Best “All Around” Classes?

[blackjack50]

So I am just curious what y’all see as the best “all around” classes. And when I say “all around,” I am thinking in every sense of the word. Combat (all kinds), RP, skill checks, and so on.

I think the Bard is probably the most versatile. The charisma makes it easy to handle so many situations, and your spell choices mean you could fill in as a very strong support class, but then having the ability to completely change the field of battle with smart use. The only other class I think that gets close may be a Rogue, but I’ve not played them.

What about y’all?

[Jon talks a lot]

Warlocks can be very versatile, especially the celestial patron warlock.

Check out this thread for an example of how versatile this build is: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?583957-An-Eclectic-Collection-of-Fun-and-Effective-Builds

[kingcheesepants]

I think you're right, with their large number of skills (and ability to pick whatever they want), expertise, jack of all trades, a solid spell list with plenty of support and control options, ritual casting, magical secrets to pick up anything else, bardic inspiration to add to their allies or subtract from their enemies, and some armor and weapon proficiencies, bard is an extremely versatile class that can do just about anything.

However just because bard excels in being versatile doesn't meant that you should overlook other classes if you want to be good at everything. Clerics for instance are full casters with ritual casting, a decent number of support and control options (including things like guidance and bless which come online at level 1 and stay relevant for quite a while), weapons and armor that allow them to do melee if they want to, and lots of subclass options that can add all sorts of things from a knowledge clerics 2 Int based expertise skills and a channel divinity that lets them pick up proficiency with whatever they want. To the light clerics extra spells like faerie fire and fireball. And the trickery clerics extra abilities and spells allowing them to be tricky. They might not be quite as good as a bard at doing everything but they can get pretty close.

Wizards don't get anything in terms of mundane skills but they have the absolute best spell list (think of just about any combat, social, or exploration challenge and a wizard can have a spell that will solve said problem), ritual casting and the ability to pick up as many spells as they can find copies of. Not to mention things like the divination wizard's ability to change any die roll (twice a day to a die they roll at the start of the day) or the evocation wizard's ability to make fireballs and sickening radiance go around himself and his allies. Being that they can prepare whatever spells they need to solve just about any problem. I personally think that the wizard, even more than the bard is the most flexible and versatile character class.

[Kane0]

In no particular order Warlock, Bard and Ranger.

[Dalinar]

I'll put in a word for Abjuration Wizard, being absurdly hard to kill and having Wizard spells on top of that. Also can be entertaining in RP, though you won't exactly be acing those CHA skill checks.

[prototype00]

Bard, for reasons stated already.

Warlock, because locks are basically “build-your-own-class”

Druids, while not hot on the RP side usually, can basically do everything else other than that due to a combination of wildshape and their very versatile spell list.

Edit: Consolation prize to Rune Knight Fighters who get boosts to the most eclectic combination of skills and tools.

[Luccan]

”

Druids, while not hot on the RP side usually, can basically do everything else other than that due to a combination of wildshape and their very versatile spell list.


OTOH, for some unique albeit rare circumstances Druids are your only RP option

[NecessaryWeevil]

Are you looking for a class in which a character can be built to do anything, or a class in which a single character can do *everything*? Warlocks for example can probably do the former but not the latter.

[msfnc]

Fey Wanderer Ranger has some great versatility. Consistent damage, utility/skills, and adding Wisdom bonus to Charisma checks makes them a viable face. I've only just started playing one (up to level 4 now), and my DM has asked me to stop DOING everything and give the other PCs a chance to shine. Between Survival/Nature/Animal checks, stealth shenanigans, RP interactions, and absolutely smashing combat, she's almost TOO good at everything.

[Eldariel]

Well, the best overall classes are probably Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Bard. All of those have unparalleled number of options for combat, goes without saying that they can all DPR, CC, buff, debuff, and all but Wizard can yoyo (and even Wizard can do it after a fashion thanks to extra actions from minions + healing potions/goodberries). In short, they have all the combat contribution types available to them and pretty reliably and at the long haul. They also have, due to the casting system, both the best nova capability but also really strong overall contribution for all but the longest marathon slog days. Of course, they also have great tools for social and exploration: cantrips, Enhance Ability, ritual casting, etc. all come early and do things that plain aren't possible otherwise. Wizard, Druid and Bard are all great scouts in their own way too (only Cleric really lacks strong scouting tools). All of these are ritual casters too (though Wizard is the best by a country mile, while Bard has the worst due to being Spells Known). Minor Illusion, Mold Earth, Shape Water, Guidance, Prestidigitation, etc. shouldn't be underestimated in out-of-combat situations (nor in combat). Great for resting and such as well. Now, Bard is weaker in all aspects of spellcasting than the others but it's still passable and it compensates with its strong access to the skill system.

Of course, this isn't the whole story: all of these subclasses have immensely strong early game subclasses as well. Diviner & Chronurgist, Lore & Eloquence, Twilight & Peace, Moon & Shepherd: all those have subclass abilities other classes might kill for. Very few other subclasses in the game do this. These are powerful abilities for a variety of circumstances that tick some boxes that you have a real hard time accessing otherwise (manipulating enemy die rolls, 300' darkvision, massive recursive THP shields, etc.).

Their internal order depends on the level of course. Cleric and Druid peak early; Cleric "falls off" the first though even in Tier 3-4 Cleric is strong (just not the strongest in the game anymore) and Druid remains strong but gets kinda pigeonholed. Wizard keeps getting stronger the higher you go with the best Tier 3 and 4 in the game by a good margin and Bard is about the only class to challenge Wizard for the throne.


The fifth and sixth might be Paladin and Warlock but they're a comfortable distance behind, being less rounded, more limited and with worse endgame. Rogue has "some" tools for everything but those tools just pale in comparison to spells and the best spellcasting Rogue gets 4th level spells 10 levels late. Expertise is accessible through feat and Bard has it natively and eventually even through Skill Empowerment when you really need something done and Rogue doesn't even get Enhance Ability or Pass without Trace or Invisibility, let alone on level 3. Rogue's damage is nothing to write home about and basically everything but Expertise and Reliable Talent is about combat anyways.

It's telling that you can literally put any of the 4 top classes into any party and they'll probably be buildable so that they fill whatever slots need filling and contribute more than any class not on the list would.

EDIT: As for optimal stat, Cha, Wis and Int are all pretty important. Charisma is obviously immensely useful for the social pillar, but so is Wis (Insight and Perception are both very important skills both socially and combat-wise) and Int (Knowledges and Investigation are extremely useful to all these ends as well). All three come together in social encounters (Insight to read your target, Knowledge to know background and understand cues, Charisma to get your own point across) but also in dungeons and adventuring more generally, at least Wis and Int play a huge role. Of course, less experienced DMs might have trouble giving you what you "should" get from Investigation/Knowledges/Insight (Perception and Charisma-skills are more straightforward), but that's not a feature of the system itself.

[hitchhike79]

I'll put in a word for Abjuration Wizard, being absurdly hard to kill and having Wizard spells on top of that. Also can be entertaining in RP, though you won't exactly be acing those CHA skill checks.

Absolutely one of the best all round classes i played. There wasnt much i couldnt do especially with some necro spells for "heals", was a hobgoblin and ended up with weapon/armor proficiency so i could fight and even tank at times.

[Droppeddead]

In no particular order Warlock, Bard and Ranger.

I second this with Paladin, Cleric and Monk as runners up.

[kingcheesepants]

Not gonna repeat the whole post that Eldariel just put but I think his analysis is spot on and says what I was saying earlier more cogently than I did.

[Yakmala]

I agree with the choices mentioned above, but I also need to put in a good word for the Paladin. Auras are always on as long as you are not incapacitated. The amount of overall party damage my Ancients Paladin has prevented is staggering, not to mention the number of failed saves vs enemy control spells turned into successes, and all without hindering the Paladin’s action economy. On top of that, the Paladin can tank, heal, buff, nova DPS and is great at RP encounters and Charisma skill checks. You are never not a benefit to your party.

[ImproperJustice]

I guess I would throw in an honorable mention to the Artificer.

Between a versatile spell list, infusions, tool expertise, spell storing items, reasonable combat capability, and mechanical servants they can cover a lot of ground.
It’s become my favorite jack of all trades class thus far.

The new and improved Fighter can cover a surprising amount of ground as well with the new maneuver options and a few well chosen feats.
Example: Tactical Assessment, and Ritual Caster perhaps.

Also, an all in Wisdom Fey Ranger as mentioned above can do a lot now. Rangers are so much better now.

[Droppeddead]

I guess I would throw in an honorable mention to the Artificer.

Between a versatile spell list, infusions, tool expertise, spell storing items, reasonable combat capability, and mechanical servants they can cover a lot of ground.
It’s become my favorite jack of all trades class thus far.

The new and improved Fighter can cover a surprising amount of ground as well with the new maneuver options and a few well chosen feats.
Example: Tactical Assessment, and Ritual Caster perhaps.

Also, an all in Wisdom Fey Ranger as mentioned above can do a lot now. Rangers are so much better now.

You know, I actually feel a bit embarassed for forgetting the artificer. I completely agree, it should be up there at the top. Being able to prepare spells, build their own companions and create magic items that can be adjusted according to pretty much any situation as well as being pretty darn SAD it's a very good class.

[Willie the Duck]

Now, Bard is weaker in all aspects of spellcasting than the others but it's still passable and it compensates with its strong access to the skill system.

Wizards don't get anything in terms of mundane skills but they have the absolute best spell list

This is the crux of an issue I've been mulling over for a while. I started with a BX/BECMI/AD&D hybrid, but the first bards I ever saw, in-game, were 2E bards. For reference, because of confluence of rules, 2e bards aren't actually that good at their job -- thief skills with much less progression and notable absences, weapon proficiencies that their attack progression didn't back up, and wanting to have both great armor for combat and no armor for thief-ing and casting spells -- but they did represent a generalist concept, but also had the entire wizardly spell list (for the levels they could cast). 3E and onward bard have had their own spell list, featuring a lot of buffs, enchantments, illusions, and (unlike 2e) healing. This aids in flavor, but has some serious holes in the utility and every-person role stuff. Things like spiderclimb, fly, and stoneshape. It's really hard for me to recommend bards to the top spot for 'all around'-edness without those spells (and someone else having them), while at the same time, all a wizard has is spells and it'd be hard to recommend wizards as the top spot when something like a valor bard has spells (including healing), capable martial fighting (and not ranged/finesse limited, if you place your stats correctly), and things like expertise.

[Sception]

While I wouldn't call them the ~most~ versatile, conquest paladins are reasonably on the upper end, particularly if they're half elves for the quality stats and two extra skill proficiencies. You've got solid defenses, high cha for face skills, smite and spiritual weapon for single target damage vs. strong enemies, frighten-based aoe debuff & control for groups of weak enemies, plus additional healing and buff options. Like most paladins the gains trail off a bit in mid to late levels, though they never get bad exactly, and multiclassing can help considerably, with a hex dip dramatically improving the mid game and a multiclass out into sorcerer doing a lot for end game. I'd feel perfectly comfortable soloing a character like this. The only things you can't really do well (without unacceptable sacrifices elsewhere) is stealth and trap fixing, though with high cha and a couple extra cha skills (plus possibly at will disguise self from a warlock dip) you can often substitute charisma skills where you would otherwise use dexterity skills, so the only real issue keeping them out of the top tiers for versatility is dealing with traps.

[Nhym]

In terms of combat, can't go wrong with a Shepherd Druid. Druid being a divine caster with both choices of Wild Shape and Summoned Creature (if your DM isn't mean) means they have more options for a given circumstance than any other class by far. Shepherd specifically because otherwise summons fall off hard and aren't as viable.

Obligatory guide plug (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXgYqPxkEHaCisQ0tteFF-KtsmfJxkOQojeWwHf22n4/edit?usp=sharing)

[stoutstien]

All around in terms of having the widest array of ways to interact with the game at any given time in no particular order:
Artificer
Bard
Druid
Some wizards
Some warlocks

All around with one super good focus point and decent in least 3-4 other capacities but also at least one weak point:
Clerics
Ranger
Rogue
Some fighters
Monks
Paladin
Rest of wizards
Rest of warlocks

Specialists primarily but can be built with greater effort to be more flexible:
Sorcerer
Barbarian
Most fighters

[Man_Over_Game]

My vote goes for Warlock.


Your primary stat also happens to be one of the most important utility stats (Charisma)
A single invocation is all it takes to match the ranged damage of almost any martial (1d10+Mod per attack)
Pact Boon can grant you an invisible, flying, telepathic scout, so what's the Ranger for besides another meat stick?
Being able to cast Disguise Self or Speak With Animals at will at level 2 is more than what I'd consider a Rogue gets for utility through most of their career
Hell, you can be a Fiend Warlock to cast Fireball twice per Short Rest (which is about even with specialized blasters)

And that can all be on the same character!

So what exactly are you missing? Something better than Light Armor and a 1d8 hit die (fixed by going Hexblade), or is it the lack of healing? (fixed by getting Flaming Sphere instead of Fireball with going Celestial).

[stoutstien]

My vote goes for Warlock.


Your primary stat also happens to be one of the most important utility stats (Charisma)
A single invocation is all it takes to match the ranged damage of almost any martial (1d10+Mod per attack)
Pact Boon can grant you an invisible, flying, telepathic scout, so what's the Ranger for besides another meat stick?
Being able to cast Disguise Self or Speak With Animals at will at level 2 is more than what I'd consider a Rogue gets for utility through most of their career
Hell, you can be a Fiend Warlock to cast Fireball twice per Short Rest (which is about even with specialized blasters)



So what exactly are you missing? Something better than Light Armor and a 1d8 hit die?

They have the capacity for sure but they are very easy to fall into the damage or over specializing traps. Why I would say some warlocks. only about 2/10 I've seen have actually taken advantage of the class in that way. OTOH with good planning they can even get around those lower HDs and lower AC cap and be real beasts in all capacities.

[Eldariel]

This is the crux of an issue I've been mulling over for a while. I started with a BX/BECMI/AD&D hybrid, but the first bards I ever saw, in-game, were 2E bards. For reference, because of confluence of rules, 2e bards aren't actually that good at their job -- thief skills with much less progression and notable absences, weapon proficiencies that their attack progression didn't back up, and wanting to have both great armor for combat and no armor for thief-ing and casting spells -- but they did represent a generalist concept, but also had the entire wizardly spell list (for the levels they could cast). 3E and onward bard have had their own spell list, featuring a lot of buffs, enchantments, illusions, and (unlike 2e) healing. This aids in flavor, but has some serious holes in the utility and every-person role stuff. Things like spiderclimb, fly, and stoneshape. It's really hard for me to recommend bards to the top spot for 'all around'-edness without those spells (and someone else having them), while at the same time, all a wizard has is spells and it'd be hard to recommend wizards as the top spot when something like a valor bard has spells (including healing), capable martial fighting (and not ranged/finesse limited, if you place your stats correctly), and things like expertise.

Top spot doesn't mean "has everything", it just means "has the most". If others have less than you, then you by definition are the best. Those are trade-offs: it's up to you to determine what's more important in the context of the game. FWIW I never really understood the point of martial prowess; what you want is damage dealing. To that end, whether you do it with weapons, spells, buffs, or minions doesn't really matter. Both Bard and Wizard have decent martial subclasses (Swords and Bladesinger, obviously) and they're fine but I wouldn't rank either near the top end of the subclass pool for said class.

OTOH lacking Fly, Spider climb, Stoneshape, etc. is a bigger deal. Those aren't just different ways to dress up the same goal, those open up new options entirely. Which is why I rate Lore Bard so highly; it gets to alleviate the failings of the Bard list the most. Not that the Bard list is even necessary bad, it's just that the Wizard list is even better (and Druid/Cleric lists are different). And that Bards are spells known which is highly limiting: you have to fit all the roles you wanna play all game into the same spell set instead of switching between city, wilderness, dungeon, planar, etc. environments and scenarios. Another reason Lore is so good: you get more spells to do that.

And yeah, Wizard's lack of healing is probably the biggest weakness of the class. There are a few ways around that but I feel they have enough of everything else that they at least share the throne if not hold it outright (depending on level; on Tier 1, Goodberry & Healing Word are just huge and hard to compete with in a party scenario).

[strangebloke]

So I am just curious what y’all see as the best “all around” classes. And when I say “all around,” I am thinking in every sense of the word. Combat (all kinds), RP, skill checks, and so on.

I think the Bard is probably the most versatile. The charisma makes it easy to handle so many situations, and your spell choices mean you could fill in as a very strong support class, but then having the ability to completely change the field of battle with smart use. The only other class I think that gets close may be a Rogue, but I’ve not played them.

What about y’all?
Bard to me is so severely lacking in the department of damage that it can't be in good conscience be considered an 'all rounder' IMO. They also lack for strong healing options and their durability is pretty suspect. You can shore up these weaknesses with specific builds (EG a valor bard with SS and swift quiver) but IMO specific builds at specific levels shouldn't be considered when speaking of a class holistically.

In no particular order Warlock, Bard and Ranger.
Warlock and Ranger are my two picks, yeah. Great, reliable damage in combat, great utility options and incredibly flexible from a build perspective. They can all be good at a variety of things at once without really making themselves weak in any area. Hexblades are great in melee but picking hexblade over fiend or celestial doesn't make you bad at blasting creatures from range.

Bard and Druid would be next on my list, followed by Wizards, clerics, and rogues.

I second this with Paladin, Cleric and Monk as runners up.
Ehhhhh.

Paladins have no ranged options whatsoever and very few options that offer good "value" over the course of a drawn-out adventuring day. They also have no social utility beyond 'having good CHA.' If you run a game where attrition of resources is a primary aspect of the difficulty (which is what I have been doing for six years now) and where enemies use terrain advantages like flying and climbing.... you're going to run into a lot of situations where the paladin is basically an aura on a stick who may as well be sitting on his hands. They're a strong class, but if anything I would consider them somewhat minmaxed. They're either really good or really meh. I think a lot of their perception as 'overpowered do-it-alls' comes back to the kinds of games people tend to run, with only one large encounter per day.

Monks are just not a very strong class at game start with bad HP and AC, who have to fight in melee to do damage. They get better as the game goes on because all their numbers go up and they gain stunning strike... but they're still married to melee and don't really have out-of-combat utility beyond "being fast" and "having high DEX and WIS." Most of their subclasses really only improve their raw damage and survivability, except for the shadow monk which is the strongest by a country mile.

Clerics, though, are more generally useful and I have no real issue placing them high.

[J-H]

I started making a list, and realized that everything except Artificer and Sorcerer could qualify. Paladins can get cantrips for ranged attacks, Wizards can go Bladesong, Monks can wall-run, some barbarians can get limited flight, etc.

[strangebloke]

I started making a list, and realized that everything except Artificer and Sorcerer could qualify. Paladins can get cantrips for ranged attacks, Wizards can go Bladesong, Monks can wall-run, some barbarians can get limited flight, etc.

I don't think that Paladins getting access to firebolt compensates completely for a lack of ranged options.

[MrCharlie]

Artificer, probably. An armorer or battlemaster, although an armorer has a few more niches. In combat they are passable Gish strikers, can do decent AOE damage with spells, are decent to excellent tanks (always highly survivable, armorers are also good at drawing aggro), and have enough mobility related infusions to be fast response.

They also have good (but not great) support options, including cure wounds, aid, lesser restoration, and greater restoration, and several good buff spells that either make them better strikers or buffers.

They also have the best concentration in the game, with both excellent saving throw bonuses, concentration save proficiency, SADness allowing for a high CON, and even auto-succeed capacity.

In terms of out of combat utility they are the best at any task that a tool proficiency can apply to with the exception of using thieves tools (they are merely very good at that), and have the magic, magic items, and class features to excel at a variety of challenges. They even have a built in psuedo-familiar infusion in the homunculus (no flyby attack cheese but halfway between a familiar an animal companion otherwise). At the extreme end with a one level dip or a feat a battlemaster artificer can have a familiar, homunculus, and steel defender. Along with tiny servants. All artificers thus have a significant ability to impact disparate events remotely, aided by certain infusions and spells, and/or scout.

They also have a decent amount of roleplay opportunity with customizable appearances to most of what they do, although a tighter class theme limits that somewhat. I personally consider them to have a leg up in that department because their SAD nature means that, while you are almost absolutely an intelligent character, you are not shoe horned into having a bunch of other stats. If you want to run a high INT, WIS, and CHA you'll be less effective than someone who min-maxes CON and INT, but not by too much.

After playing a couple artificers, I was always contributing, sometimes excelling, in pretty much any situation. I rarely topped damage, but I was keeping up. I was the main tank due to thunder gauntlets drawing and keeping aggro, but was extremely hard to subvert or put down with my high saves. I had significant tactical flexibility with spells, and infusions gave me great mobility. Out of combat I was keeping up with the Bard in terms of engaging with encounters, which is saying something given that Bard is the other obvious answer to this question. There were some things I simply couldn't do, like teleport the party, translate text or words, enchant enemies, or make illusions and such, but that generally limited my tactics not applicability.

(And arguably, an artificer can do anything given that magic items exist and if anyone can make one an artificer can, but given that the RAW explicitly make the DM gatekeeper of magic items besides infusions, that's a stretch).

[Wizard_Lizard]

Bard is the only correct answer
they have Jack of All trades as an ability, expertise, weapon proficiencies, both healing and blasting (Particularly if you take lore bard).. they have everything!

[Eldariel]

Bard to me is so severely lacking in the department of damage that it can't be in good conscience be considered an 'all rounder' IMO. They also lack for strong healing options and their durability is pretty suspect. You can shore up these weaknesses with specific builds (EG a valor bard with SS and swift quiver) but IMO specific builds at specific levels shouldn't be considered when speaking of a class holistically.

Well, every Bard can shore it up easily enough: Swords and Valor can use weapons and do just fine while Lore Bard can pick up like Fireball or Conjure Animals or Animate Dead or whatever. Whispers stabs just fine, much like a Rogue. Eloquence, Glamour and Creation aren't that damage dealey, but that's certainly in the minority. And even those Bards have decent damage dealing: Thunderwave, Cloud of Daggers, Shatter, Synaptic Static, Animate Objects, etc. They just lack a damage cantrip, but for Tier 1 a Light Crossbow suffices.

[x3n0n]

I don't think that Paladins getting access to firebolt compensates completely for a lack of ranged options.

I would agree that the default build of straight-classed Paladin (Str, heavy armor) has this weakness.

That said, once you get past starting equipment and accept a lack of the Archery fighting style, a Dex Paladin can do a pretty good "diet Ranger" impression, plus the whole Aura thing. We had a recent thread about Dexadins. The cantrip fighting style gets you Guidance for a bit more out-of-combat utility plus one of Mending/ranged-save/Light, or just use use Blind Fighting or Defense (or Dueling) instead. There's a decent argument that being prepared-spells increases the versatility on a campaign scale as well.

[MrCharlie]

Well, every Bard can shore it up easily enough: Swords and Valor can use weapons and do just fine while Lore Bard can pick up like Fireball or Conjure Animals or Animate Dead or whatever. Whispers stabs just fine, much like a Rogue. Eloquence, Glamour and Creation aren't that damage dealey, but that's certainly in the minority. And even those Bards have decent damage dealing: Thunderwave, Cloud of Daggers, Shatter, Synaptic Static, Animate Objects, etc. They just lack a damage cantrip, but for Tier 1 a Light Crossbow suffices.
What a bard really lacks of a way to tank, by which I mean draw aggro or (meaningfully) reduce damage to allies. You can always use feats to compensate, but they won't do much to really equalize it with a paladin, barbarian, etc.

Damage wise, bards are fine if you can spam spells and all except whisper are bad otherwise. Whisper bards are decent Gishes in contrast, although bardic inspiration is a limited resource to the degree that whisper is probably a bad bard subclass anyway, at least compared to what else you can do, but it does fulfill the OP request of doing multiple things at least decently.

[Droppeddead]

Ehhhhh.

I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong. ;)

Paladins have access to all Martial weapons which gives them plenty of ranged options, especially if you combine it with spells like Magic or Holy Weapon.
Not sure why bring up things like 'overpowered do-it-alls', no-one has claimed they were. Paladins have good Charisma, yes. Which gives them an edge on the whole social aspect. They also have access to Guidance which can negate a lot of bad ability scores in most situations.

Paladins have access to healing, buffs and debuffs. They have some really handy tricks like their divine sense and they get Find (greater) Steed which at level 13 takes away the whole "flying enemies" issue. They are good at all three aspects of the game and they are excellent at making their team members better. So yeah, they're pretty high up there on the list.

As for Monk, every class starts out with bad HP and AC. That said, an SPA-based AC of 15 and 9 HP is not bad for level one. Not the best but not bad. Multiple subclasses (Kensei, Four elements, Sun Soul) also have excellent ranged capabilities. They are the fastest and most mobile class of them all. Especially if you take into account subclasses (Shadow Monk, looking at you).
The fact that Monks are literally the only class that is totally unreliant on any kind of gear to be able to do what they do is just icing on the cake.

[strangebloke]

Well, every Bard can shore it up easily enough: Swords and Valor can use weapons and do just fine while Lore Bard can pick up like Fireball or Conjure Animals or Animate Dead or whatever. Whispers stabs just fine, much like a Rogue. Eloquence, Glamour and Creation aren't that damage dealey, but that's certainly in the minority. And even those Bards have decent damage dealing: Thunderwave, Cloud of Daggers, Shatter, Synaptic Static, Animate Objects, etc. They just lack a damage cantrip, but for Tier 1 a Light Crossbow suffices.

they have a few okay aoe options and they can use magic secrets to get more but its still a limitation of the class. That's not to say that direct damage is the most important thing but its still something that has to be considered when speaking of how "well rounded" a class is.


I would agree that the default build of straight-classed Paladin (Str, heavy armor) has this weakness.

That said, once you get past starting equipment and accept a lack of the Archery fighting style, a Dex Paladin can do a pretty good "diet Ranger" impression, plus the whole Aura thing. We had a recent thread about Dexadins. The cantrip fighting style gets you Guidance for a bit more out-of-combat utility plus one of Mending/ranged-save/Light, or just use use Blind Fighting or Defense (or Dueling) instead. There's a decent argument that being prepared-spells increases the versatility on a campaign scale as well.

A dex paladin can pick up a longbow and use it but they're only marginally more effective at it than a Barbarian, which is to say, pretty bad. Zero of their class features work at that range.


I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong. ;)

Paladins have access to all Martial weapons which gives them plenty of ranged options, especially if you combine it with spells like Magic or Holy Weapon.
Not sure why bring up things like 'overpowered do-it-alls', no-one has claimed they were. Paladins have good Charisma, yes. Which gives them an edge on the whole social aspect. They also have access to Guidance which can negate a lot of bad ability scores in most situations.

Paladins have access to healing, buffs and debuffs. They have some really handy tricks like their divine sense and they get Find (greater) Steed which at level 13 takes away the whole "flying enemies" issue. They are good at all three aspects of the game and they are excellent at making their team members better. So yeah, they're pretty high up there on the list.

As for Monk, every class starts out with bad HP and AC. That said, an SPA-based AC of 15 and 9 HP is not bad for level one. Not the best but not bad. Multiple subclasses (Kensei, Four elements, Sun Soul) also have excellent ranged capabilities. They are the fastest and most mobile class of them all. Especially if you take into account subclasses (Shadow Monk, looking at you).
The fact that Monks are literally the only class that is totally unreliant on any kind of gear to be able to do what they do is just icing on the cake.

See my above point with respect to ranged options. Holy Weapon is a 5th level spell that they won't get access to until the end of the game, and magic weapon makes them okay but still less good than a level 1 fighter. Expending resources to equal someone four levels lower than you is not impressive. The only class that's worse at range is the barbarian.

Similarly saying that an ability they get at 13th level solves "the flying problem" is kind of weak imo. They are better off than monks and barbarians here, but that's faint praise.

The fact that paladins are MAD and require charisma does not make them better at the social aspect. It makes them more limited than other classes would be. A fighter can have just as much charisma if they want to, and arguably can have more because they really don't need CON as much as paladins do.

15 AC and 9 HP is... really bad for a melee character.

As for ranged options, kensai are sort of passable and sun soul has a medium range attack, but everything else is pitifully short range.

To be clear I like all these classes. I just see them as more specialized than true jack-of-all-trades like the ranger.

[blackjack50]

Are you looking for a class in which a character can be built to do anything, or a class in which a single character can do *everything*? Warlocks for example can probably do the former but not the latter.

One character that can do “everything.” Obviously not really everything. But would generally be useful in most situations.

[x3n0n]

A dex paladin can pick up a longbow and use it but they're only marginally more effective at it than a Barbarian, which is to say, pretty bad. Zero of their class features work at that range.


Admittedly, Divine Smite and Improved Divine Smite only function in melee, and a Paladin will clearly prefer to be in melee most of the time. However, a Paladin with Divine Favor is dealing +1d4 radiant on every weapon attack that hits, even ranged ones, which doesn't seem to compare that poorly to a Ranger with Hunter's Mark (both of which are first-level spells cast with a bonus action). (Devotion's Sacred Weapon also functions with a ranged weapon.)

I think a Longbow Dexadin can contribute just fine at range without any unnatural build investment (unless you count "being a Dexadin" as unnatural, which doesn't seem to be that bad to me; you can still have a +5 in your combat stat and stand your ground in melee).

Am I missing something obvious?

[strangebloke]

Admittedly, Divine Smite and Improved Divine Smite only function in melee, and a Paladin will clearly prefer to be in melee most of the time. However, a Paladin with Divine Favor is dealing +1d4 radiant on every weapon attack that hits, even ranged ones, which doesn't seem to compare that poorly to a Ranger with Hunter's Mark (both of which are first-level spells cast with a bonus action). (Devotion's Sacred Weapon also functions with a ranged weapon.)

I think a Longbow Dexadin can contribute just fine at range without any unnatural build investment (unless you count "being a Dexadin" as unnatural, which doesn't seem to be that bad to me; you can still have a +5 in your combat stat and stand your ground in melee).

Am I missing something obvious?

As far as support for ranged combat Paladins get three spells (divine favor, magic weapon, holy weapon) and one channel divinity option (sacred weapon.)

That makes them better than barbarians, and a little bit worse than kensai except for devotion paladins who are a little better.

Virtually every other class in the game is able to use most if not all of their class features at range. Battlemasters can trip off ranged attacks. Rogues can sneak attack. Samurai can pop fighting spirit. Rangers can cast... gosh. Hunter's Mark, Swift Quiver, hail of thorns... and that's on top of usually getting access to a conditional third attack via subclass features. Wizards and clerics have loads of high-range damage and debuff spells. Warlocks have supercharged Eldritch blasts. Ranger and fighter get +2 to ranged attacks for free. Fighters get as many as four attacks, as do warlocks. Rogues can bonus action hide to situationally get advantage at range.

Dexadins can and should use longbows when they have to, but they are going to be very sad compared to when they are in melee. A devo paladin who is popping sacred weapon to get +1 to his attack rolls relative to the party fighter is very very sad.

[Eldariel]

What a bard really lacks of a way to tank, by which I mean draw aggro or (meaningfully) reduce damage to allies. You can always use feats to compensate, but they won't do much to really equalize it with a paladin, barbarian, etc.

Eh, now here I completely disagree. Casting heavy CC spells is an excellent eay to draw aggro and subclass-specific things like Cutting Words, Valor AC Boost, etc. only give the enemy more incentive. On the contrary, Barbarians, Pallies and company are largely worse at drawing it. Even Ancestral Guardian comes short compared to good CC; few Pallies might match it but that's about it.

Generally casters are the best at decreasing enemy ounput: there are better ways to do it than standing in front and hoping that they attack you (that's the job of minions). What you really want is enemies out of the fight, which is what spells do.

[x3n0n]

As far as support for ranged combat Paladins get three spells (divine favor, magic weapon, holy weapon) and one channel divinity option (sacred weapon.)

That makes them better than barbarians, and a little bit worse than kensai except for devotion paladins who are a little better.

Virtually every other class in the game is able to use most if not all of their class features at range. Battlemasters can trip off ranged attacks. Rogues can sneak attack. Samurai can pop fighting spirit. Rangers can cast... gosh. Hunter's Mark, Swift Quiver, hail of thorns... and that's on top of usually getting access to a conditional third attack via subclass features. Wizards and clerics have loads of high-range damage and debuff spells. Warlocks have supercharged Eldritch blasts. Ranger and fighter get +2 to ranged attacks for free. Fighters get as many as four attacks, as do warlocks. Rogues can bonus action hide to situationally get advantage at range.

Dexadins can and should use longbows when they have to, but they are going to be very sad compared to when they are in melee. A devo paladin who is popping sacred weapon to get +1 to his attack rolls relative to the party fighter is very very sad.

Thank you for highlighting something I missed: the difference isn't particularly stark until tier 3, where Paladin's only damage boost is Improved Divine Smite. No argument from me that their ranged damage falls significantly behind Fighter, Kensei, and several Ranger subclasses at that point.

That said:
1. Tiers 1 and 2 still seem just fine to me, relative to any martial that didn't take the Archery FS (which has its own opportunity cost).
2. If the yardstick is "jack of all trades" then it seems like Fighter and Kensei are probably out of the picture anyway, compared to a half-caster and healer with Aura of Protection (and subclass features)?
3. I think there's a reasonable argument that "prepared spells" is a significant boost to versatility.

I am not claiming that they're *better* than Rangers for this thread's purpose, but I don't think that they're so bad as to be disqualified as candidates for "good all-around contributor" (assuming Dexadin, of course).

[strangebloke]

Thank you for highlighting something I missed: the difference isn't particularly stark until tier 3, where Paladin's only damage boost is Improved Divine Smite. No argument from me that their ranged damage falls significantly behind Fighter, Kensei, and several Ranger subclasses at that point.

That said:
1. Tiers 1 and 2 still seem just fine to me, relative to any martial that didn't take the Archery FS (which has its own opportunity cost).
2. If the yardstick is "jack of all trades" then it seems like Fighter and Kensei are probably out of the picture anyway, compared to a half-caster and healer with Aura of Protection (and subclass features)?
3. I think there's a reasonable argument that "prepared spells" is a significant boost to versatility.

I am not claiming that they're *better* than Rangers for this thread's purpose, but I don't think that they're so bad as to be disqualified as candidates for "good all-around contributor" (assuming Dexadin, of course).


IMO a class that has the option to build in a wide variety of directions is more well-rounded than a class that does not have that option. Fighters having access to the archery style represents an option that Paladins do not have.
I would overall agree with that, although fighters are very hard to rate as they're the "build your own class" class. Fighters do better on really long adventuring days and can be built to have lots of out-of-combat utility and healing, though admittedly not as much as Paladins. Monks are honestly just kind of sad.
For sure. But Rangers have an overall much more impressive spell list. Healing Spirit? Pass without trace? Find Steed is also really really good but doesn't represent utility to me so much as raw power.

[Quietus]

Artificer, probably. An armorer or battlemaster, although an armorer has a few more niches. In combat they are passable Gish strikers, can do decent AOE damage with spells, are decent to excellent tanks (always highly survivable, armorers are also good at drawing aggro), and have enough mobility related infusions to be fast response.

They also have good (but not great) support options, including cure wounds, aid, lesser restoration, and greater restoration, and several good buff spells that either make them better strikers or buffers.

They also have the best concentration in the game, with both excellent saving throw bonuses, concentration save proficiency, SADness allowing for a high CON, and even auto-succeed capacity.

In terms of out of combat utility they are the best at any task that a tool proficiency can apply to with the exception of using thieves tools (they are merely very good at that), and have the magic, magic items, and class features to excel at a variety of challenges. They even have a built in psuedo-familiar infusion in the homunculus (no flyby attack cheese but halfway between a familiar an animal companion otherwise). At the extreme end with a one level dip or a feat a battlemaster artificer can have a familiar, homunculus, and steel defender. Along with tiny servants. All artificers thus have a significant ability to impact disparate events remotely, aided by certain infusions and spells, and/or scout.

They also have a decent amount of roleplay opportunity with customizable appearances to most of what they do, although a tighter class theme limits that somewhat. I personally consider them to have a leg up in that department because their SAD nature means that, while you are almost absolutely an intelligent character, you are not shoe horned into having a bunch of other stats. If you want to run a high INT, WIS, and CHA you'll be less effective than someone who min-maxes CON and INT, but not by too much.

After playing a couple artificers, I was always contributing, sometimes excelling, in pretty much any situation. I rarely topped damage, but I was keeping up. I was the main tank due to thunder gauntlets drawing and keeping aggro, but was extremely hard to subvert or put down with my high saves. I had significant tactical flexibility with spells, and infusions gave me great mobility. Out of combat I was keeping up with the Bard in terms of engaging with encounters, which is saying something given that Bard is the other obvious answer to this question. There were some things I simply couldn't do, like teleport the party, translate text or words, enchant enemies, or make illusions and such, but that generally limited my tactics not applicability.

(And arguably, an artificer can do anything given that magic items exist and if anyone can make one an artificer can, but given that the RAW explicitly make the DM gatekeeper of magic items besides infusions, that's a stretch).

I'd be interested in how you got your damage up, beyond the 1d8+int thunder damage, and potential +x infusions. Did you take any particular option that helped with that?

[sambojin]

I tend to say this a lot on here.

It's Moon Druid. A Firbolg Moon Druid. Especially with Tasha's "nah, it's +1Con and +2Wis, and double carry capacity. No extra Str needed". Yep, and you keep tonnes of pretty useful short rest magic.

So strong between lvls 1-9 it's ridiculous, and carries pretty well up to lvl13. Does it do skills and intrigue and charisma? Yep.

It does busted-arse stupid-druid-tricks and low-level combat and full caster spam as well.

Is it "the best" class/ race, on average? No. But geez there's a lot there to use pretty well.

Don't know what campaign you'll be in, how your DM adjucates summons, or what you even want to be/ do? Be a Firbolg Moon Druid. It works!

(Yes, summon bird thingy is Extra Attack at level 3. Yes, it scales down a bit from there
But yes, you do hardcore combat until other people do, with one simple "way easier than Conjure Animals" spell)

[Droppeddead]

A dex paladin can pick up a longbow and use it but they're only marginally more effective at it than a Barbarian, which is to say, pretty bad. Zero of their class features work at that range.

See my above point with respect to ranged options. Holy Weapon is a 5th level spell that they won't get access to until the end of the game, and magic weapon makes them okay but still less good than a level 1 fighter. Expending resources to equal someone four levels lower than you is not impressive. The only class that's worse at range is the barbarian.

Well, the point is that you said "Paladins have no ranged options whatsoever" which is demonstrably completely false. Magic weapon is objectively better than a level 1 fighter.


Similarly saying that an ability they get at 13th level solves "the flying problem" is kind of weak imo. They are better off than monks and barbarians here, but that's faint praise.

Well, no since it solves that problem. Which isn't really a problem as much as a faux argument that you put out there. Not sure how a pet Pegasus is weak but maybe you and I play very different games.


The fact that paladins are MAD and require charisma does not make them better at the social aspect. It makes them more limited than other classes would be. A fighter can have just as much charisma if they want to, and arguably can have more because they really don't need CON as much as paladins do.

Uhm, what? Fighters, the class that doesn't have access to their own healing, buff spells, auras or similar, doesn't need Con? Seriously? :D
And no. Being taking advantage of the things you are good at is no limitation. That's not how it works. :P


15 AC and 9 HP is... really bad for a melee character.

At level 1? Not really. It's better AC than rogues and rangers with leather armour and probably also better than barbarians unless they boosted Con instead of Strength.


As for ranged options, kensai are sort of passable and sun soul has a medium range attack, but everything else is pitifully short range.

Sure, there are limitations. I'm just pointing out the fact taht you are completely wrong when you say things like "Paladins have no ranged options whatsoever" or that monks "have to fight in melee to do damage".


To be clear I like all these classes. I just see them as more specialized than true jack-of-all-trades like the ranger.

Sure, the Ranger is also good, but that doesn't take anything away from the other classes.

[Eldariel]

Sure, there are limitations. I'm just pointing out the fact taht you are completely wrong when you say things like "Paladins have no ranged options whatsoever" or that monks "have to fight in melee to do damage".

While the exact verbatim may be off, the idea is pretty sound: for most Paladins and Monks there's going to be a severe dip in performance when forced to engage at range, especially if you have to fight before FGS comes online (which admittedly solves this problem beautifully for Pallies). Pallies in particular, being generally Str-based, have a hard time getting decent ranged attacks except for Dex Pallies, which are a thing but probably less common than Str Pallies and in any case, not fully representative.

As such, I'd say it's totally okay to list "ranged combat" as a weakness for Pally, Monk & Barbarian even though that's not universal to the classes. Of those, Pally is of course the best of the bunch at it but even they aren't exceptional by any means even in their best guise (Dex Pally). Of course, this is an issue with categorising classes rather than builds: most classes can do most things but at a cost. Jorasco Wizard pays their racials to become a proficient healer for instance.


If we rated classes based on ranged offensive performance, those three would no doubt be at the bottom. They can still do it but they generally perform worse at it than others.

[diplomancer]

At level 1? Not really. It's better AC than rogues and rangers with leather armour and probably also better than barbarians unless they boosted Con instead of Strength.

Barbarians can easily get 17, or at least 16 (with 14 con and dex) AC at level 1. Just use a shield. Your healers will thank you for it. And, of course, as early as level 2 you might already have enough money to buy Scale Mail, boosting your AC to 18; a Monk won't get that before level 8 at the earliest.

Rangers start with Studded Leather or Scale Mail, so it's either 15 or 16 without a shield, 17 or 18 with one. But if the Ranger doesn't have a shield, he's probably fighting at range, and so AC is less important for him than for the Monk. Rogues, too, don't need to be in melee unless they want to.

I mostly agree with what you said about Paladins, though.

(Climbs on soapbox) Find Greater Steed is a design mistake, created by the designer's decision to avoid changing the PHB as much as possible; Find Steed should just be upcastable, allowing you to summon CR 1 steeds at spell level 3 (like Hippogriff), CR 2 steeds at spell level 4, and CR 3 steeds at spell level 5 (though I believe there aren't any proper CR 3 steeds; there's the Nightmare, but if you are riding one I don't think most NPCs will react very well to you, or believe your story that THIS Nightmare is actually a Celestial ;) ). That would give Paladins access to flying mounts at level 9, which is quite reasonable, comparable with the druids getting flying wildshapes at level 8.

[strangebloke]

Well, the point is that you said "Paladins have no ranged options whatsoever" which is demonstrably completely false. Magic weapon is objectively better than a level 1 fighter.

Well, no since it solves that problem. Which isn't really a problem as much as a faux argument that you put out there. Not sure how a pet Pegasus is weak but maybe you and I play very different games.

Uhm, what? Fighters, the class that doesn't have access to their own healing, buff spells, auras or similar, doesn't need Con? Seriously? :D
And no. Being taking advantage of the things you are good at is no limitation. That's not how it works. :P

At level 1? Not really. It's better AC than rogues and rangers with leather armour and probably also better than barbarians unless they boosted Con instead of Strength.

Sure, there are limitations. I'm just pointing out the fact taht you are completely wrong when you say things like "Paladins have no ranged options whatsoever" or that monks "have to fight in melee to do damage".

Sure, the Ranger is also good, but that doesn't take anything away from the other classes.

You are misrepresenting my argument. My argument is that

Specific builds should not be considered when speaking of a class holistically (EG, speaking only of devotion dexadins and kenseis, unless you're talking about out of combat utility, in which case kenseis dissapear and suddenly we're talking about redemption paladins and shadow monks)
High Level Features (EG, spells that are accessed at 13th or 17 level) are relevant to fewer than 10% of games and while they're relevant they're simply not as important as abilities gained in t1 and t2.
Resource consumption is a factor in games that aren't 5 minute adventuring day games, and paladins lack options that can be used without resources. Bringing up spells (other than stuff like find steed which requires essentially no resources) as a way to shore up their weaknesses misses this point.


Furthermore, the argument that "they need to have a high 'x' stat to make their class features work and that stat is useful out of combat" is silly. ALL stats other than CON have out of combat utility, and the fact that paladin is constrained to having high CHA is a weakness of the class rather than a strength. If your party already has three high charisma characters (perhaps a sorcerer, a bard, and a warlock) a paladin will have no utility from his high CHA, whereas a fighter or rogue could feel free to specialize in WIS or INT. Being MAD is not a good thing for a character being an all-rounder and I'm actually shocked that I have to explain this.

I did forget that divine favor worked at range, which is probably their best fighting-at-range tool, and because paladins are prepared casters it is relevant most the time.

EDIT:I will also say that I'm not saying fighters are better all-rounders. Far from it. I bring up fighters because they're a pretty good pace car to judge other classes against. The ranged blasting utility of a warlock, for example, compares favorably even to a fighter specialized in ranged combat.

[Osuniev]

Just commenting to say that while I agree Bards are probably the pest "all-around" class, they definitely lack (comparatively) the ability to deal consequent damage and tank in combat. All my Bards players so far have felt like they were "less" powerful in combat, although they can be great at control and support.

It changes when the bards get magical secrets, and of course like all full-casters, if the 5-min adventuring day is a thing. (It's not at my table, so Warlocks and Fighters tend to be the best in combat, with the Rogue catching up when there's 3 encounters without a short rest).

[MrCharlie]

Eh, now here I completely disagree. Casting heavy CC spells is an excellent eay to draw aggro and subclass-specific things like Cutting Words, Valor AC Boost, etc. only give the enemy more incentive. On the contrary, Barbarians, Pallies and company are largely worse at drawing it. Even Ancestral Guardian comes short compared to good CC; few Pallies might match it but that's about it.

Generally casters are the best at decreasing enemy ounput: there are better ways to do it than standing in front and hoping that they attack you (that's the job of minions). What you really want is enemies out of the fight, which is what spells do.
If you're casting CC spells, you don't want aggro. You want to walk away and let the enemy die. Yes, you've drawn it, but you're doing contradictory things at the same time.

Ideal tanking is not about getting attacked, it's about getting attacked when this is a bad strategy for the enemy. Ancestral guardians can do that very well, some paladins can do it as well, Artificers are excellent at, etc.

[MrCharlie]

I'd be interested in how you got your damage up, beyond the 1d8+int thunder damage, and potential +x infusions. Did you take any particular option that helped with that?
You can sharpshooter with ranged weapons, but the main thing is using spells like heat metal and bigby's hand to hit enemies at the same time you strike them with attack actions. Damage is easily your worst attribute, but even if you deal 50% the damage but hit more because of built in +2 weapons, that's still contributing.

[Eldariel]

If you're casting CC spells, you don't want aggro. You want to walk away and let the enemy die. Yes, you've drawn it, but you're doing contradictory things at the same time.

Ideal tanking is not about getting attacked, it's about getting attacked when this is a bad strategy for the enemy. Ancestral guardians can do that very well, some paladins can do it as well, Artificers are excellent at, etc.

It's not that simple: you want the opponent in a lose-lose. Making yourself less useful by not being worth attacking if enemy isn't forced to is in no ways better than being worth attacking but being a difficult target. If a Barbarian could cast Hypnotic Pattern instead of turning on Ancestral Aura, they would; the ideal is to be both hyperdisruptive and impossible to hurt. You're kinda tanking innately if you have both of those qualities, one of the reason frontline Wizards can be so brutal: they are hard to hit and can rain high value effects on the enemy. Any Bard who wants can just take Moderately Armored and if they also have stuff like Glamour or Swords or Lore Bard's Inspiration, they're actually pretty solid up front if not quite Wizard-level.

In short, it's not that it needs to be a bad strategy strategy for the enemy: it's even better if it's the only (inefficient) strategy you've left the enemy.

[strangebloke]

It's not that simple: you want the opponent in a lose-lose. Making yourself less useful by not being worth attacking if enemy isn't forced to is in no ways better than being worth attacking but being a difficult target. If a Barbarian could cast Hypnotic Pattern instead of turning on Ancestral Aura, they would; the ideal is to be both hyperdisruptive and impossible to hurt. You're kinda tanking innately if you have both of those qualities, one of the reason frontline Wizards can be so brutal: they are hard to hit and can rain high value effects on the enemy. Any Bard who wants can just take Moderately Armored and if they also have stuff like Glamour or Swords or Lore Bard's Inspiration, they're actually pretty solid up front if not quite Wizard-level.

In short, it's not that it needs to be a bad strategy strategy for the enemy: it's even better if it's the only (inefficient) strategy you've left the enemy.

This reminds me of a point someone made a while back, that the most efficient way to use Ancestral Guardians is to shoot the enemy with an arrow and then run away.

Personally I do think that the Bard's overall lack of resilience is an issue. Once again this is something that can be fixed by building them in a specific way, but there's a large opportunity cost there. Picking Valor Bard over Lore is a serious tradeoff.

[Eldariel]

This reminds me of a point someone made a while back, that the most efficient way to use Ancestral Guardians is to shoot the enemy with an arrow and then run away.

Personally I do think that the Bard's overall lack of resilience is an issue. Once again this is something that can be fixed by building them in a specific way, but there's a large opportunity cost there. Picking Valor Bard over Lore is a serious tradeoff.

Well, I think Bard is a bit different in this regard because they all come with Moderately Armored access, meaning any Bard can start with those proficiencies. That is to say, the Bard-chassis caters to the investment you need to get the AC of a frontliner (19 is more than enough, especially if you're like Lore and have Cutting Words on top of it).

[strangebloke]

Well, I think Bard is a bit different in this regard because they all come with Moderately Armored access, meaning any Bard can start with those proficiencies. That is to say, the Bard-chassis caters to the investment you need to get the AC of a frontliner (19 is more than enough, especially if you're like Lore and have Cutting Words on top of it).

Yeah that is true. Moderately armored is imo one of the best feats in the game, and a severely underrated one. The number of classes that can immediately get as much as +5 AC out of a half-feat is actually crazy.

Its funny how good some options are despite coming up only rarely. Dexadins are another example. I've yet to see one stick around for more than a few sessions despite tons of hours of play, and I've never had a ranger at my table.

[MrCharlie]

It's not that simple: you want the opponent in a lose-lose. Making yourself less useful by not being worth attacking if enemy isn't forced to is in no ways better than being worth attacking but being a difficult target. If a Barbarian could cast Hypnotic Pattern instead of turning on Ancestral Aura, they would; the ideal is to be both hyperdisruptive and impossible to hurt. You're kinda tanking innately if you have both of those qualities, one of the reason frontline Wizards can be so brutal: they are hard to hit and can rain high value effects on the enemy. Any Bard who wants can just take Moderately Armored and if they also have stuff like Glamour or Swords or Lore Bard's Inspiration, they're actually pretty solid up front if not quite Wizard-level.

In short, it's not that it needs to be a bad strategy strategy for the enemy: it's even better if it's the only (inefficient) strategy you've left the enemy.
A good tank doesn't make it lose-lose in terms of "If they are hurting me, they've avoided hurting an ally" It's lose-lose in terms of "They can't effectively hurt me or an ally". If you're using CC to draw aggro, then they can effectively hurt you by breaking concentration.

Ancestral guardians are a great example where their ability to resist damage and help allies resist damage means that the enemy is incapable of meaningfully hurting either. Artificers are another one (armorers in particular) where their AC tanking and disadvantage on attacks against allies mean that enemy attacks are largely ineffective, and combined with positioning they can keep enemies from having any options that lead to effective damage or condition placement.

What makes frontline wizard builds effective isn't their ability to tank, it's the fact that they don't care if there is a tank. Once your concentration, AC, and HP are high enough that you can weather enemy hits and maintain concentration, the enemy has zero counterplay to being CC'd. The other option is to make your CC good enough that the enemy can't possibly act, but 5e has enough mechanics preventing that to render it implausible-a +1 to save DC versus a +5 to concentration saves favors the +5 to concentration saves in the quest to make every enemy helpless.

Hence the strength of builds that sacrifice a wizard level or a feat in order to get warcaster or resilient CON or heavy armor.

But-and this is the key-none of this is tanking. It's winning, and strictly speaking the best party probably responds to most encounters by having each person cast hypnotic pattern or hold person until nothing is moving, but it's not tanking. If you want to Tank, you want to be able to force enemies to avoid attacking someone else by making their attacks against someone else ineffectual, while also making attacks against you ineffectual. Wizards can't make attacks against other people ineffectual. They can attempt to prevent attacks from happening to begin with, but can't make them ineffectual.

(Attacks, in this context, includes saving throw abilities, and holistic tanking prevents both).

Also, armorers artificers can both make enemy attacks ineffectual and disable them entirely with spells. They don't care about concentration saves because they have such high concentration saving throws that it's irrelevant, and they effectively mitigate attacks against AC and saving throws on themselves and allies with various abilities. Bards can mimic this and can use CC earlier, but no bardic archetype gives sufficient damage mitigation on allies, survivability, and saving throw bonuses to do it effectively, at least not until higher levels. This is why, with a few exceptions, role segregation is still a thing-the classes that can CC or do damage at lower levels can't invest into enough defense to prevent breaking of their CC or their deaths at those same levels. Bards get hypnotic pattern before armorers, but armorers get mitigation before bards.

[Eldariel]

What makes frontline wizard builds effective isn't their ability to tank, it's the fact that they don't care if there is a tank. Once your concentration, AC, and HP are high enough that you can weather enemy hits and maintain concentration, the enemy has zero counterplay to being CC'd. The other option is to make your CC good enough that the enemy can't possibly act, but 5e has enough mechanics preventing that to render it implausible-a +1 to save DC versus a +5 to concentration saves favors the +5 to concentration saves in the quest to make every enemy helpless.

Hence the strength of builds that sacrifice a wizard level or a feat in order to get warcaster or resilient CON or heavy armor.

But-and this is the key-none of this is tanking. It's winning, and strictly speaking the best party probably responds to most encounters by having each person cast hypnotic pattern or hold person until nothing is moving, but it's not tanking. If you want to Tank, you want to be able to force enemies to avoid attacking someone else by making their attacks against someone else ineffectual, while also making attacks against you ineffectual. Wizards can't make attacks against other people ineffectual. They can attempt to prevent attacks from happening to begin with, but can't make them ineffectual.

But this seems completely meaningless. Whether you're tanking or winning as you put it, you're fundamentally doing the same job: making the enemy useless. Which is the basic goal of what both boil down to. You don't need to be any good at plain tanking if you're good at winning since they're the same competence area. Tanking is just another, somewhat inferior way of going about the same thing.

Same with damage; whether you're doing it with weapons or minions or fireballs is barely relevant, what matters is what you're doing to what number of creatures and against what resistances. Both of these are examples of where the actual performance in the most general competence area is generally what you really care about, i.e. what makes a character good or bad at something.


If we reduce combat down to what actually matters, we get pretty much the following matrix:
- Damage
* AOE/melee
* AOE/short range (say 30'-)
* AOE/medium range (say 30'-100')
* AOE/long range (say 100'+)
* Single-target/melee
* Single-target/short range (say 30'-)
* Single-target/medium range (say 30'-120')
* Single-target/long range (say 120'+)

- Non-damage
* Enemy offensive capability minimisation/single target
* Enemy offensive capability minimisation/AOE
* Enemy defensive capability minimisation/single target
* Enemy defensive capability minimisation/AOE
* Party defensive capability enhancement/single target
* Party defensive capability enhancement/team
* Party offensive capability enhancement/single target
* Party offensive capability enhancement/team

And outside that minionmancy, since it generally provides multiples of both. Now, all these tanking things go under "enemy offensive capability minimisation" but if you're "winning" you're probably doing it while also affecting enemy defensive capability (which of course mirrors into equivalent bonuses on party offensive and defensive capability; these could of course be presented as a single scalar as the effect is the same but the means of going about it vary). So you're doing the same and a bit more. Ergo the same category.

[diplomancer]

Well, I think Bard is a bit different in this regard because they all come with Moderately Armored access, meaning any Bard can start with those proficiencies. That is to say, the Bard-chassis caters to the investment you need to get the AC of a frontliner (19 is more than enough, especially if you're like Lore and have Cutting Words on top of it).

Cutting words only protects against one attack though; quite good for a back liner, but I'm afraid lacking to tank in the front line.


Yeah that is true. Moderately armored is imo one of the best feats in the game, and a severely underrated one. The number of classes that can immediately get as much as +5 AC out of a half-feat is actually crazy.

Its funny how good some options are despite coming up only rarely. Dexadins are another example. I've yet to see one stick around for more than a few sessions despite tons of hours of play, and I've never had a ranger at my table.

Moderately Armoured would be a top-tier feat... in a non-multiclassing game. As it is, it's still good, but loses some of its potency.

[Eldariel]

Cutting words only protects against one attack though; quite good for a back liner, but I'm afraid lacking to tank in the front line.

I dunno, if you already have 19 AC (Moderately Armored) you're not getting hit that often and being able to knock one of those attacks off works pretty well.

[Elandel]

Yeah, Bard > Warlock > Rogue, like most people said. All are pretty flexible and can fill any roles.

[LudicSavant]

So I am just curious what y’all see as the best “all around” classes. And when I say “all around,” I am thinking in every sense of the word. Combat (all kinds), RP, skill checks, and so on.

I think the Bard is probably the most versatile. The charisma makes it easy to handle so many situations, and your spell choices mean you could fill in as a very strong support class, but then having the ability to completely change the field of battle with smart use. The only other class I think that gets close may be a Rogue, but I’ve not played them.

What about y’all?

Bard is definitely up there, but I'd put the Wizard way up there too. Yes, the Bard can pick from any spell list -- but the Wizard has waaaay more spells than any given Bard has known, and frankly that list is so good that an optimal Bard might spend most or all of their Magical Secrets picks just picking goodies off the Wizard list. And the Wizard can be built to fill any role exceptionally well (even healer -- Jorasco Wizard is one of the best overall healer builds in the game).

Like, you could seriously have something like a Jorasco Retvoker for your frontliner, healer, controller, AoE damage dealer, single target damage dealer, utility, and skill monkey.

[Frogreaver]

So I am just curious what y’all see as the best “all around” classes. And when I say “all around,” I am thinking in every sense of the word. Combat (all kinds), RP, skill checks, and so on.

I think the Bard is probably the most versatile. The charisma makes it easy to handle so many situations, and your spell choices mean you could fill in as a very strong support class, but then having the ability to completely change the field of battle with smart use. The only other class I think that gets close may be a Rogue, but I’ve not played them.

What about y’all?

I've never had much luck with roleplaying clerics, druids, monks or paladins or Rangers in entertaining ways. Not saying it can't be done but I find those difficult. I tend to find the simpler the class mechanics the easier the class is to roleplay. So Barbarians, Fighters and Rogues roleplay great IMO. I also find Wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, artificers and bards to also roleplay great.

For Combat I've not had an issue with any classes. Bards obviously lack a bit in damage but have ways to compensate for it if desired. Fighters and Barbarians really don't add much outside of taking damage and dealing damage. Rogues deal moderate damage and little else. Though their ability to hide or move around during combat opens up some nice tactical depth that makes combat with rogues really fun even if they aren't necessarily the most effective.

Out of combat though Rogues and Rangers are really the only martial classes I could recommend. Almost every full caster offers some nice out of combat utility, even warlocks.

The classes that really tick off all those boxes are: artificers, bards, rogues, wizards, warlocks, sorcerers.