PDA

View Full Version : [Essay] A General Analysis of Spellcasting, by Class



Dark.Revenant
2020-09-04, 03:14 AM
A General Analysis of Spellcasting, by Class

Preface
I'm going to start off by talking about each class individually as they pertain to three categories: Spellcasting Versatility, Spellcasting Endurance, and Spellcasting Quality. Then, in the end, I'll summarize the scores and explain the meta-design niche that each class holds. Note that extreme spell-multiplying spells like Simulacrum are explored separately and aren't factored into the base scores.

Spellcasting Versatility is a mostly-objective measurement based on a simple pair of questions: How many spells do you know/prepare, and how large is your spell list? The result is averaged over 20 levels. There is a lot of nuance here—domain spells are preselected, so they don't offer a ton of versatility; you can't simply learn N arbitrary spells from your whole list (for example, a 3rd level Sorcerer can only know two 2nd-level spells—the others must be 1st-level); each successive spell known/prepared shrinks the pool for the remaining spells known/prepared; etc.

The ability to prepare spells daily from a larger list is factored in by comparing the number of spells you can prepare to the size of the full list (or spellbook) using a square root scale (rather than a linear scale, which I think would overvalue certain classes like the cleric and druid). The full equation is rather complicated.

By this metric, rituals and domain spells (and other preset spells) are de-emphasized, while large lists and more spells known/prepared are emphasized.

Spellcasting Endurance is a fairly-objective measurement based on, for the most part, total spells over an "average" adventuring day (a 2/3 chance of having any short rests, an average of 2 short rests total, and an average of 6 encounters of various types), indexed by spell point conversion and averaged over 20 levels. For at-will spells, it is generally assumed that the spell will be used once per encounter (six times per day), although more situational spells like many of the warlock's Eldritch Invocations are considered to be used two to four times per day. Cantrips are ignored.

Rituals are a more complicated matter, based on the assumption that the limiting factor for rituals is time and relevance, rather than being an infinite resource. In general, the average worth of the available rituals is scaled by the total number of available rituals at a square root rate, if the class always has their known rituals available (wizard and tomelock). The rate is 1/4-exponential (square root is 1/2-exponential) if the class casts rituals from their list of prepared spells, and the rate is 1/8-exponential if the class can only cast rituals if took it as a spell known.

By this metric, more and better slots, slot recovery, at-will spells, and high-quality ritual casting are emphasized.

Spellcasting Quality is a fairly-subjective measurement based on the average rating of each of a class's spell slots, averaged over 20 levels. The rating of spell slots is subjective, but uses spell points for the baseline, default score. Features that offer a significant bump in quality (like domain spells and Magical Secrets) are factored in for the particular spell levels they affect. Only the top 18 highest-quality spells are included for the average, on the assumption that a six-encounter adventuring day with three-round encounters will make the minor spell slots available after the 18th less meaningful.

At-will spells are only factored in when they improve the average quality; they can't reduce the score. This means cantrips and rituals are ignored; they'd usually have no effect on the score.


Classes
Rubric
Gold: Off the charts (5.4 and higher]
Sky Blue: Top-tier (4.4 to 5.6)
Blue: Superior (3.4 to 4.6)
Black: Average (2.4 to 3.6)
Purple: Inferior (1.4 to 2.6)
Red: Bottom-tier (1.0 to 1.6)


Artificer
Spellcasting Versatility
There is an inherent truth that a half caster's spell list will fall well short of a full caster's; they gain access to new spell levels more slowly, and are limited to 5th-level spells at the high end. Combine this with fewer spell preparations per day, and you get an uphill battle to keep up with traditional magic-users. The paladin has powerful martial abilities to cover for the lack of variety, but the artificer is intended to rely more on its spellcasting.

Fortunately, the artificer scores miraculously well here. This mostly has to do with the unusually large spell list the artificer is working with—handily beating the ranger and paladin—but being able to prepare spells each long rest really magnifies the day-to-day versatility of the class. It's hard to overstate the significance of unlimited spell preparation; it makes an enormous difference, especially for the artificer, which would be languishing with a Red score without it.

Spellcasting Endurance
The artificer also does well (for a half caster) for endurance, which is important because the artificer relies on spells more than the other half casters. It doesn't really match up with any full caster for longevity, but ritual casting and the Spell-Storing Item feature go a long way towards extending an artificer's usefulness during a long adventuring day. I'm ignoring Replicate Magic Item in this score because most of the items don't grant spells, and many of those that do have a roll of the dice to determine how many charges are regained.

Spellcasting Quality
Half casters in general suffer in terms of spell quality, mainly because they simply can't cast spells at the same level as full casters. Generally speaking, an average 3rd-level spell is better than even a very good 2nd-level spell within the same role, and the same applies to the other spell level gaps as well. That said, the artificer fares better than the other half casters because its spell list is essentially a tailored mix of the wizard's and cleric's lists, and the subclass bonus spells are quite good. The artificer is genuinely capable of pretending to be a full caster, potentially throwing around full-size blasts, potent buffs, and useful battlefield control spells. Just don't expect to hold a candle to a real wizard.


Bard
Spellcasting Versatility
The standard bard lands smack-dab in the middle of the pack when it comes to the overall versatility of its spells. Despite being a "spells-known" caster, the bard has a pretty big spell list (bigger than the Cleric's), which counts for a lot. The main factor here, though, is the standout feature, Magical Secrets. The additional spells known from Magical Secrets—with an immense pool of possible spells—carry the bard's versatility score much higher than it otherwise deserves. Without it, the bard would be merely purple: specialized, but not particularly flexible. When choosing those six bonus spells, players must be particularly careful to make them count; a bard simply isn't as flexible or effective otherwise.

Spellcasting Versatility (Lore)
The lore bard straddles the line between black and blue solely because of the Additional Magical Secrets feature. The impact is so high because it comes online earlier than the standard Magical Secrets feature. This is huge. Normally, a bard's spellcasting versatility lags behind the sorcerer's before suddenly shooting ahead at 10th level, but the lore bard does it at 6th level instead. For many campaigns, this makes the difference between having bonus spells during the meat and potatoes of the adventure and not having them until the very end.

Spellcasting Endurance
A bog standard full caster earns a black rating for endurance. What makes the bard better than that? Ritual casting. Even when you're locked to just the spells you know, ritual casting offers a way to cast spells without using spell slots; this is a big deal for staying fresh throughout the day. There's a practical limit to this, however, since the bard needs to dedicate a precious spell known to the privilege of having a ritual-capable spell. Still, I think this gives the bard just enough to qualify for a blue rating.

Becomes sky blue if the bard chooses Simulacrum as a Magical Secret at 14th level; doubled spell slots is busted.

Spellcasting Quality
The bard is an interesting case. One one hand, the bard's spell list is just "okay" to begin with. It has everything: buffs, debuffs, battlefield control, damage, healing, mobility, and utility…but the actual quality of the spells in each category is inconsistent. Generally speaking, any other full caster will be able to surpass the bard in whichever niche the bard chooses for itself, but the bard will never be incompetent at anything it gives any effort at trying to do. This "jack of all trades, master of none" approach certainly fits the theme of the bard, but it has a cheat code: Magical Secrets. The simple ability to pick from any list naturally makes the six-to-eight Magical Secrets spells far more potent in the right build, allowing the bard to mix traits and spells in ways no other caster can manage. In short, by 10th level, a bard does indeed get to be the "master" of a few things after all.

Becomes sky blue if the bard chooses Simulacrum as a Magical Secret at 14th level; doubled spellcasting per round is busted.


Cleric
Spellcasting Versatility
It should be no surprise that the cleric scores well for versatility. We could talk about domains, but honestly, domain spells don't make that much of an impact in my versatility scoring metric. What makes an impact is simply that the cleric has a big 'ol spell list that the player can pick and choose from every day. While something like a bard can be flexible if built just right, the cleric just is flexible without even trying. Cleric in general is just a super forgiving class, and the ability to just whip out an adventure-solving spell with a morning's prayers is just too good to be overlooked. There isn't a single "spells known" class whose spells can solve as many problems as the cleric's spells.

Spellcasting Versatility
The added versatility of wizard spells added to the tail end of this subclass are useful, but they're not enough to change the rating.

Becomes sky blue if the cleric chooses Simulacrum as a bonus spell at 17th level; doubled spell preparation is busted.

Spellcasting Endurance
The cleric is a full caster with the ability to cast any prepared spell as a ritual. This more-or-less translates to a blue endurance rating because it's relatively easy to pick up a set of rituals tailored to the challenges you're expecting to encounter. Rituals are essentially free spells, so this makes a big difference.

Becomes sky blue if the cleric has the Arcana subclass and chooses Simulacrum as a bonus spell at 17th level; doubled spell slots is busted.

Spellcasting Quality
The cleric's spell list is a roller-coaster. It starts strong with the 1st-and-2nd-level spells, hits a peak with 3rd-level spells, and has a strong list of 5th-level spells. Everything after that, though, is a bit disappointing compared to the great stuff that comes before. Still, the cleric retains a potent combination of healing, damage, and utility (with secondary focus on buffing and debuffing) throughout its career. A wide selection of domains allows further customization of the cleric's spell list, potentially including top-tier spells like Faerie Fire, Suggestion, Fireball, Polymorph, Animate Objects, and many others.

Spellcasting Quality (Arcana)
The arcana subclass gains access to wizard spells at tier 4, which allow for some truly busted spells like Contingency, Simulacrum, and Wish. The additional power is enough for this subclass to bump up in rating.

Becomes sky blue if the arcana cleric chooses Simulacrum as a bonus spell at 17th level; doubled spellcasting per round is busted.


Druid
Spellcasting Versatility
The druid is spoiled for choice. Only a wizard can possibly entertain the kind of daily memorization strife a druid faces, and even then the wizard must expend a mountain of resources under a very generous DM to get to that point. A well-prepared druid can trivialize encounters and bypass exploration challenges, heal and destroy, tank and skirmish, and completely rebuild itself for the next day of adventuring. The wizard's spell list might be larger, but the wizard's spellbook often holds a tiny fraction of that list. The druid's entire repertoire is on tap every morning.

Spellcasting Endurance
Like the cleric, the druid is a full caster with the ability to cast any prepared spell as a ritual. The druid's list of rituals is marginally weaker than the cleric's, but not by enough to impact the rating.

Spellcasting Quality
The druid's spell list is a double-edged sword: filled with extraordinary control, summoning, debuffing, and lockdown spells…that all require concentration. The druid essentially gets to choose one really good spell to focus on, to the detriment of casting nearly anything else. This is why Moonbeam and Call Lightning makes sense for a druid: you're not exactly going to be doing much else with you action except casting cantrips. At least moon druids get to cheat the system by having something else to do while they're concentrating on whatever spell they chose for the battle.

Spellcasting Quality (Land)
None of the land spells are precisely "game-changers", but they can be potent enough to make a real difference. Standouts include Lightning Bolt and Cone of Cold for fire-and-forget blasts; Blindness/Deafness, Slow, and Stinking Cloud for potent debuffs; Silence and Web for control; and (Greater) Invisibility, Mirror Image, Misty Step, and Haste for expanded movement options and potent buffs. Combine with the additional higher-level slots allowable with Natural Recovery, and it's enough to make a well-built land druid quite a bit more effective during day-to-day adventuring over their vanilla-flavored counterparts.


Fighter (Eldritch Knight)
Spellcasting Versatility
The eldritch knight slightly edges out a red score, largely because of the four free-choice wizard spells known. The wizard abjuration and evocation lists are fairly extensive, and the handful of free-choice spells really make an impact. But…it's still a "spells known" subclass with a small spell list (compared to full casters and half casters). You can't really solve problems with magic the same way even a warlock can. At least you're still a fighter.

Spellcasting Endurance
One-third-casting with no rituals makes a red endurance rating. It should be fairly obvious why: the eldritch knight can't even hope to keep up with a higher-order caster. Spell slots must be strictly rationed in order to keep strong throughout an adventuring day.

Spellcasting Quality
The eldritch knight's best tricks are Haste and Fireball when the wizard is playing with Wishes. That would be bad enough by itself, but for some insane reason, the eldritch knight is mostly limited to abjuration and evocation spells. While a fighter can certainly enjoy AOE blasts, they come so late that they're practically past the point of relevancy by the time any of the eldritch knight's precious spell resources can be diverted thusly. Meanwhile, any full caster of the same level can toss out blasts on the level of Fireball like candy.

This subclass would have been much better served by having access to transmutation spells rather than evocation spells. The eldritch knight's saving grace is the fact that Shield and Absorb Elements are first-level abjuration spells; for an optimized EK, these two spells are mandatory.


Monk (Way of the Four Elements)
Spellcasting Versatility
Oh dear. We've hit rock bottom. As far as spell versatility is concerned, you're better off picking a different subclass and taking the Magic Initiate feat. The four elements monk is extremely strapped for choice; at 20th level, you've got a smaller "spell list" than a 3rd-level eldritch knight's. It's truly astonishing.

Spellcasting Endurance
Four elements monks, if they give up their ability to use Ki on just about anything else, are actually capable of spamming spells fairly efficiently. It's generally unwise to try this, but an all-in monk caster will hold out better than a paladin or a ranger throughout an adventuring day. If you try to use Ki on your actual class features, however, you can expect a full red spellcasting endurance rating for your trouble.

Spellcasting Quality
The four elements monk's score is only this "high" because it is capable of spamming fairly decent spells, especially once it reaches tier 3. Sometimes, quantity is a quality all its own. In fact, tier 3+ performance is pretty much the saving grace of the four elements monk; being able to dump extra Ki into effective blasts like Fireball or control effects like Wall of Stone does make a difference in a battle.

If you don't end up with 0 Ki when you finish a short rest, that means you could have spent more Ki in the battles that came earlier…and the four elements monk is straight up the best subclass for getting rid of a lot of Ki in a short amount of time. That said, if your priority for Ki expenditure is your class features (like Stunning Strike), this score is closer to red.


Paladin
Spellcasting Versatility
Paladins can freely prepare spells every day. That's basically the only thing keeping them ahead of warlocks. Aside from the ability to refresh spells with some prayers in the morning, there isn't a lot to say about the paladin's spell list—it's the smallest list that still earns its own name in the index. A paladin can occasionally think outside the box with magic, but let's be honest; you're probably smiting most of the time.

Spellcasting Endurance
Half-casting with no rituals makes for a surprisingly low endurance rating. For a paladin, it's inadvisable to rely only on spellcasting to solve problems; you simply don't have enough spells throughout the day to spare.

Spellcasting Quality
The paladin's spells are…okay. There's good stuff to be found in the paladin spell list, the standouts being Bless, Command, Wrathful Smite, (Greater) Find Steed, Aura of Vitality, Crusader's Mantle, Death Ward, Banishing Smite, Circle of Power, Destructive Wave, and Holy Weapon. The majority of those come fairly late, however, and they're nearly all buffs; the typical paladin simply can't operate on the same level as proper casters in most scenarios.

The real "bite" of a paladin's spell list typically comes from the oath spells, which can be pretty dang good; some of the best ones are Armor of Agathys, Bane, Hold Person/Monster, Misty Step, Spiritual Weapon, Counterspell, Fear, Haste, Hypnotic Pattern, Spirit Guardians, Freedom of Movement, and Wall of Force. That said, there is real competition between smites and spellcasting, so in most cases even the best paladin spells wind up being situational.


Ranger
Spellcasting Versatility
I'm sorry to say it, but as far as spell versatility goes, the ranger is straight-up bad. The key here is that the ranger is a "spells known" class, but is starved for spells known—fewer than a one-third caster!!!—and has the small spell list typical of a half caster. When choosing spells for a ranger, you need to make hard choices and sacrifices just to build an effective character; there is precious little room for incidental problem-solving. It's a shame, really.

Spellcasting Endurance
As with the paladin, the ranger can't rely only on spellcasting to solve problems. This stings especially hard for the ranger, as coming up with solutions to out-of-combat challenges is part of the appeal of being a ranger.

Spellcasting Quality
The ranger's spell list is more diverse than the paladin's, but that's not much help when the ranger can't prepare new spells each morning. As a result, most rangers tend to take the same few standouts, like Goodberry, Hunter's Mark, Zephyr Strike, Pass Without Trace, Spike Growth, Conjure Animals, Lightning Arrow, Freedom of Movement, Guardian of Nature, Conjure Volley, Steel Wind Strike, and Swift Quiver. Certain subclasses gain extra tricks (Disguise Self, Misty Step, Fear, Haste, Banishment, Greater Invisibility, and Hold Monster are quite useful), as well.

With a reasonably effective mixture of direct damage, AOE damage, buffs, utility, and control spells, the ranger does a bit better than a paladin as a spellcaster, but unlike an artificer, an individual ranger cannot take all of those roles at the same time.


Rogue (Arcane Trickster)
Spellcasting Versatility
The arcane trickster falls just behind of the eldritch knight (it has a slightly smaller spell list), but otherwise everything I said about the eldritch knight applies here. The arcane trickster's spells are particularly well-suited to expanding a rogue's options; don't think that a low versatility score means that the subclass is bad. It just means that the arcane trickster is unlikely to be relying on its spells alone to deal with unexpected problems.

Spellcasting Endurance
Other than the eldritch knight, the arcane trickster fails to outlast any other caster. Both one-third casters are in the same boat, here. You really feel the "one-third" part of being a one-third caster when playing either of these subclasses.

Spellcasting Quality
The arcane trickster suffers from the fundamental flaw of being a one-third caster, but unlike the eldritch knight, this subclass actually boasts significant synergy with the allowed spell schools. Enchantment and especially Illusion spells are actually quite useful for most rogues, and standouts like Disguise Self, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Shadow Blade will remain reliable bread-and-butter tools for an arcane trickster throughout an entire campaign.


Sorcerer
Spellcasting Versatility
At first glance, this rating might make the sorcerer look like it's a reasonably versatile spellcaster. And, well, you'd be right. It's not quite on the level of a bard (and can't really touch a cleric), but it's certainly better off than the warlock. The problem is that spellcasting is all the sorcerer has. The theory is that Metamagic is supposed to effectively multiply the size of the sorcerer's arsenal, but in practice I just don't see that happening. Metamagic versions of spells are still essentially the same as the original spell, just with a specific improvement in some manner that you can apply a few times per day. I can't rightfully count that as improved "spell versatility", given the limited number of Metamagic options that can be picked from and the crucial resource they expend.

All told, the sorcerer is pretty good in whatever wheelhouse the player built it for, but you're really forced to agonize over spell choices; problem-solving as a sorcerer mostly comes down to having a really good hammer and trying to make all your problems look like nails.

Spellcasting Versatility (Divine Soul)
The divine soul has a huge spell list. It's far larger than the druid's, instead rivaling the wizard's full spell list. This alone makes the divine soul far more versatile than the sorcerer, even beating out the bard (but not the lore bard), simply because of the sheer scale of choices available for character builds. Esoteric combinations of control, damage, healing, buffing, debuffing, and subterfuge are possible, but the divine soul still suffers from having relatively few spells known. Ultimately, only a couple of those roles can be seriously pursued with a given character.

Spellcasting Endurance
If you're spending Sorcery Points on Metamagic (like a sane person), the sorcerer's endurance is nothing to write home about. You have the bog standard set of spell slots for a full caster and basically nothing beyond that. Granted, quite a few classes wish they had even that much to play around with. On the other hand, if you think Metamagic is lame and you dump all of your Sorcery Points into creating extra spell slots, the sorcerer manages a blue rating here.

Becomes blue (sky blue if converting Sorcery Points to spell slots) if the sorcerer takes the Wish spell to be able to cast the Simulacrum spell at 17th level; doubled spell slots is busted.

Spellcasting Quality
The sorcerer's spell list comes second place to the wizard's. Second place would normally be pretty darn good, but the sorcerer is strapped for spells known, making it quite difficult to benefit from situational spells and utility spells. As a whole, the sorcerer's pool of "actually useful" spells is quite a bit smaller than one might hope, and to make matters worse, many of the really good spells on the wizard list (like Contingency and Simulacrum) were left out of the sorcerer list. Metamagic isn't quite the magic bullet a sorcerer player is probably hoping for, either. Sure, it helps, but it doesn't really make up for the severely limited number of choices. Heck, many of the spells that would greatly benefit from Metamagic are suspiciously missing from the sorcerer list…

Special mention must be made for the strategy of spamming spells by converting Sorcery Points to spell slots. It's a lossy conversion and you'll lose access to Metamagic, which doesn't help the rating. On the other hand, using the Sorcery Points mechanic to consolidate lower level spell slots into higher level ones (while potentially leaving some left for Metamagic), the nova sorcerer's unique ability to just go ham with consecutive enhanced high level spells in one glorious display of power is enough to earn a sky blue-gold rating. Just make sure you'll get to take a long rest afterwards.

Becomes blue-sky blue (gold if going full nova) if the sorcerer takes the Wish spell to be able to cast the Simulacrum spell at 17th level; doubled spellcasting per round is busted.

Spellcasting Quality (Divine Soul)
The divine soul's wider spell list includes several spells that greatly increase efficiency, and many of them work better with Metamagic than the standard sorcerer's spells, bumping the rating up. It should be mentioned that a spam-strategy divine soul drops to blue and a nova-strategy divine soul earns sky blue-gold.

Becomes sky blue (gold if going full nova) if the divine soul takes the Wish spell to be able to cast the Simulacrum spell at 17th level; doubled spellcasting per round is busted.


Warlock
Spellcasting Versatility
The warlock has a shockingly small spell list for a caster with access to 9th-level magic. The subclasses' expanded spell lists help, but it doesn't really make up the difference. The mechanics behind Mystic Arcanum don't help matters, since you have no freedom with regards to the level of spell you can pick or cast, so warlocks actually fall even further behind on spell versatility at tier 3 and beyond.

The only other way to add spells to a standard warlock's repertoire is a small handful of Eldritch Invocations that grant access to specific spells…helpful, but not quite enough to justify a higher rating. All told, warlocks are meant to make creative use of a limited set of tools, which they're good at doing because they can recover slots quickly and can acquire at-will versions of certain spells.

Spellcasting Endurance
While the warlock definitely has low points and high points throughout an adventuring career, on the whole they earn an average endurance rating. That's even if they ignore all the endurance-boosting Eldritch Invocations. The crux of the matter is the short rest spell recovery method. Yes, if you're doing ten minute adventuring days, the warlock won't find much endurance in combat, but I'd argue even in that case that the warlock can still spam their spells out of combat with impunity. On the whole, a proactive warlock player will get about three uses of each spell slot per long rest, on average, on adventuring days where endurance matters. This puts the warlock (with its base abilities) on par with the sorcerer's endurance.

Spellcasting Endurance (Book of Ancient Secrets)
For this rating, I'm assuming you get a steady source of new rituals every so often (using the pace described in the wizard's "scroll loot" section). I'll say it again: ritual casting is really good. Having a buffet of free 10-minute spells to use throughout the day will solve a lot of problems when adventuring.

A warlock with a stingy DM who doesn't offer rituals (or a tiny trickle) still earns a black-blue endurance rating, since those two rituals are likely to be strategically chosen to be the most advantageous to the warlock. If you somehow manage to get every ritual in the game, the rating changes to sky blue (yes, really).

Spellcasting Endurance (all at-will Eldritch Invocations)
There are quite a few at-will spells in the Warlock list. If you took all of them, even ignoring Book of Ancient Secrets, you'd wind up with top-class spellcasting endurance as a direct result. In practical scenarios, you won't actually take all of them, but even just a few would be enough for gold if combined with the hefty benefit of Book of Ancient Secrets ritual casting.

Spellcasting Quality
Where the warlock lacks (spellcasting) versatility and potentially lacks endurance, it certainly makes up for with pure quality. Up to 5th-level spells, every warlock spell is automatically cranked as high as it can go. The ability to be almost carefree with high-level spells would normally be an overwhelming advantage, but the warlock is held back from perfection by being forced to use a fairly limited spell list.

Some creativity is required to make the best use of two-to-four spell slots per short rest, and (nearly) anything that could potentially abuse the system is excluded. Standouts that scale with level include Armor of Agathys, Hellish Rebuke, Hex, Hold Person/Monster, Invisibility, Fly, Banishment, and Synaptic Static. Subclasses offer more variety, potentially changing the class's spellcasting dynamic entirely, but the expanded options still cost valuable spells known.


Wizard
Spellcasting Versatility (bare minimum)
The wizard has the largest spell list in the game and the ability to prepare spells every day, but there is a catch: the spellbook. A baseline wizard is essentially a hybrid "spells known" class that learns a relatively generous 44 spells, but can only prepare 25 of them at any given time (other than rituals, which are always available but don't really contribute enough to change the rating). Because of this, even a paladin has more spells to choose from on a day-to-day basis, significantly lessening the impact of the wizard's ability to memorize new spells every morning. All is not lost, however; even with an uncooperative DM, the wizard is second only to the druid in terms of day-to-day versatility. There are so many excellent spells to choose from that the restriction almost doesn't matter.

Spellcasting Versatility (scroll loot)
A wizard whose party randomly rolls for loot following the DMG guidelines, assuming that the wizard's player is able to ask the DM for a specific spell to be on the scroll (of a level between 1 and the highest the wizard can cast), scores a bit higher. All told, it's about 15 new spells added to the spellbook over the course of a 20-level adventure. Honestly, this is basically the least I would expect from a DM; wizard players generally want to find, purchase, and research new spells; random loot tables are just about the stingiest way of doing it. Even this relatively paltry amount is enough to push the wizard's versatility into sky blue territory, setting the scale.

Becomes sky blue-gold if the wizard takes the Simulacrum spell at 13th level; doubled spell preparation is busted.

Spellcasting Versatility (reasonable DM)
A DM (your mileage may vary) who offers more-or-less unrestricted access to new spells (such as looting other mages' spellbooks, going to an arcane library, etc.) pushes the wizard into crazy town. With all the benefits of a gigantic spell list and, ultimately, none of the spellbook's downsides, a truly well-equipped wizard is absolutely unbeatable when it comes to spellcasting versatility. Just about any problem that can be solved with magic will be solved by magic if the wizard has anything to say about it.

Spellcasting Endurance
Between Arcane Recovery and the eventual-but-potent Spell Mastery and Signature Spell features, the wizard is well-equipped to cast throughout the day. But then come the rituals. The wizard has the best ritual casting feature in the game (short of a particularly well-equipped tomelock), freeing the wizard of the need to actually prepare any of those juicy rituals. In practice, this means that a wizard can often get great mileage out of completely resource-free casting; the wide repertoire of rituals and instant access to the correct ones for any given situation will keep you going long after your slots run dry. For this reason, the wizard sets the bar for a sky blue rating.

Becomes gold+ if the wizard takes the Simulacrum spell at 13th level; doubled spell slots is busted.

Spellcasting Quality
The wizard has the best spell list in the game, and certainly isn't screwing around when it comes to putting those spells to use. A well-built, well-played wizard is a terrifying force to reckon with, thanks in no small part to top-tier spells like Find Familiar, Grease, Shield, Thunderwave, Flaming Sphere, (Greater) Invisibility, Levitate, Misty Step, Suggestion, Counterspell, Fear, Fireball, Fly, Haste, Hypnotic Pattern, Phantom Steed, Slow, Banishment, Dimension Door, Fire Shield, Polymorph, Animate Objects, Bigby's Hand, Wall of Force, Contingency, Globe of Invulnerability, Mass Suggestion, Forcecage, Plane Shift, Reverse Gravity, Simulacrum, Maze, Meteor Swarm, True Polymorph, and Wish.

Moreso than any other class in the game, there are vanishingly few things a wizard can't do with magic. There is a reason the wizard has the reputation of being the "ultimate spellcaster." In terms of traditional spellcasting, the wizard is simply unmatched; you need shenanigans like spamming high level spells or poaching the Simulacrum spell to skew the rating system enough to reach the wizard's level. The wizard easily sets the bar for a sky blue rating in this category.

Becomes gold if the wizard takes the Simulacrum spell at 13th level; doubled spellcasting per round is busted.

Dark.Revenant
2020-09-04, 03:14 AM
Summary
I've averaged together each of the scores for the three categories to form a final rating for each spellcasting class or subclass. Right away, we can see that half casting and one-third casting actually does hold up to the "half" and "one-third" names. The average rating for base-capability full casters is 3.8, the average rating for half casters is 2.0, and the average rating for one-third casters is 1.2.

It's important to note, however, that the ratings are normalized such that the "scroll loot" wizard earns exactly 5.0 and the eldritch knight earns exactly 1.0, and each component that goes into the rating is itself normalized such that the scroll loot wizard and the eldritch knight (or, for versatility, the four elements monk) set the scale. A truly non-normalized score would make the ratings less accurate (so I'm not going to show them), but the same ratio still holds between the types of casters.

Wizard (max spellbook + Simulacrum) — 7.8 — gold++
Wizard (max spellbook) — 6.5 — gold+
Wizard (scroll loot + Simulacrum) — 6.3 — gold
Wizard (Simulacrum) — 6.1 — gold
Wizard (scroll loot) — 5.0 — sky blue
Wizard — 4.8 — sky blue

Cleric (Arcana + Simulacrum) — 4.8 — sky blue
Cleric (Arcana) — 4.1 — blue
Cleric — 4.1 — blue

Druid (Land) — 4.3 — blue
Druid (Spores) — 4.0 — blue
Druid — 4.0 — blue

Bard (Lore + Simulacrum) — 4.7 — sky blue
Bard (Simulacrum) — 4.3 — blue
Bard (Lore) — 3.8 — blue
Bard — 3.4 — black-blue

Warlock (max Tome + all at-will invocations) — 4.7 — sky blue
Warlock (all at-will invocations) — 4.1 — blue
Warlock (max Tome) — 4.0 — blue
Warlock (scroll loot Tome) — 3.8 — blue
Warlock (Tome) — 3.4 — black-blue
Warlock — 3.3 — black

Sorcerer (Divine Soul + nova + Simulacrum) — 4.6 — blue-sky blue
Sorcerer (Divine Soul + spell spam + Simulacrum) — 4.3 — blue
Sorcerer (nova + Simulacrum) — 4.2 — blue
Sorcerer (Divine Soul + Simulacrum) — 4.1 — blue
Sorcerer (Divine Soul + nova) — 4.0 — blue
Sorcerer (spell spam + Simulacrum) — 3.9 — blue
Sorcerer (Divine Soul + spell spam) — 3.7 — blue
Sorcerer (Simulacrum) — 3.7 — blue
Sorcerer (nova) — 3.6 — black-blue
Sorcerer (Divine Soul) — 3.6 — black-blue
Sorcerer (spell spam) — 3.3 — black
Sorcerer — 3.2 — black

Artificer — 2.6 — purple-black

Paladin — 1.8 — purple

Way of the Four Elements — 1.6 — red-purple

Ranger (some subclasses) — 1.6 — red-purple
Ranger — 1.5 — red-purple

Arcane Trickster — 1.1 — red

Eldritch Knight — 1.0 — red


Graphs
https://i.imgur.com/mKicagn.png
https://i.imgur.com/xMZkzPx.png
https://i.imgur.com/s245cjE.png
https://i.imgur.com/Ms6wdDp.png


Conclusions
Full Casters
We can confirm a few pieces of conventional wisdom. The lore bard, tomelock, and divine soul (the three most powerful versions of their respective classes when it comes to spellcasting) all see eye-to-eye. The lore bard is the most versatile and least powerful, the tomelock is the least versatile (when it comes to spells) and the most powerful, and the divine soul is in the middle somewhere; however, all three average out to the same overall utility with spells. They fill different niches, but score the same.

Casters that can prepare their spells have a distinct advantage; the druid and cleric have an edge over the spells-known alternatives, but don't have an overwhelming lead. The wizard, on the other hand, stands alone at the top of the pile. There is likely good reason for this, as the wizard lacks the various special tools that the other full casters get. One could argue that Wild Shape isn't good enough to make up for non-moon druid spellcasting being inferior to the wizard's, and there are certainly many arguments one could make about the sorcerer's disappointing kit (Metamagic is actually factored in with its existing score…) but for the most part, weakness with spellcasting is balanced out by strengths elsewhere.

The bard is the jack-of-all-casters, fittingly coming in with a middle-of-the-road score in basically every category. They have quite a bit of flexibility with Magical Secrets, but a bard is definitely no wizard. Rituals offer a bit of extra longevity over the other spells-known competition, but the classes who can prepare spells do it better. Meanwhile, bard spells are rather decent, especially with well-chosen Magical Secrets, but they still don't hold up against the big boys. The bard, of course, makes up for this with other strengths (like skills, Bardic Inspiration, and so forth). More than any other full caster, the bard thematically feels like it's not quite a full caster, despite the objectively impressive power of the class, as it doesn't truly shine in any category.

The cleric is just solid all-around, boasting strong scores in every category and generally having a tool for every job. The entire cleric kit is really well-rounded; it's genuinely difficult to find a meaningful weakness with the class. Sure, the wizard might be better at casting in general, but the wizard doesn't get in-kit access to heavy armor, reliable physical damage, and healing magic. If anything, the cleric's existence makes the full casters more difficult to design around; it's easy to be overshadowed by something the cleric can do well, and writing something that works better than one of the cleric's many talents is—by necessity—already far down the road towards power creep.

I can describe the druid as both "worse than it looks on paper" and "better than we fear." The druid has nearly wizard-tier spellcasting versatility, thanks to having a huge list and ready access to the entirety of it at all times, without compromising in endurance. It's the quality of druid spellcasting that leaves something to be desired. It's not so much that the druid's individual spells are bad, but rather that they don't work all that well together. There are a few notable combinations, especially for a land druid, but in general it's held back by the overabundance of concentration spells. Still, Wild Shape is an outrageously powerful and flexible ability that works well with those concentration-heavy spells, so it wouldn't be fair to say that the druid suffers unfairly.

As for the sorcerer, I can conclude that they indeed suffer unfairly. Unlike the other non-wizard casters, the sorcerer is stuck with a bare minimum chassis: bad hit die, only the most basic weapons, no armor, the mandatory two skills, and that's it (aside from a generally-superior choice of primary saving throw). The sorcerer's sole strength is spellcasting, so it had better be really dang good. Only…it's not. Font of Magic, when turned toward pure endurance at the cost of basically any advantage in terms of spell-power, still doesn't match the wizard's staying power (the sorcerer lacks ritual casting). It's only when the sorcerer consolidates its magic into higher-level slots (like a warlock) that it can manage to overtake the wizard in any metric, but at the cost of sipping cantrips for the rest of the adventuring day. The sorcerer really needs some TLC.

The warlock is an interesting case because it has an enormous rating swing depending on the build; it can be as low as black or as high as sky blue—without the aid of Simulacrum shenanigans! I think this is where the Hexblade got its reputation for being a fairly tepid single-class option; you're naturally taking Pact of the Blade and various fighting-centric Eldritch Invocations, meaning most of the spellcasting-boosting ones are left by the wayside. On the other hand, a completely spell-focused and diligent warlock with Pact of the Tome can outpace a wizard in the right campaign! Woe betide the Pact of the Chain, I guess.

There's not much I can say about the wizard that the reader doesn't already know. Top scores in every spellcasting category more than justify the wizard having the weakest chassis in the game (narrowly beating the sorcerer for the crown of crappiness), and it only gets better the more generous the DM is. If anyone seriously claims that a different class is better than the wizard, it's not because they found the wizard's spellcasting prowess wanting.


Half Casters
The half caster dynamic is interesting. The artificer's spellcasting is significantly better than the paladin's, but the paladin has a better hit die, better proficiencies, and super-powerful class abilities that render the paladin an offensive and defensive powerhouse. Unfortunately, the ranger takes last place for spellcasting (mostly because it can't prepare spells), and it arguably falls behind in terms of class features as well.

More specifically, the artificer stands alone at the top of the pile when it comes to spellcasting—by such a degree that the artificer is closer to the sorcerer than it is to the ranger. In all three categories (versatility, endurance, and quality) it holds up very well, making a good showing even when compared to full casters. That said, the artificer is definitely not a full caster, and will never be able to reach the heights something like a cleric or a wizard can…at least, not without the right magic items.

The paladin isn't exactly known for spellcasting, and it shows. With generally mediocre (but not terrible) results across the board, it's better to think of the paladin's spells as an additional tool, rather than the class's bread and butter. You could take away the paladin's ability to cast, and the paladin could still more-or-less get the job done. That's not to say that a paladin's spellcasting should be underestimated, however; having the right tool for the job (like a well-placed Banishing Smite) can turn an entire encounter around.

Lastly, we have the ranger and its rather disappointing showing. I don't understand the design decision to make them a spells-known class; it holds the ranger's spellcasting back to such a degree that it's almost heartbreaking. If the ranger could just prepare spells like the paladin, it would score slightly better than the paladin, thanks to the hugely increased utility of being able to tailor each day's spell list to the situation at hand—and the ranger actually has a better, more rounded spell list than the paladin—earning an overall rating of purple, which I think would be a good place for it.


One-Third Casters
Finally, the one-third casters are a strange lot. The two traditional one-third casters are right together at the bottom of the list, and frankly there's no other reasonable place to put them. Both are very good subclasses, arguably the best subclasses for their respective classes, but the reason for that is you're essentially adding spellcasting onto a class that normally doesn't have it. In terms of the scores I gave in a normalized scale, a non-caster scores -0.3, meaning one-third spellcasting is better than being a muggle by a significantly greater degree than half spellcasting is better than one-third spellcasting.

Hell, even Magic Initiate and Ritual Caster (if well-funded) would score not much further below the eldritch knight, given the immense utility of ritual casting and the exceptional usefulness that cherry-picking a spell and a pair of cantrips can offer. It is no exaggeration to say that an eldritch knight who takes both of those feats would feel like a half caster…with a commensurate rating increase to red-purple.

The eldritch knight is traditionally built as a turbo-tank fighter, and it's not hard to see why: most of the actually useful spells you're able to take are defensive in nature. Even spells like Haste are more useful for defense and evasion than they are for throwing down damage. This subclass might score right at the very bottom of the entire ranking, but frankly the fighter doesn't really need that much better than what the eldritch knight already offers.

Technically, the way of the four elements doesn't have one-third casting, but it's still a subclass-only spellcaster, so I'm lumping it in with the other two. It has such a high score because I'm assuming the four elements monk is dumping every Ki point into spellcasting, which—to be fair—is a valid way to play, if not a particularly realistic one; a more conservative player will certainly not be outperforming an eldritch knight or arcane trickster. There are more clever ways to use the limited spells available, but it's still difficult to justify blowing through a shared resource to do so. It's worth noting that there is a sharp increase in overall effectiveness at the start of tier 3; don't bother with this subclass if you're not going to at least hit level 11.

Lastly, the arcane trickster stands tall as (in my opinion) the best rogue subclass. The subclass offers new tools that perfectly synergize with what the rogue is already good at, plus a potent boost of power when it comes time to throw down in combat. I hope any future one-third casters are modeled after the arcane trickster; it's right in that sweet spot: not too powerful, but still very strong.

MrStabby
2020-09-04, 05:22 AM
Interesting - I dont think I would disagree much with your order, but I think that you might have tried too hard to make it objective; you chose easily quantifiable metrics over sothing that might be a bit more subjective but more informative.

For example, you look at Versatility and base this mostly on spells available. This essentially lets any spell be seen as doing something different to any other. In relaity there is a degree of redundancy between them. If you have fireball to you need lightning bolt? Another area effect dex save damage spell using the same spell slots? I think it isn't the number of spells that is important but rather the basis of different problems that can be solved that the spell list spans.

So when you say "Spellcasting Versatility is a mostly-objective measurement based on a simple pair of questions: How many spells do you know/prepare, and how large is your spell list? The result is averaged over 20 levels. There is a lot of nuance here—domain spells are preselected, so they don't offer a ton of versatility; you can't simply learn N arbitrary spells from your whole list (for example, a 3rd level Sorcerer can only know two 2nd-level spells—the others must be 1st-level); each successive spell known/prepared shrinks the pool for the remaining spells known/prepared; etc." - I think this isn't thebest metric.


Healing, area damage, area control, single target damage, single target control, utility, buffing... and do the spells span different saves and different damage types?

And even then I would suggest that versatility is better captured not by what can be done, but by what is worth doing. A cleric can blast with flame strike, but I would sugest it isn't worth doing. To what extent does flame strike then add to the versatility of the cleric? Of course some of this ends up overlapping with the quality metric though.

So to keep with the cleric, I would suggest that domain does matter. Take the temest domain or the light domain. It adds effective blasting to what a cleric can do and thereby adds genuine versatility to the class. Life on the other hand adds no new functions to spells, but does raise the quality of the casting - in that for each round spent casting you get a bigger result.


This is where subjectively I would disagree with your ranking of Sorcerer and Warlock (though to be fair they are very close). If you are a warlock you get one level of spell slot at a time. It becomes difficult to get a set of spells that are eficient at that level and that span a broad range of functions at every level. Because sorcerers can have effective use of resources using spells of many levels they can be able to buff, blast, control and be targetting a broad range of saves at the same time. Sorcerers have functionally more choice than warlocks do - by a wider margin than I think you capture (looking at your graphs here rather than your words, which give a slightly different picture).

I also think you underrate Paladin by this metric (an unfair turn of phrase suggesting it is you doing the underrating by my metric... but you get my point). A paladin can use spells to buff, to heal to damage, but they also get the superb wrathful smite for control and most Oaths get some really good spells as well that broaden what the paladin can do. Paladins by the raw numbers still get a lot of spells. It might just be because I tend to max Cha as a paladin, but by level 9 I would expect to have 6 domain spells and 5+4 paladin spells - so even by the raw numbers 15 spells is more than a sorcerer, bard or warlock at this level and you can swap them round. I would say that the paladin, for T1 and T2 at least, is as versatile in its casting as the sorcerer or bard. The bard tends to be a bit focussed on Wisdom saves on its spell list, which makes it less versatile and this applies to the Paladin as well (and the spells that are not, tend to not be that great anyway) but I accept the sorcerer might be a bit more controversial here for saying is less versatile than the paladin (and if you were to go divine soul it would obviously be wrong).


I am not saying you have done a bad job - just that on some of these I would have done things differently.

Kane0
2020-09-04, 05:29 AM
I appreciate the effort that has gone into this analysis.

I really hope it’s not confirmation bias talking, but i felt myself nodding to the majority of this breakdown.

cutlery
2020-09-04, 07:45 AM
This is interesting, but I think it needs more consideration of the lists, as MrStabby suggests. There are plenty of overlapping spells, and stacking up incapacitation spells with the same save is a mistake, even for a wizard. Not all 4th level spells are alike, and varied access to these spells is a big deal.


I'd also consider alternate rankings in light of the 2019 class versatility UA options ( https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-ClassFeatures.pdf ); in the case of sorcerer it addresses several of your issues (swapping spells known on a long rest, more ways to use sorcery points, more metamagic options, and a longer spell list). Bards get similar options, though, so it again comes down to the lists to differentiate them.

Wizard doesn't get much there, because they don't need much.

Such a ranking would be a strong argument in favor of using them, I think; however neither eldritch knight nor arcane trickster get anything but base chassis options.

Merudo
2020-09-04, 08:27 AM
I do agree in most parts with your analysis of the druid: an extremely versatile spellcaster that suffers from an overabundance of concentration spells.

I think your Spell Endurance metric is unfavorable to the Druid, though. The best Druid combat spells are probably Conjure Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, and Conjure Fey, and these spells last an unusually long time (1 hour each). A Druid can squeeze value out of these spells for several combats, and possibly for a whole dungeon. You can't say the same for Fireball, Hypnotic Pattern, or even Spirit Guardians.

patchyman
2020-09-04, 08:29 AM
This is an excellent analysis, very well done.

I would like to raise a point that I donÂ’t often see discussed in these analyses, which is that healing classes seem to be slightly overvalued on paper compared to in practice.

Take a cleric for example. Unless your party has a specific configuration, they are likely to be your party’s main healer. Healing characters in combat and after combat is super useful, but often doesn’t feel as fun as blasting, buffing or debuffing (hence the derogatory term “healbot in previous editions). It also impacts how you play, since you cannot go all out on your spell slots, needing to reserve a few in case it’s necessary.

Overall, I feel that in practice the primary healer of a party tends to have slightly less spell versatility (since they often carry 2 or 3 healing spells) and also less spell endurance (since they are patching up the characters between fights).

I donÂ’t think this invalidates your conclusions in any way (particularly since certain classes can be either the principal healer or a non-healer depending on the party makeup), but it is worth noting that certain evaluations may be lower in practice (and I feel this is a balancing mechanism for clerics).

Fnissalot
2020-09-04, 08:55 AM
Interesting read!

Sorcerers and rangers are the standout issues here and this just exaggerates my want for rangers to have prepared spells.

What would you say if rangers had gotten ritual casting around lvl 8-12 somewhere? They have 11 ritual spells on their spell-list and most of those 11 spells are spells that I guess rangers often skip due to the opportunity cost of them.

x3n0n
2020-09-04, 09:25 AM
The class feature variants UA (much of which is expected to come in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything) does give a couple of big boosts to Ranger spellcasting. The already-mentioned long rest spell versatility, plus several divination spells auto-learned with a free daily casting of each. That feels like "we're not going to give you full rituals, but here's something vaguely similar".

Nhym
2020-09-04, 10:00 AM
I do agree in most parts with your analysis of the druid: an extremely versatile spellcaster that suffers from an overabundance of concentration spells.

I think your Spell Endurance metric is unfavorable to the Druid, though. The best Druid combat spells are probably Conjure Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, and Conjure Fey, and these spells last an unusually long time (1 hour each). A Druid can squeeze value out of these spells for several combats, and possibly for a whole dungeon. You can't say the same for Fireball, Hypnotic Pattern, or even Spirit Guardians.

Agreed. While other casters use more of a 'fire and forget' mentality with spells and spell synergy, that's not really how Druids function.

loki_ragnarock
2020-09-04, 10:14 AM
I notice there are several instances of Sorcerer associated with Simulacrum.

Is someone else casting simulacrum on them or something? And if so, why aren't they doing it for Warlocks and the others?

LudicSavant
2020-09-04, 10:18 AM
I notice there are several instances of Sorcerer associated with Simulacrum.

Is someone else casting simulacrum on them or something? And if so, why aren't they doing it for Warlocks and the others?

Presumably they're Wishing for them.

king_steve
2020-09-04, 12:42 PM
For bards, how do you feel about the bardic instruments? They give bards a pretty reasonable boost, IMO, which is also something fairly unique to them. But that would be pretty campaign and DM dependant.

ZRN
2020-09-04, 02:24 PM
I think the "versatility" and "endurance" categories aren't so easy to "objectively" determine. For example, regardless of the number of spells a warlock has access to, it's hard to say how their "versatility" compares given that they only have two spell slots to actually cast them from (for half their career).

Likewise, "endurance" would mean something different for a warlock or arcane trickster (who can do tons of stuff without using any spell slots) than for a wizard (who is in big trouble when he runs out of spells).

Konradhelt
2020-09-04, 03:15 PM
Thank you for the well written and well thought out analysis - a really good read!

Dark.Revenant
2020-09-04, 03:58 PM
Thanks for the feedback, everyone!


Interesting - I dont think I would disagree much with your order, but I think that you might have tried too hard to make it objective; you chose easily quantifiable metrics over sothing that might be a bit more subjective but more informative.

For example, you look at Versatility and base this mostly on spells available. This essentially lets any spell be seen as doing something different to any other. In relaity there is a degree of redundancy between them. If you have fireball to you need lightning bolt? Another area effect dex save damage spell using the same spell slots? I think it isn't the number of spells that is important but rather the basis of different problems that can be solved that the spell list spans.

So when you say "Spellcasting Versatility is a mostly-objective measurement based on a simple pair of questions: How many spells do you know/prepare, and how large is your spell list? The result is averaged over 20 levels. There is a lot of nuance here—domain spells are preselected, so they don't offer a ton of versatility; you can't simply learn N arbitrary spells from your whole list (for example, a 3rd level Sorcerer can only know two 2nd-level spells—the others must be 1st-level); each successive spell known/prepared shrinks the pool for the remaining spells known/prepared; etc." - I think this isn't thebest metric.

Healing, area damage, area control, single target damage, single target control, utility, buffing... and do the spells span different saves and different damage types?

And even then I would suggest that versatility is better captured not by what can be done, but by what is worth doing. A cleric can blast with flame strike, but I would sugest it isn't worth doing. To what extent does flame strike then add to the versatility of the cleric? Of course some of this ends up overlapping with the quality metric though.

So to keep with the cleric, I would suggest that domain does matter. Take the temest domain or the light domain. It adds effective blasting to what a cleric can do and thereby adds genuine versatility to the class. Life on the other hand adds no new functions to spells, but does raise the quality of the casting - in that for each round spent casting you get a bigger result.

Domain spells effectively increase the pool of spells available for a cleric to choose from (it's a player build choice, after all), so it does make an impact on the versatility score. Where I weigh domain spells much higher is actually the quality metric. I think the trouble here is that the word "versatility" has a very narrow meaning here, rather than a holistic (and much more subjective) definition. I did this analysis mainly so that I could compare objectivity to subjectivity, but when the results came through, I realized that the objective, "law-of-averages" approach I took was surprisingly close to what I had instinctively "known" based on my play experience. You're quite right that the metrics don't capture the full breadth of nuance to make a definitive, canonical ranking of classes (and, well, you can't do that with a subjective ranking method either, to be fair).


This is where subjectively I would disagree with your ranking of Sorcerer and Warlock (though to be fair they are very close). If you are a warlock you get one level of spell slot at a time. It becomes difficult to get a set of spells that are eficient at that level and that span a broad range of functions at every level. Because sorcerers can have effective use of resources using spells of many levels they can be able to buff, blast, control and be targetting a broad range of saves at the same time. Sorcerers have functionally more choice than warlocks do - by a wider margin than I think you capture (looking at your graphs here rather than your words, which give a slightly different picture).

Indeed, a warlock is less versatile with its spells than a sorcerer, purely on the basis of its method of casting rather than anything I captured with the metrics in my analysis. This is remarkable because the warlock still scored at the bottom of the full casters for versatility, even without taking that into account.


I also think you underrate Paladin by this metric (an unfair turn of phrase suggesting it is you doing the underrating by my metric... but you get my point). A paladin can use spells to buff, to heal to damage, but they also get the superb wrathful smite for control and most Oaths get some really good spells as well that broaden what the paladin can do. Paladins by the raw numbers still get a lot of spells. It might just be because I tend to max Cha as a paladin, but by level 9 I would expect to have 6 domain spells and 5+4 paladin spells - so even by the raw numbers 15 spells is more than a sorcerer, bard or warlock at this level and you can swap them round. I would say that the paladin, for T1 and T2 at least, is as versatile in its casting as the sorcerer or bard. The bard tends to be a bit focussed on Wisdom saves on its spell list, which makes it less versatile and this applies to the Paladin as well (and the spells that are not, tend to not be that great anyway) but I accept the sorcerer might be a bit more controversial here for saying is less versatile than the paladin (and if you were to go divine soul it would obviously be wrong).

It's fair, because I created the metric. This sort of thing I actually measured with the quality metric, since that's where I could put my subjective instincts. Fun fact: if you take away Metamagic, the paladin's spells aren't that far behind the sorcerer's, slot-for-slot. Were I to revise the rankings, I might push them even a bit further still, not enough to change the color-grade rating, but enough to boost the full score to 1.9.


This is interesting, but I think it needs more consideration of the lists, as MrStabby suggests. There are plenty of overlapping spells, and stacking up incapacitation spells with the same save is a mistake, even for a wizard. Not all 4th level spells are alike, and varied access to these spells is a big deal.

The strength and synergy of the list is captured by the quality metric. This is admittedly a bit confusing, given how loaded the word "versatility" is, but alas.


I do agree in most parts with your analysis of the druid: an extremely versatile spellcaster that suffers from an overabundance of concentration spells.

I think your Spell Endurance metric is unfavorable to the Druid, though. The best Druid combat spells are probably Conjure Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, and Conjure Fey, and these spells last an unusually long time (1 hour each). A Druid can squeeze value out of these spells for several combats, and possibly for a whole dungeon. You can't say the same for Fireball, Hypnotic Pattern, or even Spirit Guardians.

Endurance is measured in terms of slots rather than time expended, mostly because it would be quite difficult to accurately capture (in any objective manner) that kind of influence, and partially because in-combat and out-of-combat time progresses on vastly different scales.


I would like to raise a point that I don't often see discussed in these analyses, which is that healing classes seem to be slightly overvalued on paper compared to in practice.

Take a cleric for example. Unless your party has a specific configuration, they are likely to be your party's main healer. Healing characters in combat and after combat is super useful, but often doesn't feel as fun as blasting, buffing or debuffing (hence the derogatory term "healbot" in previous editions). It also impacts how you play, since you cannot go all out on your spell slots, needing to reserve a few in case it's necessary.

Overall, I feel that in practice the primary healer of a party tends to have slightly less spell versatility (since they often carry 2 or 3 healing spells) and also less spell endurance (since they are patching up the characters between fights).

I don't think this invalidates your conclusions in any way (particularly since certain classes can be either the principal healer or a non-healer depending on the party makeup), but it is worth noting that certain evaluations may be lower in practice (and I feel this is a balancing mechanism for clerics).

Healing isn't weighed any higher than other types of spells. Subjectively, in the "quality" metric, I don't rate them that highly either.


The OP probabily don't know well about metamagics

Metamagic absolutely impacts the quality of the sorcerer's spells. Without it, the base sorcerer's quality rating would drop to black-blue, rather than full blue (and the class would get a final score of 3.0 rather than 3.2). This is probably not as high of an impact as you're expecting, and I could write an entire article on why I think Metamagic isn't the bee's knees.


I think the "versatility" and "endurance" categories aren't so easy to "objectively" determine. For example, regardless of the number of spells a warlock has access to, it's hard to say how their "versatility" compares given that they only have two spell slots to actually cast them from (for half their career).

Likewise, "endurance" would mean something different for a warlock or arcane trickster (who can do tons of stuff without using any spell slots) than for a wizard (who is in big trouble when he runs out of spells).

As stated above, "versatility" and "endurance" mean the specific things I talk about in the Preface section: measurements based on specific rules. The nuance of a warlock's pact magic versus regular spellcasting doesn't impact the versatility rating, even though it definitely impacts how versatile the class feels to play, in practice. Endurance is just by spell slot, mainly; warlocks and arcane tricksters have all sorts of non-spell things they can use, but those aren't part of spellcasting endurance because…they're not spells.

Aimeryan
2020-09-04, 08:12 PM
Great analysis; feels instinctively similar to how I feel I would analyse them, which would also be based on objective and subjective values.

Of particular interest is how this analysis does not look at non-spellcasting features of the classes, and then to still see the Sorcerer fair so poorly compared to other full spellcasters - a class that has no defining features outside of spellcasting. The Bard and Warlock both score similarly for spellcasting, but both have powerful features to fall back on when not spellcasting. Clerics and Druids both score a lot better than the Sorcerer, but still have something to fall back on. The Wizard has nothing to fall back on and is therefore most similar to the Sorcerer in that respect, however, its spellcasting is miles ahead.

It feels like Sorcerer and Wizard share a niche space that is just difficult to work with without homogenising the two. I wonder if Sorcerer would have been better suited as a subclass of Wizard; innate connection to magic that allows Metamagic. How do people feel comparing Metamagic to other Wizard subclasses?

Frogreaver
2020-09-04, 08:54 PM
A few comments:

1. At lower levels the number of spells prepared has the biggest impact on versatility.

2. Clerics additional spells are a huge buff to their versatility. Having those spells always prepared frees you up to prepare a spell that can handle other situations.

3. IMO. The actual spells on the spell list must be considered in this kind of comparison. I'm not talking about their power here, but the range of situations the spell list / spells prepared can allow you to handle.

4. Spell power matters as well. If a spell is powerful enough such that it is the best spell at covering a broad range of situations then just the virtue of being able to know that spell increases your versatility. Wish is the prime example but not the only spell that can conceivably fall into this category.

5. Sorcerer Metamagic increases versatility. Twin spell being the most compelling example even though it's most commonly mentioned due to it's ability to increase power. It's not a huge versatility increase IMO, but it is worth mentioning.

Kane0
2020-09-04, 09:06 PM
Sounds like points 3 and 4 lean more into spell analysis than spellcaster.

Frogreaver
2020-09-04, 09:23 PM
Sounds like points 3 and 4 lean more into spell analysis than spellcaster.

I'd say you can't truly analyze the spellcaster without also considering the spells on their list.

As a proof of this concept; consider a caster that has a spell list filled with just direct damage spells. He has nearly no versatility no matter how many spells are on his list or spells known/prepared he has.

Dark.Revenant
2020-09-04, 09:56 PM
I'd say you can't truly analyze the spellcaster without also considering the spells on their list.

As a proof of this concept; consider a caster that has a spell list filled with just direct damage spells. He has nearly no versatility no matter how many spells are on his list or spells known/prepared he has.

I tried going with a subjective analysis in the Quality section, though I should make a point here: there are some 130 spells that more-or-less directly damage things, which makes for a fairly large list (somewhere between Cleric and Druid). This would of course earn a decent versatility score in most cases. However, if you actually look at those 130-ish spells, you'll find tons of control effects, debuffs, and even some mobility options. Thunder Step, Wall of Ice, Wrathful Smite, and many others. Plus a healthy mix of action types and non-concentration spells. Honestly, it would make for a pretty good caster.

LudicSavant
2020-09-04, 11:24 PM
Great to see this finished! It was interesting to see this take form over the last few weeks. :smallsmile:

Kane0
2020-09-04, 11:43 PM
Well, Subtle Spell alone is stronger than the wizard class. Hands down.

Sneaky Mage, Best counterspeller, Social GOD.
Subtle Dominate Person/Monster, Subtle Suggestion Subtle Command, Subtle counterspell, Subtle Wish for Glibness and Subtle Skill Empowerment for always cha skill based win, etc.
I believe that you are really evaluating metamagic effects very poorly.

No.

Subtle is indeed very good for its cost and within its niche, but it does not singlehandedly invalidate an entire class. For example, none of those things listed are going to be of much use in a kill-orc-take-cake style of play.

I believe you are really overstating the impact of metamagic.

Edea
2020-09-04, 11:53 PM
I'm kinda busy converting the sorcery points into additional slots so I can keep up with the wizard's spells per day, lol.

Hael
2020-09-05, 06:54 AM
Pretty good list. I think you are somewhat undervaluing Rangers spell list quality. It’s not versatile, but many of the spells they get are exceptionally strong.

I’d put them in the same class as artificers (who you overvalue) and paladins in that regard.

I think you overvalue Warlocks spell quality as well. They get pretty strong spells, but not Wizard lvl quality.

Nhorianscum
2020-09-05, 05:37 PM
No.

Subtle is indeed very good for its cost and within its niche, but it does not singlehandedly invalidate an entire class. For example, none of those things listed are going to be of much use in a kill-orc-take-cake style of play.

I believe you are really overstating the impact of metamagic.

Guess I'll chip in on this.

I kinda feel like "optimized sorcerer" and "base sorcerer" are almost two different classes and it seems like the OP ran into the same issue in his text entries.

As an unoptimized shell the sorcerer is an oversized supercharged engine in a golf cart.

With optimization we dump the golf cart in favor of whatever extremely pricy and stylish vehicle we desire.

It's less like discussing the midpoint of a line and more like finding the happy middle ground between Happy Gilmore, Road House, and Speed Racer.

Kane0
2020-09-05, 05:41 PM
Guess I'll chip in on this.

I kinda feel like "optimized sorcerer" and "base sorcerer" are almost two different classes and it seems like the OP ran into the same issue in his text entries.

As an unoptimized shell the sorcerer is an oversized supercharged engine in a golf cart.

With optimization we dump the golf cart in favor of whatever extremely pricy and stylish vehicle we desire.

It's less like discussing the midpoint of a line and more like finding the happy middle ground between Happy Gilmore, Road House, and Speed Racer.

Agreed to a point, but we have another sorc thread going at the moment and plenty of past ones to dig up as necessary.

I find the analogy entertaining however. Could i get a twisted metal or mad max?

stoutstien
2021-01-06, 11:22 AM
good read. i would note that with magic item adept the artificer can be producing cantrip or lv 1 spell scrolls at rate of 1 every two hours and at 12.5 gold each they are pretty darn cheap. they share enough spells that they can freely expand the whole parties low level slot reserves. anyone can make scrolls but having the knock out one during a long rest without a hiccup is a feature worth note.

Chaos Jackal
2021-01-06, 12:04 PM
As others have noted, there are a few things that are harder to quantify and play a part in the grand scheme. Some of those you note yourself, others are more subjective (the value and rating of spells, for example).

But overall, this is one of the best essays I've seen on 5e spellcasters, and not just because I happen to agree with the majority of outcomes. Well thought-out system, good research, reasonable claims. Props.

Spot on in particular with the sorcerer's clear disadvantage over other full casters and the artificer's obvious headway. Well put.

Couple questions, and apologies if the answers are in there and I've missed them.

Do you take into account abilities that use spell slots as possible increases in versatility/power? Like a paladin's smite, or an artificer reusing their subclass feature? And if not, is it because you want this to be purely about the use of the "Spells" chapter, rather than a general measure of spell slot effectiveness?

Also, in regards to the sorcerer, did you start this before TCoE? While certainly no wizard, I feel like Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul should warrant a separate rating; they definitely have a leg up over most other sorcerers when it comes to spells.

Gignere
2021-01-06, 02:14 PM
To OP will you be updating your analysis with the two new sorcerer subclasses with additional spells? I think these subclasses should score fairly high.