolerable to take all the way to 20.

I overall agree on these points, with the exception that warlock's capstone is good but dull. All paladin capstones are atleast ok.

[Satori01]

...I'm not sure why you're pointing out the limitations on Blindsight? It's not a factor for the ranger in the first place.

Everybody as soon as a Hidden creature does something to stop being Hidden discovers the creature. In fact, in the rakshasa example it even stops from being Invisible in the first place (unless it's just moving)- a creature would need Greater Invisibility.

True on the quiet casting I guess, although again that's not something restricted to rangers- doesn't even have anything to do with Feral Senses.
.

Blindsense is relevant as a point of comparison for a similar ability like Feral Senses.

Hearing an noise made by an invisible creature does not give you the monster's Exact location. One only has a vague sense of the direction the noise came from.


To receive more information, would require use of the Search action.

Allowing creatures to target lock upon even the slightest sound, profoundly weakens the Eye for Detail feature of the Inquisitive subclass, as well as Feral Senses.

The whole point of Feral Senses is that with in 30', if the Ranger can't see you, but can hear you, the ranger knows exactly where you are.

That is not a factory standard default option, for most creatures, including other PCs.

[Valmark]

You get more out of Shove prone than just a single attack. You get advantage on all of your attacks, and in many cases you deny the enemy all attacks except an opportunity attack due to the movement cost of standing up from prone. Two, three, or four attacks at advantage (depending on Fighter level) + a reaction attack if the enemy approaches, all with GWM potential, in exchange for taking a single opportunity attack at disadvantage (instead of a full Multiattack sequence), is quite a bargain. And if you don't want to Shove you can just take Mobile--as a Fighter you've got the feats for it.

If you're denying your enemies their attacks you're also likely losing your chance to Reaction attack with Polearm Master- this doesn't help at all. Unless the enemy is a low wis creature that runs into your weapon without being able to reach you, I guess.

Mobile yeah it works, though again you're investing two feats for a weaker version (and a whole bunch of other goodies though, of course. It would be pretty lame otherwise). Though you had to specify a fighter to make it worth it.


Blindsense is relevant as a point of comparison for a similar ability like Feral Senses.

Hearing an noise made by an invisible creature does not give you the monster's Exact location. One only has a vague sense of the direction the noise came from.

To receive more information, would require use of the Search action.

Allowing creatures to target lock upon even the slightest sound, profoundly weakens the Eye for Detail feature of the Inquisitive subclass, as well as Feral Senses.

The whole point of Feral Senses is that with in 30', if the Ranger can't see you, but can hear you, the ranger knows exactly where you are.

That is not a factory standard default option, for most creatures, including other PCs.

Eye For Detail has nothing to do with creatures coming out of hiding, though. Plus Feral Senses doesn't make you see the target- let's you know the location and removes the penalty for not seeing the enemy. So it's not really weakened.

Also the ranger not able to see you is wrong- Feral Senses doesn't work if the ranger is Blinded. And if the creature is behind obstacles and not in sight in the first place Feral Senses is wasted anyway, since the creature will likely be Hidden (so it doesn't work) or making sounds (so everybody knows it's there).

[Fnissalot]

If you're denying your enemies their attacks you're also likely losing your chance to Reaction attack with Polearm Master- this doesn't help at all. Unless the enemy is a low wis creature that runs into your weapon without being able to reach you, I guess.

Mobile yeah it works, though again you're investing two feats for a weaker version (and a whole bunch of other goodies though, of course. It would be pretty lame otherwise). Though you had to specify a fighter to make it worth it.



Eye For Detail has nothing to do with creatures coming out of hiding, though. Plus Feral Senses doesn't make you see the target- let's you know the location and removes the penalty for not seeing the enemy. So it's not really weakened.

Also the ranger not able to see you is wrong- Feral Senses doesn't work if the ranger is Blinded. And if the creature is behind obstacles and not in sight in the first place Feral Senses is wasted anyway, since the creature will likely be Hidden (so it doesn't work) or making sounds (so everybody knows it's there).

Blinded only blocks the second part of feral senses. And the first part lets you ignore the disadvantage on attack rolls from blinded. Feral senses is ok, just not great.

[Valmark]

Blinded only blocks the second part of feral senses. And the first part lets you ignore the disadvantage on attack rolls from blinded. Feral senses is ok, just not great.

Right sorry- I was talking about the second part, since we were discussing the Ranger's ability to spot invisible threats. I don't think anybody can consider the first part bad.

And it being ok not great is kind of the point- it's not a feature worth the 18th level it comes at.

[x3n0n]

If you're denying your enemies their attacks you're also likely losing your chance to Reaction attack with Polearm Master- this doesn't help at all. Unless the enemy is a low wis creature that runs into your weapon without being able to reach you, I guess.

Assuming a melee-dependent opponent, I'm not sure what their options are. They're prone and you're next to them.

If you think they want to hit you, you step away, they take a disadvantaged opportunity attack, and then you stop just outside the reach of your polearm. They stand up from prone and then they either come at you and get hit or come up with a new plan.

If you think they don't want to hit you, then maybe you stay next to them so you get them with the normal non-PAM opportunity attack.

(Bonus points for Sentinel or Cavalier in either case.)

What am I missing?

[MaxWilson]

If you're denying your enemies their attacks you're also likely losing your chance to Reaction attack with Polearm Master- this doesn't help at all. Unless the enemy is a low wis creature that runs into your weapon without being able to reach you, I guess.

Mobile yeah it works, though again you're investing two feats for a weaker version (and a whole bunch of other goodies though, of course. It would be pretty lame otherwise). Though you had to specify a fighter to make it worth it.


If the enemy doesn't pursue that's even better.

I'm not saying you couldn't use the PAM reaction attack on a non-Fighter (I've seen it work well on a Zealot although you don't get any Reckless advantage on the reaction attack), but yes, I see this as primarily a Fighter thing due to SADness and lots of ASIs.

Not sure what "weaker version" you're talking about though. There isn't any stronger version of the PAM reaction attack AFAIK. (Berserker definitely doesn't count--Retaliation is at best a sidegrade, probably a downgrade, since it requires you to take damage from a creature within 5'.)

[Valmark]

Assuming a melee-dependent opponent, I'm not sure what their options are. They're prone and you're next to them.

If you think they want to hit you, you step away, they take a disadvantaged opportunity attack, and then you stop just outside the reach of your polearm. They stand up from prone and then they either come at you and get hit or come up with a new plan.

If you think they don't want to hit you, then maybe you stay next to them so you get them with the normal non-PAM opportunity attack.

(Bonus points for Sentinel or Cavalier in either case.)

What am I missing?

Nothing? That's exactly the point. In the examples you showed the enemy isn't losing their attacks, which is what I argued about with Max.


If the enemy doesn't pursue that's even better.

I'm not saying you couldn't use the PAM reaction attack on a non-Fighter (I've seen it work well on a Zealot although you don't get any Reckless advantage on the reaction attack), but yes, I see this as primarily a Fighter thing due to SADness and lots of ASIs.

Not sure what "weaker version" you're talking about though. There isn't any stronger version of the PAM reaction attack AFAIK. (Berserker definitely doesn't count--Retaliation is at best a sidegrade, probably a downgrade, since it requires you to take damage from a creature within 5'.)

If the enemy doesn't pursue it's either going after your allies or finding a way to take you down another way.
Or running away I guess.

Berserker's can have a better damage and doesn't require any further move to trigger it (I don't consider a penalty needing to take damage on a class that is supposed to soak it). Though it can be argued to be on the same level I guess.

[sithlordnergal]

I have a few classes that I feel just aren't worth it:


This one is pretty obvious as to why. The Ranger is notorious for having one of the worst capstones in 5e. They basically took part of the base 3.5 Favored Enemy ability where you deal a small amount of extra damage to your Favored Enemies, and made it into a capstone. Keep in mind, in 3.5 you got that damage from level 1, as soon as you became a Ranger. Honestly, the Ranger should have capstones similar to the Paladin, where their capstone relates to their subclass.



This is an extremely weak ability. First of all, Monks regain their Ki on a Short Rest, so its easy to refill your Ki. Second, unless you're a 4-Elements Monk, Monk abilities aren't expensive. Its highly unlikely that you're going to eat through all 20 of your Ki points before you take a short rest unless you're really mismanaging them or you have some super intense encounter.

And if you do somehow eat through ALL of your Ki points between Short Rests, 4 Ki Points is no where near enough for a level 20 Monk. IF your encounters are going through 10 or more Ki, 4 Ki is going to literally be a drop in the. At the very least I'd just increase the number to 10 Ki, or even 8 Ki if you want to be stingy.



This one is a bit on the weak side in my eyes. Yes, you can regain Sorcery Points on a short rest, but its only 4 Sorcery Points. It has the same issue as the Monk, where things cost too much for that to be a really major help. The only real difference is that they don't appear to be restricted by anything. So you regain 4 Sorcery Points after every Short Rest. I'd still increase the number of Sorcery Points though, maybe to 6 or 8 points per short rest. That, or maybe allow you to choose a Metamagic that you know, and it either halves or removes the cost of Sorcery Points to use it.



Lets face it, this ability....isn't great. Third Level spells are great, don't get me wrong, but you gain the ability to cast two 3rd level spells once per short rest without expending a spell slot. Compare that to the 18th level ability, where you can cast a 1st or 2nd level spell at will. Its not a bad ability per say, but I feel it'd have been better off being related more to the Wizard's subclass...though that would be difficult since there are so many Wizard subclasses.

[heavyfuel]

How come the capstone is at 18th (magic while wildshaped) but the unlimited wildshape isn't good? Isn't that a contradiction?

I never said it wasn't good. I said I'd rather have the benefits of a Cleric's Domain for levels 19 and 20 than having infinite Wild Shape only for level 20.


FYI, Druid 20 gives you infinite wildshape AND componentless casting, even in human shape. A lot of people overlook that second benefit due to PHB page layout issues.

That's a fair point. I was working from memory and completely forgot about the second benefit.

[MaxWilson]

If the enemy doesn't pursue it's either going after your allies or finding a way to take you down another way.

Since it's already burned half of its movement standing up, it's not likely to have much luck chasing after your allies either.

All bets are off with ranged-capable enemies, but we already know that ranged enemies >>> melee enemies in 5E.


Berserker's can have a better damage and doesn't require any further move to trigger it (I don't consider a penalty needing to take damage on a class that is supposed to soak it). Though it can be argued to be on the same level I guess.

Sidegrade then: there are pros and cons for each.



Lets face it, this ability....isn't great. Third Level spells are great, don't get me wrong, but you gain the ability to cast two 3rd level spells once per short rest without expending a spell slot. Compare that to the 18th level ability, where you can cast a 1st or 2nd level spell at will. Its not a bad ability per say, but I feel it'd have been better off being related more to the Wizard's subclass...though that would be difficult since there are so many Wizard subclasses.


Not disagreeing, but just wanna say the 20th level wizard ability gets better if you use it on a long-term no-concentration spell, like Tiny Servant or Animate Dead or Phantom Steed. You can never have too many tiny servants (with blindsight!). At worst they can Help, and at best they can do some minor tanking, with advantage in heavy obscurement. Counterspell also isn't terrible, but unlike Tiny Servant it's hard to argue that it's really worth more than a couple of spell slots per day, unless you fight enemy spellcasters very frequently (in which case you're probably toast). But you can proactively Tiny Servant after every short rest (i.e. every hour-long period of relaxation/inactivity) every day of your life.

[Fnissalot]

If a rogue gets 10' Blindsense at 14th level, 30' Blindsense for an 18th level ranger seems appropriate.

Rogues blindsense is not the same as blindsight, they know the position of creatures within 10ft but those creatures are still considered unseen for attacking and taking attacks. You just now which hex they occupy if you play on a grid.


Right sorry- I was talking about the second part, since we were discussing the Ranger's ability to spot invisible threats. I don't think anybody can consider the first part bad.

And it being ok not great is kind of the point- it's not a feature worth the 18th level it comes at.

Yeah, my bad, I skimmed the thread and missed the point of the discussion then. It would be fine as a 18th ability if you get anything else worthwhile between 11-20 or so. It is a poor mans blind sight; unseen creatures still have advantage on attacking you, you cannot target them with spells that require you to see the target, and invisibly creatures can still hide from you without other obscuring.

PHB states "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of a magical or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.". Raw, the italic part can either be interpret to mean A) everyone knows the location of the invisible creature due to it making noises and such, B) you need to act to detect the position of the invisible creature (e.g. take the search action), or C) it is situational and up to the DM when the location of a invisible creature is known, can be known through player action, or is not known. Alternative (A) removes most value in the second part of feral senses, alternative (C) risks making the second part into DM fiat, while alternative (B) makes it so you neither need to take the action or succeed on the check if you have feral senses.

Jeremy Crawford stated that the intention is that you generally know the position of invisible not hidden creatures in combat, but outside of combat, your position and presence can be unknown while invisible without being hidden due to distractions around you (e.g. firework, minstrels, screaming barbarians) (~28:00 something https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing). If so, the second part becomes a ribbon as it only gives awareness of invisible creatures outside of combat in limited situations.

[cutlery]

It’d have been cleaner and more multi class friendly if the Martials got Extra Attacks at about 6, 11, 17 roughly. If you get EA in a second class it stacks. So we all get the nice benchmark of good damage that roughly correlates with when mages get their cantrip boosts. Make the first EA at 6 so it’s still beneficial to go straight class and one guy can’t jump through all the martial classes to for 5 levels to get an extra attack above everyone else.


Fighters would need something big.

Back in 3/3.5 there was rarely a reason to take fighter past 10. If archetype extra attacks stacked, I don’t see many people taking fighter past 5 or 8.

[sithlordnergal]

Not disagreeing, but just wanna say the 20th level wizard ability gets better if you use it on a long-term no-concentration spell, like Tiny Servant or Animate Dead or Phantom Steed. You can never have too many tiny servants (with blindsight!). At worst they can Help, and at best they can do some minor tanking, with advantage in heavy obscurement. Counterspell also isn't terrible, but unlike Tiny Servant it's hard to argue that it's really worth more than a couple of spell slots per day, unless you fight enemy spellcasters very frequently (in which case you're probably toast). But you can proactively Tiny Servant after every short rest (i.e. every hour-long period of relaxation/inactivity) every day of your life.

Ohh, that is a good point. I hadn't thought about spells that are long term with no concentration like that. Animate Dead and Tiny Servant do make that ability stronger, though I'd question the effectiveness of an undead Zombie or Skeleton at level 20 since they lack the ability to deal magical damage...Still, its a good use of that 20th level ability. I still think its a bit underwhelming though.

[sithlordnergal]

That's a fair point. I was working from memory and completely forgot about the second benefit.

Don't feel bad, I forgot the second benefit of the Druid's capstone existed until I was rereading the PGB, and flipped out because that just seemed wrong. Its basically a permanent, better version of Subtle Spell because you get to ignore the Verbal, Somatic, and Component requirements of most of your spells. Sure, some of the strongest still require a material component, but a good 75% of your spells can now be cast without fear of being noticed or Counterspell. Then you mix it with the scouting/infiltration of unlimited Wild Shape and...well...lets just say every single spider, ant, cat, or mouse could be a Druid ready to cast Heat Metal on your metal fillings or golden tooth.

[Dienekes]

Fighters would need something big.


Personally I think this is still true even with being the only one to get 4 attacks. Maybe not balance wise, but definitely in interest. Fighter’s a pretty boring class on its own.

And of course if we start balancing every martial around the 4 attack paradigm it would necessitate vast reworks of every martial class. And it of course will not happen, at least in 5e.

But as just a mental exercise I do think doing so would improve the game.

That or going the 13th Age route where everyone only gets 1 attack no matter what class or level. But that attack gets better. That could in theory also make multiclassing martials smoother and would speed up the game.

[heavyfuel]

Don't feel bad, I forgot the second benefit of the Druid's capstone existed until I was rereading the PGB, and flipped out because that just seemed wrong. Its basically a permanent, better version of Subtle Spell because you get to ignore the Verbal, Somatic, and Component requirements of most of your spells. Sure, some of the strongest still require a material component, but a good 75% of your spells can now be cast without fear of being noticed or Counterspell. Then you mix it with the scouting/infiltration of unlimited Wild Shape and...well...lets just say every single spider, ant, cat, or mouse could be a Druid ready to cast Heat Metal on your metal fillings or golden tooth.

Another very good point. Mind changed, I can see a Druid going for the whole 20 levels. I'd probably still go Cleric unless I was a Moon Druid because I don't think the level 18th feature is that good for other circles.

[Draz74]

I overall agree on these points, with the exception that warlock's capstone is good but dull.

Eh, I guess it's fine. The common criticism is that, if you can rest for a minute, you can probably rest for an hour. But as I think about it, that's not generally true in my games, so maybe the Warlock capstone holds some power after all.

But yeah, not exciting.

[heavyfuel]

Eh, I guess it's fine. The common criticism is that, if you can rest for a minute, you can probably rest for an hour. But as I think about it, that's not generally true in my games, so maybe the Warlock capstone holds some power after all.

But yeah, not exciting.

That's terrible criticism and I agree that it definitely doesn't represent my experiences with the game.

Super boring though.

[MaxWilson]

Ohh, that is a good point. I hadn't thought about spells that are long term with no concentration like that. Animate Dead and Tiny Servant do make that ability stronger, though I'd question the effectiveness of an undead Zombie or Skeleton at level 20 since they lack the ability to deal magical damage...Still, its a good use of that 20th level ability. I still think its a bit underwhelming though.

Skeletons and zombies don't have magical damage, but they do have hands and can therefore grapple, which makes them impossible to ignore for non-Huge+ creatures; and they can Shove or Help to grant other PCs significant combat advantages. If you want you can even have them throw vials of acid or flasks of oil, or equip them with Uncommon magic weapons, although of course the cost-effectiveness and feasibility will vary from campaign to campaign. Throwing nets is also a pretty good tactic, against non-Huge enemies.

However, skeletons and zombies are going to be bottlenecked by the available corpse supply, and how many walking corpses you are prepared to tolerate in your vicinity. They're not as "free" as Tiny Servants. I can't think of any scenario where a half-dozen or so Tiny Servants wouldn't be welcome, especially if you equip them properly. (Wands of Magic Missile are only Uncommon... if you can find a formula for making them, you're all set.)

I don't actually think that capstone is worth more than a Cleric 1 or Fighter 2 dip, but if you're playing a wizard who for some reason can't do that (due to low stat rolls or table rules), Tiny Servant would probably be an auto-pick for my Signature Spell.

[Dienekes]

That's terrible criticism and I agree that it definitely doesn't represent my experiences with the game.

Super boring though.

I think it holds true more when doing the standard “enter the dungeon and fight through to find treasure” stories. Which I’ve only ever run once.

Regardless, for a lot of the more boring capstones I kinda think they’d be more fun with a minimum of work by having them work when you aren’t at 0 of a resource.

What do I mean?

Take Bard 20. Change it to: When you roll Initiative you gain 1 use of Bardic Inspiration. Done. Simple. It actually promotes you using the ability more but not going out of your way to spam it so you get the most out of the ability.

Make all the abilities work like that. Hell even add the Warlock one. I think it would be much more fun if nothing else.

[Fnissalot]

Eh, I guess it's fine. The common criticism is that, if you can rest for a minute, you can probably rest for an hour. But as I think about it, that's not generally true in my games, so maybe the Warlock capstone holds some power after all.

But yeah, not exciting.

It is very dependent on the DM and the campaign, and it might be a fair point for some groups. In a dungeon crawl, resting an hour will likely risk random encounters while a minute wouldn't. In more open campaigns, it probably only matters if you have a deadline. Eldritch Master can be used while moving as well according to RAW; it is spending a minute talking to your patron, not resting, so it rarely stops the party from moving.
Edit: It is even unclear if it even stops you from making actions that doesn't require speech? I would probably even allow casting spells that doesn't require verbal components during that time. The only damage dealing warlock cantrip without a verbal component is thunderclap though?

[Blood of Gaea]

I think all martials without half casting run into issues around levels 7-11, where afterwards they don't stand to gain all that much that is really meaningful.

An 11th level Fighter can take 9 more levels and primarily get a second action surge and another attack, or they could take levels of Gloomstalker, War Wizard, Barbarian, or whatever else, and get a strong payout before even hitting 15th level.

Capstones are neat, but baring a small handful of campaigns that run at 20th level for a good time, you're only likely to use them for a session or two, even the great ones. And that's assuming you even get there in the first place.

[Hael]

Eh, I guess it's fine. The common criticism is that, if you can rest for a minute, you can probably rest for an hour. But as I think about it, that's not generally true in my games, so maybe the Warlock capstone holds some power after all.

But yeah, not exciting.

It’s a pretty terrible ability. In practise you rarely know in advance when to use it, and hence you usually have slots remaining, making it only worth one or two slots. You have to entreat the patron, which the DM can use to screw you (keep in mind 20th lvl is when patrons usually start wanting to kill you).

A minute is an eternity when you are adventuring, and holds up the party and the feeling is that it would likely be situational at best.

It’s best used to prebuff after a short rest, but most locks don’t have many long duration buffs other than aoa.

Lvl1 features of other classes are far better.

[diplomancer]

It’s a pretty terrible ability. In practise you rarely know in advance when to use it, and hence you usually have slots remaining, making it only worth one or two slots. You have to entreat the patron, which the DM can use to screw you (keep in mind 20th lvl is when patrons usually start wanting to kill you).

A minute is an eternity when you are adventuring, and holds up the party and the feeling is that it would likely be situational at best.

It’s best used to prebuff after a short rest, but most locks don’t have many long duration buffs other than aoa.

Lvl1 features of other classes are far better.

It's REALLY not the fault of your ability if your DM does not let you use it.

As to a minute being "an eternity", I guess your game is just an endless wave of monsters, in which case, yes, the ability is worse.

[Hael]

It's REALLY not the fault of your ability if your DM does not let you use it.

As to a minute being "an eternity", I guess your game is just an endless wave of monsters, in which case, yes, the ability is worse.

The times where you would really want to use it, is like right after a big fight and you are out of slots. Except that’s exactly the point where you are either in short rest land, or you are in let’s get the heck away from here before the rest of the demons descend and kill us.

What ends up happening in practice is you find a quiet room in your dungeon, and you do this procedure while others are exploring the room. But that’s usually when you are unsure about what’s coming next, have slots remaining and are unsure if combat is even going to happen, and again it can slow the party down a bit if they’re hustling. So it just tends to be worth only a fraction of what it’s intended value is, and is thus a poorly thought out capstone (like so many others).

[Lunali]

I think a large part of the problem is the balance of classes being based around the idea that the difficulty of combat is resource management over a series of fights. A lot of these lackluster capstones are abilities intended to let you run on fumes indefinitely. Games that reach level 20 are pretty rare already, but ones that have enough encounters per short rest to make attrition meaningful are almost nonexistent.

[diplomancer]

The times where you would really want to use it, is like right after a big fight and you are out of slots. Except that’s exactly the point where you are either in short rest land, or you are in let’s get the heck away from here before the rest of the demons descend and kill us.

What ends up happening in practice is you find a quiet room in your dungeon, and you do this procedure while others are exploring the room. But that’s usually when you are unsure about what’s coming next, have slots remaining and are unsure if combat is even going to happen, and again it can slow the party down a bit if they’re hustling. So it just tends to be worth only a fraction of what it’s intended value is, and is thus a poorly thought out capstone (like so many others).

The ability has no action cost, and does not restrict any actions. You can use it while you are running away from the demons. You can use it during a fight, and if the fight lasts long enough, come back to full power during the fight.

[Mr Adventurer]

(keep in mind 20th lvl is when patrons usually start wanting to kill you).

What's this?

[Hael]

The ability has no action cost, and does not restrict any actions. You can use it while you are running away from the demons. You can use it during a fight, and if the fight lasts long enough, come back to full power during the fight.

That’s not how we read it at our table. It says that you spend a minute entreating/pleading with your patron. We read that like a prayer, so you can’t be doing other actions that would break this. So while it’s not like the cleric capstone feature, where it specifically requires one action (note that it’s only one action and not a minute), you can’t be engaged in witty banter with others or casting spells in combat for instance.

The way it reads is also somewhat DM dependant in the sense that it’s not guarenteed. Bc it’s up to your patron to grant you the power, and hence DM, he doesn’t have to give it to you.

Anecdotally, every warlock that we’ve ever played at our table, has somewhat of an antagonistic relation with the patron, and by the end of the campaign there is almost always a problem. In fact, I think the class should be designed like the 3.5 Paladin, where there is an alternate vow breaking mechanism, bc this scenario comes up every single time when the Patron asks for something and the player tells them to go to hell.

[Dork_Forge]

The way it reads is also somewhat DM dependant in the sense that it’s not guarenteed. Bc it’s up to your patron to grant you the power, and hence DM, he doesn’t have to give it to you.


I'd call that more antagonistic DMing than anything else, if you actually get this far and then deny a player the use of their capstone (which for the Warlock is basically just a condensed short rest sans hit die) then you're not exactly keeping the fun of the player in mind. Granted there could be legitimate reasons for this, but seeing how games that do get that high probably end soon after... Yeah not the DM I'd want in control of the game personally.

For anyone thinking it's a weak capstone, it's potentially an extra 4 5th level slots for a minute, that's pretty good as far as the overall landscape of capstones. I can see the boring thing though.

[Fnissalot]

I'd call that more antagonistic DMing than anything else, if you actually get this far and then deny a player the use of their capstone (which for the Warlock is basically just a condensed short rest sans hit die) then you're not exactly keeping the fun of the player in mind. Granted there could be legitimate reasons for this, but seeing how games that do get that high probably end soon after... Yeah not the DM I'd want in control of the game personally.

For anyone thinking it's a weak capstone, it's potentially an extra 4 5th level slots for a minute, that's pretty good as far as the overall landscape of capstones. I can see the boring thing though.
Yes, I agree. The feature never states it can fail. A DM who deems otherwise is just messing with their players.

Also, the rules are not precise with what a minute of entreating actually entails. It is not explicit that it blocks actions, movement, concentration, or even speech. It is up to the DM, what you can do in the mean time. The same with the time preparing spells, a war domain cleric could argue that fighting is meditation and prayers for their deity and you could then spend the time fighting.

[Waazraath]

What's this?

Good question. Maybe if your patron is the githyanki lich queen?

As for the OP: looking from a purely optimizing point of view, I understand the sentiment that a lot of classes aren't worth taking them to 20... but really, personally, if I'v spend years getting my sorcerer to lvl 18 and I enjoy the build and the fluff, I wouln't take the last 2 levels in fighter just because heavy armor is nice and action surge is better than the sorcerer capstone. I mean, it isa rp-game.

As for what class is best to take to 20 from an optimization perspective: I'd say paladin. Once you start in the class, almost every time you gain a new level taking another level of paladin is better than a level in another class - you can build great multiclass builds with it as well, but you gain at least a temporary setback. And several of its late game features (30ft aura's, capstones) are very powerful.

[diplomancer]

That’s not how we read it at our table. It says that you spend a minute entreating/pleading with your patron. We read that like a prayer, so you can’t be doing other actions that would break this. So while it’s not like the cleric capstone feature, where it specifically requires one action (note that it’s only one action and not a minute), you can’t be engaged in witty banter with others or casting spells in combat for instance.

The way it reads is also somewhat DM dependant in the sense that it’s not guarenteed. Bc it’s up to your patron to grant you the power, and hence DM, he doesn’t have to give it to you.

Anecdotally, every warlock that we’ve ever played at our table, has somewhat of an antagonistic relation with the patron, and by the end of the campaign there is almost always a problem. In fact, I think the class should be designed like the 3.5 Paladin, where there is an alternate vow breaking mechanism, bc this scenario comes up every single time when the Patron asks for something and the player tells them to go to hell.

So, your table nerfs it. That doesn't mean that the ability is useless, if anything, it means that your DM belives that it is too good.

[MeeposFire]

Fighters would need something big.

Back in 3/3.5 there was rarely a reason to take fighter past 10. If archetype extra attacks stacked, I don’t see many people taking fighter past 5 or 8.

You are way overselling how much 3e discussions tend to value the fighter (though not on purpose I believe I should say and frankly it saddens me how little respect many online discussions on 3e weapon users get). Most 3e discussions would tell you that there are few reasons to take fighter higher than level 2 lol (granted I know some classic stuff that did use more fighter levels but those are uncommon and many 3e posters have a real dislike of fighters)..

[MaxWilson]

Fighters would need something big.

Back in 3/3.5 there was rarely a reason to take fighter past 10. If archetype extra attacks stacked, I don’t see many people taking fighter past 5 or 8.

If Extra Attacks stacked, you'd actually be better off as a Gloomstalker 5/Paladin 6/Bladesinger 9 than as a Fighter 20. You'd have 4 attacks sooner (level 16 vs. 20), saving throw bonuses, archery style, and tons of spells.

There would be no reason at all to play a Fighter.

[Dienekes]

If Extra Attacks stacked, you'd actually be better off as a Gloomstalker 5/Paladin 6/Bladesinger 9 than as a Fighter 20. You'd have 4 attacks sooner (level 16 vs. 20), saving throw bonuses, archery style, and tons of spells.

There would be no reason at all to play a Fighter.

If we did stacking EA every martial class’s damage would need to be rebalanced to fit the new pattern.

Though, in this theoretical beautiful world there would be more potential to actually differentiate how each class interacts with the combat system at the base level. Rather than Rogue attack once, Barbarian twice, Fighter many, everyone else boosts with spells that we have now.

I do actually think it’s a good change, but it would require a lot of work I do not think WotC would do.

[Mr Adventurer]

You could have Extra Attack stack, but also amend Fighters so they get even more attacks. Hell, give them attacks = Proficiency Bonus...

[MaxWilson]

You could have Extra Attack stack, but also amend Fighters so they get even more attacks. ----, give them attacks = Proficiency Bonus...

[thinks] Yeah, five or six attacks per round is absurd by AD&D standards, but wouldn't fundamentally change the dynamic between fighters and spellcasters--it wouldn't break the game in Tier 3-4. (It would make Barbarians sad but presumably you'd also be tweaking Barbarians at the same time.)

Probably the biggest downside would just be the work of recalculating/recentering monster CRs relative to the new player power baseline.

It might break the game in Tier 1, but I also presume that Attacks = proficiency probably wouldn't kick in until at least level 5.

[Eldariel]

[thinks] Yeah, five or six attacks per round is absurd by AD&D standards, but wouldn't fundamentally change the dynamic between fighters and spellcasters--it wouldn't break the game in Tier 3-4. (It would make Barbarians sad but presumably you'd also be tweaking Barbarians at the same time.)

Probably the biggest downside would just be the work of recalculating/recentering monster CRs relative to the new player power baseline.

It might break the game in Tier 1, but I also presume that Attacks = proficiency probably wouldn't kick in until at least level 5.

I'm not sure it would meaningfully hurt CR: CR is already all but meaningless on Tiers 3-4 anyways since monster power is mostly a function of their special abilities (let alone the variety in PC power) and those are mosty ignored by CR.

It would, however, make combat even more Rocket Taggy especially with Action Surge. YMMV on whether that's a problem or not. I'd rather that Fighters have means to contribute beyond pure damage and thus scale in versatility rather than power since power only leads to Initiative polarization and more one-sided fights while options increase interaction and thus make fights generally tactically more complex and with a larger amount of meaningful choices.

[Lyracian]

What other classes are probably not worth it to go to level 20, assuming you solo classed up to that point?
Almost all of them!


What is the break off point for those classes where you would switch away from it and never go back?
For most classes it wound not be about not going back but taking a 1-3 level, usually in Tier 2-3 for some extra power and then coming back.

Barbarian has a great capstone if you can get through levels 13-19.
Bard capstone is weak and Bard's really benefit from an early level elsewhere to improve offense and/or defense. My Preference is Level 1 'something' then 2-20 as Bard.
Cleric capstone is rather DM dependant. You get to cast Wish once a week which others casters have been doing once a day? 1-3 Levels elsewhere can give a lot of benefit. Somewhere around level 9-12 I would take a dip and then come back to Cleric. Maybe take a second level in the other class once I had level 9 spells.
Druid capstone is super powerful for Moon Druids and reasonable enough for others to stay the distance.
Fighter has a great martial capstone. If I wanted to play a fighter I would be happy to take this to 20.
Monk capstone is fine but Monks are a weak class overall (slightly better than Rangers thought). My cutoff would be level 14 for Diamond Soul and then six levels elsewhere. Monks can Sneak Attack with Short Swords and still get the d8 Martial Arts damage so I am probably adding rogue to my Monk.
Paladin have different capstones which are all good but maybe not as good as getting some extra spell slots for smite elsewhere?
Ranger capstone is terrible as is most of the ranger. Level 5 or maybe 8-9 with Gloom Stalker is as far as I would ever go.
Rogue capstone is thematic but weak. At Level 6 I would rather take a Wizard/Fighter dip then come back to Rogue.
Sorcerer capstone is good but there small number of known spells can often be helped out by taking another caster class.
Warlock capstone and higher levels are quite weak compared to other casters. Not sure how far I would take this class.
Wizard Level 18 is where it is at. One of the few classes I would happily take to 18 or 19 and then take the last levels as another caster.

[Eldariel]

Fighter has a great martial capstone. If I wanted to play a fighter I would be happy to take this to 20.

This is, however, ignoring the extremely lackluster 12-20 (or you could argue 17; the Action Surge 2/day is actually useful and some subclass features such as Samurai are worthwhile).

Fighter is much on the same boat as a Barbarian: it's nice if you stick through but the amount of levels you lose is so large that e.g. Fighter 11/Cleric 9 is often just better (you get Holy Weapon as your capstone this way instead, which is quite competitive against Extra Attack when you already have 3-4 attacks per round, while also getting full casting). And even if you wanna go martial, e.g. Fighter 11/Gloomstalker 3/Barbarian 3/Rogue 3 is probably going to be a way better martial than Fighter 20 for most purposes.


For Monk, if you go to 14 definitely go to 18 for Empty Body: if you are already that deep into Monk it is worth it to stick out for the near-9th level spell level abilities Monk 18 gets. Monk 20 is comparatively meaningless but Monk 18 is a serious power boost; while Astral Projection isn't the best 9th level spell, it's still really powerful, and resistance to all damage suddenly makes you a pretty competent tank too.

Sorcerer Capstone is decent but IMHO not enough compared to e.g. dipping 3 levels of Warlock for a way better short rest recovery system, Eldritch Blast, an invocation, etc. or Pally for Smites for days to go with your Twin Booming Blade or even Bard for some extra spells and cool stuff. Sorc 18-20 is probably the level range with the most competition in the game and it just plain loses out due to how Flexible Casting works.


As for Warlock, 6 levels is okay but most of the time 2-3 levels is all you want (so you can still get 9th level spells in a real class). The spell slot progression is so terrible that high level Warlocks just get left in dust since they have no lower level slots and thus have to burn a 5th level slot every time they wanna cast something. And unfortunately Warlock invocations lack a proper scaling so level 3 is about as good as level 17 (better, even, since you get the best one first) and you don't get more spell slots until way too late. Also, high level spells known are never a thing; you only get 1 of each ever giving you no downtime power whatsoever.

[Lyracian]

This is, however, ignoring the extremely lackluster 12-20 (or you could argue 17; the Action Surge 2/day is actually useful and some subclass features such as Samurai are worthwhile).

Fighter is much on the same boat as a Barbarian: it's nice if you stick through but the amount of levels you lose is so large that e.g. Fighter 11/Cleric 9 is often just better (you get Holy Weapon as your capstone this way instead, which is quite competitive against Extra Attack when you already have 3-4 attacks per round, while also getting full casting). And even if you wanna go martial, e.g. Fighter 11/Gloomstalker 3/Barbarian 3/Rogue 3 is probably going to be a way better martial than Fighter 20 for most purposes.

I think that is highlighting the difference in our character build process. My first thought with your suggestion is if I want Cleric lets 'do it proper' and have Fighter 3/ Cleric 17 for ninth level spells. We have level 1 Fighter for Con saves and Heavy Armour (if needed) than get fifth level spells as Cleric and a second level for Action surge. With the Fighter subclass being our capstone.

With the games that I play in and run the majority of characters are single classed and even those that do multi class it has never been for more than a single extra class. That might change if we started to get more Tier 4 games. Something like a Fighter 11/Gloomstalker 3/Barbarian 3/Rogue 3 is, for me, an amusing thought exercise. Just the same as creating a character who is proficient in every skill. They are fun to read about but not something I am ever going to play.

[Eldariel]

I think that is highlighting the difference in our character build process. My first thought with your suggestion is if I want Cleric lets 'do it proper' and have Fighter 3/ Cleric 17 for ninth level spells. We have level 1 Fighter for Con saves and Heavy Armour (if needed) than get fifth level spells as Cleric and a second level for Action surge. With the Fighter subclass being our capstone.

With the games that I play in and run the majority of characters are single classed and even those that do multi class it has never been for more than a single extra class. That might change if we started to get more Tier 4 games. Something like a Fighter 11/Gloomstalker 3/Barbarian 3/Rogue 3 is, for me, an amusing thought exercise. Just the same as creating a character who is proficient in every skill. They are fun to read about but not something I am ever going to play.

Yeah, I never really play classes that cater to multiclassing. However, multiclassing is still the best (and indeed the only) tool for determining power each level should grant you: if taking 1-3 abilities from another class is clearly stronger than staying further 3 levels mainclassed, the class obviously is underpowered.

[Dienekes]

I think that is highlighting the difference in our character build process. My first thought with your suggestion is if I want Cleric lets 'do it proper' and have Fighter 3/ Cleric 17 for ninth level spells. We have level 1 Fighter for Con saves and Heavy Armour (if needed) than get fifth level spells as Cleric and a second level for Action surge. With the Fighter subclass being our capstone.

With the games that I play in and run the majority of characters are single classed and even those that do multi class it has never been for more than a single extra class. That might change if we started to get more Tier 4 games. Something like a Fighter 11/Gloomstalker 3/Barbarian 3/Rogue 3 is, for me, an amusing thought exercise. Just the same as creating a character who is proficient in every skill. They are fun to read about but not something I am ever going to play.

I think that is a fine way to play. But when asking what is worth getting to, many think of it as a question of “what is the most efficient means of fulfilling my purpose in the party” and sadly straight 20 is rarely the answer.

Now there are a subset of people, including myself who really wish the final 10ish level of every base class where designed in such a way that the answer to “what is the most effective build” in theory could be straight 20 in a class. Maybe not always and for every goal your character is trying to do. But it should always be in the running. And currently many just aren’t.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Well, I agree, the question is what classes are good up to level 20.

Fighter is good out to level 20, and uh... well, I'm kind of lost there. I can't think of anything else I wouldn't take at least a short dip in. Most capstones, except for extra attack x3, come online around level 17 or 18 with a kind of unimpressive level 20 ability.

[Yakk]

The Fighter 11/ builds are fighters who stop advancing as a fighter.

If you have 13 wis, going cleric starts offering better return on level. Or you can start doing 3 level dips for features like bear rage, expertise, ambush, etc.

Each K level of another class offers better than the 11-11+K levels of fighter. What more, the combined 9 levels of features beats out the 9 future levels of fighter (more dissapointing indomidable, another action surge, subclas features, and an extra attack).

Mathematically, this is a convexity problem. Classes in 5e are not convex up sufficiently.

[LordCdrMilitant]

The Fighter 11/ builds are fighters who stop advancing as a fighter.

If you have 13 wis, going cleric starts offering better return on level. Or you can start doing 3 level dips for features like bear rage, expertise, ambush, etc.

Each K level of another class offers better than the 11-11+K levels of fighter. What more, the combined 9 levels of features beats out the 9 future levels of fighter (more dissapointing indomidable, another action surge, subclas features, and an extra attack).

Mathematically, this is a convexity problem. Classes in 5e are not convex up sufficiently.

I'm not certain I think convex optimization is applicable to D&D multi-classing. ;)


Also, yeah, if you're going to fighter/not fighter you probably want Fighter 11/Something 9, but Fighter 20 is legitimately good. 4 attacks is good, doing double twice is good, and 2 more feats than whatever you're multiclassing into for 9 levels is good.

[cutlery]

If Extra Attacks stacked, you'd actually be better off as a Gloomstalker 5/Paladin 6/Bladesinger 9 than as a Fighter 20. You'd have 4 attacks sooner (level 16 vs. 20), saving throw bonuses, archery style, and tons of spells.

There would be no reason at all to play a Fighter.

Yep, which is why they'd need something big to compensate. I don't really know what that might be, though.

Even with the (mostly) only way to get those attacks being leveling 11+ in fighter, it still isn't much of a draw. Better than it was in 3/3.5, but not great.

[Eldariel]

Yep, which is why they'd need something big to compensate. I don't really know what that might be, though.

Even with the (mostly) only way to get those attacks being leveling 11+ in fighter, it still isn't much of a draw. Better than it was in 3/3.5, but not great.

Magic Jar, Shapechange and True Polymorph all do it better. I definitely think Fighter should just get more and better maneuvers alongside some powerful offensive buffs as it levels to not be entirely redundant.

[Ashrym]

Giving up the 19th level ASI means being cautious in some cases.

The real issue isn't the poor capstones. It's the level delays in higher level abilities along the that are good in some cases. The end result isn't the only thing that matters unless the levels leading up to it are skipped.

For example, a bard can either take 2 warlock levels for the invocations list early and delay everything else or do it late and have the splash irrelevant almost the entire history of the character.

The bard capstone is clearly easy to give up a level but I get the impression reading this thread that some posters looking at the final result instead of the gameplay getting there. ;-)

Artificers, barbarians, clerics, druids, fighters, and paladins do have good capstones. Sorcerers have an abusable capstone with font of magic replicable with a warlock splash but no level delays and the spell slots are worth it.

Warlock capstone is good in that allows for a spell slot nova that can be recovered. Most battles don't last long enough to use it during a fight but I like the possibility.

I personally don't think a class isn't worth playing to 20th level over some low level abilities. The overall difference isn't meaningful enough. If a person wants to look at this mechanical advantages, then I think artificers, barbarians, druids, and fighters have the best capstones.

[MaxWilson]

For example, a bard can either take 2 warlock levels for the invocations list early and delay everything else or do it late and have the splash irrelevant almost the entire history of the character.

The bard capstone is clearly easy to give up a level but I get the impression reading this thread that some posters looking at the final result instead of the gameplay getting there. ;-)

I say take Hexblade 1 immediately for Wis save, armor, shield, and weapon proficiencies plus Expeditious Retreat and Shield access. Then (Lore or Swords) Bard 1-9, then take Warlock 2 at level 11, just when Warlock cantrips start feeling powerful compared to weapon attacks.

[Ashrym]

I say take Hexblade 1 immediately for Wis save, armor, shield, and weapon proficiencies plus Expeditious Retreat and Shield access. Then (Lore or Swords) Bard 1-9, then take Warlock 2 at level 11, just when Warlock cantrips start feeling powerful compared to weapon attacks.

And that delays higher level abilities like spell levels. It costs an ASI and higher level spell slots.

I'd rather not wait 2 more levels for force cage and 4 of the magical secrets. Casting wish at 18th level is better than waiting until 20th level. And that's on a splash with synergy against one of the worst capstones in the game.


I can just pick up moderately armored on a lore bard who has one more ASI with which to work, and then focus on spell casting.

[Razgriez]

Rogue is definitely something I'm debating on, given I just hit Rogue 15 in the current campaign I'm in.

The Level 20 ability isn't bad (Auto Hit or Make your Ability check count as 20+Modifiers is nice), but... it presents an odd situation depending on how your Rogue has developed, stats, feats vs full ASI spending etc etc.

It definitely gets influenced in my opinion quite a bit by your Rogue Subclass.
-Arcane Trickster? Probably an easy skip (you're supplementing your Rogue abilities with Magic Utility anyways).

- Assassin? If you haven't jumped ship by now, chances are, you're either going Assassin Rogue 19/Fighter 1, or Rogue 20 all the way.

- Thief is a maybe, if only because you might be in charge of carrying various items for the party and need that all important dice roll for some plot critical Macguffin use that you really can't be bothered to mess up.

-Swashbucker: See Assassin

-Mastermind is probably quite the odd one. Given the Mastermind might be the one to talk themselves into trouble as much as out of it, the ability to use Stroke of Luck can lead to some crazy awesome campaign ending where your Xanatos Speed Chess plan all comes together. But again, this is heavily campaign dependent.

-Scout: It competes with Fighter for Fighting Style, and maybe an odd Warlock or Paladin dip, but Rogue 20 Stroke of Luck is definitely competitive with them.

-Inquisitive: Ability Check heavy, a Subclass Keystone that heavily relies on your Insight checks. The only issue I have with Inquisitive, is that it has its completely redundant ability on Insight Checks that becomes useless once you have Reliable Talent (unless you're really weird, and don't bother picking up Insight Proficiency and Expertise for some very strange reason) which would appeal for Multiclassing away before Rogue 11... if it wasn't Unerring Eye giving At-Will True Sight at 13 and Eye for Weakness given that nice 3d6 Damage buff at 17! So yea, Stroke of Luck is a near no-brainer if you're taking Inquisitive Rogue anywhere into the high levels.

The access to Re-Rolls (I.E. The Luck Feat), Expertise, and Rogue's already impressive Skill Proficiency count Play a factor as well, and sorta de-value Stroke of Luck. Plus, for some players, it may ultimately make the class a somewhat "boring" class that can't fail anything

[Nagog]

But lvl 20 Barbarians get +4 Str and Con and unlimited rages, which sounds pretty good to me; maybe its the levels preceding #20 are what makes it not worthwhile


Any Charisma-based class is a hard sell to take all the way up to 20. Warlock is too good of a dip, and the Warlock itself benefits greatly from dips in any of the other Charisma classes.

I'm not sure I'd want to take Ranger 1 or Monk 1, much less Ranger 20 or Monk 20.

Barbarian, though, that one surprises me. Rage precludes casting spells, so one of the biggest reasons for dipping on a martial generally doesn't apply to them (also they have an actual capstone). I think the main multi's probably Fighter?

Barbarian isn't worth it to me for the sole reason that the class has nothing to offer outside of combat. A few subclasses have a few abilities to sprinkle in, but overall, if you're out of initiative, you're not really involved with what's going on.

[Mr Adventurer]

Barbarian isn't worth it to me for the sole reason that the class has nothing to offer outside of combat. A few subclasses have a few abilities to sprinkle in, but overall, if you're out of initiative, you're not really involved with what's going on.

I'm planning on circumventing this with Ritual Caster, qualifying with Wisdom (but you don't have to choose a Wisdom spellcasting class list so you could still get Wizard).

[Waazraath]

The real issue isn't the poor capstones. It's the level delays in higher level abilities along the that are good in some cases. The end result isn't the only thing that matters unless the levels leading up to it are skipped.

For example, a bard can either take 2 warlock levels for the invocations list early and delay everything else or do it late and have the splash irrelevant almost the entire history of the character.

The bard capstone is clearly easy to give up a level but I get the impression reading this thread that some posters looking at the final result instead of the gameplay getting there. ;-)

I think this is a very solid point. There are certainly builds that i would consider when starting at high levels, but wouldn't when I had to start from lvl 1 onwards. This is also one of the reasons I think single class paladin is so strong (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24689659&postcount=77 )

[Lyracian]

The real issue isn't the poor capstones. It's the level delays in higher level abilities along the that are good in some cases. The end result isn't the only thing that matters unless the levels leading up to it are skipped. The bard capstone is clearly easy to give up a level but I get the impression reading this thread that some posters looking at the final result instead of the gameplay getting there. ;-)
Having played a few characters with that one level dip I know that pain every other level of not having the same power of spells as the other casters. In a game where you have characters of mixed levels I find this is a lot easier. While you might have a few extra HP and spell slots you play just as if you were one of the lower level party members. Part of it is having spells to be able to make good use of those extra slots.


I can just pick up moderately armored on a lore bard who has one more ASI with which to work, and then focus on spell casting.
I am more than happy to start my Vuman Lore Bard with this as his free feat.


Rogue is definitely something I'm debating on, given I just hit Rogue 15 in the current campaign I'm in.

The Level 20 ability isn't bad (Auto Hit or Make your Ability check count as 20+Modifiers is nice), but... it presents an odd situation depending on how your Rogue has developed, stats, feats vs full ASI spending etc etc.

It definitely gets influenced in my opinion quite a bit by your Rogue Subclass.
-Arcane Trickster? Probably an easy skip (you're supplementing your Rogue abilities with Magic Utility anyways).

Funny Arcane Trickster is the only Rogue I would be tempted to take the last level just because it gives more spells. For me it is a thematic but weak ability. Arcane Trickster with Counterspell though can use it to auto counter even ninth level spells.


I think this is a very solid point. There are certainly builds that i would consider when starting at high levels, but wouldn't when I had to start from lvl 1 onwards. This is also one of the reasons I think single class paladin is so strong (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24689659&postcount=77 )
I would agree. It is a class I would not feel as if I had missed out on something by not dipping.