Class Design Thoughts

[MrStabby]

So its been a while since 5th edition came out. A lot of my thoughts on the different classes and thier respective designs have shifted over this time. I thought I would review.

I originally wrote this as a bit of a rant about what I see as all the problems being, but as I found myself conrasting the total screw-ups that I felt were made with other elements of 5th classes that I quite liked... it kind of became apparent that there are some really solid elements to the game.

So whilst I go through class by class, I think there are a few overall comments I would make:

1) I love that there are more class abilities than 2nd and 3rd edition. Or at least it feels like there are. here are still dead levels and ribbons or levels where just the proficiency bonus goes up and so on, but generally you feel that a class progresses. Importantly it does this, at least for levels 1 to 10, with new abilities rather that just tagging on another bit of damage reduction or another +1 to something else as I feel previous systems did.

2) Its light touch. So light touch in terms of complexity and moving parts. Whilst its easy to pick up and I like that it takes away the focus from the mechanics a bit, I would personally like a bit more.

3) The archetype system works well. By having some core elements that remain the same but switching up some big chunks of flavour you stop the classes feeling boring. Yes, I do wish more of the character power was in the archetype (and the race as well I guess) than the class, but the system seems pretty good. Ironically or contradictorally, I do tend to rate low the classes that have few core class features and push others to the archetypes.

I would also stress that I am rating the design by how much the class brings to the game rather than by how much fun it is to play, so if a class is a blast to play but is liable to suck the fun out of the game for other players, then it gets a low score.

Anyway, I state these things as objective facts... obviously they are just opinions (which whilst it shouldn't need saying... apparently frequently does). I also but my own ratings out of 10 at the end of each simply because its harder to vehemently disagree with something if there isn't a particular ranking/scale to it, and wha would the internet be if we couldn't use it to provoke disagreement.

Artificer

This is simultaniously a wonderful design and a total hot mess of crap. This thing is complex and liable to get more so... infusions, magic item combinations, different playstyles with different party compositions, spellcasting... and the usual class features on top of that. Honestly, this thing took so many read throughs and planning and thinking just to understand what the class did. Then at the end of it I was unimpressed. Then I realised I was wrong.

The class is powerful. Importantly the class is powerful in a subtle way. You don't have one big effect that saves the party. You don't have big numbers or high level spells. What you do have is a great toolbox of solutions to fix small problems, to head off big problems and to support the rest of the party and to keep their powder dry for those encounters where something flashier is needed. That so much of the power comes from infusions and supporting the rest of the party, it can go unnoticed. Likewise that these things can provide a serious buff without risk of dispel, counterspell and importantly don't need concentration so that the artificer can be supporting a lot of people in a lot of different ways at once.

Forget the bard, the artificer is the jack of all trades - able to blast, control to buff and to tank and even have a spot of healing (and given the power of that last hitpoint, a tiny amount of healing is not much less good than a lot).

On the other hand I just don't feel the class identity. With no artificer only spells, with abilities like flash of genius feeling like a worse version of the Paladin aura (its more than that, not least because of the range, but it feels almost strictly worse a lot of the time) an with a lot of the power being outsourced to other characters in a very passive way through infusions or feeling very generic (if you find/craft a magic item, any character could be using it and it isn't an artificer specific feel.

Personally, I also don't like the class because of its aesthetic, the campaign settings it fits in are not to my taste and I don't like to do the things it excels at, but I cant fault the design for this. Some more subclasses, some artificer only spells and a campaign with just the right level and frequency of magic items and the artificer could be a (grudgingly) great addition to the game.


7/10

Barbarian
This class is dullness personified.

You hit stuff. Sometimes you get angry and you hit stuff harder. If you really want to push the boat out you can grapple stuff.

I get that not all classes are going to be the UA mystic. Not everyone wants a complcated experience. The barbarian feels like it is taking this too far. You get your rage and too many class abilities are tied to it. It feels like you are just a crap fighter unless you are raging, which you can't do for every fight (till you get to high levels). Going through the day wondering which fight you are going to be unispiringly bland an relatively ineffect ive for is just not much fun. At least with a spellcaster trying to juggle spell slots your resource management can be fun - the binary nature of rage on the barbarian is just sad and uninteresting. It isn't like the barbarian has nothing to offer outside of combat, but it is certainly not rich with options, which can certainly push players to play to type, get bored and start to smash things.

The one-dimensional nature of the barbarian is, in my opinion, bad design because it pushes the story in a particular direction. It pushes DMs towards not having a rich social or exploration pillar to the game. Then a lot of the ou of combat stuff is just a bit more likely to come up in the wilderness, which is hardly the most exciting place.

And the abilities the class does get - so very, very passive. Advantage on intitiative rolls or a big hit die or unarmoured defence don't really give you much to actually do as a player. I have seen more barbarian players what to change their character than any other class.

If there is to be a 5.5 edition I would put this class top of the list for a redesign. Let there be some simple subclasses but also some more fun, proacive, tactically challenging subclasses.

2/10

Bard
Yeah, the bard. Sometimes its a tough should to talk about a class in isolation or in context. In isolation, the bard seems OK as a design. Inspiration is a cool mechanic, gives you a nice support role and as a bonus action keeps you a bit busier. It lets you plan ahead a bit and is something more to do out of combat and I like that it interacts with the archetype for more options. It is a sufficiently abundant resource that you can feel like a bard for much of the game as you are frequently using bard abilities. That's cool.

Spellcasting is weird. The bard is framed as a traveller and a collector of eclectic knowlege, tails and lore but doesn't have the same mechanical support a wizard does for going out and discovering things. I guess I can live with this, but the spell list is a bit odd as well. There are a lo of niche spells on there that may work awesomely sometimes (featherfall, heat metal for example) and at other times suck hard, which isn't great as a learned spell class. The spell list is kind of OK - though it doesn't feel very bard-y and there is a real shortage of bard only spells (dissonant whispers, compulsion and vicious mockery come to mind). It also feels like some spels are almost mandatory if you are facng exotic creaures (spells like polymorph to deal with magic resistant enemies). This kind of makes the class a bit annoying to play at times and crushes the eclectic diversity of spells I would expect bards to have.

The exception, magical secrets is something I would consider poor design. You create a class ability almost designes to step on the toes of other classes. That unique ability is all about making both the bard and another class less unique. It isn't a disaster and I get some people find it fun, but surely there could be something better here.

The other abilities are... OK. Jack of all trades is nice. A simple ability that ensures skills are all covered somewhat and gives a minor boost to initiative and some other important rolls (like counterspell, if you get it). It is flavourful and works. Expertise, sure thats good - though deep specialism seems less 'on-brand' for my idea of a bard than the jack of all trades. Sone of rest - a bit passive as you dont do anyting. There is no choice made. Countercharm, maybe not a great ability but I think a great design - no outright dispelling, an occasional support ability and it seems to fit the class quite well (is maybe a bit more than a ribbon).

My issue with the bard is the wider context. It is like the rogue a skill monkey, but better. Yeah, there are differences but I wouldn't really be tempted to play a rogue if there were to be a bard in the party. On the other hand I wouldn't want to play a bard if facing off against fiends either. That is can be a bit of a problem at different games does drop it in my esimation a bit.

I feel that some of the optional rules/content has seriously harmed the bard though. Magical secrets isn't so special when you can access spell ists from backgrounds, for race, from feats as well as class now. Add in the blurring of class boundaries from Tasha's guide giving spells more freely and the Bard thng has been diminished.
5/10


Cleric

The cleric is arguably the best designed class in 5e. Well up to level 10 anyway where the designers, got bored and went home early.

The cleric has a brilliant conjunction of solid, thematic cleric spells and equally thematic domain spells (with a couple of exceptons). So many class abilities that you will actually use on a lot of tunrs and domain abilities that make each character feel different! It is honestly a beautiful piece of design. The channel divinity coming on a short rest really encourages you to do thematic domain stuff on a regular basis. The toughest main caster lets you slug it out in melee if you want - again helping differentiate you from the wizards and sorcerers.

Even divine intervention at level 10 is a great roleplay opportunity. Describing the kind of aid you think your god would (possibly) provide gives you a great way to flesh out your faith and your god and to push the story forward in exciting ways. The unreliability of it pushes it to more of an out of combat use so there is less of an issue to getting Wish 7 levels early...

All of this stuff is balanced by a couple of things. One is that a lot of the good things you do are support, so helping others be better so you don't overshadow people. The other, related thing is that the cleric spells are more focussed than say the wizard spells are so you can't do everything (though domains expand this).

Then you hit level 11. No more new, cool abilities. Your domain stops being a thematic boost as your domain spells dry up. Your core cleric spells are realtively unispiring. The class just stalls. The feeling of progression ceases. An extra 1% chance of divine inspiation, an extra d8 + con HP? Levelling up is no great joy. Maybe an extra d8 damage per hit at level 14, when a) you have better things to do and he resources to do it and b) your attack action is impressing no-one, even with this boost.

There are a few deep issues, and whilst maybe they are design issues I am not sure it with the class. Pop up healing, ease of resurection... the cleric kind of needs these to be sexy, but some people don't like them in game.

The design mistakes hurt so much more because so much of this is so good.

8/10

Druid
The druid is basically the "ask your DM" class. What can you do? Ask your DM. Will it be good? Ask your DM.

Few classes have as many ablties so tied to DM permission as the Druid. From wildshapes known to animals conjured, to beasts and plants to speak to, to plants to grow... your experience will vary a lot with this class. In some games this is a good thing - giving the DM a lot of scope to balance a party, other groups may dislike that the player doesn't have so much control over what their character does.

The saves feel a bit off - inteligence save proficiency? I don't feel that is quite right, though its hard to think what might be better suited. Str and Wis? Str and Con? What captures the idea of the druids of the wilderness well?

My big issue with the druid (though recent subclasses weaken this a bit) is that it kind of forces you into things like wildshape. So you carefully planned your character, their wants, needs, realtonships and mechanical things like spells... then instead of playing that character you play a bear. I guess maybe its just me, but if I play a druid, I wnat to play a druid that does druid things. If I wanted to take the (multi)attack action I would have gone for a fighter or ranger.

I think the druid also has some design issues around the sparseness of class features to look forward to. So this isn't an issue with power; the Druid is plenty powerful enough. Just in comparison with the cleric the druid just doesn't seem to grow with new abilities that will see frequent use.

Its a good class but it largely gets by on the strength of its spells rather than interesting class ablities.

6/10


Fighter
Possibly another class I have issues with that are unlikely to be shared.

The base fighter is dull. No flavour to it. Even the class abilities are generic - get another ASI/Feat (any other class could take the same one), fighting style (hardly unique to the fighter), even things like action surge just let you do the same thing any other martial class could do but do it again. Weapon proficiencies are common, as are armour proficiencies. Its dull.

Now this isn't to say you cant make a fighter with a bit more flavour, but you are needing the archetype to do a LOT of work, the main class is too sparse.

Having been a bit down on the class, I think that it isn't that bad. More feats being released not only means that the extra ASI may have more value (if playing with feats) but also that you are more likely to pick up fun and flavourful feats - that level 6 ability will actually add some more character. Likewise with fighting styles; the more that are added the more value this feature has.

The other abilities are actually pretty fun. Acton surge may be bland but it is flexible, fun, powerful and you will use it every chance you get. It will add to your experience of the class almost every day. Second wind is similar (yeah its a weaker ability but that isn't bad design) in that you can use it whenever you are damaged (and conscious) so you actually get to use it, and its active not passive (like barbarian HP or song of rest to top these things up).

A bit like the cleric though, the class flickers out at higher levels. Level 11 gives that 2nd extra attack, which does at least feel unique, but then stalls. More indombitable, more action surge, more ASI (and you are hitting diminishing returns on these sooner as you have more, so they are less exciting than for other classes).

The fighter is probably a candidate for the most improved design, though more thorugh luck than design skill I fear. More content has made what you can do with it much richer and options like the Rune Knight are oozing with the flavour and potential that the PHB classes were not.

4/10

Monk

I think the monk highlights a lot of the challenges around designing a good class in 5th edition. At face value it looks like it has all the hallmarks of a nice, rounded class - but to fulfill its potential a DM needs to be really careful.

The monk faces the challenge that a lot of its features are just ways round it's issues, rather than big steps above the baseline. Unarmoured defence is great, but every other martial character gets medium+ armour proficiency (and if they want to use one, they can use a shield as well). Unarmoured defence and deflect missiles is just really bringing up the defence towards that expected by a D10 hd class with medium armour but not other abilities... and it doesn't even get there. On the offence side, martial arts and the martial arts die scalling offests the lack of access to full martial weapon proficieny with d12 weapons etc. (without penalty). Your class that looked cool with some nice looking bonuses is just using you class abilities to plug holes.

The monk design also suffers a bit due to the flexability of Ki. In a class with spell slots if you have a spell that is overpowered, say a level 4 spell, then you exceed what might be expected at most a few times per day (assuming it isn't so overpowwered that it warrants the use of higher level spell slots) but a design misjudgement on spell power isn't that likely to break all balance. With a Ki pool on the other hand, if one ability is better than the others then ALL ki can go into that ability and the balance consequences are more severe. I think that as there are generally beter and worse uses for Ki and that monks prefer the stronger ones, you don't often see some of the moderatly cool things monks can do.

MOnks can be an amazing class but it is so common for games to adopt optional rules that stop the monk from shining as it might. Feats are problematic - everyone else (with the possible exception of the rogue) gets access to something really valuable - great weapon mastery, sharpshooter, reslient (constitution) or warcaster for concentration saves through to fey touched for mobility. As the monk loses so many cool class features using these well supported weapons and has reliable uses of its bonus action from the core class and is one of the most mobile classes anyway the addition of feats into a game helps everyone else a lot more.

Magic items are the same - magic weapons are great but when, even if you use a magic weapon, it isn't going to be for all your attacks. Magic weapons get round a lot of resistances that monks get round at level 6 anyway.

The role of the monk is also a little confused. At low levels the monk is a great damage dealer, but falls behind at level 4 when other classes get better feats and again at level 5 when extra attack comes in. Then the monk becomes a controller, mostly on the back of stunning strike, until monster Con save abilities skyrocket... the focus shifts, which is fine but can leave some players feeling a bit flat if they picked a monk to do something, then find themselves doing something else.

I would also add that the core monk class suffers in the higher levels as well. From level 7 (evasion) onwards till level 18 all the abilities are passive apart from stillness of mind - save proficiency, immunity to disease and poison, speaking all languages... you don't get anything more to do. Some of he archetypes help a bit, but monk really suffers from being just "more of the same".

This all makes the monk really hard to evaluate. Is it well designed or not? The monk is a great, flavourful class with some awesome and unique powers that plays a bit differently to others screams "well designed" to me. On the other hand having a class whose features are so dependent on NOT having some very popular optional rules in play seems a bit fragile and having potentially large swathes of play where it is unsatisfying is a bit of an issue.

If there is a 5.5 edition with some class rework I would be very excited by the monk prospects. I think the way subclasses and design is going that some of these issues would be addressed and there is such an opportunity for a really awesome class that uses a lot of abilities not just one or two as a crutch.

5/10


Paladin
I think the designers dropped the ball on this one. Badly.

This class is game warpingly overpowered and just straight up blows many of the other classes away. The density of features (and good features at that) blows away other classes and their versatility lets the class be be best protector, best healer, best damage dealer, best tank and possibly even best at some skills as well. The class is an overtuned mistake, especially in tier 1 or tier 2.

Now you could argue that the paladin is well designed and it is EVERY OTHER martial class that has deep design errors, but slice it how you like, the paladin just doesn't fit the power level of the game - at least below about level 10. Detect good and evil gives a useful creature indentifying/finding ability, in contrast to the ranger, for which this kind of divination ability would be more on-brand, that gets a worse one instead. Lay on hands lets the palain heal better than a cleric, if the cleric decides they want to keep a decent number of spell slots for doing something other than healing, smiting lets paladins outdamage fighters but the big thing is the Aura of Protection. For a paladin that maximises charisma (and from what I have seen, most do as a priority), that is going to be a solid +4 to mostsaves from early on. Even if that is just for two people in the party in the radius that is equivalent to about 6 feats' worth of benefits. The number of encounters this ability can take from "interesting and exciting" to "not a threat" is game breaking.

Judging a class by whether it is fun to play, does give a bit of a different answer to judging the class by whether it adds to the fun the whole table has. I think it is entirely consistant for a class to be immensely popular AND to be badly designed.

On the plus side, if we ignore the power level, I think that the designers did do something well. They have a rich set of abilities that do capture thematically the ideals of the class. They just went overboard. If aura of protection was a flat +2 benefit, if divine smite was left to the spells, if the spellcasting was by limited spells known rather than prepared, if lay on hands just had a smaller pool and if there were no fighting style then the paladin would still be a very capable class overall and would still have a lot of diversity in what it would do turn by turn. The balance does get a bit better longer term, in a lose kind of way. Higher level arcane spells shift the balance away from martials and towards casters, and the big lead the Paladin has build up becomes more managable; it still represents poor balance vs the other martial classes but less so vs the whole game.

So out of conext... a great cass design. In the context of the actual game and other classes, a bit of a screw up.

The paladin also runs into some of the problems associated with rolling for stats - you are somewhat balanced by the MADness of the class but if you roll well than this kind of balance disapears.

3/10


Ranger

The ranger is really in two places, depending on whether you use the PHB ranger of the revised ranger. Though I have tended to evaluate things with the assumption that feats might be available but that the Tasha's style smearing things together will not be. For the ranger though, it would be too easy to just look at the PHB ranger...

The PHB ranger is poorly designed because it doesn't support fun. It lets you skip the parts of the game your characer is supposed to be about rather than geting to experience being good at them. It sits alongside the fighter as the better archer and the paladin as the better half-caster and the druid as the more in-tune wih nature character, and the rogue as the better sneaky class (note of these things are by themselves bad) but it does mean the class has not really found its niche. The poor output of the two weapon fighting style doesn't help it to find its place. Its able to do some damage in the early game, if that thats all you are looking for - and I guess it has a little versatility with a spot of healing and so on but it lack a uniquely core "ranger" type element to it. It does have some ranger spells, but the ranger only spells are a bit low impact. Compare to a paladin that can pick up spells like find (greater) steed that revolutionises how the class can be played.

Generaly, the class is just too narrow. It is too bad at things other than damage and doing things other than damage tends to come at too high a cost. Whilst there are a few "ranger only" spells and abilities they are too weak. Getting the ability to hide as a bonus action so long after a rogue gets the far better cunning action is just insulting.

The changes made in Tasha's guide don't fix everything, but they fix a lot. Favoured foe is more broadly applicable than favoured enemy and actually lets you experience the benefit for more than just a flash of advantage on an activity likely to be relatively rare in many campaigns. The overlap wiht hunter's mark is nice design I think, to encourage rangers to use other spells more frequently.

Deft explorer is some really nice design and again a huge step up in usefulness over natural explorer. Some skills and a language are a small touch, but they feel like they are helping to carve out a good identity for the ranger. The movement speed bonus is a nice touch; maybe not all that useful but can help you just begin to stand appart a little. Tireless really feels like it does what it should - shedding exhaustion and temp HP to help you keep going that bit further. I feel that these are small elements but at least they seem to a) support fun and b) support the flavour of the class quite well.

The real big change is in primal awareness at 3. New spells are good - and spells that generally help tracking and wilderness exploration, hunting enemies etc.. Now I would have liked these to come sooner and faster - still the party wizard is better at locating persons than the ranger but getting the ability, and not at the cost of a spell known is good. And when you can say, cast locate person, you will be the one doing it not the wizard as you don't have the cost of the spell slot. I think that the designers nailed it for this feature.

Nature's veil is a nother nice addition to the class - potentially useful and really cool when its needed. Not so many uses that it steps on the toes of the rogue and their hiding, but enough that you will use it speculatively rather than hoading uses for the prefect opportunity that may never come.

So yeah, the Tasha's ranger still has flaws - I still think it is too damage focussed with not enough other support for other things it could do in combat (that would represent a good use of an action). I feel that there needs to be some more good, unique ranger spells but it does feel like a rugged explorer. So the final class... not perfect, but pretty good.
3/10 or 7/10

Rogue
The rogue is the flip side to the Paladin. The perfectly designed class that has screwed up because it isn't balanced against other classes, this time because its too weak.

The rogue gets cool stuff. Expertise gives some cool flavour and allows the rogue to be the best at something, cunning action supports steath and mobility, sneak attack stops the damage from falling too far behind, uncanny dodge make the rogue so much tougher, but in a way unlike other classes, evasion... relaible tallent... blindsense, slippery mind elusive are all really quite flavourful (if sometimes a bit passive) and stroke of luck is awesome.

The problem the rogue faces is that sklls tend to solve a certain type of problem. This is the type of problem that spells tend to solve better. You want to find where the bad guy is? Sneaking and perception works, but divination magic might be better. You want to go unseen? well expertise in stealth is good, but for most of the game Pass Without Trace is better, or sometimes invisibility. Climbing with athletics expertise is good, but is it better than spiderclimb or fly? Now this doesn't obviate skills - sometimes a caster won't have the right spells or sometimes the thing the skills are used for is of such trivial value that it isn't worth the spell slot. It isn't an absolute thing, but it does diminish the value of skills.

And then the bard exists That class gets skills and magic (and then if they wan't, almost as much martial presence if they go swords bard of valor bard). The bard isn't strictly better than the rogue in all ways, but its close enough to make playing this class a hard sell if there is a bard in the party.

I feel the rogue has great pieces that come together to give the kind of playstyle the class promisses - it delivers. But I think it needs to find it's place better. A more developed skill system for combat that explicitly supports more than athletics for grappling would catapult the rogue from a low-damage, low AC martial to a skilled but unorthadox fighter.

A special nod to Xanathar's guide and the complex traps there. Rogues excel at this type of encounter. In a game where these are common, rogues feel a lot better.

7/10

Sorcerer
The sorcerer has been a bit of a maligned class in its history in 5th edition. Mostly it seems to be because it is like the wizard but not as good. Honestly, I hold this against the wizard more than the sorcerer. The sorcerer kind of suffers a lot of the same problems/challenges that other caster classes do - so much power/development comes from spells not class features so genuinely exciting class features are rare.

I think there is, at its core, a great design to the sorcerer. The combination of very few spells known drives a desire to get the best value out of them that you can. To support that you use metamagic. This tension creates those ideal characters - ones that excel and do exciting and unique things, but also a character with areas where they need support and will allow other characters to shine. I like that the sorcerer forces you to think about what you don't want to be good at. To me, the PHB sorcerer is close to how I feel a full caster should impact the game.

Sure, I would like to see more class features (well really any afer the first couple of levels and after the origin features) and I would like to see more and different metamagic support but the core class is balanced for a fun game.

Unfortunately, I think that the newer archetypes solve some problems whilst making others worse. The additon of more spells removes that defining tradeoff between spells. Now you can just about pick up all the best spells, making sorcerers feel a lot more similar (having to chose between banishment and polymorph or hypnotic pattern and fireball meant that sorcerers were actually one of the few classes that in practice actually used different spells). The new archetypes capture the idea of the sorcerer being more specialist, by enhancing the spell list but the free spells known actually makes the end result more unfocussed. I think this is a shame because something like the aberrant mind sorcerer or the clockwork soul is a really flavourful addition to the game and with appropriate specialist support I think it could have been great design.

There is also the downside of so much of the sorcerer unique ability being tied to a very limited resource - sorcery points. For much of the game you don't feel like you are using your class features so much - and you are a generic arcane caster, a feature somewhat exacerbated by the lack of sorcerer specific spells.

6/10

Warlock
A lot of classes are great ideas, poorly executed, or at least with some flaws in the delivery. Others are bad, not through their own design flaws, but rather because the rest of the game doesn't match their power level or invalidates some aspect of what they do.

Wth the Warlock I think the converse is true. The fundamental core mechanic of the class is bad, but it is well pollished and executed nicely. I refer of course to the pact magic feature. I have more than one issue with this.

The first and biggest issue is that spells can be game-warpingly powerful. The highest level spells in play especially so. The warlock doesn't get low level spells which have a moderate impact on encounters. It doesn't have those spells that let the class make a proportional contribution to solving a problem. It has big guns. Pushing so much of the class power to spells that are likey to trivialise encounters and less of the power to spells that leave more work for the rest of the party to do is a choice that lowers the fun at the table.

The second issue I have with the design is flavour. So you pick up a spell like cause fear or a patron spell like dissonant whispers or wrathful smite at first level. At 3rd level you get 2nd level spell slots and you tend to stop using these and use 2nd level spells instead. Then when you get to 5th level you lose the 2nd level spells. The continuity of character is largely broken; with other casters you still have lower level spell slots so the character feels like it is evolving and growing rather than being born anew at each odd level.

I also take issue with the mismatch between the spells and the patrons. The core Warlock spell list seems to play into the eldritch archetype with the sinister, occult overtones - which is kind of fine, but I feel it just doen't work with things like celestial, fey, of genie patrons. I woul rather that more of the spell list were patron specific and the core warlock class list paired down.

And the mystic arcana make this worse. Sure, a worse version of spell casting with just one spell known and never multiple spell slots of the same level and no upcasting is fine. Its a point of balance and I think few people would think that these are underpowered abilities, not compared with the game as a whole rather than other casters. But the absence of patron based lists and the narrow range of spells just forces a degree of homogeneity into the class that does it no favours.

Putting this aside, the build-a-bear aspect of the warlock seems to not only be quite popular but delivered well. The invocations are about as well balanced as spells in 5th edition, with some great ones but most being worth ignoring - but there are enough good ones that offer enough different things that you will get them in different orders and not every warlock will have the same. There is a nice balance of in and out of combat abilities here. The different pact types add quite a lot of versatility and the book of ancient secrets is a wonderful addition to quest motivation, the pact of the blade has its problems but really changes the playstyle, and chain pact also gives you something special.

I think there is a role in the game for a "simple spellcaster" and warlock does pretty well at this; stripping out management of spell slots of different levels, no changing of what spells are prepared, short rest recovery so less longer term resource management and guiding players to using a single but powerful cantrip for most damage (with sufficient range as to not need that much by way of tactical positioning). I think that here the costs are just too high in terms of the fun it delivers at the table. Still the fluff is great and the RP potential of the class is probably the best in the game.

4/10

Wizard

Yeah, worst till last.

The paladin screws with balance by being so much more powerful than other martial characters, the bard has specific features to sep on the toes of other classes, the monk swings wildly in relative power depending on the campaign type, the fighter is devoid of class flavour... the wizard has all of these problems.

The wizard is just so... generic. The PHB themes around schools of magic, which seems pretty cool. You can play an enchanter or a necromancer! Its cool, but in reality the class promotes just taking the best spells from all schools of magic and doesn't really deliver on the theme. The bonuses for casting from you school are small and the penalties from casting ouside your school are non-existent. If you watched some wizards in play it could be a long time before you could tell which ones belonged to which schools as the things that differentiate them are so weak.

The core class features are dull. Essentially "do what you are doing but more". Arcane recovery, spell mastery, signature spells... they don't offer anything new just more casting of what you could do anyway.

The wizard also kind of squashes the sorcerer out of the game - access to (almost) all sorcerer spells leaves them with nothing to call their own. Better ritual casting, just better spells (including pretty much all the silly spells that shouldn't have been released) and being able to have more spells both on hand and in their spell book. The similarity between the two classes is a clear mistake to deny each of them a propper unique identity; the power disparity between the two only makes it worse.

Some breadth of ablity in casters is good; its what people opt into them for, but the wizard takes it a bit far. The best damage spells, the best save or suck spells, the best no-save-control spells, the best reaction spells and arguably the best buff spells (how would you rate polymorph or haste vs bless?). Even their 'not quite as good as every other class in the game' spells like their summoning spells are hardly falling far behind - animate objects and summon greater demon are still perfectly capable of causing problems for enemies. Healing and resurection are really the ony things missing, unless you count wish.

The wizard also varies in power massively depending on the campaign. Number of spell scrolls discovered is the most obvious driver of different power levels) though I haven't found this too significant in practice. More of an issue is downtime, which can get gold for scribing spells, can be used for scribing spells but can also be used to secure the funds for those spells. Simulacrum isn't an issue if the players can't afford it. The wizard runs on gold and a powerful class gets a bit our of hand if gold isn't a limit.

At its heart though, the wizard doen't deliver much to make it feel like a wizard rather than a generic spellcaster. No focus to spells, no class ability that would feel out of place on the sorcerer no return on studying. Beyond getting a spellbook at first level there is very little to build on here.


1/10

[Dork_Forge]

Just skimmed this and will give more detail later, but initial thoughts:

- You didn't mention the Rogue's additional ASI at all?

- You refer to the Fighter multiple times as getting a single ASI, they get two additional ASIs

- There was a comment about Fighting Styles hardly being unique to the Fighter, but didn't seem to acknowledge that a lot are unique to the Fighter, who gets to choose from the entire list (sans the cantrip ones) where as Ragners and Paladins get a pared down list pushing them to certain play styles.

- You seem to be leveling 'bland' as a criticism of the Fighter, but that's the entire point of the main class: to be a shapeless, moldable martial. The subclasses are meant to add that detail and flavour, this is a strength of the Fighter as you can make basically any kind of martial out of it, by design.

[RSP]

Sorcerer

…

6/10

I think the Sorcerer suffers from the added spells as well. I never thought “too few spells” were the Sorcerer’s problem, but rather that all the class runs off a too limited resource (Sorc Points).

Sorcerers should also have a spell list specific to each source/bloodline. Note: not additional spells per source, but it’s entire spell list dictated by the source.

Why does having White Dragon ancestry get you Fireball? Likewise, exposure to Mechanus or to what granted the PC Aberrant Mind. Those have nothing to do with creating a big ball of fire damage.

If they could really lean into Sorcerer’s magic as specific to their bloodline/source, I think it would be a much better class.

And take away Font of Magic and just give them (and only them) Spell Point Variant (one pool combined with Sorcerer Points).

Compare this to a Wizard, who gets to collect spells and prepare from the wider list. It would make the Wizard standout more for its access to a wider range of spells, while (in my opinion) adding flavor to Sorcerer bloodlines.

As is, most Sorcerers are grabbing the best spells on their list, with a couple selections geared toward their Metamagic. This is partly why they feel like “Worse Wizard”: they’re trying to get the best Wizard spells (but failing at getting them all), and then only having a spell or two they can use with their “defining” Metamagic ability. They then need to sacrifice castings to get the Sorc Points to keep doing their schtick, so they cast less compared to a Wizard.

Force the Sorc into their niche, and let the Wizard be the versatile caster.

[Akal Saris]

Thanks for sharing these thoughts! I found myself nodding along in agreement with almost every class description.

Many of the flaws are, of course, built into the system from decades of tradition that have built certain class features or spells into sacred cows, so I'm sympathetic that there was only so much WoTC could do with the barbarian or wizard, for example. The cleric's 'channel divinity' is a great example of how to take older editions' 'turn undead' and make it into an interesting feature for different types of clerics, but other classes sadly didn't get that same level of creativity.

Something that I find very frustrating about the base class/archetype split in 5E is that sometimes the abilities that make an archetype feel particularly unique are buried very deep in the archetype, at level 8, 11, or 14. Considering that the vast majority of 5E games are played at the 1-10 range, there's a lot of fun, thematic abilities which never actually come into play, which is a real shame to me. This is a minor issue for the classes with front-loaded abilities, like paladin, but really sticks out for the classes like barbarian. It's especially egregious to me because Pathfinder 1E handles archetypes' feel/uniqueness so well in comparison, so I wonder how WotC's designers could have fallen into this trap.

For example, instead of making level 4/8/12/etc. a 'dead' level for class/archetype progression due to the feat/ASI, I really wish WotC had used those levels to give some more archetype-defining abilities on top of the feat/ASI.

I also feel that tying feats/ASIs to class levels emphasizes 5E's 'multiclass dip' optimization issues, which is that most of the optimization/character variation that I see in 5E revolves around taking a core class and a 1-2 level dip in a second class. It's not a game-breaking flaw, but I find it to be really uninspiring in terms of character design/optimization. The strength of dips also exacerbates the lack of a unique identity for many archetypes, since an early dip pushes defining archetype features even further back.

The scarcity of feats, and the lack of many feats that provide new tactical options, as opposed to making you better at certain tactics, is another issue, since it makes the few feats that do provide options hyper-valuable, and tends to pigeon hole many builds into those feat lines.

[MrStabby]

Just skimmed this and will give more detail later, but initial thoughts:

- You didn't mention the Rogue's additional ASI at all?
A good point, I find that the rogue's extra ASI isn't that impactful. It comes later than the fighter's first extra one (being the 3rd ASI that is Extra rather than the 2nd) so you have already had two chances to pick up something you really want so anything that the 3rd one can get has lower utility than the first two. I also think that rogues benefit less than most classes from feats. Anything that can boost attack damage like great weapon master or sharpshooter is less good with a single attack martial class and likewise anything that add something on a bonus action conflicts with cunning action. That said, I still quite like it - there are some good flavourful feats out there that can round out a character nicely.


- You refer to the Fighter multiple times as getting a single ASI, they get two additional ASIs
I was going to contradict this, but reading it back I can see what you are saying. The intent (in one case) was to talk aboud the value of an extra ASI, I think the other was an error from a rewrite that I had proof read poorly. But yeah, two extra ASIs, and two opportunities to pick up something not unique to the fighter.


- There was a comment about Fighting Styles hardly being unique to the Fighter, but didn't seem to acknowledge that a lot are unique to the Fighter, who gets to choose from the entire list (sans the cantrip ones) where as Ragners and Paladins get a pared down list pushing them to certain play styles.
I am not sure which ones are unique to the fighter, unless there are some optional ones in Tasha's guide? I think each is shared by either the Paladin or the Ranger?


- You seem to be leveling 'bland' as a criticism of the Fighter, but that's the entire point of the main class: to be a shapeless, moldable martial. The subclasses are meant to add that detail and flavour, this is a strength of the Fighter as you can make basically any kind of martial out of it, by design.
Yup. Bland may be to some people's tastes - and actually I can see neutral flavour being a genuinely good thing for some classes. I think fighter goes beyond this though. It is the abilities that seem like "something that everyone else has, but maybe more of them". More feats, more attacks, fighting styles. Second wind and indombitable are at least fighter abilities. I would argue that both of these are flavour neutral whilst still at least being unique to the class (action surge fels a bit of a middle ground) - more of the class power being things like this would please me.






I think the Sorcerer suffers from the added spells as well. I never thought “too few spells” were the Sorcerer’s problem, but rather that all the class runs off a too limited resource (Sorc Points).

Sorcerers should also have a spell list specific to each source/bloodline. Note: not additional spells per source, but it’s entire spell list dictated by the source.
I would agree... maybe not the whole list but most of it. I think every sorcerer needs some defensive ability so either you end up duplicating mage armour and shield on a lot of lists or you need a lot of new, thematic defensive spells. A few other generic...ish ones like dispell magic would be good to keep. That said, I would like the same approach for other classe too. Stronger cleric domain identities, warlock patron lists taking the lead etc..



Why does having White Dragon ancestry get you Fireball? Likewise, exposure to Mechanus or to what granted the PC Aberrant Mind. Those have nothing to do with creating a big ball of fire damage.

If they could really lean into Sorcerer’s magic as specific to their bloodline/source, I think it would be a much better class.

And take away Font of Magic and just give them (and only them) Spell Point Variant (one pool combined with Sorcerer Points).
Not sure about the spell points thing (for similar reasons to the Ki pool I complained about with the monk), but I think the bloodline thing could be strengthened with things like a bloodline specific metamagic option.



Compare this to a Wizard, who gets to collect spells and prepare from the wider list. It would make the Wizard standout more for its access to a wider range of spells, while (in my opinion) adding flavor to Sorcerer bloodlines.

As is, most Sorcerers are grabbing the best spells on their list, with a couple selections geared toward their Metamagic. This is partly why they feel like “Worse Wizard”: they’re trying to get the best Wizard spells (but failing at getting them all), and then only having a spell or two they can use with their “defining” Metamagic ability. They then need to sacrifice castings to get the Sorc Points to keep doing their schtick, so they cast less compared to a Wizard.

Force the Sorc into their niche, and let the Wizard be the versatile caster.
I think that 5e has the problem that generalist is too powerful. In 3rd edition, for example, there were a lot of feats to boost specific spell types so to be really good at something you had to invest in that one thing. To be the best it would cost you. Now, the spell specific bonuses are so rare and so hard to invest in that if you want to be the best at a particular spell, you just need to get the spell on your spell list. If you want to be the best at banishment, you take banishment and boost your casting stat. I think that this fundamentally makes the "generalist" too strong as the returns to having the right spell available are better than the returns to your spell being able to do 4 more points of damage on a failed save.






Thanks for sharing these thoughts! I found myself nodding along in agreement with almost every class description.
Honestly, I am surprised! I was expecting a bit more conflict. I know when I have voiced some of these oppinions in the past some peope ave agreed with me, so maybe shouldn't be a shock - but some of these I haven't talked about so much.


Many of the flaws are, of course, built into the system from decades of tradition that have built certain class features or spells into sacred cows, so I'm sympathetic that there was only so much WoTC could do with the barbarian or wizard, for example. The cleric's 'channel divinity' is a great example of how to take older editions' 'turn undead' and make it into an interesting feature for different types of clerics, but other classes sadly didn't get that same level of creativity.
I am honestly hopeful though. The really positive set of changes we had coming into 5th shows that a lot of these things are understood. Sure some things have slipped through the cracks - like the barbarian, but I think that there is a lot of space to fix some of these things without throwing away all the history, some of which is appreciated. For example with the wizard, I would say that the important history is the ability to learn spells they encounter, to use intelligence, to be a bit squishy... you keep these and you keep a lot of people happy. Doubling down on the preferred school would probably be fine with most people (not all people though) as historically there were things like prohibited schools to enable a focus.


Something that I find very frustrating about the base class/archetype split in 5E is that sometimes the abilities that make an archetype feel particularly unique are buried very deep in the archetype, at level 8, 11, or 14. Considering that the vast majority of 5E games are played at the 1-10 range, there's a lot of fun, thematic abilities which never actually come into play, which is a real shame to me. This is a minor issue for the classes with front-loaded abilities, like paladin, but really sticks out for the classes like barbarian. It's especially egregious to me because Pathfinder 1E handles archetypes' feel/uniqueness so well in comparison, so I wonder how WotC's designers could have fallen into this trap.

For example, instead of making level 4/8/12/etc. a 'dead' level for class/archetype progression due to the feat/ASI, I really wish WotC had used those levels to give some more archetype-defining abilities on top of the feat/ASI.
Again some mixed feelings here. I think usually it is handled pretty well, but some of this is really dependant on what you are looking for from a class or an archetype. So I think of shadowmonk, and you want an ability that has something to do with shadows... and that takes you to level 6. Or the monster hunter ranger that seems weak on its themes till level 11. On the other hand giving too much too soon makes dips too easy (as you go on to cover). But I do think that more archetype abilities around the level 4 mark could be good (honestly a set of "archetype feats" - extra abilities from an archetype that you could spend an ASI to get might be one way round this. Getting two archetpe abilities by level 4 (or three with variant human - if there were multiple options) would be kind of cool.


I also feel that tying feats/ASIs to class levels emphasizes 5E's 'multiclass dip' optimization issues, which is that most of the optimization/character variation that I see in 5E revolves around taking a core class and a 1-2 level dip in a second class. It's not a game-breaking flaw, but I find it to be really uninspiring in terms of character design/optimization. The strength of dips also exacerbates the lack of a unique identity for many archetypes, since an early dip pushes defining archetype features even further back.

The scarcity of feats, and the lack of many feats that provide new tactical options, as opposed to making you better at certain tactics, is another issue, since it makes the few feats that do provide options hyper-valuable, and tends to pigeon hole many builds into those feat lines.
The dips are kind of a mixed bag for me. I think there are a lot of really flvourful builds that can come out of dips. Take a dip of a cleric for a fighter to be able to have a "paladin" type class but worshiping any god/domain they choose. Or a dip of fighter on a ranger to make the character feel a bit more martial and a bit less nature themed than other rangers. I would certainly be open to a change but I think there is a lot fo good that could also be thrown away.

[stoutstien]

I don't necessarily agree with half of this but I can definitely understand where it's coming from. The only real head scratcher is the rogue. It's a tad boring and the subclass bumps are way too spaced out but all n all they are solid in and out of combat. The only weird thing is that they are more defensive focused than offense which can be a little jarring thematically.

[meandean]

Artificer: Agree that it ultimately ends up fulfilling the "utility guy" role well. It's definitely true that it has a strange place in the game, which claims to make magic items entirely optional, and really does stick closely to that in the player-facing materials... but then you have a class that's going to be pretty hard to understand if you've never encountered any. I don't see how a new version of the game could "ship with" Artificer. It feels like it had to come out years after the main game. So it's weird to consider it a main class in the way the other classes are. I hope they figure out a way to reconcile all that, because I do like the class.

Barbarian: It's tough (no pun intended). I see subclasses that are just "rage harder" (Totem, Berserker, Zealot) or "something unrelated also happens when you rage" (Storm Herald, Wild Magic) and I'm like, why are we doing this? But then Ancestral Guardian and Beast do something different with Rage that suggests perhaps there's value in this as a class with subclasses. I think overall, the class is probably trying to combine archetypes that can't share established mechanics.


Unkillable brick - Current Totem/Zealot. Can't be a subclass of any of the other classes we have now, since it needs the biggest hit die.
Conan prototype - A strong guy who also has skills and leadership qualities. Possibly a Fighter subclass.
Nature warrior - A strong guy who shuns civilization and other humanoids, and actually cares about the "totem" aspect. Could be a subclass of any of Ranger/Monk/Druid in a substantially different world, but none of those would make any sense in the current system.

I get why the designers thought these archetypes were linkable, but they need such different hit dice, ability scores, abilities to apply them to... I don't think they ultimately are.

Bard: Probably shouldn't be a full spellcaster. I suspect you'd feel better about Magical Secrets if that were the case.

Cleric: Yup.

Druid: Agree and disagree. I think that your own personal disinterest in Wild Shape is just that. And I do think that pretty much all of the subclasses other than Moon give you enough other options that you don't have to be into Wild Shape to enjoy them. (Plus there's the Tasha's rule that lets you use Wild Shape for find familiar instead.) That said, there's no doubt that, although "rulings, not rules" is the right idea, they took it beyond its limits with Wild Shape, which presents so many ambiguous rules questions, and no guidance at all about how to handle them. Not to mention that there's not even an official list of what you can Wild Shape into. Having to cross-reference the Monster Manual would be bad enough, but then the Monster Manual doesn't even have that list anyway. (And then, of course, they put out more material with more beasts.) Yeah, I know someone's inevitably gonna compile a list and put it up on the Internets, but I still think it's all sloppy AF.

Fighter: Agree about higher levels... it's the oft-discussed problem that they can't envision a fighting guy ever doing anything besides hitting more or harder. As you allude to, I do think that every post-Xanathar's subclass has been really interesting, and less shackled to guy-at-gym. So, they're working on it. (I'll include Echo Knight in there, although it needs to be re-written. And even Cavalier and Samurai aren't "bad"; they just fill the same role as Champion, except better.) I like that Fighters have more feats than they even know what to do with. They should! (Of course, it would feel pretty bad if you didn't actually use feats.)

Monk: It feels lame to say that a "unique" class should work like the others do, and yet, it would at least be better. No other class has a single resource pool that encompasses every class ability... nor should they. The flavor is exceptional, and Tasha's did at least work with the existing mechanics to try to improve them. But, yeah, page 1 re-write.

Paladin: Mostly disagree here. Lay on Hands isn't even all that great. (Although I'd probably support not giving them healing spells on top of that.) I don't think most Paladins max Charisma... and if they don't, they're probably maxing a stat (Strength) that isn't the one you'd ideally be maxing. I think Paladins' MADness successfully limits them... as a single class. The "problem" with Paladin is Hexblade, and allowing smites with non-Paladin spell slots.

Ranger: Well, they used to have a bunch of abilities that were flavorful but simply not useful. Tasha's fixed that mechanically, but it wasn't within that supplement's power to fix the flavor. This is a very aimless (no pun intended) class right now. I feel like the most popular subclass is Gloom Stalker because, basically, it attacks more and better. In other words, it might as well be Archer. I think it'd be a better sign for the Ranger if the most popular class Ranger-ed better.

Rogue: I don't think you're wrong that they're literally less powerful, but unlike Monk or pre-Tasha's Ranger, I think it's close enough that it's fine. Ranger had the heart ripped out of it when the outdoors exploration pillar languished. I don't think that's happened with Rogue and dungeon-y exploration, which has also fallen by the wayside. Rogues have enough distinctive combat ability and other perks that they didn't need to remain Thieves. If you really only want their big boosts to action economy and skills, well, they're front-loaded and you can multi-class them. If you want to be a full Rogue because you think they're cool and/or they've been a class in the game for 50 years, that works too, because they have good high-level abilities, an extra feat, and Sneak Attack keeps scaling.

Sorcerer: Yeah, Aberrant/Clockwork expand the spell list... but they don't make sorcerers in general more same-y, because the spells are specifically chosen to fit the subclass archetype. Did you mean that all sorcerers got the SCAG cantrips and a few other new spells? Not sure what you're getting at here, really.

Warlock: I like that you have to worry so much about what upcasts well -- I think it creates a subtle distinction from other casters -- but that's just me. I'm not sure what you mean about the power of the spells. Sounds like you have the opposite of maybe the most common complaint, that two spell slots for most of your career is too limiting. (I do think it'd be interesting and elegant to have them be all invocations and no spell slots.)

Wizard: Yup.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A few comments --

Wizard: I completely agree. Except I'd rate them more like -NaN/Banana.
Warlock: I disagree in principle. I like Pact Magic and wish that more classes used something similar. I've been working on several related-but-not-quite-identical patterns. But I do agree that more spells should really upcast better.
Barbarian: I've had a lot of people have a lot of fun with it. So :shrug:
Druid: This is a staple of my groups. I think one difference is that most of my groups start from a "the DM will be heavily involved" mentality.
Clerics: Meh. Clerics are one of my favorites to play. But yeah, after level 10 it thins out.
Bards: I agree about magical secrets. Still like bards, though. And have worked the idea of harmonic magic being a "third way" along with arcane/divine magic into my setting.
Paladins: I don't think they're over the top, but they are decidedly strong and internally synergistic. I don't like how well they multiclass, but that's a separate conversation (about how much I dislike the multiclassing schema in general)

General principles:

I have a strong bias toward highly thematic classes and against "build a bear" classes. I want classes that scream their class fantasy. Not serve as building blocks to represent some external character.

A lot of the problem stems from the magic system in general, which I'm becoming less and less enthusiastic about. I don't like how spells are this ravioli-code thing, where they're just utterly disconnected, anti-thematic elements that act as free-floating "buttons to press". And have basically no internal logic or limiting principles.

[RSP]

I would agree... maybe not the whole list but most of it. I think every sorcerer needs some defensive ability so either you end up duplicating mage armour and shield on a lot of lists or you need a lot of new, thematic defensive spells. A few other generic...ish ones like dispell magic would be good to keep. That said, I would like the same approach for other classe too. Stronger cleric domain identities, warlock patron lists taking the lead etc..


one thing I like about Mage Armor (and Shield) is there’s no in-game description of its effect: so you aren’t locked in to any. It could be manifested as actual armor, an invisible force field, preternatural quickness, precognitively dodging, etc. Its just a mechanical ability. So it could fit a lot different themes, and, therefore, fit a lot of different bloodlines depending on how the in-game effect is described.

Or they could create lots of abilities like Draconic’s AC. Same net effect. Draconic’s ability saves a spell slot, but either approach is the same if all subclasses follow it.

Cleric Domains, as currently written, are a lot more different already (though some need work in terms of performing the way they should.

They also don’t need different lists, as, at least as I understand it, any god can cast the Cleric list, and therefore can provide their Cleric their list. Essentially, “a god providing me their spells” is basically the same regardless of god; whereas what you get from a an Aboleth affecting your mind is a whole lot different than being exposed to chaos magic.

Whether gods should be different in their casting can be debated, but in-game it makes some sense.

Plus, the Cleric spells that should be different, usually have descriptive effects showing that: such as Spirit Guardians manifesting as Angels vs. Fey vs Fiends, depending on alignment (which should probably be based on diety’s alignment, but it’s the right idea).

[Angelalex242]

I love Paladins, they're the only martial class that has any business being in a high level party with full casters. Every other martial class just can't compete with pure casters.

So they are balanced...against casters.

[Skrum]

I love Paladins, they're the only martial class that has any business being in a high level party with full casters. Every other martial class just can't compete with pure casters.

So they are balanced...against casters.

I generally agree; I think Paladins are one of the *best* designed classes, and the other classes are not on their level. I'd much rather see the other classes brought up to Paladin than Paladin get knocked down to the other martials.

That said, I would defend this mostly on the breadth of abilities paladins get - lots of good, flavorful stuff at nearly every level, up through 10 or so. This is how classes should be. I think there's a fairly strong argument that Paladin's numbers are a little too high. Limiting smite to once per turn, capping their Aura of Protection at +2; these are probably good changes to make.

[Gurgeh]

I am not sure which ones are unique to the fighter, unless there are some optional ones in Tasha's guide? I think each is shared by either the Paladin or the Ranger?
Yes, this is correct: none of the PHB fighting styles are exclusive to the Fighter. If you factor in the new styles added in Tasha's, the Fighter gets two class-exclusive options (Unarmed and Superior Technique), which both offer fairly niche benefits. And even then they're still not completely Fighter-exclusive, since anyone can get access to them via the Fighting Initiate feat.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'll add my thoughts on the classes I have experience with on at least a few occasions.

Barbarian: Mostly agree. The constraints on what you can't do while raging are limiting. Maybe some people like that, and they'd better, since they're pigeon holed.

Bard: I DMed a couple and thought Meh. I'm currently playing one with a paladin dip, and it feels a bit better to me. I never thought the Bard should have been a full caster, and still don't. The game has too many of those, and the Jack of all Trades class could surely afford to lose some of those spells to free up design space.

Cleric: It's a good class, as you say. The base class is solid, yet leaves enough space for a lot of competitive and interesting subclasses. We've had a lot of different subclasses, and I don't think any player disliked their experience. I had good success with some of the upper level spells on the Light Cleric I played, so don't fully agree with the flack the Cleric takes for limited other upper level abilities.

Druid: Well, I've DMed 3 of these: 2 Moons and a Shepherd. The Moons were good with the exception of tier 1 where they were too strong, and the Shepherd was the only character I've ever DMed that was just OP for tier 2 through to retirement (which was level 13 or 14). Is it good design? I've been kicking around my next character being a multiclass Moon, so at least that subclass has substantial appeal to our table.

Fighter: I'd rate fighter a bit better than the OP. The design leaves some space for the subclass, and provided the player picks one of the interesting ones they can be good. Most of ours have been BMs, and round to round those provide more meaningful decisions than casters. Yes, more; every time you swing you consider whether or not to add a maneuver, and which one. EK is solid, and Rune Knight is like BM, but with fewer more powerful options.

Paladin: Yes, it's strong largely due to the 6th level aura that you mention. Is it too strong? I tend to think that like many 'problems' brought to this forum that with 6-8 encounters per day the Paladin isn't OP given the limited spell slots. I think the Hexblade thing was already mentioned and I don't allow that, and I could see where Paladin with dip could be too strong if that was allowed. I suppose if higher than normal abilities were allowed in character creation the Paladin would benefit a lot too. In summary, I hard disagree with this rating. There are a lot of good Paladin subclasses out there and we've enjoyed every one we've had at the table.

Rogue: It's well designed, linear, and interacts well with all pillars if you want to build it that way. Good class.

Sorcerer: Add me to the other posters who mentioned that the issue with this class wasn't lack of spells; it was lack of metamagic that would have carved out more of a unique place for this class. The new classes only served to make the Sorc more like other full casters. They get an 'F' from me on the 'fix'.

Wizard: We've had 3 under 3 different players. All were strong, uninspired and not memorable. These players are long time players who have found a way to bring life to many other characters, so I can't disagree with your low rating.

[Dalinar]

I'm gonna get a little spicy for a sec.

I see a whole lot of assertions across this entire thread and very little to back them up. So here's mine: the game is incredibly subjective, and every table is going to vary a lot. For instance, mine rarely runs characters beyond about level 6 and generally runs gritty resting or a variation on that style, so if you're playing a lot of T3/T4 five-minute-day games then I can't relate to you.

--

The first thing I'm going to contradict is the assertion that paladins are OP, having played two myself. A huge limiting factor on them is their very limited spell slot progression combined with their most iconic class feature eating said slots. With several encounters between long rests, you're likely to find yourself forced to choose between those sweet sweet d8s and, say, a critical Command, or your Find Steed, or a Cure Wounds or Aid. Note also the lack of ritual casting--once you've run your limited slots dry, you're not getting anything out of your spellcasting, unlike something like a Wizard or Sorcerer.

Honestly, between both of the paladins I've played, a lot of their power actually ended up coming from high AC (one lucked into +1 plate early due to a 1/1000 random encounter, the other got plate from a sidequest and specced hard into AC in the first place) enabling them to soak up a lot of enemy actions. The occasional crit smite burst feels incredible, but importantly is not a controllable source of burst damage, which matters a lot when you consider the big point of burst damage is to take an enemy out of the fight to improve the balance of action economy in a combat.

Now, Paladin is the secret sauce in a lot of multiclasses, sure, but at my table specifically we haven't even reached the levels to spec into Sorcadin (assuming you want the level 6 aura--and you do, trust me), let alone the levels where it starts to noticeably outpace its single-class competitors in the paladin and sorcerer. I've also lately been reconsidering the idea that Hexadin is as good as everyone thinks it is--you still need to invest a good chunk of your point buy into STR for multiclass requirements and AC, you delay getting Extra Attack and Aura of Protection, and in exchange you get... a short rest spell slot or two, a few more spells known, and a small bump to your attack and damage rolls (or save DCs/aura). Those are all excellent (having a ranged cantrip, Shield/AoA, and better short-rest compatibility goes a long way), but they don't break the class outright.

In comparison to other martials: one big thing to consider is where each of them falls on the scale of "fewer but stronger attacks" and "many weak attacks." At the "fewer attacks" end is the Rogue, which typically has very few consumable resources and honestly barely overlaps with the Paladin at all aside from spending a lot of time in combat making weapon attacks. At the "more attacks" end is the Fighter, which gets Action Surge at low levels and even more attacks at 11 and 20. The Barbarian and Ranger have generally the same number of attacks as a Paladin, maybe slightly more if you're a Berserker (lol) or Gloom Stalker.

A big reason this matters is GWM being a huge DPR increase. Barbarian has advantage practically on demand, which is a big deal when you're taking advantage of a feat that tanks your accuracy in favor of bigger damaging hits. Rangers generally would rather have Sharpshooter, although they do get martial weapon proficiency so maybe a glaive-wielding Ranger would be fun? I'm gonna have to try that someday.

GWM tends to favor characters that want to make many small attacks. If your weapon attack deals 1 damage, you can hit a tenth as often and still justify using the -5/+10. If your weapon attack deals 1000 damage, it's a lot more important that it lands than that it deals 1010. Of the STR-based martials, I'd assert that Paladin not only benefits the least from taking GWM but also has the most compelling alternatives (because CHA half-feats are very good). Because of this I'd bet (though I don't have the inclination to math out, sorry) that a GWM Fighter or Barb will outdamage a Paladin given a long adventuring day at many levels.

---

Since that was a bit of a wall of text, I'm going to keep my other big assertion simple: I'm very confused at the meme going around this forum that Wizards are generic and boring. It's not any different from asserting that human fighters are boring in my eyes--that is, it depends entirely on how you roleplay the character. You can have an incredibly memorable Fighter or Wizard or you can have an incredibly grating character of those or any other class. I'd argue that "X class is boring" in general is a bad assertion because there's so much more to making a character interesting than just picking your favorite class.

[KorvinStarmast]

The subclasses are meant to add that detail and flavour, this is a strength of the Fighter as you can make basically any kind of martial out of it, by design. Particularly with the added fighting styles from Tasha's, but I'd take this step one further. I'd increase the number of fighting styles at various level up points over the course of 1-20. I think there is a boost at 10 for Champion, and that's it. Also, I'd change this
Starting at 7th level, you can add half your proficiency bonus (round up) to any Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution check you make that doesn’t already use your proficiency bonus. In addition, when you make a running long jump, the distance you can cover increases by a number of
feet equal to your Strength modifier.
to read

Starting at 7th level, you can add half your proficiency bonus (round up) to any Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution check you make that doesn’t already use your proficiency bonus. In addition, when you make a running long jump, the distance you can cover increases by a number of feet equal to your Strength modifier. Why can't the Champion have expertise (double proficiency) in Strength/Athletics checks? No reason. As written, you barely get a boost to initiative. :smallyuk:

But I do agree that more spells should really upcast better. On that I agree.

Clerics: Meh. Clerics are one of my favorites to play. But yeah, after level 10 it thins out. Got to play a level 13 in a one shot. Light Cleric. I saw no problems with that level of play.

Bards: have worked the idea of harmonic magic being a "third way" along with arcane/divine magic into my setting. And it fits very well

Paladins: I don't think they're over the top, but they are decidedly strong and internally synergistic. One of the three best designed classes in the game, out of the box, with the 'multiclassing is an optional rule' guidance in mind. The other two are Rogue and Cleric.

A lot of the problem stems from the magic system in general, which I'm becoming less and less enthusiastic about. I don't like how spells are this ravioli-code thing, where they're just utterly disconnected, anti-thematic elements that act as free-floating "buttons to press". And have basically no internal logic or limiting principles. I find this to be an overstatement, although the bloat and overlap can be a bit frustrating.

Limiting smite to once per turn, capping their Aura of Protection at +2; these are probably good changes to make. Disagree with the level cap. Disagree with once per turn smite limit. The smite is a resource expenditure choice (I am not discussing multiclassing in this case, it's an optional rule) that the player has to weigh.

[Dr.Samurai]

I would like to state the obvious and say that what's "fun" is subjective and, for me, resource management is the last thing I associate with "fun". When I'm exploring ancient ruins and dangerous jungles and fighting against cultists and the foul things they summon, etc. the last thing I want to think about is whether this encounter warrants the use of a special ability. It's no fun to use a Rage only to find out this encounter is a cake walk. Then later on I don't have a Rage when I need it. Reading into the DM's descriptions so precisely that I know when to use a resource and when not to, and predicting how many engagements we may have left before our next short or long rest are simply skills I'm not interested in developing. It's too meta for my tastes.

All to say that while I agree with the OP that the Rage binary on the barbarian sucks, I think the solution is less resources, not more. If everyone is convinced that there has to be a dummy class, let it be the barbarian. Introduce resource management in a subclass for those that like that stuff. Change the "rage" mechanic to something else that is always on or can be used at-will (like Reckless Attack). But I hope to Crom that 5.5E doesn't give the barbarian a bunch of fiddly per rest resources in an effort to make them "interesting".

Whether to use an ability or not is a choice that can be interesting. Rationing your abilities, on the other hand, is a chore. Reckless Attack is the former, Rage is the latter.

(Sorry if this reads weird, I'm typing with one hand so taking some liberties.)

[Psyren]

RE: Artificer -

I agree that a lot of Artificer's power comes from supporting others rather than feeling powerful in their own right, but honestly, that's a valid RPG archetype too - feature, not bug. Support classes are some of the hardest to design and, other than wishing there was a full-caster version of the class (which you can kinda do with the UA Wizard subclass version anyway, or just multiclassing), I think they nailed it.

Flash of Genius is a lot more versatile than a paladin's aura. For starters, FoG is 30ft at level 7, whereas paladins usually have to wait for much higher levels (18th most of the time) to get similar coverage. And second, FoG can boost both ability checks and saves, while the paladin is only boosting the latter.

One key role for Artificers you left out is being the trapmonkey; they get expertise with thieves' tools for free, and are fairly Int-SAD which makes Investigation easy.

Lastly, fluffwise - Artificer fits into any campaign setting. You do not, I repeat, do not have to go with the default technologist cogs-and-wires fluff. Grab Calligrapher's tools and paint runes/kanji onto objects and slips of parchment - you're a 100% medieval artificer.

[Angelalex242]

I generally agree; I think Paladins are one of the *best* designed classes, and the other classes are not on their level. I'd much rather see the other classes brought up to Paladin than Paladin get knocked down to the other martials.

That said, I would defend this mostly on the breadth of abilities paladins get - lots of good, flavorful stuff at nearly every level, up through 10 or so. This is how classes should be. I think there's a fairly strong argument that Paladin's numbers are a little too high. Limiting smite to once per turn, capping their Aura of Protection at +2; these are probably good changes to make.

Nah. They need every one of those numbers in order to compete with Wizards with simulacrums and meteor swarms and diviner subclass and other such things.

One of the most lethal things in history is a Wizard with some 20s on Portents feeding his Paladin friend critsmites. That's how you make Vecna deader than disco.

[Zuras]

The Barbarian sadly has little going on in tier 3&4, but based on personal experience and WotC’s survey results, it’s a well designed class for tiers 1&2, in that it delivers what it promises.

Even at high levels, as long as the DM isn’t metagaming and deliberately avoiding attacking you, playing a Barbarian for a single session is pretty fun. The problem is they don’t get much out of combat, and they have bad stats.

Barbarians need to have good Strength, Constitution and Dexterity, but only Dex is generally useful for multiple things outside of combat. Additionally, the stuff that Barbarians are supposed to be good at—intimidation, perception, survival—all rely on stats that give them no other mechanical advantages. Most egregiously, Danger Sense and Feral instinct, only have combat related effects, even though they easily could have included some non-combat features with same fluff.

I think adding some more skill support for those thematically appropriate skills, plus a significantly broader array of ritual spell type effects (abilities similar to the Totem Warrior and Ancestral Guardian's for all subclasses) would give the barbarian enough stuff to do in the other pillars to keep players engaged.

[KorvinStarmast]

In response to the OP:

1) I love that there are more class abilities than 2nd and 3rd edition.
2) Its light touch. So light touch in terms of complexity and moving parts.
3) The archetype system works well.
Agree.

Artificer Someone else can comment, IMO it should have been a wizard sub class.
I don't care for it. Your analysis is a good one.

Barbarian 2/10 Most parties I've been in have one. Popular class.
Bard

The exception, magical secrets is something I would consider poor design. You create a class ability almost designes to step on the toes of other classes. That unique ability is all about making both the bard and another class less unique. It isn't a disaster and I get some people find it fun, but surely there could be something better here. I disagree, but that's a matter of taste. Magical secrets gives the bard some great customizability. It need not be only a optimization tool.

My issue with the bard is the wider context. It is like the rogue a skill monkey, but better.
One of these days, I am going to re scrub Bard as a 1/2 caster INT class which is how they were as AD&D 1e's introduction (but it was a prestige class and as such were a bit of a mess). I'll post it on the homebrew board and get the critiques that I hope will add value to it.

Cleric
The cleric is arguably the best designed class in 5e.
8/10
Concur.

Druid
The druid is basically the "ask your DM" class. What can you do? Ask your DM. Will it be good? Ask your DM.
6/10
It is a seriously concentration-heavy spell caster. I've had fun with druids. Stars is kinda powerful, but I love the thematics of it. Shepherd is great thematically but I think they dialed up the power just a bit too high on that one.

Fighter
Most groups I have need in have had a Fighter. Popular class. With the expanded fighting styles in Tasha's, and with the ability to swap one out later on they are a bit more customizable with that optional rule. I enjoyed my Champion and my Battle Master both.

Monk One of my favorite classes, needs another ASI and 10 IMO, and a few tweaks to Four Elements. I don't get the negative waves. :smallconfused:

Paladin
I think the designers dropped the ball on this one. Badly.
One of the best designed classes in the game. Multi classing is optional.

Ranger
How many have you played? I find the complaints to not outweigh the fun I have had with Ranger, however, I like the bonus spell lists in Xanathar's and feel they ought to have been back fed into Hunter and Beast Master.

Rogue
The rogue is the flip side to the Paladin. The perfectly designed class that has screwed up because it isn't balanced against other classes, this time because its too weak.
I think it's one of the best three classes in the game, but my assumptions are 'MC is optional' ... it does what it intends to do well, although I often look at the level 9 abilities and stroke my chin. That bard steps on rogues toes is true. That said, most parties have 4 or 5 players, and there are 12 PC classes.

Sorcerer
Beyond my usual "a class nobody ever needed, even in 3.x" my only tweak would be another meta magic at level 7, and spells known progression as "one per level added from 2 through 20 with no gaps. It's other wise a good class.

To me, the PHB sorcerer is close to how I feel a full caster should impact the game.
Draconic works well 'out of the box' in my experience. (Mostly seen from DM side though).


Warlock
The more I play it, the more I like it. Invocations offer such good customization options.
Again, my assessment is "Multiclassing is optional" and all I'd do is improve the Blade Pact slightly with a Medium Armor proficiency as a level 3 feature.

Wizard
Playing a wizard from 1 to 20 isn't something I am likely to do in this edition.
I have played wizards a bit when a player can't show up, so I play their wizard and my own PC, and I mostly have no problem playing them.
I have played a wizard in a one shot.
I was more or less forced into playing a 14th level wizard for a level 7 party in a campaign but that NPCs spells were already chosen. Not enjoyable for me.
Wizards: those are for other people to play, not me. I played enough Magic Users in original and in AD&D that I no longer have a desire to do so. So many other choices, so few chances to try them out.

Likewise with hobbits/halflings. Played a goodly number of them back in the day, I am done with them. If 5.5e or 6e removed hobbits/halflings form the game I'd applaud. (Take your gnomes, kender, kobolds and goblins (PCs) while you are at it). We will now be treated to a rendition of Randy Newman's song Short People.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Warlock, Paladin, Cleric, Bard and now Artificer are, in my opinion, the design other classes should aspire to meet. To touch specifically on Paladin, we should acknowledge that it's unfortunate that we don't have a martial that stands well on its own in all aspects without spellcasting but there's no denying that Paladin has everything a pure martial wants. They've got high survivability, strong party support options, terrific damage and a small smattering of utility options (from spellcasting) to cover what their wealth of class features can't. It was entirely possible for the designers to give Fighter's, Barbs and Rogues these options from the beginning and they're only just now showing up in subclasses.

Back to the broad topic, best feature of all of these classes (Cleric likely the "worst" in this aspect) is level progression. There are few if any dead levels where you feel something useful isn't coming soon. Many other classes struggle with this where the most you have to look forward to is a ribbon subclass feature (Barbarians and early Rogue subclasses in particular have this problem) or a simple spell slot progression increase.

Rogues are near the top as a personal favorite but they suffer a lot from having a significant amount of bad options (Assassin is a do nothing subclass outside of the first turn of combat) and even though the designers likely assume they're always sneak attacking I feel like some DM's and even the designers themselves have an instinctual want to make sneak attacking more difficult. This same instinct is perhaps more prevalent in the skill sytem where a well put together Rogue should probably be auto succeeding on their checks made with expertise but some DM's will fish for that bottom end roll or in cases after Reliable Talent comes into play, jack the DC into space. If I had to simplify the issue I think hampers Rogues, they suffer from being able to "succeed" at dealing damage and using skills too easily. There's a perceived lack of effort and some tables will make adjustments to that dynamic thoughtlessly.

This could also just be my own paranoia from a handful of bad experiences though, perhaps this is actually an exceptionally rare problem that most people don't see and Rogue should be standing with the others on my first list.

[Slipjig]

RE: Artificer -

One key role for Artificers you left out is being the trapmonkey; they get expertise with thieves' tools for free, and are fairly Int-SAD which makes Investigation easy.

Lastly, fluffwise - Artificer fits into any campaign setting. You do not, I repeat, do not have to go with the default technologist cogs-and-wires fluff. Grab Calligrapher's tools and paint runes/kanji onto objects and slips of parchment - you're a 100% medieval artificer.

Yup, if you want to play a character who is more of a Sneaky Skillmonkey, a high-DEX Artificer can fill the role nicely. And even if you have a Rogue in the party, if they know that the Artificer is going to have Thief Tool Expertise, that frees the Rogue up to put their Expertise into something else.

And while some Artificer sub-classes may clash thematically with some settings, Alchemist and Battle Smiths fit in pretty much anywhere, even settings with minimal magic.

[sithlordnergal]

Artificer

~SNIP~


I haven't played many Artificers, or seen many Artificers, so I'm not as experienced with the class as I'd like to be. From what I've seen though, I do agree with this. Especially the "wonderful design and hit mess". So yeah, I fully agree with you here.




Barbarian
~SNIP~
2/10


Barbarian is in a bit of an odd space. I do agree that a lot of its abilities are passive, and its a very straightforward class to play, but I don't think these are as big of a detriment as you might think. Its perfect if your players are looking to play a big, unkillable tank, without dealing with Wild Shape, in ways that the Fighter just can't match. I do agree that too many of its abilities are tied to Rage. I feel like Totem Barbarian is an example of a good Barbarian Subclass: At level 3 you gain two abilities, one tied to the Rage mechanic and one that isn't, levels 6 and 10 are both abilities that have nothing to do with Rage, and the 14th level ability is tied with Rage.

I think a lot of Barbarian Subclasses would have benefited more from that sort of ability setup instead of tying so many things to Rage. Despire that, I'd actually raise that 2/10 to more like a 4/10.




Bard
~SNIP~


Lol, I'm firmly in the group that feels the Bard should be a full caster. I actually think the Bard is a really, really well designed support class, one that others should really strive to be. And its subclasses have only aided that. I do agree that the Bard spell list is a bit...odd. Its clear Bards are built to center around support and debuffs, but they lack some of the outstanding buff spells, like Haste, Fly, Remove Curse, Counterspell, or Slow. So yeah, the spell list does need some work.

As for class abilities, I feel like Expertise and Jack of All Trades is fine, it does make the Bard a bit of a skill monkey, but I don't actually think it treads on the toes of the Rogue in any meaningful way. Countercharm is a flavorful ability that needs to be fixed. As it is, I don't think it works very well at all, and is a poor ability mechanically. I play a lot of Bards, I've played Bards against creatures with Charm and Frighten abilities...I've yet to find a use for Countercharm. As its written, its an action that lets you give advantage on saving throws against being Frightened or Charm...for one round. That's not enough to justify being an Action. It doesn't even proc a save, its just the next time you get to make a save. Is it an ability that fits the design of the Bard? Yes. Is it a well designed ability? Not at all. You're better off tossing your Bardic Inspiration at the Charmed/Frightened ally, and using your Action for something useful.

Finally, I disagree that Magical Secrets is a bad ability that steps on the toes of other classes. I feel it fits the Bard's jack of all trades feel perfectly, and I don't think it steps on any toes. It does allow the Bard to obtain class specific spells, yes, and it allows the Bard to get certain spells much earlier then other classes, but that would only matter if the classes they took those spells from were primarily casters. A bard getting Circle of Power 7 levels earlier than the Paladin isn't really stepping on the Paladin's toes since the Paladin does so much more than just cast spells. A bard snagging a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid spell isn't really stepping on their toes since those classes get said spell at the same time, and so many more.

I also don't think Tasha's options really harmed the Bard either, since their options tend to limit you to 1st and 2nd level spells. So Magical Secrets remains special since its the only way to snag higher level spells.




Cleric
~~SNIP~~


I...have to disagree. I find Clerics to be one of the least inspiring, most boring, and least well designed class. At pretty much every level. Their spell list is subpar once you get past 3rd level spells, their base class abilities are pretty poor, Divine Intervention is borderline useless till you reach level 20, the base class gets absolutely nothing past level 10, and their subclasses are so hit or miss that its insane. You run the gambit of being borderline broken, for a Cleric anyway, with Twilight, to things like Tempest, which tries to be a blasting Cleric without any real Blasting spells. It needs a rework...a full proper rework. From the spells, to abilities, to subclasses. In a game with Bards, Paladins, and Druids, I always feel like the Cleric just comes up short




Druid
~~SNIP~~


I agree with you that the saves feel off, and that this is the biggest "Ask your DM" class. Its also the most complicated class in 5e, which can be a benefit or detriment. That said, I disagree that Druid forces you into Wildshape. The only class that really pushes you into making heavy use of Wildshape is the Moon Druid, and that's because all of its abilities are tied to Wildshape. Everything else? Ehh, not really. Wildshape becomes more of a utility ribbon ability when you're not a Moon Druid. Now, its still a powerful ability, but its not so dominant that its used by every Druid.

Also, I'm curious what you mean by "in comparison with the cleric the druid just doesn't seem to grow with new abilities that will see frequent use"? The Druid gets a plethora of abilities at all levels, even high levels, that will see frequent use and can change how you strategize or play. Both from their class and their subclass. The base class gets Timeless Body, Beast Spells, and Archdruid. And while Timeless Body is sort of an odd passive ability, Beast Spells and Archdruid really opens up how sneaky you can be while casting spells, opening tactical options. Meanwhile Subclasses give a plethora abilities that fit thematically with your subclass and are generally pretty powerful. Compare that to the Cleric which gets effectively nothing from their base class, and a buff or two from their subclass.




Fighter
~~SNIP~~


...What kind of Fighters are you playing? They're one of the least dull classes in the game from my experience. Action Surge, their multiple Extra Attacks, Fighting Style options, and Indomitable are all excellent abilities. As for flavor, I will admit that the flavor of your Fighter is really going to be determined by the Fighting Style you choose. But I think that's beneficial to the class. It allows for a much easier and more free form of character building, which is something I like.

As for subclasses, I find the only one that's lacking is the Champion. Eldritch Knight, Battlemaster, Rune Knight, Echo Knight, Cavalier, these are all excellent and flavorful classes that are pretty darn well designed, and well balanced. Battlemaster lets you have a more customized Fighter, Rune Knight has excellent utility abilities, Cavalier is an amazing support, and Echo Knights are just insane. Now, I will agree they are somewhat lacking in new abilities at high level. But unlike the Cleric, I feel the improvements actually make up for the lack of class abilities.




~~SNIP~~

I pretty much agree with all of this.




Paladin
~~SNIP~~


I heavily disagree with you. I feel like the Paladin is probably one of the better designed classes in the game, and is a class the others should have strived towards. Particularly, I feel like the Cleric and Ranger would have been better taking a few pages from the Paladin's book...and in fact the Twilight Cleric actually does take some inspiration from the Paladin with its aura. Now, I do agree its one of the strongest classes in the game, right up there with the Wizard and Druid. Personally, I wouldn't mess with most of the class abilities...Smite, Lay on Hands, and Aura of Protection are fine as is. I'd say this is the design level that other classes should have strived for, especially the Ranger and Cleric.




~~SNP~~


100% agree, though I feel like the mini Hunter's Mark they get in Revised really shouldn't be Concentration. Especially since Hunter's Mark exists, there is almost never a reason to use it over Hunter's Mark.




Rogue
~~SNIP~~


So, I agree with your analysis on the abilities, I disagree that magic tends to solve problems better than skills do. As good as divination spells are, none of them really compare to actually sneaking in and getting a good look yourself. They're far too unreliable and limited, and cannot replace actual scouting. And while Pass Without Trace does exist, its really only there to patch up another party member's poor stealth. Invisibility is great, but due to the hiding rules your location is technically known even when you're invisible. Some holds true for nearly every spell that can replace an ability check.

As for Bards and Rogues, the two classes can seem similar on paper, but I find they're pretty different in actual play. Bards are great generalists, while Rogues are better specialists. And its all thanks to Reliable Talent. Personally, I much prefer having the Rogue roll for skill checks they're proficient in once they have Reliable Talent over the Bard, simply because their lowest roll is going to be leagues better than the Bard's lowest roll. Their defensive abilities also allow them to stand out from the crowd. Now, they would benefit from a more developed skill system, but that can be said for every martial class in the game. As it is, they have a niche as the best specialist in the game, and they're good enough that they stand out from the generalist Bard.




Sorcerer
~~SNIP~~


Ehh, I agree with you for the most part...but I think their biggest failing is the limited amount of Sorcery Points they have and the limited number of Metamagic options you get, not the limited number of spells or the fact that Wizards exist. I think most, if not all, of the Sorcerer's issues would be solved if Sorcery Points refreshed more like Ki, while also limiting the number of spell slots they can make with their points. Metamagic more than makes up for their limited spells and the fact that Wizards exist, its just Metamagic is so expensive compared to the number of Sorcery Points you get, and you get so few Metamagic options. I feel like the Sorcerer would be fixed if:

A) Sorcery Points refreshed on a Short Rest

B) You could only make a limited number of spell slots per day, similar to Arcane Recovery

and

C) You gained more than four Metamagic options over the course of the class




Warlock
~~SNIP~~

Yup, agree with you. I have a love/hate relationship with Warlock...I adore the Warlock's flavor and concept, but hate its execution. They had a really neat idea by having a class with spell slots that come back on a Short Rest...but you get too few spell slots to really do anything. Seriously, why do Warlocks only get 2 spell slots till level 11? That's not enough slots!

They had a fun idea with Invocations, allowing you to customize your Warlock with options that work with your Pact! Awesome idea...but you don't really have enough Invocations Known at low levels to branch out and really customize your Warlock. Especially since those Invocations known are competing with things like Agonizing Blast, Improved Pact Weapon, Devil's Sight, ect.

They had a cool idea where all your spell slots are cast at their max spell level. Another cool idea in concept, but then you look at the Warlock spells. Most aren't worth casting at higher levels. Hell, look at the Warlock exclusive spells, these are spells designed to belong to the Warlock. We have...Hex, Armor of Agathys, Arms of Hadar, Hellish Rebuke, Hunger of Hadar, and Shadow of Moil. Hex and Arms of Hadar scale poorly, with one only increasing the spell's duration while requiring Concentration, and the other having really poor damage scaling, while Hunger of Hadar doesn't scale at all, despite only being a 3rd level spell. The only spells worth mentioning are Armor of Agathys, Hellish Rebuke, and Shadow of Moil.

That said, I have a pretty easy way to fix the Warlock. First, give them an extra Invocation Known and spell slot at level 6. Second, improve scaling for Warlock exclusive spells.




Wizard
~~SNIP~~

Honestly, I find the Wizard is probably my favorite class because its generic. By making a generic spell casting class, you now have a class that can fit into any RP role you like. You don't need to have it just be a bookish student that does nothing but study. That said, I do agree with a few points. First, the subclasses...specifically the PHB subclasses. These needed to be fleshed out more. They're basically relying on spells to be class features, which makes for a somewhat boring subclass. Now, some subclasses are really fun in the PHB, the Abjuration, Divination, and Illusion Subclasses are great, and really play into their chosen archtypes well. Meanwhile schools like Conjuration, Transmutation, and Necromancy kind of fall flat. Its a bit sad that if you want to play a caster that summons/controls a lot of minions you point players towards Shepard Druid over the Necromancer or Conjuration Wizard.

That said, the new subclasses have fixed that for the most part. Bladesinger and War Magic are really good subclasses in my opinion, and really flavorful for what they're out to do. Bladesinger is an excellent gish that perfectly marries martial combat and spell casting in a way that the Eldritch Knight should emulate. War Magic really gives you the feel of a Wizard from a military background. And then there's my favorite Scribe Wizards. Scribes really pull of the "Bookish" wizard better than any other subclass.

Now, I do agree they have a bit of a bloated spell list. But instead of lowering the amount of spells they know, I'd much rather other classes gain the spells they have. I feel like that would go a long way to fix their bloated spell list. Now, the number of spells known gets a bit tricky. On the one hand, you get 44 spells by level 20 as a Wizard, even if your DM doesn't give you any spell scrolls. But on the other hand, there are so many options that its actually really difficult to choose those 44 spells. I feel like maybe lowering the number of spells you learn after a certain level would be fair, while keeping their ability to copy spells. But in general, I think the best way to fix their bloat is to remove the class exclusive spells and allow other classes to take them.

[meandean]

Its clear Bards are built to center around support and debuffs, but they lack some of the outstanding buff spells, like Haste, Fly, Remove Curse, Counterspell, or Slow.Sorry to pick just one sentence out of your post, but Tasha's did add slow to their list.

[Amechra]

The annoying part about the Barbarian is that they actually do have a cool feature that you need to think about using (Reckless Attack)... and then the rest of the class is built around triggered abilities and a single big on-off switch.

[MrStabby]

I'll add my thoughts on the classes I have experience with on at least a few occasions.

Barbarian: Mostly agree. The constraints on what you can't do while raging are limiting. Maybe some people like that, and they'd better, since they're pigeon holed.

Bard: I DMed a couple and thought Meh. I'm currently playing one with a paladin dip, and it feels a bit better to me. I never thought the Bard should have been a full caster, and still don't. The game has too many of those, and the Jack of all Trades class could surely afford to lose some of those spells to free up design space.

I would certainly like to see a half-caster bard, or even a 2/3rds caster. There are a lot of potential cool bardic abilities that could have been out there instead but so much of the class power was swept up with being a full caster.


Cleric: It's a good class, as you say. The base class is solid, yet leaves enough space for a lot of competitive and interesting subclasses. We've had a lot of different subclasses, and I don't think any player disliked their experience. I had good success with some of the upper level spells on the Light Cleric I played, so don't fully agree with the flack the Cleric takes for limited other upper level abilities.
So for the first couple of levels past 10 the class is still coasting on how good and how rewarding it was before, or felt that way to me. The epic power of divine intervention was still new (and given how hard it is to make it land, you might not even have really used it), you have just picked up your top level domain spells... but I honestly felt it stalled. Fighters also lack cool new core class abilities after 11 but they get (potentially) new and powerful magic items and can get great value out of them but the cleric is less prone to tanking, gets less value from weapon attacks and only uses a (large) fraction of their spells for damage or save effects that good magic items seem to boost. Absolutely not saying you were wrong to have fun, but I wonder if it had as much to do with party composition as anything else.


Druid: Well, I've DMed 3 of these: 2 Moons and a Shepherd. The Moons were good with the exception of tier 1 where they were too strong, and the Shepherd was the only character I've ever DMed that was just OP for tier 2 through to retirement (which was level 13 or 14). Is it good design? I've been kicking around my next character being a multiclass Moon, so at least that subclass has substantial appeal to our table.
I was going to write something about the subclasses of druid... as it seems to be the subclasses that are the elements that break the game a bit. And yes, moon druid at level 2 is silly, likewise shephered druid at 5.


Fighter: I'd rate fighter a bit better than the OP. The design leaves some space for the subclass, and provided the player picks one of the interesting ones they can be good. Most of ours have been BMs, and round to round those provide more meaningful decisions than casters. Yes, more; every time you swing you consider whether or not to add a maneuver, and which one. EK is solid, and Rune Knight is like BM, but with fewer more powerful options.
Yeah, not going to deny there is good stuff for the fighter and say that everything plays badly. I still think I am right with the faults I pick with it but I possibly underrepresented the upsides as well. Again hard to really work out how to represent what the fighter class is like without talking about the archeyepes. Are some of them part of an OK design or a fix for a bad design?


Paladin: Yes, it's strong largely due to the 6th level aura that you mention. Is it too strong? I tend to think that like many 'problems' brought to this forum that with 6-8 encounters per day the Paladin isn't OP given the limited spell slots. I think the Hexblade thing was already mentioned and I don't allow that, and I could see where Paladin with dip could be too strong if that was allowed. I suppose if higher than normal abilities were allowed in character creation the Paladin would benefit a lot too. In summary, I hard disagree with this rating. There are a lot of good Paladin subclasses out there and we've enjoyed every one we've had at the table.
Its good that the table enjoyed them, again I do wonder if it comes down to party composition and level of play though. If you have a barbarian, fighter, rogue and PHB ranger do they feel that the class has overshadowed their choice?

I think the aura is too strong because it warps the game. The set of challenges a DM can throw at the party that allows the contribution of every member to shine roughly equally is so much narrower. Anything with a lot of saves is dominated by the paladin by this aura. The DM can make it so the paladin isn't massively more powerful than other similar characters but they may have to sacrifice a significant amount of encounter freedom and world building to make it work. The other things too are probably too strong, but in ways that are less damaging to the game.


Rogue: It's well designed, linear, and interacts well with all pillars if you want to build it that way. Good class.

Sorcerer: Add me to the other posters who mentioned that the issue with this class wasn't lack of spells; it was lack of metamagic that would have carved out more of a unique place for this class. The new classes only served to make the Sorc more like other full casters. They get an 'F' from me on the 'fix'.

I am really interested to see the number of people focussing on the metamagic not the spells known aspect of the sorcerer (and hence being broadly in agreement). I had thought my views here would be a minority view.


Wizard: We've had 3 under 3 different players. All were strong, uninspired and not memorable. These players are long time players who have found a way to bring life to many other characters, so I can't disagree with your low rating.
I think "wizard" could be a geat and fun class; the PHB theme kind of works for me but it would need a hard rework.






I'm gonna get a little spicy for a sec.

Go for it... I thought I would write something a little provovative.


I see a whole lot of assertions across this entire thread and very little to back them up. So here's mine: the game is incredibly subjective, and every table is going to vary a lot. For instance, mine rarely runs characters beyond about level 6 and generally runs gritty resting or a variation on that style, so if you're playing a lot of T3/T4 five-minute-day games then I can't relate to you.
Yeah, I guess I should have writen a disclaimer or something to say that the views I expressed were opinions not objective facts... oh wait, I did.:smallsmile:

--


The first thing I'm going to contradict is the assertion that paladins are OP, having played two myself. A huge limiting factor on them is their very limited spell slot progression combined with their most iconic class feature eating said slots. With several encounters between long rests, you're likely to find yourself forced to choose between those sweet sweet d8s and, say, a critical Command, or your Find Steed, or a Cure Wounds or Aid. Note also the lack of ritual casting--once you've run your limited slots dry, you're not getting anything out of your spellcasting, unlike something like a Wizard or Sorcerer.

Honestly, between both of the paladins I've played, a lot of their power actually ended up coming from high AC (one lucked into +1 plate early due to a 1/1000 random encounter, the other got plate from a sidequest and specced hard into AC in the first place) enabling them to soak up a lot of enemy actions. The occasional crit smite burst feels incredible, but importantly is not a controllable source of burst damage, which matters a lot when you consider the big point of burst damage is to take an enemy out of the fight to improve the balance of action economy in a combat.

Now, Paladin is the secret sauce in a lot of multiclasses, sure, but at my table specifically we haven't even reached the levels to spec into Sorcadin (assuming you want the level 6 aura--and you do, trust me), let alone the levels where it starts to noticeably outpace its single-class competitors in the paladin and sorcerer. I've also lately been reconsidering the idea that Hexadin is as good as everyone thinks it is--you still need to invest a good chunk of your point buy into STR for multiclass requirements and AC, you delay getting Extra Attack and Aura of Protection, and in exchange you get... a short rest spell slot or two, a few more spells known, and a small bump to your attack and damage rolls (or save DCs/aura). Those are all excellent (having a ranged cantrip, Shield/AoA, and better short-rest compatibility goes a long way), but they don't break the class outright.
This is why I specifically laid out my judgement criteria. You can enjoy as manay paladins as you like, but I am judging the class by what I think it brings to the game and this includes both the fun that people playing other classes have but also maybe the fun missed by not playing a class because the paladin was there. I mean I could see someone saying "I think rolled stats are really great for the game because I rolled well and I had great fun having better stats than everyone else" - it is useful data, for sure, but probably not the whole picture.:roach:


In comparison to other martials: one big thing to consider is where each of them falls on the scale of "fewer but stronger attacks" and "many weak attacks." At the "fewer attacks" end is the Rogue, which typically has very few consumable resources and honestly barely overlaps with the Paladin at all aside from spending a lot of time in combat making weapon attacks. At the "more attacks" end is the Fighter, which gets Action Surge at low levels and even more attacks at 11 and 20. The Barbarian and Ranger have generally the same number of attacks as a Paladin, maybe slightly more if you're a Berserker (lol) or Gloom Stalker.

A big reason this matters is GWM being a huge DPR increase. Barbarian has advantage practically on demand, which is a big deal when you're taking advantage of a feat that tanks your accuracy in favor of bigger damaging hits. Rangers generally would rather have Sharpshooter, although they do get martial weapon proficiency so maybe a glaive-wielding Ranger would be fun? I'm gonna have to try that someday.

GWM tends to favor characters that want to make many small attacks. If your weapon attack deals 1 damage, you can hit a tenth as often and still justify using the -5/+10. If your weapon attack deals 1000 damage, it's a lot more important that it lands than that it deals 1010. Of the STR-based martials, I'd assert that Paladin not only benefits the least from taking GWM but also has the most compelling alternatives (because CHA half-feats are very good). Because of this I'd bet (though I don't have the inclination to math out, sorry) that a GWM Fighter or Barb will outdamage a Paladin given a long adventuring day at many levels.

This is true, but there is another side. You mention GWM which gives extra damage per attack, but there also exists PAM which gives extra attacks that scale with your extra damage. So your fighter wiill get more out of your GWM with three attacks but Paladin will get more out of PAM with things likeimproved divine smite. I would also be cautious about judging the power of a class from damage alone (and to be fair you clearly are not becuase of your earlier comments about defence).

---


Since that was a bit of a wall of text, I'm going to keep my other big assertion simple: I'm very confused at the meme going around this forum that Wizards are generic and boring. It's not any different from asserting that human fighters are boring in my eyes--that is, it depends entirely on how you roleplay the character. You can have an incredibly memorable Fighter or Wizard or you can have an incredibly grating character of those or any other class. I'd argue that "X class is boring" in general is a bad assertion because there's so much more to making a character interesting than just picking your favorite class.
I don't know this meme, not really seen it. Of course there is always a bit of dicsussion around different classes but I haven't been around so much recently. I guess I should stress I am not saying wizards are boring, but rather wizards don't have the tools they could have to make them mechanically more interesting. I am not going to blame RP problems on class design.






I would like to state the obvious and say that what's "fun" is subjective and, for me, resource management is the last thing I associate with "fun". When I'm exploring ancient ruins and dangerous jungles and fighting against cultists and the foul things they summon, etc. the last thing I want to think about is whether this encounter warrants the use of a special ability. It's no fun to use a Rage only to find out this encounter is a cake walk. Then later on I don't have a Rage when I need it. Reading into the DM's descriptions so precisely that I know when to use a resource and when not to, and predicting how many engagements we may have left before our next short or long rest are simply skills I'm not interested in developing. It's too meta for my tastes.

All to say that while I agree with the OP that the Rage binary on the barbarian sucks, I think the solution is less resources, not more. If everyone is convinced that there has to be a dummy class, let it be the barbarian. Introduce resource management in a subclass for those that like that stuff. Change the "rage" mechanic to something else that is always on or can be used at-will (like Reckless Attack). But I hope to Crom that 5.5E doesn't give the barbarian a bunch of fiddly per rest resources in an effort to make them "interesting".

Whether to use an ability or not is a choice that can be interesting. Rationing your abilities, on the other hand, is a chore. Reckless Attack is the former, Rage is the latter.

(Sorry if this reads weird, I'm typing with one hand so taking some liberties.)
This makes perfect sense. I think that resource managment itself needn't be fun - my comparison with casters was that it was sufficiently complex that if that were your thing you might enjoy it. The barbarian to me is just too passive. Activated abilities needn't be resource gated or limited - indeed paradoxically I would say that the reckless attack feature is a great template for this. Honestly, If the class could have a few more of these of build upon this for the archetypes rather than rage ("whilst you are recklessly attacking you get the following benefits...") then I think it could be engaging.


RE: Artificer -

I agree that a lot of Artificer's power comes from supporting others rather than feeling powerful in their own right, but honestly, that's a valid RPG archetype too - feature, not bug. Support classes are some of the hardest to design and, other than wishing there was a full-caster version of the class (which you can kinda do with the UA Wizard subclass version anyway, or just multiclassing), I think they nailed it.

Flash of Genius is a lot more versatile than a paladin's aura. For starters, FoG is 30ft at level 7, whereas paladins usually have to wait for much higher levels (18th most of the time) to get similar coverage. And second, FoG can boost both ability checks and saves, while the paladin is only boosting the latter.

One key role for Artificers you left out is being the trapmonkey; they get expertise with thieves' tools for free, and are fairly Int-SAD which makes Investigation easy.

Lastly, fluffwise - Artificer fits into any campaign setting. You do not, I repeat, do not have to go with the default technologist cogs-and-wires fluff. Grab Calligrapher's tools and paint runes/kanji onto objects and slips of parchment - you're a 100% medieval artificer.
Yeah, the trapmonkey thing is cool and I hadn't really factored that in to my design. Not sure how it would change it (I was thinking to mention that tool expertise was the one special roge "skill" thing that the bard couldn't get, but this then covers off that unique role!)

For the fluff - maybe its just me but I can't get stuff like the artillerist to work in my mind, with all those turrets and stuff as something more oldschool. Likewise the armourer. Sometimes it isn't that I can't make it work - just that its extra effort and means I enjoy the end result less. I did try to put this outside of my mind when it came to the rating though.

I agree on flash of genius being more versatile than the paladin's aura. I was trying to make the case that it feels less good and you are less likely to get big, memorable rounds where it saves the whole party.
And yeah, totally agree that support is a valid way of playing and a valid archetype - absolutely not my intention to say otherwise. I don't like that so much of it happens through items you had out though. it feels less like it is your PC doing it then.



Nah. They need every one of those numbers in order to compete with Wizards with simulacrums and meteor swarms and diviner subclass and other such things.

One of the most lethal things in history is a Wizard with some 20s on Portents feeding his Paladin friend critsmites. That's how you make Vecna deader than disco.
Yeah, this is why when talking about the paladin I tend to make sure I articulate which tier of play we are talking about. At the top end of play everything gets a bit crazy. Not going to be pushing that Paladin is the most broken class at level 17+.


The Barbarian sadly has little going on in tier 3&4, but based on personal experience and WotC’s survey results, it’s a well designed class for tiers 1&2, in that it delivers what it promises.

Even at high levels, as long as the DM isn’t metagaming and deliberately avoiding attacking you, playing a Barbarian for a single session is pretty fun. The problem is they don’t get much out of combat, and they have bad stats.

Barbarians need to have good Strength, Constitution and Dexterity, but only Dex is generally useful for multiple things outside of combat. Additionally, the stuff that Barbarians are supposed to be good at—intimidation, perception, survival—all rely on stats that give them no other mechanical advantages. Most egregiously, Danger Sense and Feral instinct, only have combat related effects, even though they easily could have included some non-combat features with same fluff.

I think adding some more skill support for those thematically appropriate skills, plus a significantly broader array of ritual spell type effects (abilities similar to the Totem Warrior and Ancestral Guardian's for all subclasses) would give the barbarian enough stuff to do in the other pillars to keep players engaged.
I like the ranger rework, and I do wonder if this could have been a good grounding for a siilar tool for barbarians to enrigh their tier 3+ abilities and their out of combat abilities.


In response to the OP:

Agree.
Someone else can comment, IMO it should have been a wizard sub class.
I don't care for it. Your analysis is a good one.
Most parties I've been in have one. Popular class.
Bard
I disagree, but that's a matter of taste. Magical secrets gives the bard some great customizability. It need not be only a optimization tool.

One of these days, I am going to re scrub Bard as a 1/2 caster INT class which is how they were as AD&D 1e's introduction (but it was a prestige class and as such were a bit of a mess). I'll post it on the homebrew board and get the critiques that I hope will add value to it.

Concur.

It is a seriously concentration-heavy spell caster. I've had fun with druids. Stars is kinda powerful, but I love the thematics of it. Shepherd is great thematically but I think they dialed up the power just a bit too high on that one.

Most groups I have need in have had a Fighter. Popular class. With the expanded fighting styles in Tasha's, and with the ability to swap one out later on they are a bit more customizable with that optional rule. I enjoyed my Champion and my Battle Master both.
One of my favorite classes, needs another ASI and 10 IMO, and a few tweaks to Four Elements. I don't get the negative waves. :smallconfused:

One of the best designed classes in the game. Multi classing is optional.

How many have you played? I find the complaints to not outweigh the fun I have had with Ranger, however, I like the bonus spell lists in Xanathar's and feel they ought to have been back fed into Hunter and Beast Master.

I think it's one of the best three classes in the game, but my assumptions are 'MC is optional' ... it does what it intends to do well, although I often look at the level 9 abilities and stroke my chin. That bard steps on rogues toes is true. That said, most parties have 4 or 5 players, and there are 12 PC classes.

Beyond my usual "a class nobody ever needed, even in 3.x" my only tweak would be another meta magic at level 7, and spells known progression as "one per level added from 2 through 20 with no gaps. It's other wise a good class.

Draconic works well 'out of the box' in my experience. (Mostly seen from DM side though).


The more I play it, the more I like it. Invocations offer such good customization options.
Again, my assessment is "Multiclassing is optional" and all I'd do is improve the Blade Pact slightly with a Medium Armor proficiency as a level 3 feature.

Playing a wizard from 1 to 20 isn't something I am likely to do in this edition.
I have played wizards a bit when a player can't show up, so I play their wizard and my own PC, and I mostly have no problem playing them.
I have played a wizard in a one shot.
I was more or less forced into playing a 14th level wizard for a level 7 party in a campaign but that NPCs spells were already chosen. Not enjoyable for me.
Wizards: those are for other people to play, not me. I played enough Magic Users in original and in AD&D that I no longer have a desire to do so. So many other choices, so few chances to try them out.

Likewise with hobbits/halflings. Played a goodly number of them back in the day, I am done with them. If 5.5e or 6e removed hobbits/halflings form the game I'd applaud. (Take your gnomes, kender, kobolds and goblins (PCs) while you are at it). We will now be treated to a rendition of Randy Newman's song Short People.
Mostly for the ranger bit...
I have played a couple. One PHB hunter when here were no other choices. It was a relatively short game levels 4 to 6. Didn't really work for me. Combat was... OK. I felt I didn't really do what I wanted that much but was still new to the edition. I think that playing alongside a vengeance paladin archer didn't help - they seemed better than me at my schitck and better at every other role in combat and more capable in the social pillar as well. I had the usual problem of solving the exploration pillar so it rarely happened.
More recently a gloomstalker. Yeah, that's powerful and it feels like progress. The abilities line up nicely and the new tasha's rules helped me feel like a ranger even out of combat. I liked it a lot more. I still felt it was a bit one dimensional, but that could easily be fixed with a few more good ranger spells to broaden what it can achieve a little. As you might have picked up... I am a big fan of thematic spell lists so yeah, rolling some of those back into the PHB classes wouldn't bug me.


Warlock, Paladin, Cleric, Bard and now Artificer are, in my opinion, the design other classes should aspire to meet. To touch specifically on Paladin, we should acknowledge that it's unfortunate that we don't have a martial that stands well on its own in all aspects without spellcasting but there's no denying that Paladin has everything a pure martial wants. They've got high survivability, strong party support options, terrific damage and a small smattering of utility options (from spellcasting) to cover what their wealth of class features can't. It was entirely possible for the designers to give Fighter's, Barbs and Rogues these options from the beginning and they're only just now showing up in subclasses.

Back to the broad topic, best feature of all of these classes (Cleric likely the "worst" in this aspect) is level progression. There are few if any dead levels where you feel something useful isn't coming soon. Many other classes struggle with this where the most you have to look forward to is a ribbon subclass feature (Barbarians and early Rogue subclasses in particular have this problem) or a simple spell slot progression increase.

Rogues are near the top as a personal favorite but they suffer a lot from having a significant amount of bad options (Assassin is a do nothing subclass outside of the first turn of combat) and even though the designers likely assume they're always sneak attacking I feel like some DM's and even the designers themselves have an instinctual want to make sneak attacking more difficult. This same instinct is perhaps more prevalent in the skill sytem where a well put together Rogue should probably be auto succeeding on their checks made with expertise but some DM's will fish for that bottom end roll or in cases after Reliable Talent comes into play, jack the DC into space. If I had to simplify the issue I think hampers Rogues, they suffer from being able to "succeed" at dealing damage and using skills too easily. There's a perceived lack of effort and some tables will make adjustments to that dynamic thoughtlessly.

This could also just be my own paranoia from a handful of bad experiences though, perhaps this is actually an exceptionally rare problem that most people don't see and Rogue should be standing with the others on my first list.
The sneak attack thing bugs me. On the one hand, it is a conditional bonus so you should have to meet the condition and if that is trivial, it is uninteresting. On the other hand it is just anoying to be reduced to the martial prowess of a wizard with a knife just because you don't have an ally next to the one enemy you can reach.

As a DM I would like to make rogue earn their sneak attack but I would also like it to be worth the reward and with some other backup options. This is why I like the idea of the rogue having more combat skills (if you can't make your single devastating attack you wouldn't be limited to a weak attack, you would have other ways to interact with the battle).

As for raising the DC - sometimes its right, sometimes its wrong. Its probably a DMing style thing but as rogues get higher level dungeons will need the the rogue to do more difficult things to solve the problem. At low levels the rogue may need to jump over a pit trap to get to the treasure, at high levels they may need to traverse a mile long tightrope over a planar void whilst a literal god of storms is blasting them with hurricanes. The DC for the same task stays the same but the rogue needs to start doing epic things to have the same level of success. Of course there are still some lower level checks so the rogue can showcase how far they have come.

[ProsecutorGodot]

As for raising the DC - sometimes its right, sometimes its wrong. Its probably a DMing style thing but as rogues get higher level dungeons will need the the rogue to do more difficult things to solve the problem. At low levels the rogue may need to jump over a pit trap to get to the treasure, at high levels they may need to traverse a mile long tightrope over a planar void whilst a literal god of storms is blasting them with hurricanes. The DC for the same task stays the same but the rogue needs to start doing epic things to have the same level of success. Of course there are still some lower level checks so the rogue can showcase how far they have come.

I don't think you need to invent more and more challenging things specifically to challenge a Rogue, there are things that should reasonable exist already that fit these challenge parameters. Players like to roll, sure, but I find myself more and more noticing that my players also like simply succeeding at a task because of investments they've already made.

I'm not sure that as a player I'm much interested in degree of success with regards to how difficult the task was, I just want to succeed. As a DM, I don't feel compelled to create or alter the world around the party Rogue having a +13 Reliable Talent Acrobatics check that invalidates near every conceivable dungeon trap in existence. They're exceptional, when those traps were made there wasn't an expectation that someone with such talent would be around to trivialize what would be considered a marvel of engineering.

Their ever increasing skill doesn't need to actually ever be met with a meaningful challenge, I feel its enough that they're unchallenged by something that might otherwise be impossible to someone unskilled. That's why I really personally enjoy Reliable Talent, you've unlocked the potential to be unchallenged in your strengths.

[MrStabby]

I don't think you need to invent more and more challenging things specifically to challenge a Rogue, there are things that should reasonable exist already that fit these challenge parameters. Players like to roll, sure, but I find myself more and more noticing that my players also like simply succeeding at a task because of investments they've already made.

I'm not sure that as a player I'm much interested in degree of success with regards to how difficult the task was, I just want to succeed. As a DM, I don't feel compelled to create or alter the world around the party Rogue having a +13 Reliable Talent Acrobatics check that invalidates near every conceivable dungeon trap in existence. They're exceptional, when those traps were made there wasn't an expectation that someone with such talent would be around to trivialize what would be considered a marvel of engineering.

Their ever increasing skill doesn't need to actually ever be met with a meaningful challenge, I feel its enough that they're unchallenged by something that might otherwise be impossible to someone unskilled. That's why I really personally enjoy Reliable Talent, you've unlocked the potential to be unchallenged in your strengths.

I think to clarify, these are usually optional things. If you want to set yourself apart from lesser rogues/skillmonky/whatever then its a chance to showcase your abilities. Yeah, its a DC30 check, but you will go down in legend if you succeed. Difficulties are a bit of a spectrum though.

[Angelalex242]

Okay...here's a thought experiment for you:

Name the 3 most powerful classes from...

Tier 1 (levels 1-4)
Tier 2 (levels 5-10)
Tier 3 (levels 11-16)
Tier 4 (levels 17-20)

[MrStabby]

Okay...here's a thought experiment for you:

Name the 3 most powerful classes from...

Tier 1 (levels 1-4)
Tier 2 (levels 5-10)
Tier 3 (levels 11-16)
Tier 4 (levels 17-20)

Well it kind of depends a bit. How are you treating subclasses? Do you rate the highest subclass? The median subclass?

For example it its "highest rated subclass" then its going to be Druid top T1, and probably druid to T2 but they won't be the same character so you wouldn't be implying that you could have a characer ticking off both of those.

Going for a median archetype from each class approach:

T1
Warlock (so front loaded, so many more spells than other casters but without the Downsides. Might even have armour!)
Monk (Bonus action attacks before most people can pick up feats gives good offence; unconstrained by being poor and not having full choice of equipment)
Paladin (By level 4 thats 20 points of healing on a character that is tough and can beat hard and is only 1 spell level behind a full caster with the same channel divinity number as a cleric)

T2
Paladin (Aura of protection is crazy good and find steed gives this martial as good mobility as the monk/rogue)
Wizard (so many really good level 3 spells and spells like polymorph and wall of force just round this out)
Bard (probably not facing the level of charm/fear immune enemeies you might at later levelsand they get a lot of good abilities

T3
Wizard (more of the same, but when the same is that good the results are powerful)
Sorcerer (The deeper pool of SP pulls this ahead of bard in T3; that and the spell list)
Paladin (Falling back a little compared to the heights of T2 but really important saves becoming more common helps keep its rating high. This is assuming simulacrum chains are out)

T4
Wizard
Sorcerer
Bard (magical secrets for wish will do this :smallsmile:, and forcecage is on the class list (impacted the previous tier but not enough to crawl up))

[Angelalex242]

Mmm. I've always agreed that Paladins should focus on their aura, not their strength score. Saving your allies from their weak saves is far more valuable than +1 to hit and damage on a guy that's smiting anyway. Hence, my Paladins are far more interested in cha 20 than str. The 8 int 8 wis barbarian is gonna find the Paladin his new favorite person when the enemy beguiler wizard/bard comes along. And gods help you all if the intellect devourer shows up against your party where nobody but wizards and the occasional eldritch Knight/arcane trickster has an int score.

[Amechra]

Their ever increasing skill doesn't need to actually ever be met with a meaningful challenge, I feel its enough that they're unchallenged by something that might otherwise be impossible to someone unskilled. That's why I really personally enjoy Reliable Talent, you've unlocked the potential to be unchallenged in your strengths.

Yeah, I feel like the point of Expertise + Reliable Talent is that, eventually, Rogues simply don't fail within their area of expertise. While the occasional challenge that requires that level of absurd skill to even attempt is appreciated, the fun part is that you get to roll your Stealth check and go "oof, I only rolled a 2... does their Perception beat a 23?"

[fbelanger]

Better stop playing right now, and don’t even hope for better design in 2024.

[MrStabby]

Yeah, I feel like the point of Expertise + Reliable Talent is that, eventually, Rogues simply don't fail within their area of expertise. While the occasional challenge that requires that level of absurd skill to even attempt is appreciated, the fun part is that you get to roll your Stealth check and go "oof, I only rolled a 2... does their Perception beat a 23?"

I think a span is good.

I think being able to do hard stuff without even trying is awesome.

I think having a good chance of success on things that other PCs would almost certainly fail is awesome.

I think just being in with a chance of success at a mind-blowingly difficult endeavour is awesome.



There is the risk with the first though that you fall into the trap the ranged did with the exploration pillar - there is no challenge so there is a endency to hand wave it away. "You succesfully pick the locks on all fourteen chests in a matter of moments without breaking a sweat, now what do you do?" It doesn't have to be this way but there is a tendency for something that carries little risk to bring little attention at the table.

The other side of this is stakes and consequences. If something is really difficult and has harsh consequences for failure but only modest rewards for success, then PCs probably won't do it. A skill challenge that is rationally avoided isn't really much better than one that isn't there at all.

[Amechra]

There is the risk with the first though that you fall into the trap the ranged did with the exploration pillar - there is no challenge so there is a endency to hand wave it away. "You succesfully pick the locks on all fourteen chests in a matter of moments without breaking a sweat, now what do you do?" It doesn't have to be this way but there is a tendency for something that carries little risk to bring little attention at the table.

The other side of this is stakes and consequences. If something is really difficult and has harsh consequences for failure but only modest rewards for success, then PCs probably won't do it. A skill challenge that is rationally avoided isn't really much better than one that isn't there at all.

So... I can't remember which game does it (I think it was GUMSHOE), but the game gave each character a 1/session "you automatically succeed on a [SPECIFIC SKILL] check" ability. More notably, it gave you three guidelines for why you might pick a particular skill:


You could pick a skill that you're already pretty good at, as a way to emphasize how much of a master you are.
You could use it to shore up one of your character's weaknesses.
You could use it to skip a part of the game you don't care about. Don't like the driving rules? Choose the "I automatically succeed on driving 1/session" thing and skip over that entirely.


My point is that it's entirely possible that a Rogue picks Thieves' Tools as one of their Expertise options because they want to skip having to pick the locks on three doors and fourteen chests. They're here for the loot, not making everyone sit around and ooh-aah over every successful check.

[animorte]

Well it kind of depends a bit. How are you treating subclasses? Do you rate the highest subclass? The median subclass?

For example it its "highest rated subclass" then its going to be Druid top T1, and probably druid to T2 but they won't be the same character so you wouldn't be implying that you could have a characer ticking off both of those.

Going for a median archetype from each class approach:

T1
Warlock (so front loaded, so many more spells than other casters but without the Downsides. Might even have armour!)
Monk (Bonus action attacks before most people can pick up feats gives good offence; unconstrained by being poor and not having full choice of equipment)
Paladin (By level 4 thats 20 points of healing on a character that is tough and can beat hard and is only 1 spell level behind a full caster with the same channel divinity number as a cleric)

T2
Paladin (Aura of protection is crazy good and find steed gives this martial as good mobility as the monk/rogue)
Wizard (so many really good level 3 spells and spells like polymorph and wall of force just round this out)
Bard (probably not facing the level of charm/fear immune enemeies you might at later levelsand they get a lot of good abilities

T3
Wizard (more of the same, but when the same is that good the results are powerful)
Sorcerer (The deeper pool of SP pulls this ahead of bard in T3; that and the spell list)
Paladin (Falling back a little compared to the heights of T2 but really important saves becoming more common helps keep its rating high. This is assuming simulacrum chains are out)

T4
Wizard
Sorcerer
Bard (magical secrets for wish will do this :smallsmile:, and forcecage is on the class list (impacted the previous tier but not enough to crawl up))

You forgot Cleric at the top of T1. They are also incredibly front-loaded and it's almost T3 for most other classes to surpass them.

[MrStabby]

You forgot Cleric at the top of T1. They are also incredibly front-loaded and it's almost T3 for most other classes to surpass them.

Cleric is good, no doubt but I wouldn't put it top of the pack. For casters, it's hard to beat warlocks that get so many more spell slots per day. For healers it's hard to beat paladind that can lay on hands for the effect of multiple spell slots as well.

I also feel some of the Cleric abilities are just less useful at this level - heavy armour proficiency, for example, when you can't afford plate mail is good, but not quite as good as at higher levels.

I don't want to be too down on the Cleric, it's certainly a contender for the list. I would also add the rogue as an honourable mention for it's strong damage output.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Cleric is good, no doubt but I wouldn't put it top of the pack. For casters, it's hard to beat warlocks that get so many more spell slots per day. For healers it's hard to beat paladind that can lay on hands for the effect of multiple spell slots as well.

I also feel some of the Cleric abilities are just less useful at this level - heavy armour proficiency, for example, when you can't afford plate mail is good, but not quite as good as at higher levels.

I don't want to be too down on the Cleric, it's certainly a contender for the list. I would also add the rogue as an honourable mention for it's strong damage output.

I think the difference is that for most Paladins subclasses (and the base class in general) they have to end up choosing between healing and attacking if it's happening in combat. Cleric features a lot of spells that can be used in tandem with healing. Paladin is certainly a contender for healing but I usually feel they're better as a secondary healer.

Being able to have a Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians up in combat and use healing as necessary is something a Paladin doesn't have the luxury for. Cleric's are good out of combat too, Prayer of Healing isn't quite as good as Aura of Vitality but it comes at a lower spell slot cost.

[Angelalex242]

As a semi exclusive Paladin player, in general, I use my healing as emergency backup healing. If I have to disengage to heal the downed cleric/druid, that's a turn I'm not attacking. Not generally the best use of my time.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'm a paladin fan, but I'm not putting them into the top 3 in tier 1, maybe not in the top half. I'll ignore 1st level where half casters are pretty much the weakest characters, as some people don't even play level 1 and even those of us who do are often in it for a session or 2.
So that leaves levels 2-4. You have 1st level spells, while full casters get 2nd. You get 1 additional spell than a 1/3 caster at 3 and the same at 4. Lay on Hands: well, the ability to get rid of a poison or cure a disease is good, but in terms of healing it's poor compared to fighter. At 3rd level with 2 short rests Second Wind is worth almost 30 points or double LoH, and can be done as a bonus action. Barbarian rage is also going to save more damage than LoH. Channel Divinity can be good depending on subclass and circumstances, but is it reliably better than Action Surge?

Level 5 where you double your spells (including a couple of level 2s) and get extra attack: yes please. That's the level where you can actually cast a Bless spell and maybe have a slot left for smite if you manage a 20. Then Level 6 aura; now you're cooking. But before that, Meh.

[animorte]

Cleric is good, no doubt but I wouldn't put it top of the pack. For casters, it's hard to beat warlocks that get so many more spell slots per day. For healers it's hard to beat paladind that can lay on hands for the effect of multiple spell slots as well.

I also feel some of the Cleric abilities are just less useful at this level - heavy armour proficiency, for example, when you can't afford plate mail is good, but not quite as good as at higher levels.

I don't want to be too down on the Cleric, it's certainly a contender for the list. I would also add the rogue as an honourable mention for it's strong damage output.
Going to be honest, upon first seeing your list having Cleric listed nowhere got me a little concerned.

Both of your points about Warlocks and Paladins having more spell slots to accomplish more is incorrect. Clerics have more spell slots than both of those two combined at almost any given point, through all tiers of play. Other people have given some solid points on this matter already.

Warlocks have subclass features at 1, invocations at 2, and pact at 3. This is why I agree they can often be better, depending on how they're built, but not necessarily Paladins (which don't even get cantrips). I don't believe that all of the features listed (consistently enough) beat out the Clerics features and superior casting. Now when it gets into Tier 2 and Clerics begin to plateau a bit, I understand where you're coming from a bit more.

Don't get me wrong, I think both classes are great, but not strictly better based on your "median archetype" approach.

[Zuras]

Cleric is good, no doubt but I wouldn't put it top of the pack. For casters, it's hard to beat warlocks that get so many more spell slots per day. For healers it's hard to beat paladind that can lay on hands for the effect of multiple spell slots as well.

I also feel some of the Cleric abilities are just less useful at this level - heavy armour proficiency, for example, when you can't afford plate mail is good, but not quite as good as at higher levels.

I don't want to be too down on the Cleric, it's certainly a contender for the list. I would also add the rogue as an honourable mention for it's strong damage output.

In my experience, Clerics are some of the strongest characters in T1. The weapon and armor proficiencies you pick up are far more significant at lower levels. Additionally, the Channel Divinity options can be really strong. They’re not bonkers broken like Moon Druids are at 2nd level, but War and Tempest clerics are substantially better in T1 combat than any other casters. Over half the other domains are front loaded with extra combat resources—Light clerics get a free AoE per short rest, Life gets free healing, and so on.

Clerics are so heavily front-loaded I don’t see how you can exclude them from the best T1 classes unless you think they’re bad in general.

[MrStabby]

I think the difference is that for most Paladins subclasses (and the base class in general) they have to end up choosing between healing and attacking if it's happening in combat. Cleric features a lot of spells that can be used in tandem with healing. Paladin is certainly a contender for healing but I usually feel they're better as a secondary healer.

Being able to have a Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians up in combat and use healing as necessary is something a Paladin doesn't have the luxury for. Cleric's are good out of combat too, Prayer of Healing isn't quite as good as Aura of Vitality but it comes at a lower spell slot cost.

Yes, well if you are talkng spirit guardians then you are at T2 and are comparing with T2 palain abilities like Aura of Protection, find steed and aura of vitality. Not saying the cleric is bad in T2 either - strong class up into T3, but just not to my mind one of the top 3.


Going to be honest, upon first seeing your list having Cleric listed nowhere got me a little concerned.

Both of your points about Warlocks and Paladins having more spell slots to accomplish more is incorrect. Clerics have more spell slots than both of those two combined at almost any given point, through all tiers of play. Other people have given some solid points on this matter already.

Warlocks have subclass features at 1, invocations at 2, and pact at 3. This is why I agree they can often be better, depending on how they're built, but not necessarily Paladins (which don't even get cantrips). I don't believe that all of the features listed (consistently enough) beat out the Clerics features and superior casting. Now when it gets into Tier 2 and Clerics begin to plateau a bit, I understand where you're coming from a bit more.

Don't get me wrong, I think both classes are great, but not strictly better based on your "median archetype" approach.

Yeah, both classes are pretty grat at this level. Warlocks do depend on short rests - usually most DMs I know (and I think the DMG, though I can't quote a page off the top of my head) go for two short rests per day. At level 1 that's 3 level one spells and 6 level one spells from level 2. At level 3/4 that is 6 level 2 spells which, you are right, does technically fall behind in number vs the 4th level character - but all are level 2. But yeah, at the tier we are talking about, Warlocks will generally have more spells through the day.


In my experience, Clerics are some of the strongest characters in T1. The weapon and armor proficiencies you pick up are far more significant at lower levels. Additionally, the Channel Divinity options can be really strong. They’re not bonkers broken like Moon Druids are at 2nd level, but War and Tempest clerics are substantially better in T1 combat than any other casters. Over half the other domains are front loaded with extra combat resources—Light clerics get a free AoE per short rest, Life gets free healing, and so on.

Clerics are so heavily front-loaded I don’t see how you can exclude them from the best T1 classes unless you think they’re bad in general.

I think clerics are front loaded, but then so are a lot of classes. People don't dip a couple of levels of warlock (even before hexblade) for sorlock because of their late game abilities, nor do a couple of levels of paladin get dipped into sorcerer builds because early paladin is weak (though there is enough good stuff later to keep people involved). I think that cleric also seems a tiny bit more front loaded than it is. You look at the class abilities and you see things like weapon and armour proficiency listed as a feature whereas on a class like the paladin it can fall below the radar a bit as a starting proficiency. Things like Paladin divine smite is awesome early on - the extra damage doesn' scale that well with level but attack damage plus 3d8 radiant damage is pretty much a death sentence to anything that you are likely to fight in tier 1. Lay on hands is solid healing anyway, but for picking up those on 0HP it can do that all day.

The cleric channel divinities ARE good, and having one every short rest is nice, but looking at the median class - for every twilight cleric there is a nature cleric, for every death cleric there is a forge cleric; the medial channel divinity available at level 2 is nice, but not tha great... compared to the paladin's T1 channel divinity - Sure some are stronger than others but I would contend the median one is better than the median cleric ability.

Cleric is one of my favourite classes and I certainly agree its strong Tier 1 - I never realised suggesting that, comparing medians, the cleric might not be in the top 3 would be controversial!

[animorte]

Cleric is one of my favourite classes and I certainly agree its strong Tier 1 - I never realised suggesting that, comparing medians, the cleric might not be in the top 3 would be controversial!

Well, you could just swap out the Monk for it on your list and I don't think anyone would bat an eye. :wink:

[Zuras]

The cleric channel divinities ARE good, and having one every short rest is nice, but looking at the median class - for every twilight cleric there is a nature cleric, for every death cleric there is a forge cleric; the medial channel divinity available at level 2 is nice, but not tha great... compared to the paladin's T1 channel divinity - Sure some are stronger than others but I would contend the median one is better than the median cleric ability.

Cleric is one of my favourite classes and I certainly agree its strong Tier 1 - I never realised suggesting that, comparing medians, the cleric might not be in the top 3 would be controversial!

If the Nature domain is your “median” cleric, then maybe your definition of median class needs to be re-evaluated. If you are saying it’s the median subclass of all the published ones, how do you reach that conclusion? It’s among the worst, along with Trickery. It’s clearly not the median among domains that actually get played—Life, Forge, Tempest, Light, Grave, Twilight and War are all both popular and strong. It’s not like Warlock where you have one extreme outlier warping the perception of the class power level.

Additionally, the front-loaded power of the cleric is all accessible in Tier 1. Warlock is a great dip because the abilities you want scale with character level, but Agonizing Blast only starts dramatically affecting your damage output at 5th level, not 2nd. Paladin Smites are nice, but getting smites with a 2-level dip on a sorcerer who already has loads of spell slots is different from what a Paladin gets at 2nd level. Paladins also have issues with ranged enemies, while clerics have decent ranged cantrips and medium armor clerics are also decent with light crossbow.

In my experience DMing Tier 1 adventures, clerics are the most likely to turn around combats I was worried would turn into TPKs.

[animorte]

If the Nature domain is your “median” cleric, then maybe your definition of median class needs to be re-evaluated. If you are saying it’s the median subclass of all the published ones, how do you reach that conclusion?

In my experience DMing Tier 1 adventures, clerics are the most likely to turn around combats I was worried would turn into TPKs.

I believe the intention actually was that Nature is on the bottom compared to Twilight on the top, thus creating a median.

This has been the same in my experience. Not that other classes haven't been able to do so as well, but the Cleric does so more consistently regardless of subclass.

[Zuras]

I believe the intention actually was that Nature is on the bottom compared to Twilight on the top, thus creating a median.

This has been the same in my experience. Not that other classes haven't been able to do so as well, but the Cleric does so more consistently regardless of subclass.

Even if you rank them with Tempest at the top and Nature or trickery at the bottom, the median cleric domain in still something solid like Grave or Forge. It seems silly to count bad subclass options against a class if it has plenty of good ones, though.

If a class has at least 5 strong subclasses that cover multiple play styles, why would Wizards releasing a bad subclass that won’t get played make the overall class worse? The Berserker barbarian is a suboptimal design, but I wouldn’t count it against the class when the Zealot fills the niche for offensively focused subclass.

[Waazraath]

Yes, a thread where things get rated! I rate the Original Post 6.5/10 :)

Half serious - I agree with a lot. Especially on the Cleric and (most of) the Wizard, I think the OP is spot on. Warlock and Fighter should be quite a bit higher imo, as the Paladin. I have the feeling that those last two are related, that the Fighter is undervalued and this is part of the reason the Paladin thus overvalued as 'best martial' (best tank, best damage is imo incorrect). The Barbarian should be tad higher imo, I understand the critique bit it is what a lot of people want, and the extra skills from Tasha's and several subclass features do allow a barbarian to have buttons for the out of combat pillars. The Bard should be a bit lower imo, cause in addition to the critique, it's a problematic class at lower levels, being too squishy and lacking in combat up to level 7. But ymmv.

In general, I think the one place where the OP is lacking is in that it does not include subclasses enough in the ratings. Power level and flavor for some classes all over the place, when subclasses are taken into account. I understand people thinking the champion fighter 'boring' (it's the subclass that aged the worst in 5e imo), but subclasses like rune knight or battle master are really very different, in and out of combat, in both power and versatility. Same for Arteficer (Alchemist or Battle Smith, anyone), or Warlock.

Anyways, interesting to read, thnx for the effort to the poster.

[DomesticHausCat]

I would say that it's not all bad for the Barbarian and the Fighter to be boring and one note. Having a couple of simple classes that are good at fighting is great for newbies to the game. And if they want to change their character later then that is fine. Plus they can always multiclass later which is a big step for newbies.

[animorte]

Yes, a thread where things get rated! I rate the Original Post 6.5/10 :)

Anyways, interesting to read, thnx for the effort to the poster.
I originally thoroughly enjoyed Dndbeyond for their built-in-polls option on forum threads, but there are many other reasons I prefer to be here.

Gonna have to vote an 8/10 from me! Plenty of effort and a good read, I agree.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

About Trickery Cleric at tier 1. If we again ignore the 2 new broken subclasses, Trickery would seem to me to be one of the better options at this tier? Why?
1) Blessing of the Trickster is relevant at this level when your scout won't have a lot of other options to boost stealth.
2) Invoke Duplicity taking concentration isn't as big a deal at this level since you don't have as many spells to use. At 6-8 encounters per day, ID can be used for some of these and is a good ability.
3) Your bonus spells, particularly PWT and Mirror Image, are really good at these levels.

[animorte]

I noticed this started turning into a power-ranking discussion, when in fact it is intended to be a design discussion. My apologies, I may have contributed to that. :smalleek:


About Trickery Cleric at tier 1. If we again ignore the 2 new broken subclasses, Trickery would seem to me to be one of the better options at this tier? Why?
1) Blessing of the Trickster is relevant at this level when your scout won't have a lot of other options to boost stealth.
2) Invoke Duplicity taking concentration isn't as big a deal at this level since you don't have as many spells to use. At 6-8 encounters per day, ID can be used for some of these and is a good ability.
3) Your bonus spells, particularly PWT and Mirror Image, are really good at these levels
This is exactly why Trickery is probably my favorite Cleric subclass. It makes up for something that very few classes actually have access to. And they still do well later.

[Hael]

Im not a huge fan of the design of the classes in this game (some of the subclasses are better).

Generally speaking, I think the Paladin has the best design in the game. Its just solid from start to finish, fits the theme, gets powerful mechanical abilities with little downtime or lost levels. A+

Bard is also fantastically designed minus a few poor features. I love magical secrets. A

Clerics have the tier3/4 problem as OP mentioned but otherwise are great. B+

Druids/wizards unfortunately have such a dominant spell list that much of the potential features of the class are tied into that fact, leaving only the subclass to give variety. So fine I suppose, but one would have prefered a few more ribbons to give flavor to the class. So they’re hard to rate.. C i guess. I love playing them though, so maybe the spell list should be thought of as part of the design.

Warlocks are a complete mess. The slot issue creates issues at certain lvls, the frontloading is a problem for multiclassing. Invocations are underpowered with huge variance so the few exceptions are basically mandatory which leads to less options than one would like. Eldritch blast is poorly designed. The power of this class swings around like a pendulum. D+ (although I have fun playing them, so im conflicted)

Sorcerors are also a complete mess. I hate everything about this class compared to what we had in Pathfinder/3.5. IMO this should simply be scratched and redone in 5.5. Wizard lite… F

Barbarians. Frontloaded and fine for tier1, but the designers dropped the ball for 3/4 of the game levels. Meh.. D+

Rogues. A strange class. They are amongst the worst classes in the game mechanically and powerwise, but I find the design really problematic. So much of this class is built around a mechanic that is poorly implemented (stealth) and a feature that is drastically overrated (sneak attack). They end up being tanky in a weird way. Like incidentally tanky, but straight up garbage when actually focused, and their damage/CC of course is amongst the worst in the game (unlike what one would expect). Tier3/4 is a disaster. D

Monks. Poster child for bad design. So many features that dont make any sense and seem like random add ons in a rushed dev cycle. Power level and overall class role swings around like a pinata depending on the level. Newb killer and brutal to optimize. Resource problems that are head scratching relative to what other classes get. F

Fighter. Definition of average. The power lvl of this class is a bit swingy and the tier3/4 features are uninspired, but its fine I guess. B-

Ranger. Pretty good early power wise, and then drop off late. The exploration pillar is bad in 5e, and it is a missed opportunity. A lot of poorly designed features. Overall a design miss. D+

Artificers. Tough to rate b/c they depend so much on the DM. I would have liked if infusions would bypass attunements somewhat, but they would have needed to be reworked. Quite fun to play even if their power lvl swings a bit (they are dominant from like 3-7). Its almost like their overall design is bad, but the execution was nearly flawless. So I dont know, B?

[Goobahfish]

Hmmm...

Design eh?
Let's try... Good, Medium, Bad, Ugly

The Good...
The Cleric. I don't like clerics... (at least I didn't in 3.5). Obviously Spirit Guardians is a badly designed ability (too far above the curve), but other than that, I enjoyed it (Light Cleric). Each domain feels pretty distinct. I don't know what I would really change to make them better?

The Druid. Playing one now so pretty biased (custom Circle of Swarm). The only thing that really grates on me is that you get 2 Wild Shapes/short rest and then nothing... and then infinite? Whose cockamamy idea what that. Also, you have to wait until 18 to cast spells... there is no other way. Again... just limiting interesting things for the sake of it.

The Medium...
The Fighter. It is definitely a step up from 3e. There are several fighters I would consider playing (mostly the Battle Master). TBH the fighter should just be the battle master (I think this is a common opinion). If other subclasses triggered off superiority dice (except maybe Eldritch) it would probably work pretty well.

The Warlock. Playing one as we speak (Genie lvl 5). The build-a-bear nature of it is nice. It feels neatly toolboxy and allows you to push your theme in a few ways (patron, pact, invocations, spells). Two Warlocks can definitely feel very different. Mechanically I feel like once you get to T3 it might be a hassle. I think one more iteration would get the Warlock to good.

The Paladin. It might be a bit overtuned (our Paladin seems super powerful) but it feels 'right'. Perhaps a little less power would help but nothing about it feels wrong. Not overly familiar with Paladins though. Oath should be level 1 I think.

The Artificer. Had one in the party that changed subclasses a few times. Felt like a big difference each time. I think this class probably needs another iteration but it was broadly 'correct'.

The Barbarian. Like... this is what the champion should be. Me angry... hit things. For the roleplayer who doesn't really want to roleplay. Some of the subclasses give you that. I think it doesn't scale particularly well but for T1/T2 it seems broadly fine.

The Bad...

The Bard. Again... the jack of all trades... must be a musician? And a 9th level caster. What? To do music, you must be a ninth level caster... the only thing that saves this class from being in 'the ugly' is that bardic inspiration and a few of the subclasses tickle my fancy. But there are serious problems here.

The Monk. It gets 4 attacks at level 5... and then morphs into something completely different never getting anything else. It is intentionally anti-synergistic (weapon attacks/melee attacks etc). Everything triggers off Ki where other classes get X/SR-LR features. I like playing the monk... (currently using one) but my god does it feel inflexible. Even when you pick a subclass they tend to feel samey... Flurry!!

The Sorcerer. I want to play a sorcerer, I really do. But why would I? The bloodline just doesn't do enough to fulfil any of my itches. You get one ability at level 1 and then another at 6.. then 14 (i.e. irrelevant). Other than that you are a wizard with limited spells and... Font of Magic. Which is cool... but could be so much cooler, especially if each subclass had something to do with it. Metamagic is nice, but is pretty limited (again... 10th?)

The Ugly
The Ranger. I mean... its a fighter. Let's not pretend. I like playing rangers but really they don't deserve their own class.

The Rogue. <= I have a fundamental problem that to be a skill monkey, you must be an assassin (sneak attack). This is... just so painfully reductive. Not a swashbuckler, not a diplomat... an assassin. Moreover, 'rogues are good at skills' makes everyone else 'bad at skills'. There is just such a huge disconnect here as to be painful.

The Wizard
I want to give this its own little place. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Wizard, in fact... it is great. But... how was this the 'default' magic user. The generalist mage should be a specialisation (this also applies to clerics/druids etc).

I think I'm done. Nothing particularly original here. I think offloading more into the subclasses would be a grand idea.

[Amnestic]

The Druid. Playing one now so pretty biased (custom Circle of Swarm). The only thing that really grates on me is that you get 2 Wild Shapes/short rest and then nothing... and then infinite? Whose cockamamy idea what that. Also, you have to wait until 18 to cast spells... there is no other way. Again... just limiting interesting things for the sake of it.

Wildshape scales with duration instead of uses.



The Ugly
The Ranger. I mean... its a fighter. Let's not pretend. I like playing rangers but really they don't deserve their own class.

It's a fighter as much as a paladin is a fighter, so since Paladin ended up in Medium I can only assume that Ranger belongs there too.

[Goobahfish]

Wildshape scales with duration instead of uses.

This is true, but lasting for 3 hours rather than 2 hours isn't a meaningful difference in most cases. Getting a 3rd wild shape at 6th level or something and having it always last an hour would be so much more fun. You could afford to throw away uses on more RP things.


It's a fighter as much as a paladin is a fighter, so since Paladin ended up in Medium I can only assume that Ranger belongs there too.

The paladin has an actual identity (holy warrior) which manifests itself in a lot of coherent class features and a decent gimmick (lay on hands, divine smite). It also synergises meaningfully with clerics (Channel Divinities are at least compatible).

Ranger on the other hand. Granted it has a kind of identity... nature warrior (though not really)? Also maybe an archer? Also maybe a two-weapon fighter? What about hunter? It is literally a box of random abilities to pick from. That sounds like... feats (which sounds like a fighter). The Ranger should have a core mechanic which its other abilities build around. Favoured Enemy, Favoured Terrain are good contenders but they were a miss and their replacements are good but are obviously very 'tacked on'.

Why is it that none of the subclasses say "X is now a free favoured enemy", "Y is now a free favoured terrain". "Your favoured foe damage can now be <insert damage type here>".

You have advantage on Intelligence checks for a completely uncodified part of the game... as one of your core mechanics (Favoured Enemy) :smallannoyed:

To be honest, they should have made the fighter less generic and just redubbed ranger as 'The Adventurer'. :smallbiggrin:

They should have also just given the Ranger an invocation list like the warlock and have done. It would be much more sensible if it was a long list of customisations for this hybrid-ish character. If they wanted a half-druid/half-fighter they should have leaned into the spellcasting part properly and thematically but the ranger is trying to do too much.

[Psyren]

Based on what we've been seeing, it's likely that 5.5e will either remove Short Rests entirely or make them into a variant rule. In either case, you will definitely get more than two Wild Shape uses per day.

[Frogreaver]

Based on what we've been seeing, it's likely that 5.5e will either remove Short Rests entirely or make them into a variant rule. In either case, you will definitely get more than two Wild Shape uses per day.

I don’t think so. I think they will keep the old classes as is and continue to design new subclasses and variant features that don’t rely on short rests.

[Psyren]

I don’t think so. I think they will keep the old classes as is and continue to design new subclasses and variant features that don’t rely on short rests.

Point, they might leave Wild Shape as-is and then create "Long Rest Wild Shape Variant" keyed off proficiency bonus in some way.

Regardless, I'm confident the result of that would be more than two WS per rest.

[Hael]

I don’t think so. I think they will keep the old classes as is and continue to design new subclasses and variant features that don’t rely on short rests.

I agree, but I suspect they will give a conversion system as a variant rule. Its not too difficult to say ok, everytime you see a short rest replace the resource with proficiency bonus or alternatively, multiply the resource by 3 (so 20 ki becomes 60 ki).

If your table runs fewer than 6 combats a day, adjust the multiplier accordingly.

There will be a few problems here and there, but I think thats broadly the idea.

[stoutstien]

I agree, but I suspect they will give a conversion system as a variant rule. Its not too difficult to say ok, everytime you see a short rest replace the resource with proficiency bonus or alternatively, multiply the resource by 3 (so 20 ki becomes 60 ki).

If your table runs fewer than 6 combats a day, adjust the multiplier accordingly.

There will be a few problems here and there, but I think thats broadly the idea.

My vote is Prof per LR with some form of limited SR recovery like psi dice.

[Psyren]

My vote is Prof per LR with some form of limited SR recovery like psi dice.

Small correcton: psi dice are actually "2x Prof per LR with limited SR recovery."

[Amechra]

Honestly, if you're making Monks a long rest class, what you need to do is make Step/Flurry/Defense free at some point in Tier 2.

Because currently Monks are supposed to scale in a way that you'll have enough ki to do something every turn starting at roughly 9th level.

(Combats generally last a couple two-three turns, and a couple two-three fights between short rests is about as far as you can push an unoptimized party without draining all their resources. Ergo, since 3x3=9...)

[Goobahfish]

Based on what we've been seeing, it's likely that 5.5e will either remove Short Rests entirely or make them into a variant rule. In either case, you will definitely get more than two Wild Shape uses per day.

Honestly, I feel like this would make me less happy (the no short rests part rather than the two wild shapes part... more than 2 would be good).

Having designed my own system from the ground up, I've just made a "short rest" 5 minutes which is 'combat just finished' => recharge. Having most resources key off this, I have found far more rewarding.

Back to 5e... the reality is that intelligent characters, knowing their resources are 1/day affairs will structure their activities as such. Only if a DM reduces their agency (good in small doses) does this change. Moving everything to 1/LR will make things worse rather than better I think.

If I were doing a 5.5 'revamp', I would emphasise abilities like Arcane Recovery etc. to make them 1/short rest but full casters have less spells overall. Every class should be both a LR and a SR class (cleric/druid fits nicely in this camp). That way, there isn't that weird Monk/Warlock/Battlemaster vs everyone else tension.

With the benefit of hindsight (i.e. how games are actually played) this kind of rebalancing would be my top priority.

[Psyren]

Moving everything to 1/LR will make things worse rather than better I think.

More likely it will be xPB/LR, so at low levels you'd have a minimum 2/day and ranging as high as 8/day. (3x PB =6, with 1/SR recovery twice, depending on the resource in question.)


Every class should be both a LR and a SR class (cleric/druid fits nicely in this camp). That way, there isn't that weird Monk/Warlock/Battlemaster vs everyone else tension.

Agreed, I think this is the primary source of the rest balance issues between tables.

[animorte]

Having designed my own system from the ground up, I've just made a "short rest" 5 minutes which is 'combat just finished' => recharge. Having most resources key off this, I have found far more rewarding.
Now there’s something I want to see, having redesigned the system.

It’s always made sense to me that one round of combat was more like 10-15 seconds, meaning that each encounter could last a minute or more. Go outside with your LARP gear and run a few full rounds of combat. Some of our PCs are athletes.

Having a recharge after every combat encounter seems logical to me. Or fight for your life for 30 seconds and keep moving like nothing happened. Perhaps a 5-minute recharge is assumed without the 1-hour short rest benefits.