Are class tiers still relevant in 5e?

[Skrum]

The 3e playerbase has of course long ago split classes up into tiers 1-6 based on something like the classes' overall capability and potency. Now, 5e does not have near the spread between classes the way 3e did, but I still like the idea and find some value in it. Is there any discussion in this direction? Do people have thoughts about relative class power?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The 3e playerbase has of course long ago split classes up into tiers 1-6 based on something like the classes' overall capability and potency. Now, 5e does not have near the spread between classes the way 3e did, but I still like the idea and find some value in it. Is there any discussion in this direction? Do people have thoughts about relative class power?

At the class, rather than build, level, no. IMO anyway. Everything is roughly tier 3. Plus or minus a bit. But not nearly enough to make it very useful.

Build variation is much larger, however. But harder to quantify and pin down due to size of array.

[Dienekes]

There is a general acknowledgment that at later levels spellcasting classes gain greater power than mundane classes. But by how much, and to what degree this is a problem is the focus of many very repetitive online discussions.

[Kane0]

In a word, no. At least not in the way classes were tiered in 3rd ed.

[Mastikator]

I'd argue that some classes have a higher skill ceiling and floor, but wouldn't put them in different tiers. A DM that balances exploration, combat and social will ensure every class has a chance to shine.

[Rukelnikov]

If you go by the description of the tiers, it varies a bit depending on the levels of play, but I get the impresion most classes fall somewhere between tier 3 and 5, with some specific build or tircks maybe being tier 2 (like chain simulacrum)

[Waazraath]

At the class, rather than build, level, no. IMO anyway. Everything is roughly tier 3. Plus or minus a bit. But not nearly enough to make it very useful.

Build variation is much larger, however. But harder to quantify and pin down due to size of array.

+1 to this. Based on the definitions of the 3.5 tier system* everything is tier 3-ish. So the answer is no.

*which by itself got worse and more biased over the years imo, among others due to reluctance to adjust tier ratings of classes even when later supplements greatly increased power.

[SharkForce]

I would say that *mostly* it isn't useful to divide classes into tiers. There *is* a disparity in class power. That disparity is not even remotely close to what it was in 3.x D&D.

With that said, in groups where people care a lot about the effectiveness of their character it can still be somewhat useful to at least avoid having one person at the very low end while another is at the very high end. Like, if you have a purple dragon knight in the same party as a conquest paladin I think you could probably feel a difference... but even just changing that from purple dragon knight to battlemaster can do a lot to cover up just how much of a difference there is.

I would also add that this can *drastically* change if you really do follow the idea of three pillars of adventuring... like, if you spend anywhere near 1/3 of your time on social and an additional 1/3 of your time on exploration, I can't help but feel that the difference between classes that have a lot of non-combat power will really stand out as being ahead of those with very little non-combat power.

Another situation where it can change is in very high level play, as noted. When the party fighter gets their third attack at level 11 and is then offered next to nothing for the next several levels while the wizard has just picked up mass suggestion and is looking forward to potentially filling out their spells known with scrolls or captured spellbooks in the near future and at the longest picking up some more useful spells within the next 2 levels, it can feel kinda lousy. This can be somewhat alleviated by multiclassing, but at the end of the day some classes at high levels gain new powerful ways to interact with the setting, or can turn downtime and/or resources into character power usable during adventuring time, and other classes just do basically the same thing they were doing at level 1 but a little bit better than before.

I would expect that in over 90% of groups though, class tiers are not useful at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

In a word, no. At least not in the way classes were tiered in 3rd ed. This point has been made with some consistency since 5e was released.

There is a general acknowledgment that at later levels spellcasting classes gain greater power than mundane classes. But by how much, and to what degree this is a problem is the focus of many very repetitive online discussions. One wonders if this one will follow that trend... :smallwink:

That disparity is not even remotely close to what it was in 3.x D&D. That has been my experience as well, and I find that player 'system mastery' is a far better indicator of 'power level differential' in the parties I have played in/with.

Another situation where it can change is in very high level play, as noted. Very much agreed. As with the Original edition, once spells above sixth level showed up, the LFQW issue tended to manifest.

I would expect that in over 90% of groups though, class tiers are not useful at all. That's been my experience as well.

[Unoriginal]

The 3e playerbase has of course long ago split classes up into tiers 1-6 based on something like the classes' overall capability and potency. Now, 5e does not have near the spread between classes the way 3e did, but I still like the idea and find some value in it. Is there any discussion in this direction? Do people have thoughts about relative class power?

Classifying classes like that is not relevant to 5e, snd it would reauite a new terminology anyway as "tiers" in 5e refers to level ranges.

[Skrum]

Well there certainly seems to be some consensus, and while I definitely agree that while the full t1-t6 list probably isn't quite applicable to 5e, I do think there's more than just build imbalance.

The table I play at is more of an open table with many players, different DM's, and players having multiple characters. Ergo, there's *a lot* of different builds that get time in the sun. When I first started playing, most games were in the 5-6 level range with games above 7th level being very rare, and now 2 years later we have regular games with 9th and 10th level characters.

When we were in that 5-6 range, the classes felt quite balanced. Martial characters were obviously and appreciably tougher than casters, and there was a good mix of damage-dealers (GWM barbs, PAM paladins, etc.) and even some support-oriented martial classes like grappling rogues and battle masters. Casters were notable for a few castings of fireball, counterspell, etc., but it was well balanced against the rather prodigious damage the martials could do. Rogues in general struggled a bit, but the rest of the classes felt pretty well calibrated.

But now that we're pushing into 9 and 10, I can't say the same. Rogues have fallen further behind; all the problems they had with low HP, low AC, and no extra attack are just that much worse. Sneak attack barely scales. The rogues we do still have at those levels are all multiclass; rogue simply does offer enough to stay in. Cunning action, a subclass; very little reason to go higher than that.

Warlocks though highlight the problems the most. They get *nothing* from 6-10, and increasingly in tough fights, a character simply cannot rely on only positioning or flat AC to survive. They *must* have reactions, and other resources to pull from. Warlocks, still stuck at 2 spells, well they just can't keep up. It was different at level 5 when full casters had 9 slots and no one had more than 35 hit points, but at level 9? Full casters now have 14 spell slots and a bevy of defensive options. Warlocks flat-out cannot keep up. One notable character that had been fiend warlock from level 1 was afforded a respec to warlock 3 sorcerer 7; she can do 95% of what she could do as a warlock (repelling blast, fireball, firewall were her hallmarks), but also added *a ton* of new slots and options. It's not even close. Sorcerer just flat gets everything warlock does, and way more.

Now, I really think we saved martials by bringing in a custom game feature - lots and lots of magic items. There's *a lot* of custom magic items handed out, many of them quite good. Most weapons have additional damage dice, and we've even invented items (bracelets and the like) that monks can wear to boost their unarmed strikes similarly. Additionally, items not claimed during adventure go to a "broker" and can be bought (out of game) by characters at a gold markup. Finally, characters can craft non-custom items (armor +1, bloodwell vial, etc) from a pre-approved list by spending XP. As a result, most characters have filled their attunement slots by their 10th game.

Magic items have allowed martials to keep up by still being able to inflict prodigious amounts of damage. Custom defensive items boost their survivability, because as I said early, relying on flat AC, well it's rarely enough. As we trend towards 10, not having reactions is increasingly a drag on character effectiveness.

But still. Even with all that, winning or not in a tough battle at level 10, well it often comes down to "did the banishment land" or "can the wizard maintain concentration on sickening radiance." And when the worst should happen, "do we have a character that can cast revivify." I.e., it's about full casters. Sorcerers, wizards, and clerics in particular have the largest impact (we have few druids in the group, but the one that does get played is a monster). Martial characters remain relevant via magic items, but I really struggle to imagine them feeling good if we didn't have so many magic items available, particularly extra dice weapons. Warlocks and rogues are just...well they aren't it. I'm gonna make the strong statement; they are obviously and notably weaker, categorically, than other classes.

So, if anyone is still reading my wall of text, I'd put the classes in something like this

T1 (never lack for options, with the ability to bring encounter-changing tools to bear multiple times against a wide variety of challenges) - wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer

T2 (strong options and a good "A" game balanced against weaknesses in other areas of the game) - bard, paladin, artificer

T3 (with the right build, can be quite good at one thing - *it's probably damage* -, but lacks flexibility and struggles to contribute outside their one narrow area) - fighter, barb, ranger, monk

T4 (struggles to keep up with other classes in even things that should be core strengths) - rogue, warlock

[paladinn]

I've never been a fan of the class "tiering." A player should play what s/he wants. It's not always about power. The 3.x "tiering" system is mainly for power-gaming min-maxers. There's way less of a need for all that in 5e, IMO.

[Skrum]

I've never been a fan of the class "tiering." A player should play what s/he wants. It's not always about power. The 3.x "tiering" system is mainly for power-gaming min-maxers. There's way less of a need for all that in 5e, IMO.

Ehhh I mean I know what you mean, and I'm not saying any of this to imply that people should be consulting tier lists before building a character, but class disparity is real. IMO. Certainly DMs need to be aware of what their party is capable of when designing encounters.

[Keltest]

Ehhh I mean I know what you mean, and I'm not saying any of this to imply that people should be consulting tier lists before building a character, but class disparity is real. IMO. Certainly DMs need to be aware of what their party is capable of when designing encounters.

In 3.5, certainly. In 5e... eh, you get out what you put in. Ive never seen an optimized fighter that failed to at least keep up with, and frequently outshine, a poorly optimized wizard, for example. Certainly its possible to make a fighter that sucks, or a warlock that sucks, etc... but generally thats the result of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole as a gimmick.

[LudicSavant]

So, if anyone is still reading my wall of text, I'd put the classes in something like this

T1 (never lack for options, with the ability to bring encounter-changing tools to bear multiple times against a wide variety of challenges) - wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer

T2 (strong options and a good "A" game balanced against weaknesses in other areas of the game) - bard, paladin, artificer

T3 (with the right build, can be quite good at one thing - *it's probably damage* -, but lacks flexibility and struggles to contribute outside their one narrow area) - fighter, barb, ranger, monk

T4 (struggles to keep up with other classes in even things that should be core strengths) - rogue, warlock

In charop communities I usually see Barb at the bottom and Warlock just below the primo casters like Wizard.

[stoutstien]

In charop communities I usually see Barb at the bottom and Warlock just below the primo casters like Wizard.

And why is rouge always at the bottom?

[Zuras]

In my experience, all the classes are balanced well enough to fit in the same power band in levels 1-10. Some are definitely stronger than others, in the sense that there are dozens of ways to build and play an optimized wizard, but if you’re going to be a monk, you better like spamming Stunning Strike in combat.

The main issue, in terms of players feeling bad because their PC feels underpowered relative to another PC, is when two characters share a play niche but have wildly different levels of build optimization. If you have two archers in the party but only one takes Sharpshooter, the other may feel left behind.

[Skrum]

In charop communities I usually see Barb at the bottom and Warlock just below the primo casters like Wizard.

This boggles my mind, truly. I guess it's plausible that we just have extremely difficult encounters where lots of spells get spent...? Idk. Even as I say that, I remember that even in our most challenging games, characters often have resources left (besides hit points). I just don't see the math on this. Warlocks don't have the armor proficiency or hit points of a melee character, and they don't have the slots of a caster. Invocations make this up.....? Even squinting, I don't see how.

[Anymage]

I've never been a fan of the class "tiering." A player should play what s/he wants. It's not always about power. The 3.x "tiering" system is mainly for power-gaming min-maxers. There's way less of a need for all that in 5e, IMO.

People also want to feel effective. If their character's shtick often fails to work, or worse if another character can fulfill their shtick more effectively, that's going to get frustrating. Rankings help a group be aware of the issue ahead of time to keep it from becoming a problem.

[Zuras]

This boggles my mind, truly. I guess it's plausible that we just have extremely difficult encounters where lots of spells get spent...? Idk. Even as I say that, I remember that even in our most challenging games, characters often have resources left (besides hit points). I just don't see the math on this. Warlocks don't have the armor proficiency or hit points of a melee character, and they don't have the slots of a caster. Invocations make this up.....? Even squinting, I don't see how.

If Warlocks aren’t performing well compared to other casters, 90% of the time that’s an adventuring day/encounter design issue. Basically if you’re not getting multiple short rests in Warlocks will look bad compared to other casters. Expanded spell lists help too. Synaptic Static in particular was really powerful in late Tier 2.

[stoutstien]

If Warlocks aren’t performing well compared to other casters, 90% of the time that’s an adventuring day/encounter design issue. Basically if you’re not getting multiple short rests in Warlocks will look bad compared to other casters. Expanded spell lists help too. Synaptic Static in particular was really powerful in late Tier 2.

Leveled Spells are almost trinary resources for the warlocks that pull them up any ranked comparison you'd make. Celestial, undead, hex, and genie are pretty amazing even before you start casting regularly. Then you have rest casting...

[Skrum]

If Warlocks aren’t performing well compared to other casters, 90% of the time that’s an adventuring day/encounter design issue. Basically if you’re not getting multiple short rests in Warlocks will look bad compared to other casters. Expanded spell lists help too. Synaptic Static in particular was really powerful in late Tier 2.

See, I don't buy it. In a very tough encounter, they are still going to run out of slots. They still aren't gong to have *any* of the defensive/support options the other casters have, both because of their relatively limited spell list but also because they can still only cast 2 spells - of any level - within the encounter.

If the DM goes out of their way to hand the party a series of medium to hard encounters with a short rest between each one, I'm sure the warlock looks great. But as soon as the combat gets jacked up to deadly, and the rounds extend to 5 or 6, a warlock is struggling. Basically, they're gonna look the best when the encounters don't really need anyone's best. And when the party is in the thick of it, a warlock is going to falter.

[LudicSavant]

This boggles my mind, truly. I guess it's plausible that we just have extremely difficult encounters where lots of spells get spent...?

Would strongly bet your games are easier, not harder.

But there's a simple enough way to test that.


Warlocks don't have the armor proficiency or hit points of a melee character, and they don't have the slots of a caster. Invocations make this up.....? Even squinting, I don't see how.

They often have more durability and longevity than Barbs when optimized, not the other way around.

[Keltest]

See, I don't buy it. In a very tough encounter, they are still going to run out of slots. They still aren't gong to have *any* of the defensive/support options the other casters have, both because of their relatively limited spell list but also because they can still only cast 2 spells within the encounter.

If the DM goes out of their way to hand the party a series of medium to hard encounters with a short rest between each one, I'm sure the warlock looks great. But as soon as the combat gets jacked up to deadly, and the rounds extend to 5 or 6, a warlock is struggling. Basically, they're gonna look the best when the encounters don't really need anyone's best. And when the party is in the thick of it, a warlock is going to falter.

Comparing warlocks to wizards is the wrong idea. Compare them to fighters. Wizards are long rest characters. Fighters are short rest characters. Warlocks are short rest characters. Thats the style to match them against. If youre going in as a warlock trying to be a wizard, of course youre going to struggle. You have wizards to be wizards.

[tokek]

So, if anyone is still reading my wall of text, I'd put the classes in something like this

T1 (never lack for options, with the ability to bring encounter-changing tools to bear multiple times against a wide variety of challenges) - wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer

T2 (strong options and a good "A" game balanced against weaknesses in other areas of the game) - bard, paladin, artificer

T3 (with the right build, can be quite good at one thing - *it's probably damage* -, but lacks flexibility and struggles to contribute outside their one narrow area) - fighter, barb, ranger, monk

T4 (struggles to keep up with other classes in even things that should be core strengths) - rogue, warlock

That does not reflect my experience of the game at all - so I think I would have to conclude that what is true for your game is not universally true.

The classes you have in T1 all shine on 5 minute adventuring days and struggle when you start hitting the 5th deadly encounter of the day - at which point they are running on fumes. I suspect that is a large part of the difference but its hard to know. The fact that Warlock is in your bottom tier tells me you have a poor ratio of short rests to long rests - its pretty much the only explanation for that which I can think of.

Bu my in-play experience of the full casters is that very often they suffer from "Oops, prepared the wrong spell today" and therefore do not always have a good tool for the job. I think a fully optimised caster can nearly always have a good tool but now what we are really discussing is the higher skill ceiling for full casters which is something I will agree is a difference for games where that is a focus of the players.

[tokek]

This boggles my mind, truly. I guess it's plausible that we just have extremely difficult encounters where lots of spells get spent...? Idk. Even as I say that, I remember that even in our most challenging games, characters often have resources left (besides hit points). I just don't see the math on this. Warlocks don't have the armor proficiency or hit points of a melee character, and they don't have the slots of a caster. Invocations make this up.....? Even squinting, I don't see how.

If your casters are never left running on fumes (and cantrips) then that is the difference right there. Not enough really challenging things happening between long rests.

My Warlock is tanky enough to make a Barbarian blush IF she gets some short rests in. With Gift of the Ever Living ones and Healing Light plus a few max power Cure Wounds and a few Healing Potions in her bag she has finished a combat looking pretty healthy after taking 120 damage - at level 6. Then she had a short rest and was fully ready to go again.

Warlocks shine if they are allowed to get short rests. I would not play one in a game where the DM is stingy with short rests and would be reluctant to play one if the DM is over-generous with long rests.

As a DM i am a firm believer in the variable adventuring day. Some days you get only 2 encounters and the full casters wreck face. Some other days I stop the party long resting and its the martial characters who grind it out and keep everyone alive. Everyone gets a turn to shine.

[diplomancer]

I believe something to take in consideration in Skrum's analysis are the levels he's talking about. Levels 9 and 10 are the absolute worst for Warlock compared to the other casters; it's where they really fall behind, even with 2 Short Rests. It gets better once level 11 roll around.

I've said before, Warlocks should get their 3rd slot at level 9, that would make the math more balanced.

[JNAProductions]

I've never been a fan of the class "tiering." A player should play what s/he wants. It's not always about power. The 3.x "tiering" system is mainly for power-gaming min-maxers. There's way less of a need for all that in 5e, IMO.

The tiers don't create imbalances between classes, they document them. Ignoring the fact that a Barbarian is worse than a similarly optimized Cleric (whether that level of optimization is Ubercharger or Sword-'N'-Board) doesn't stop it from being true.

[Zuras]

See, I don't buy it. In a very tough encounter, they are still going to run out of slots. They still aren't gong to have *any* of the defensive/support options the other casters have, both because of their relatively limited spell list but also because they can still only cast 2 spells - of any level - within the encounter.

If the DM goes out of their way to hand the party a series of medium to hard encounters with a short rest between each one, I'm sure the warlock looks great. But as soon as the combat gets jacked up to deadly, and the rounds extend to 5 or 6, a warlock is struggling. Basically, they're gonna look the best when the encounters don't really need anyone's best. And when the party is in the thick of it, a warlock is going to falter.

I simply haven’t ever seen this play out the way you describe. Sure, the warlock will be out of spells in a long fight, but in a combat heavy game like that they should have all sorts of gimmicks to constantly generate temp HP or heal themselves, and picked up invocations like Agonizing Blast and Repelling Blast to allow them to have a major impact on combat every round.

I wouldn’t put warlocks on the same level as other casters, because they’re so much less flexible—your boon, invocations and spell choices lock you into a limited set of gimmicks, but those gimmicks are quite powerful.

[Skrum]

I simply haven’t ever seen this play out the way you describe. Sure, the warlock will be out of spells in a long fight, but in a combat heavy game like that they should have all sorts of gimmicks to constantly generate temp HP or heal themselves, and picked up invocations like Agonizing Blast and Repelling Blast to allow them to have a major impact on combat every round.

I wouldn’t put warlocks on the same level as other casters, because they’re so much less flexible—your boon, invocations and spell choices lock you into a limited set of gimmicks, but those gimmicks are quite powerful.

Agonizing Blast lets their cantrip do as much damage as a weapon. It doesn't make it *more* damage than a weapon. So it's good, for a cantrip, but certainly not good in absolute terms. I.e., it's a filler. One of the best fillers, but a filler.

Repelling is good *if you have things to play it off of.* If shoving people around 10 ft with no other effect is what you're doing, well, it might be useful tactically, sometimes, but it's hardly amazing. For it to really shine, the warlock or some member of the party needs to cast something to push the enemy into. The problem with the former is now you're spending 50% of your spell power, and the latter, well hopefully someone can cast something like that. I find it to be a frustratingly passive way to fight - kinda hoping your move lines up, and lots of circumstances that are out of your control will cause it not to be.

Which is the same as their defense. Warlocks do have some cool ways to generate temp hp, which is fun, but that's as far as it goes. Generally, their "defense" is 1) stay as far away from the battle as possible, and 2) hope the enemy decides to attack someone else. They don't have the slots or tools to defend themselves the way other classes in their similar role do.


Comparing warlocks to wizards is the wrong idea. Compare them to fighters. Wizards are long rest characters. Fighters are short rest characters. Warlocks are short rest characters. Thats the style to match them against. If youre going in as a warlock trying to be a wizard, of course youre going to struggle. You have wizards to be wizards.

Fair point, but in my experience fighter plays far more cohesively than a warlock does. Are fighters basically limited to doing damage, yes, but they get the tools they need to do that, including significantly better defense (can't do damage if you're making death saves!).

[Psyren]

I'd say a few builds can get to T2 e.g. Simulalcrum chaining but for the most part, everyone being in T3/T4 is accurate.

[Zuras]

Agonizing Blast lets their cantrip do as much damage as a weapon. It doesn't make it *more* damage than a weapon. So it's good, for a cantrip, but certainly not good in absolute terms. I.e., it's a filler. One of the best fillers, but a filler.

Repelling is good *if you have things to play it off of.* If shoving people around 10 ft with no other effect is what you're doing, well, it might be useful tactically, sometimes, but it's hardly amazing. For it to really shine, the warlock or some member of the party needs to cast something to push the enemy into. The problem with the former is now you're spending 50% of your spell power, and the latter, well hopefully someone can cast something like that. I find it to be a frustratingly passive way to fight - kinda hoping your move lines up, and lots of circumstances that are out of your control will cause it not to be.


In most truly dangerous battles I’ve seen, the most important role of Repelling Blast is to free allies from grapples, sometimes even by shooting a PC to make sure they don’t get dragged into the Styx or the maw of a froghemoth.

[Skrum]

I believe something to take in consideration in Skrum's analysis are the levels he's talking about. Levels 9 and 10 are the absolute worst for Warlock compared to the other casters; it's where they really fall behind, even with 2 Short Rests. It gets better once level 11 roll around.

I've said before, Warlocks should get their 3rd slot at level 9, that would make the math more balanced.

This is certainly a factor for warlock in particular, but the my tier list is heavily influenced by the way our game has unfolded. When we were mostly playing around level 5, almost every build felt capable and useful. Not that there weren't stronger and weaker characters, but it felt far more based on player choices than particular build.

But now that we're closer to 10, the choices really feel like they've narrowed. You can play a full caster who casts a small list of the best spells, or you can play a highly optimized martial multiclass build that's bolstered by a hoard of magic items. Not having 23 AC *minimum* as a melee character, for instance, is a bad idea.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But now that we're closer to 10, the choices really feel like they've narrowed. You can play a full caster who casts a small list of the best spells, or you can play a highly optimized martial multiclass build that's bolstered by a hoard of magic items. Not having 23 AC *minimum* as a melee character, for instance, is a bad idea.

If you play way outside the system guidelines, you can expect to get weird results. I've run multiple 1-20 games and never seen any of this. Looks like you're caught in a particularly pathological case of the optimization rat-race, where the "viable" builds narrow down to the tiniest number. Sure, if that's what you want to do, go ahead. But that's not a reflection on the system itself; instead it's entirely determined by your chosen play style.

The system expects melee characters to have between 17 and 20 AC all the way from about level 5 to about level 20. Full stop. Yes, you're supposed to get hit more than half the time. That's normal, that's what you have HP for. You are not expected to normally fight things that can smash you to 0 in a single turn.

[CTurbo]

Tier lists are always going to be purely subjective and nobody is ever going to post one that everybody agrees with. I think 5e has done, for the most part, a decent job of class leveling, but of course some are going to be better than others. I don't think you could split them up into more than 3 tiers. I could see Above Average, Average, and Below Average.

[LudicSavant]

Warlocks do have some cool ways to generate temp hp, which is fun, but that's as far as it goes. Generally, their "defense" is 1) stay as far away from the battle as possible, and 2) hope the enemy decides to attack someone else. They don't have the slots or tools to defend themselves the way other classes in their similar role do.

I disagree on both points. It's not too uncommon for optimized Warlocks to be more durable than Barbarians, rather than the other way around.

A 19+ AC is only after at most a half-feat away. There's all kinds of tricks with spells (like being able to refresh slots in an hour even if the effects persist) and invocations (like Gift of the Ever-Living Ones). And there are powerful class features that grant a lot of durability all on their own (such as the ones for Undead, Celestial, or Hexblade). Not to mention the benefit of having more control (even with just at-wills).

There's no way the Warlock is the weakest class in the game as you rate it.

[paladinn]

And why is rouge always at the bottom?

Because makeup doesn't make for a good character :P

(Sorry, couldn't resist.. pet peeve)

[Skrum]

I disagree on both points. It's not too uncommon for optimized Warlocks to be more durable than Barbarians, rather than the other way around.

A 19+ AC is only after at most a half-feat away. There's all kinds of tricks with spells (like being able to refresh slots in an hour even if the effects persist) and invocations (like Gift of the Ever-Living Ones). And there are powerful class features that grant a lot of durability all on their own (such as the ones for Undead, Celestial, or Hexblade). Not to mention the benefit of having more control (even with just at-wills).

There's no way the Warlock is the weakest class in the game as you rate it.

I really want to like the warlock (actually, I do like the warlock), but after 2 years of very frequent play, I can't help but think the warlock is fundamentally broken. The kind of game that the warlock is "meant" to play in is not the game that any of the other classes particularly excel at, putting them at odds with the whole table.

But, I've got two warlocks atm -

One, a BM fighter 3 genie warlock 5. 21 AC, +9 to hit, 1d8 + 1d6 + 8 damage per swing, plus maneuvers, plus eldritch smite, plus piercer. He also has fireball, and of course action surge. He is ridiculously explosive on offense (he has the unofficial record for both damage done in a single round and single-target damage done in a single round). But, his overall defensive features are bad. 21 AC is fine-ish, but he has not a lot besides. Dhampir so he can do a little in combat healing, but it's almost never a good use of an action. Main form of defense is use Boots of Speed to not be there.

Second, a barb 1 undead warlock 6. She's reborn (resist to poison) and wears a ring of necrotic resist, but since she uses a polearm, her AC is only 16. She has armor of ag and form of dread for temp hp, and basic strategy is to use rage for the resist and then use form of dread or armor of ag for extra toughness. The armor of course can be especially effective when there are lots of weaker enemies. She's about as tough as any barb - that is, if she's resistant to what she's getting hit by, she's tough. If she isn't, well, she gets shredded.

All of which is to say, I really don't see how temp hit points would do what you're describing. Even in combats where a twilight cleric is giving 8-14 temp hp a turn with no action econ, people still get hit and sometimes go down. And no warlock can put up that kind of temp hp.

Perhaps it's just what Phoenix describes; we've dialed the game towards incredibly deadly encounters, and that made only certain builds work well.

[Kane0]

Perhaps it's just what Phoenix describes; we've dialed the game towards incredibly deadly encounters, and that made only certain builds work well.

Quite possibly. Both those sound like perfectly good characters, you might just be hitting a wall of high lethality and very slim margin for error.

[Pex]

It was never relevant in 3E. It was opinionated, but it was never gospel.

[LudicSavant]

Perhaps it's just what Phoenix describes; we've dialed the game towards incredibly deadly encounters, and that made only certain builds work well.

Let's test that assumption!

What does a real adventuring day look like to you? Gimme a day's worth of your monster matchups at level 7 or 8 (the level of your PCs), and an example of what your Barbarian players look like (including the number and rarity of magic items they have), and we can do some math.

[stoutstien]

Because makeup doesn't make for a good character :P

(Sorry, couldn't resist.. pet peeve)

I've given up trying to get my phone to not switch it. Went as far as removing it from my dictionary. Comes back like a bad penny.

[Unoriginal]

I really want to like the warlock (actually, I do like the warlock), but after 2 years of very frequent play, I can't help but think the warlock is fundamentally broken. The kind of game that the warlock is "meant" to play in is not the game that any of the other classes particularly excel at, putting them at odds with the whole table.

But, I've got two warlocks atm -

One, a BM fighter 3 genie warlock 5. 21 AC, +9 to hit, 1d8 + 1d6 + 8 damage per swing, plus maneuvers, plus eldritch smite, plus piercer. He also has fireball, and of course action surge. He is ridiculously explosive on offense (he has the unofficial record for both damage done in a single round and single-target damage done in a single round). But, his overall defensive features are bad. 21 AC is fine-ish, but he has not a lot besides. Dhampir so he can do a little in combat healing, but it's almost never a good use of an action. Main form of defense is use Boots of Speed to not be there.

Second, a barb 1 undead warlock 6. She's reborn (resist to poison) and wears a ring of necrotic resist, but since she uses a polearm, her AC is only 16. She has armor of ag and form of dread for temp hp, and basic strategy is to use rage for the resist and then use form of dread or armor of ag for extra toughness. The armor of course can be especially effective when there are lots of weaker enemies. She's about as tough as any barb - that is, if she's resistant to what she's getting hit by, she's tough. If she isn't, well, she gets shredded.

All of which is to say, I really don't see how temp hit points would do what you're describing. Even in combats where a twilight cleric is giving 8-14 temp hp a turn with no action econ, people still get hit and sometimes go down. And no warlock can put up that kind of temp hp.

Perhaps it's just what Phoenix describes; we've dialed the game towards incredibly deadly encounters, and that made only certain builds work well.

Well first, neither of those characters are Warlocks.

They have mulitclasses that involve Warlock levels, sure, but a multiclass is just that: a multiclass.

It's like saying that Monks are the weakest class, as demonstrated by this Bard 2/Monk 3 underperforming next to the lvl 5 Fighter used as example.

Second, if the Fighter/Warlock you're describing is king of offense and merely okay in defense (which is surprising to me with 21 AC, but regardless), then he is an impressive PC still.

On the opposite end of the scale, if you describe a Barb 1/Warlock 6 as "as tough as any Barb" and that it is not enough, that means you think full Barbarians are not tough enough, while full Barbrians have "being tough" as one of their main gimmick. Which makes me curious why you don't consider them a low-tier class then.

[RSP]

Specific to Warlocks, in my experience, they tend to need to not be in harm’s way by the end of tier 2. I’ve played a Hexblade Warlock though SKT and it was around level 9 where I was getting too damaged, too regularly, to stay in melee. Had to just do more EB+AB in tier 3.

In my experience, there just isn’t enough defense available to them. PC was fine earlier on being in melee in all combats where it was possible.

For the record, he had AC 19, which was Adamantine Half-Plate and a Sentinel Shield. Don’t remember all his stats, but we rolled and his stats were very good. Con was his 2nd highest score (I think 18, but no lower than 16).

We had a Barb in the group as well, so it’s not like he was the only one mixing it up in melee, either.

But as we progressed, he’d get knocked out more and more until I gave up trying to be in melee.

[Eldariel]

For 5e, "Tier" is a poor term since it has a game-mechanical meaning too, so I'll use the term "scale" for clarity. Of course, it does depend a lot on the Tier of Play; most casters break the game harder on Tier 3-4, but there are only a handful of totally broken abuses on Tier 1.

But obviously it's relevant, insofar that it's possible to accidentally do someone else's job better than they can. Moon Druid on Tier 1 compared to martials just absolutely crushes them on anything approaching similar level of optimization, most casters compared to Rogue (even spells like Guidance, Enhance Ability, etc. do Rogue's shtick largely better until level 11 where spells are already able to bypass the need for most skills), most melee types compared to melee Monk (aside from perhaps Mercy), Cleric compared to melee martials, etc.

Sadly there are many similarities to the issues in 3e design, just less extreme and with fewer ways to totally break the game (though Tier 2 PHB minionmancy is pretty ridiculous to the point that I'd consider it Tier 2ish in power - comparable in ability to non-minionmancers of 10 levels higher or so). There are Magic Jar shenanigans, Glyph of Warding, many neat lower level synergies, Simulacrum chains, Minor Conjuration for Tangler Bags or Catapult Munitions or such, Artificer Bag Bombs, etc. let alone 9th level spells where True Polymorph and Shapechange both provide essentially limitless minionmancy and protection among other things, Wish can do anything, etc. And there are some stinkers that aren't really even good within their niche (Tier 3+ Barbarians immediately spring to mind - they can't even do decent damage in a fight, let alone anything else).

A refresher on how the 3e Tiers were defined:
Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

So yeah, you could make something like:
Scale 1: Wizard, Druid, Bard
Scale 2: Sorcerer, Warlock, Cleric (mostly because Arcana Cleric & Genie Warlock still get Wish by Tier 4, which enables breaking the game 7 ways to sunday)
Scale 3: Paladin, Ranger, Artificer (Artificer is genuinely close to Tier 2 due to its many abuses)
Scale 4: Fighter, Monk
Scale 5: Barbarian, Rogue

And it'd be pretty accurate for the strongest subclasses and builds for each character, keeping in mind the 3e definitions for Tiers describing the gamebreaking options and variety thereof available to each class. Bard could arguably be Tier 1 since in this edition, there's only the ~10ish spells that totally break the game and Magical Secrets suffices to have them all more or less. Druid is weird in that it has more gamebreaking stuff earlier on and kinda peters out on Tier 3-4 where it's just Planar Binding Korreds and eventually Shapechanging, a pale shadow of the plethora of abuses available to Wish/Shapechange/True Polymorph/Gate -abusing Wizards (and on Tier 3, Magic Jar, Simulacrum, Planar Binding, etc. are way better in a Wizard's than in Druid's hands already).

It's worth noting that Top Tier in this game are still far less broken than in 3e but a Wizard still has more ways to break the game than anyone else by a good margin due to that group of spells that do ridiculous stuff. Creation Bard is up there with Conjuration Wizard in terms of nonsense it can produce.


If you play way outside the system guidelines, you can expect to get weird results. I've run multiple 1-20 games and never seen any of this. Looks like you're caught in a particularly pathological case of the optimization rat-race, where the "viable" builds narrow down to the tiniest number. Sure, if that's what you want to do, go ahead. But that's not a reflection on the system itself; instead it's entirely determined by your chosen play style.

The system expects melee characters to have between 17 and 20 AC all the way from about level 5 to about level 20. Full stop. Yes, you're supposed to get hit more than half the time. That's normal, that's what you have HP for. You are not expected to normally fight things that can smash you to 0 in a single turn.

Isn't that the very point? If you pull the difficulty lever high enough, only stronger classes will remain viable. If enemies are strong enough, you will need to pick choices that get to bypass the built-in limitations of the game, which do exist. So higher and lower power levels exist, but most campaigns are easy enough that you could play Sidekicks and it wouldn't matter.

[tokek]

But obviously it's relevant, insofar that it's possible to accidentally do someone else's job better than they can. Moon Druid on Tier 1 compared to martials just absolutely crushes them on anything approaching similar level of optimization, most casters compared to Rogue (even spells like Guidance, Enhance Ability, etc. do Rogue's shtick largely better until level 11 where spells are already able to bypass the need for most skills), most melee types compared to melee Monk (aside from perhaps Mercy), Cleric compared to melee martials, etc.



If we are looking at the best sub-classes then I don't see Guidance and Enhance Ability being able to outshine AT or Soulknife rogues for utility at lower levels. I don't see Rogue as one of the strongest classes but a good build on one of the better subclasses is still decent at what it does.

In non-social situations you can use spells to bring you up to the skill level of a baseline rogue. But in lots of situations casting a spell means you are starting combat so if your intent was to avoid combat you just failed. In most situations using spell with a verbal component (Guidance) negates any ability to even attempt Stealth[1]. More fundamentally if you want a skill monkey rogue you won't build a baseline rogue - you probably picked a subclass that does it better.

[1] The niche situation where you know exactly what you are sneaking up on in advance and can cast Guidance out of earshot and then sneak using it does exist but it usually pre-supposes you already have the upper hand having scouted out the situation perfectly. Its still only a d4 - Soulknife gets at least a d6 with none of the verbal component drawbacks and on top of the basic rogue chassis with better skills.

[Unoriginal]

I wonder how Guidance or Enhance Abilities is supposed to be better than Expertise.

Especially when you use those spells for self-buff rather than put them on the person who's already good at the task.

[tokek]

I wonder how Guidance or Enhance Abilities is supposed to be better than Expertise.

Especially when you use those spells for self-buff rather than put them on the person who's already good at the task.

They are not.

Then when you look at something like Psi-Bolstered Knack on top of Expertise they don't even come close.

But I think in some games players are allowed to seriously abuse spells like these and therefore it does "well enough" often enough that they think casters can do the rogue job just as well.

The one example of a spell which genuinely is as good is of course Pass Without Trace. No argument there. Its why Earth Genasi is such a tempting race choice for rogue. Especially Arcane Trickster (a subclass which to me really only shines when you combo it carefully with your choice of race)

[DruidAlanon]

Tiers are still relevant. But since in 5e you can't stack bonuses in the way 3.5 allows, the game is more balanced and most classes & subclasses are relatively balanced. Or rather, they are unbalanced in a more subtle and muted way compared to 3.5e.

Having said this there are 2 things to consider:

1) The actual subclasses chosen will influence a lot the tier of each build. For example, a crhonurgy mage, a moon druid, or a twilight cleric will always be stronger than an artificier alchemist or an open hand monk. But the distribution of subclasses in "tiers" is much more balanced and normal, with most subclasses doing more or less quite fine (what we would consider tier 3-4 I guess in 3.5). With some outliers at the very top and the very bottom.

2) The level of optimisation of each build. Some people like to optimise their builds as much as possible. Or at least they do make deliberate decisions to increase the strength, durability and output of their build. The more people optimise, the more the discrepancies in strength levels will become evident.

In a low-mid optimisation level, all players will contribute to most situations, most of the time. A wizard will do his thing, a rogue his own, even a monk will shine here and there (especially Mercy).

In a mid-high optimisation level, some classes and subclasses will strugle. An optimised bladesinger will outshine most melee builds, most of the time. An optimised Life Cleric1/Shepherd X, a Sorlock, a HexLock etc the same. An optimised Moon, at tier1 levels wins DnD. In such a party, it is good to communicate with all players early on and make sure that experimental builds, Rogues, Artificiers, Monks and Barbarians will be avoided as they'll struggle to remain relevant, even when doing "their own thing".

It's extremelly easy to see how, e.g. a Sorcerer1/Twilight Cleric X, with spirit guardian on, Animate Undead, Lesser Restoration, good AC, Silvery Barbs, minor illusion etc, is an extremelly potent character compared to a four elements Monk that spends Ki points to upcast thunderwave or can cast fireball at 11 for 4 kis.

[LudicSavant]

Especially when you use those spells for self-buff rather than put them on the person who's already good at the task.

One of the big advantages of such abilities is precisely that they aren't just used for self buffs. They're used to buff whoever is most relevant at a given moment -- and there's no guarantee that's the Rogue to begin with, as a great many classes have significant skill bonuses (including expertise). Lore Bards for example have skill bonuses coming out of their ears.

Guidance is perhaps most relevant at low levels, where competition for long-term Concentration isn't yet so fierce, and a +1d4 bonus is in fact larger than +2. And a Cleric can get Expertise or other skill boosting subclass features at 1. Trickery for instance hands over perma-Advantage on Stealth to any ally (which is definitely better than +2 to self). And arguably have a better main stat for skills (yeah, Dex is good for stealth, but best stealth is whole party stealth and that's what Pass Without Trace is for).

[DruidAlanon]

One of the big advantages of such abilities is precisely that they aren't just used for self buffs. They're used to buff whoever is most relevant at a given moment -- and there's no guarantee that's the Rogue to begin with, as a great many classes have significant skill bonuses (including expertise). Lore Bards for example have skill bonuses coming out of their ears.

Guidance is perhaps most relevant at low levels, where competition for long-term Concentration isn't yet so fierce, amd a +1d4 bonus is in fact larger than +2. And a Cleric can get Expertise too. And arguably have a better main stat for skills (yeah, Dex is good for stealth, but best stealth is whole party stealth and that's what Pass Without Trace is for).

+1

Pass without trace is a good example of tier-1 defining power, where a low-level spell makes rogues, monks and rangers irrelevant. At least at scouting.

[Zuras]

Pass without trace is a good example of tier-1 defining power, where a low-level spell makes rogues, monks and rangers irrelevant. At least at scouting.

Pass Without Trace is great for ambushing enemies or evading pursuit, but it doesn’t make characters optimized for scouting obsolete. You still need a decent perception and/or survival to successfully scout. Never had a situation where a wizard was better at feats of daring than an actual rogue, but of course that requires the DM provide opportunities to steal rings off people’s fingers or swap out the macguffin for a duplicate.

Having the Rogue, Monk *and* the wizard’s familiar participate in the scouting gives more people stuff to do and usually results in more fun.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Isn't that the very point? If you pull the difficulty lever high enough, only stronger classes will remain viable. If enemies are strong enough, you will need to pick choices that get to bypass the built-in limitations of the game, which do exist. So higher and lower power levels exist, but most campaigns are easy enough that you could play Sidekicks and it wouldn't matter.

Sure, but that applies everywhere. Importing an idea from competitive fighting games (tier lists) is rather putting the thumb on the scale in favor of the (nonsense) idea that higher difficulty == more skill == intended. No, in this context all it does is distort the game and create pathological results where only a few really cramped, distorted builds can even hope to play.

Any style of play that declares most of the possible, rules-conforming, viable-by-system-guidelines builds to be non-viable is a style of play that has caused its own problems. You cannot generalize from those non-conforming play styles to the game as a whole--the "scale list" is dominated entirely by your style of play. Changing that up even slightly[1] results in a completely different style of play and a completely different "scale list". Thus, the ranking is not stable under play style and cannot tell us anything about the game as a whole. It's not about "stronger" vs "weaker" classes writ large, it's about "classes that fit one particular, very non-conforming and pathological (from the game's perspective) style of play." Which is...well..not very valuable to anyone not in that style of play.

Your statement makes critical assumptions about what matters. Ones that the system does not support.

[1] consider a change in difficulty where instead of fewer, stronger monsters with few fights per rest (your chosen style and the one the OP uses), you have a style that looks like

* most encounters have between 3 and 8 (for a party of 4) monsters but with high variance; some have a big guy and minions, others have waves of tiny ones coming at intervals
* There are between 4 and 10 encounters per working day, and you can't engineer extra rests, but you do usually get a short rest every other combat. Sometimes 1, sometimes 4 short rests. But rarely if ever none. A working day tends to have 16-50 rounds in it.
* Many combats happen at very short ranges and unexpectedly, with no room to maneuver or kite. Some do not, but ones where you have full prep and knowledge are rare.
* Many combats have hazards, terrain, cover, and other elements. Especially dynamic elements.

This is actually the recommended, expected style. And produces a very different, much more difficult environment, one where your "low tier" characters actually shine and your high-tier ones fall short. What's the wizard going to do when he's out of slots? Especially at lower levels?

Because the dirty secret is that increasing difficulty by ramping up the single monsters actually is the least effective way of doing it. Single monsters are bad encounters. Cinematic as bosses, maybe. But as sources of difficulty? Crap. Always will be. Even duos are bad encounters for challenging players. And always will be. Single monsters are vulnerable to nova tactics, which turn the game into a solved problem. Duos can be divided and conquered trivially. Heck, any consistent, predictable encounter style produces bad results.

[ComicSansSeraph]

5e has nothing close to the power disparity of 3.5, which was literal Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw&ab_channel=wannywan).

[DruidAlanon]

Pass Without Trace is great for ambushing enemies or evading pursuit, but it doesn’t make characters optimized for scouting obsolete. You still need a decent perception and/or survival to successfully scout.

That makes e.g. a Life Cleric 1/Sepherd Druid X, a nova spellcaster AND healer AND controller much better at scouting than a rogue or monk (or even Ranger) dedicated to scouting. Doesn't mean that these classes cannot scout effectively, I think it merely highlights the difference in Tier 1 form Tier 2 (sub)classes in 5e.


Having the Rogue, Monk *and* the wizard’s familiar participate in the scouting gives more people stuff to do and usually results in more fun.

Indeed. And the fun factor should not be underestimated. It is deffinetly possible for a druid to concentrate on pass without trace, wildshape and flight inside the castle. But it's more exciting to see the monk doing crazy accrobatics, jump from rooftop to rooftop, etc.

[Just to Browse]

I think a tier list would be valuable for 5e classes because it gives people a shared foundation they can use to have deeper discussions. Back in the 3e days, the conversations about tiers and balance levels weren't just "fighter is tier 5, end of story", they were the jumping off point for new conversations: How can you use the tiers to tell different stories? How do you define tiers and what levels matter most? How do you brew new classes that fit within certain tiers?

I think those are all useful questions to answer. So despite the challenges of tiering classes in 5e, I think it would be useful to give it a shot.

Some thoughts on adding tiers to 5e:

I want to keep the name "tier" because it's such a prevalent name for what we're trying to do. But I want to avoid using the words Tier 1, Tier 2, etc, because D&D already uses that. I think it would be best to use the ol' Japan grading system (S/A/B/C/D) since that's a popular tool.
Unlike in 3e, we can't have entire tiers defined by "doing everything better than another class". We need something narrower.
Unlike in 4e, we can't just judge classes on a single intended role, because those roles don't really exist in 5e.
5e has several campaigns that we can probably map our various expected capabilities to. That's going to be tough, but it's still probably the best we've got. See spoiler below for an example.


Let's take a task rated for a party of level 7 PCs, the hellwasp rescue mission in DiA.

Exploration / Access: PCs should be able to access a hellwasp nest floating 100 feet in the air, either by flying up or by climbing the infernal chains that keep the nest near the ground. Onside inside the nest, PCs must either fly or climb up the inside walls. Guidance on how to handle this is scant, so we will need to take a guess as to what DMs would ask of their non-flying players on average. If I had to hazard a guess, I think a person with Athletics proficiency, decent strength, and a climbing kit would be allowed to access & navigate the nest without much issue. Anyone who isn't indexed into strength or can't fly will be a liability, possibly risking fall damage or entering early combat with a hellwasp. They might need to be carried up by their friends.

[RANT]In true WotC form, the only advice given about climbing in this section is that players need to "use climbing gear to traverse between the levels"... so if you can't fly and you don't have pitons, do you just sit around twiddling your thumbs? Is it really impossible to climb up a narrow tunnel made out of paper mache? And how hard is it to climb up those 100+ foot chains? Does climbing gear matter there? And what about climbing speed, given that 100 feet is a long way to go? What about noise (given how important it is to be quiet inside the nest), do PCs need to be quiet while climbing those big-ass clanky chains? You charge FIFTY DOLLARS for this book, WotC, why do I find myself spitballing every possible method of resolving every encounter the second a player veers ever-so-slightly from your fragile little railroad????[/ENDRANT]

Okay, with that off my chest...

Combat: Players are going to fight 8 hellwasps, in sets of 3, then 3, then 2. Hellwasp larvae is likely to make an appearance as well. We're looking at something like a 2.5x deadly encounter, a 1.5x deadly encounter, and then a hard encounter back to back. Hellwasps have no physical resistance so magic weapons aren't a must-have, but they are immune to fire and vulnerable to cold so a wide breadth of energy types is valuable here. Constitution is highly valuable, because hellwasps have a low-DC save-or-lose that they use every turn. Even moderate Stealth bonuses are fine because of their low Perception, effects like entangle are less valuable because the hellwasps fly, ranged attacks are slightly restricted because of the sizes of rooms N1 and N4.

That's a lot to think about. Now we just need to do that for every encounter in every published adventure... or just eyeball it. :smallwink:

Given all that, I think it would be most useful to define 5e class tiers in terms of the variety of challenges they can :


Tier
Description


A
Capable of contributing to a solution to almost every challenge that a party could be expected to face for their level, occasionally solving those challenges single-handedly before any other class (such as with the spells knock and pass without trace). At higher levels, a DM may need spend extra time planning around all of an A-tier class's abilities--if they don't, they risk accidentally creating challenges that the A-tier character can trivialize with a single spell or action.


B
Viable party members, but not universally valuable. Their capabilities are generally narrower than those of A-tier classes, but they might also be broad and shallow. In either case, B-tier will occasionally get the spotlight, but usually need to share it with their party members. It's rare for a B-tier class to trivialize anything, and DMs can easily plan around the abilities of the classes that do.


C
Has niche or underwhelming strengths, and is usually mediocre outside of those strengths. In some circumstances, the niche of a C-tier class may be partially or completely outclassed by an A-tier class that dabbles in the same specialty.



With that distribution, I think I would look at something like this?


Tier
Classes


A
Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard


B
Artificer, Paladin, Ranger, Fighter


C
Barbarian, Rogue, Monk


But within these tiers, you probably still want some variation. I could see a +/- system here, with Rangers at B-, Wizards at A+, and so on. Even with +/- modifiers, I think those buckets are useful, because they give us more concrete indicators of power that we can point to. For example, fighters stick to B-tier because they can only solve adventuring problems that involve stabbing stuff (a lot of adventuring problems are solved that way to be sure), rendering them powerful but narrow.

How does this look to folks as a starting point?

[Snails]

How does this look to folks as a starting point?

I appreciate the effort, and it is a reasonable attempt to apply the previous framework. But I do not find it a compelling starting point for a discussion.

What I find is some classes feel "undermodeled" as they scale past lowish-mid levels. I am satisfied that all classes are adequately useful for levels 1-6, even if things are less than perfect. For example, the Barbarian's ability to rage and not drop under an avalanche of damage is not a niche ability, but reliably effective in most combats, at least until we regularly see powerful magical effects and flying enemies.

[Just to Browse]

That's an interesting thought, because my perspective on class tiers is that they're mostly about scaling play, especially looking at level 5 onward. That may be my 3e background talking, because that's when 3e classes began to noticeably diverge from one another, with the arguable exception of the monk. It might be worth emphasizing the idea that 5e tier list distinctions become more stark the higher you go in levels, with the differences being fairly minor at the levels where challenges are easily overcome by tools, skills, and the good ol' strategy of "stab em in the face".

[Skrum]

Let's test that assumption!

What does a real adventuring day look like to you? Gimme a day's worth of your monster matchups at level 7 or 8 (the level of your PCs), and an example of what your Barbarian players look like (including the number and rarity of magic items they have), and we can do some math.

Typical adventure is 1-3 combats per long rest, I'd say. The 1 combat ones aren't one super deadly combat, it's most likely a low-combat game. The more combat-focused ones can have as many as 3. It's very rare for more than that as we try to keep the games to less than 4 hours. Rests are kinda all over the places. Tough fight, and we'll probably get a SR after. LR are typically only happening between games.

The monsters are all over the place - the table has 4 regular DM's and a few others who DM less frequently. But, I can give an example of a game that I ran recently that I think is a decent example of a "harder" game. I don't feel I can give every particular, but I'll outline it as best I can.

The party: level 9 paladin using PAM, a spear, and a shield, level 8 rune knight fighter w/ an axe and shield, a level 9 battle master fighter using a hammer and shield, and a level 8 bladesinger wizard

Combat 1
6 vampire spawn and 2 vampire beasts, a custom monster with 95 hit points, 2 attacks at +6 for 2d6+3, a fly speed of 60, and a swoop ability that added 2d8 damage to an attack. And regeneration 10. This was a "warmup" type fight that ended up doing a bit more damage than I expected.

Short rest

Combat 2
The finale. This was all custom villains, so I'll try to get the relevant points.
3 main bosses
Each had around 150 hp and 16 AC
1) could attack twice at +8 and hit for 1d10+10+1d6
2) could attack three times at +6 and hit for 1d8+6, and if at least 2 hit he'd inflict a bleeding wound that did 2d6 per turn
3) could attack 4 times, at range, at +7 for 1d4+5+1d4 (my biggest mistake was actually forgetting she had range...probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, but definitely something I messed up)

1) had the following spells, castable once each, as a bonus action: healing word that healed for 20, rime's binding ice, hypnotic pattern, and blight

2) could use steel wind strike and it replenished on a 6. He also had adv on all saves against magic

3) had the following spells, castable once each, as a bonus action: armor of agathys (granting 30 temps but doing 10 damage), heat metal (but cold damage), and spirit guardians

Additionally, there were 8 lessor minions each with 50 hp, 14 AC, with two attacks at +5 for 1d10+2 damage and a DC 13 trip rider

All of them had pack tactics

The result: well the players won lol. There was a very tense round when 2 of the characters got nabbed by the hypnotic pattern, but the other fighter spent his action surge to wake them both up. The wizard probably had the biggest overall impact by using slow and synoptic static, and the players basically formed a defensive ring around the paladin who cast spirit guardians. I'm obviously just giving the highlights; this was absolutely a very tough, tense encounter. One of the fighters dropped briefly, but no one was truly on death's door at any point.

Our barbarians
One barb retired, so I think we've got 4. The highest level pure barb is 7, and he's a GWM greatsword. His weapon actually isn't that great; a +1 sword that can cast a 2nd level hellish rebuke w/ no action PB/LR (but only once per turn).

There's a bear totem barb 5 fighter 1, also using GWM and a maul. I think he just has a +1 weapon.

A zealot barb 5 with a shield and morning star +1 and d4 radiant damage. He's a shifter that combines the shifter ability that makes it so he can't be attack at advantage with reckless attack

And finally, my character, a wild magic barb 6 mastermind rogue 3. He's got a cool magic weapon but is really more of a support-oriented build. He's also (generally) sturdy w/ resistance to necrotic, poison, fire, and cold, plus rage resistance. Ironically, he did just die recently (but was revivified)

[Kane0]

How does this look to folks as a starting point?

Split by tiers as well? So you don't have to approximate a class over the entire course of levels 1-20, some might be much better at lower levels than higher for example.

[LudicSavant]

Typical adventure is 1-3 combats per long rest, I'd say. The 1 combat ones aren't one super deadly combat, it's most likely a low-combat game. The more combat-focused ones can have as many as 3. It's very rare for more than that as we try to keep the games to less than 4 hours. Rests are kinda all over the places. Tough fight, and we'll probably get a SR after. LR are typically only happening between games.

The monsters are all over the place - the table has 4 regular DM's and a few others who DM less frequently. But, I can give an example of a game that I ran recently that I think is a decent example of a "harder" game. I don't feel I can give every particular, but I'll outline it as best I can.

The party: level 9 paladin using PAM, a spear, and a shield, level 8 rune knight fighter w/ an axe and shield, a level 9 battle master fighter using a hammer and shield, and a level 8 bladesinger wizard

Combat 1
6 vampire spawn and 2 vampire beasts, a custom monster with 95 hit points, 2 attacks at +6 for 2d6+3, a fly speed of 60, and a swoop ability that added 2d8 damage to an attack. And regeneration 10. This was a "warmup" type fight that ended up doing a bit more damage than I expected.

Short rest

Combat 2
The finale. This was all custom villains, so I'll try to get the relevant points.
3 main bosses
Each had around 150 hp and 16 AC
1) could attack twice at +8 and hit for 1d10+10+1d6
2) could attack three times at +6 and hit for 1d8+6, and if at least 2 hit he'd inflict a bleeding wound that did 2d6 per turn
3) could attack 4 times, at range, at +7 for 1d4+5+1d4 (my biggest mistake was actually forgetting she had range...probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, but definitely something I messed up)

1) had the following spells, castable once each, as a bonus action: healing word that healed for 20, rime's binding ice, hypnotic pattern, and blight

2) could use steel wind strike and it replenished on a 6. He also had adv on all saves against magic

3) had the following spells, castable once each, as a bonus action: armor of agathys (granting 30 temps but doing 10 damage), heat metal (but cold damage), and spirit guardians

Additionally, there were 8 lessor minions each with 50 hp, 14 AC, with two attacks at +5 for 1d10+2 damage and a DC 13 trip rider

All of them had pack tactics

The result: well the players won lol. There was a very tense round when 2 of the characters got nabbed by the hypnotic pattern, but the other fighter spent his action surge to wake them both up. The wizard probably had the biggest overall impact by using slow and synoptic static, and the players basically formed a defensive ring around the paladin who cast spirit guardians. I'm obviously just giving the highlights; this was absolutely a very tough, tense encounter. One of the fighters dropped briefly, but no one was truly on death's door at any point.

Our barbarians
One barb retired, so I think we've got 4. The highest level pure barb is 7, and he's a GWM greatsword. His weapon actually isn't that great; a +1 sword that can cast a 2nd level hellish rebuke w/ no action PB/LR (but only once per turn).

There's a bear totem barb 5 fighter 1, also using GWM and a maul. I think he just has a +1 weapon.

A zealot barb 5 with a shield and morning star +1 and d4 radiant damage. He's a shifter that combines the shifter ability that makes it so he can't be attack at advantage with reckless attack

And finally, my character, a wild magic barb 6 mastermind rogue 3. He's got a cool magic weapon but is really more of a support-oriented build. He's also (generally) sturdy w/ resistance to necrotic, poison, fire, and cold, plus rage resistance. Ironically, he did just die recently (but was revivified)


Cool. For the purposes of analysis, can you share the Barb's specific attribute modifiers, feats, race, number and rarity of magic items (or if they're custom, what those items do)?

Whichever of the Barbs you feel is strongest, preferably.

Then I'll throw together a Warlock and compare.

[Skrum]

Cool. For the purposes of analysis, can you share the Barb's specific attribute modifiers, feats, race, number and rarity of magic items (or if they're custom, what those items do)?

Whichever of the Barbs you feel is strongest, preferably.

Hmm the most barbie barb is the level 7. TCL, 18 14 14 8 12 8. Their greatsword is +1 with the afore mentioned hellish rebuke pb/lr that doesn't take a reaction. He is quite undergeared, compared to many other characters. Wears half plate for 17 AC. Feats are Athlete and GWM.

My barb, just for comparison's sake, is wild magic 6 mastermind rogue 3. Tiefling, 16 14 16 8 8 13. Weapon is a sickle that has finesse and adds d6 psychic damage per hit, and can use a Fighting Spirit-esque ability, minus the temp hp, pb/lr. Feat is infernal constitution. His other magic items are a breast plate +1 (17 total AC), ring of necrotic resist, and cloak of elvenkind. Being tough, grappling, and using cunning tactics are a bigger focus for him than damage.

Why're we comparing barbs and locks? I kinda lost the thread, haha.

[LudicSavant]

Why're we comparing barbs and locks? I kinda lost the thread, haha.

Because of this post from you: https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25801275&postcount=18

[Skrum]

Because of this post from you: https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25801275&postcount=18

Ah. The tankiest characters are not barbs though, IMO. Barbs are randomly tanky - if they're resistant to almost everything the opponent is doing, they're tanky. But they are shockingly *fragile* if they aren't, and since characters have no agency over this, I personally find it to be really bad game design. Like sometimes you're hella tough, and other times you're made of paper. It's quite frustrating.

In our game, some of the best tanks are

Vengeance paladin 6 hexblade 1 divine soul sorcerer 2. Base AC of 22, has shield and absorb elements, 18 Cha for excellent saves, and a mantle of spell resistance. Oh and they're shadar kai, so resistance to necrotic (absolute best thing to be resistant to as a character, IMO), plus the fey step thing that gives resist to all. Plus a bunch of other stuff that isn't directly related to tanking but makes this character a menace

Oath of the Crown paladin 9. base AC of 22, a cloak that gives Uncanny Dodge a few times a day, a custom shield that can be used to cast shield on an ally, a custom item that lets him use lay on hands at range, and of course the usual paladin stuff

Half-orc rune knight 8. 16 con, base AC of 23, cloud rune, hill rune, a custom shield that can boost the AC of adjacent allies, a custom helm gives adv on con saves and blind fight, and the mobile feat

Dwarf battle master fighter 9. 16 con, base AC of 22, a custom shield that can boost his AC by 2 a few times a day, shield master feat, crusher, and a couple of battlefield control oriented maneuvers

There's also two forge clerics, one with AC 24 and one with AC 25. Not a ton of other tanking-relevant stuff besides pretty crazy AC.

These characters are the ones that can reliable stand in melee. Obviously sometimes they get nailed, but with a little silvery barbs support from the back line, they're really tough and rarely go down. The barbs....well like I said, it's random. Barbs stand in melee cause they have to, but sometimes they're just a sitting duck.

[LudicSavant]

Ah. The tankiest characters are not barbs though, IMO. Barbs are randomly tanky - if they're resistant to almost everything the opponent is doing, they're tanky. But they are shockingly *fragile* if they aren't, and since characters have no agency over this, I personally find it to be really bad game design. Like sometimes you're hella tough, and other times you're made of paper. It's quite frustrating.

In that case, why do you say that the notion of Warlocks being rated higher than Barbarians 'boggles your mind'?

What's earning the Barbarian such a high position on your tier list?



Vengeance paladin 6 hexblade 1 divine soul sorcerer 2. Base AC of 22, has shield and absorb elements, 18 Cha for excellent saves, and a mantle of spell resistance. Oh and they're shadar kai, so resistance to necrotic (absolute best thing to be resistant to as a character, IMO), plus the fey step thing that gives resist to all. Plus a bunch of other stuff that isn't directly related to tanking but makes this character a menace

Oath of the Crown paladin 9. base AC of 22, a cloak that gives Uncanny Dodge a few times a day, a custom shield that can be used to cast shield on an ally, a custom item that lets him use lay on hands at range, and of course the usual paladin stuff

Half-orc rune knight 8. 16 con, base AC of 23, cloud rune, hill rune, a custom shield that can boost the AC of adjacent allies, a custom helm gives adv on con saves and blind fight, and the mobile feat

Dwarf battle master fighter 9. 16 con, base AC of 22, a custom shield that can boost his AC by 2 a few times a day, shield master feat, crusher, and a couple of battlefield control oriented maneuvers

What is the source of these base ACs?

[Witty Username]

I don't get rogue being rated lower than monk, they tend to have similar contuors in damage, mobility, AC and utility. And generally, rogue abilities are at will in comparison to the resource cost ones of monks. Not to mention rogue has stronger capacity to perform at range due to sneak attack vs martial arts.

I would personally flip them on the tier stuff.

[LudicSavant]

I don't get rogue being rated lower than monk, they tend to have similar contuors in damage, mobility, AC and utility. And generally, rogue abilities are at will in comparison to the resource cost ones of monks. Not to mention rogue has stronger capacity to perform at range due to sneak attack vs martial arts.

I would personally flip them on the tier stuff.

An optimized Monk will often be something like a bugbear Shadow Gunk hitting people with 3 sharpshooter attacks while teleporting at will, running on the ceiling, and acting as a Pass Without Trace / Darkness / Silence battery for the party all day.

The better Rogues have some nifty tricks up their sleeves too, but Sneak Attack has a very real weakness -- you have to qualify for it. Sure, this may be easy against a basic foe, but it can get harder when challenging enemies are imposing Disadvantage (or just denying Advantage) and aren't letting your allies close with them for free, especially if the turn order doesn't line up well (example: The enemy goes right before you and is good at disengaging).

Like, something as simple as being up against some archers who dropped prone (as smart players often do in ranged combat) and aren't in your party's melee range at this exact moment is enough to deny Sneak Attack.

[Waazraath]

I think a tier list would be valuable for 5e classes because it gives people a shared foundation they can use to have deeper discussions. Back in the 3e days, the conversations about tiers and balance levels weren't just "fighter is tier 5, end of story", they were the jumping off point for new conversations: How can you use the tiers to tell different stories? How do you define tiers and what levels matter most? How do you brew new classes that fit within certain tiers?

I think those are all useful questions to answer. So despite the challenges of tiering classes in 5e, I think it would be useful to give it a shot.

Some thoughts on adding tiers to 5e:

I want to keep the name "tier" because it's such a prevalent name for what we're trying to do. But I want to avoid using the words Tier 1, Tier 2, etc, because D&D already uses that. I think it would be best to use the ol' Japan grading system (S/A/B/C/D) since that's a popular tool.
Unlike in 3e, we can't have entire tiers defined by "doing everything better than another class". We need something narrower.
Unlike in 4e, we can't just judge classes on a single intended role, because those roles don't really exist in 5e.
5e has several campaigns that we can probably map our various expected capabilities to. That's going to be tough, but it's still probably the best we've got. See spoiler below for an example.


Let's take a task rated for a party of level 7 PCs, the hellwasp rescue mission in DiA.

Exploration / Access: PCs should be able to access a hellwasp nest floating 100 feet in the air, either by flying up or by climbing the infernal chains that keep the nest near the ground. Onside inside the nest, PCs must either fly or climb up the inside walls. Guidance on how to handle this is scant, so we will need to take a guess as to what DMs would ask of their non-flying players on average. If I had to hazard a guess, I think a person with Athletics proficiency, decent strength, and a climbing kit would be allowed to access & navigate the nest without much issue. Anyone who isn't indexed into strength or can't fly will be a liability, possibly risking fall damage or entering early combat with a hellwasp. They might need to be carried up by their friends.

[RANT]In true WotC form, the only advice given about climbing in this section is that players need to "use climbing gear to traverse between the levels"... so if you can't fly and you don't have pitons, do you just sit around twiddling your thumbs? Is it really impossible to climb up a narrow tunnel made out of paper mache? And how hard is it to climb up those 100+ foot chains? Does climbing gear matter there? And what about climbing speed, given that 100 feet is a long way to go? What about noise (given how important it is to be quiet inside the nest), do PCs need to be quiet while climbing those big-ass clanky chains? You charge FIFTY DOLLARS for this book, WotC, why do I find myself spitballing every possible method of resolving every encounter the second a player veers ever-so-slightly from your fragile little railroad????[/ENDRANT]

Okay, with that off my chest...

Combat: Players are going to fight 8 hellwasps, in sets of 3, then 3, then 2. Hellwasp larvae is likely to make an appearance as well. We're looking at something like a 2.5x deadly encounter, a 1.5x deadly encounter, and then a hard encounter back to back. Hellwasps have no physical resistance so magic weapons aren't a must-have, but they are immune to fire and vulnerable to cold so a wide breadth of energy types is valuable here. Constitution is highly valuable, because hellwasps have a low-DC save-or-lose that they use every turn. Even moderate Stealth bonuses are fine because of their low Perception, effects like entangle are less valuable because the hellwasps fly, ranged attacks are slightly restricted because of the sizes of rooms N1 and N4.

That's a lot to think about. Now we just need to do that for every encounter in every published adventure... or just eyeball it. :smallwink:

Given all that, I think it would be most useful to define 5e class tiers in terms of the variety of challenges they can :


Tier
Description


A
Capable of contributing to a solution to almost every challenge that a party could be expected to face for their level, occasionally solving those challenges single-handedly before any other class (such as with the spells knock and pass without trace). At higher levels, a DM may need spend extra time planning around all of an A-tier class's abilities--if they don't, they risk accidentally creating challenges that the A-tier character can trivialize with a single spell or action.


B
Viable party members, but not universally valuable. Their capabilities are generally narrower than those of A-tier classes, but they might also be broad and shallow. In either case, B-tier will occasionally get the spotlight, but usually need to share it with their party members. It's rare for a B-tier class to trivialize anything, and DMs can easily plan around the abilities of the classes that do.


C
Has niche or underwhelming strengths, and is usually mediocre outside of those strengths. In some circumstances, the niche of a C-tier class may be partially or completely outclassed by an A-tier class that dabbles in the same specialty.



With that distribution, I think I would look at something like this?


Tier
Classes


A
Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard


B
Artificer, Paladin, Ranger, Fighter


C
Barbarian, Rogue, Monk


But within these tiers, you probably still want some variation. I could see a +/- system here, with Rangers at B-, Wizards at A+, and so on. Even with +/- modifiers, I think those buckets are useful, because they give us more concrete indicators of power that we can point to. For example, fighters stick to B-tier because they can only solve adventuring problems that involve stabbing stuff (a lot of adventuring problems are solved that way to be sure), rendering them powerful but narrow.

How does this look to folks as a starting point?

In all honesty? Not good, imo. Due to a number of reasons.

Lets start with the lack of subclasses. These make huge difference in 5e. As far as power levels are concerened, the difference between an Alchemist and a Battlesmith are big, far bigger than between an average Sorcerer and an average Monk.

Second, the build is more important than class. A well build Barbarian played by a competent player will outshine a non-optimized Druid played by somebody with a mediocre understanding of the game.

Third, combine the two points above, and think of a highly optimized Battlesmith and compare it with a mediocre Alchemist. Now we have a difference in power - but it has nothing to do with class.

Of course, the 3.x tier system assumed roughly equal optimization skill (very doubtful whether that was actually the case then the classes were assesed, but that's beside the point) - but the influence that 'build' has between edtions is telling. In 3.5, a badly build and played Druid would still easily outshine a Samurai optimized to the teeth. That's what happens when there are significant and substantial differences in power between classes. That simply isn't the case in 5e, which the points above illustrate.

Fourth, level is a huge determinant of how well classes perform. Looking purely at (sub)class a wizard and bard are pretty weak the early levels: ran out of gas really early, need some of their very scarce long rest resources as defense, leaving little for utility and offense, etc. Ime these are also the most occuring casualties in D&D, arcane casters and experts at the lower levels. While Barbarians are fantastic at the early levels.

That brings us to fifth, the type of campaign run by the DM. Having short or long adventuring days, none, few or lots of short rests, type of enemies encounters (single/group/mix), surprise encounters or not (and how often), ranged or melee, enemy spellcasters which are common or not, etc. etc. etc. - that all influences very much how well a specific class (and build) performs.

Fifth, notwithstanding that I think the differences between the classes are so small that a tier list is useless, having the Paladin somewhere in the middle instead of at the top is imo sign of a flawed analysis.

Sixth, small detail, but using knock as an example of solving those challenges single-handedly before any other class is another sign of error. Knock is LR-resource, with the additional drawback of alamring the entire area that something is amiss. It's a terrible surrogate of a rogue with maxed dex and expertise in thieves tools, or even a barbarian that can just kick in a door or smash open a treasure chest. Casters spending their resources (spells known, spells used, ASI's, etc.) to be sub-par rogues (or fighters) while being worse at their core task is a bad decision from an optimization point of view.

Seventh, given how close all classes are in power level (ignoring subclasses and level here) 3 tiers including plusses and minusses suggests a level of detail that cannot be used as a general standard. Maybe you can use it for a specific campaign, but as a general tool? Never.

Eight, I dislike some of the terminology. Artificer, fighter, paladin and ranger having 'broad and shallow' abilities? Seriously? Barbarians monks and rogues 'underwelming' and 'mediocre' in general? That's quite the claim.

So to summarize, no. While there are differences in power, they depend more on player build/skill, campaign and DM-style, character level and often even subclass, than on class. And 5e is designed in such a way that unless you anti-optimize, even weaker builds can perform adequately in several areas. So in general a tier system is useless, and this one has some specific flaws in addtion.


Sure, but that applies everywhere. Importing an idea from competitive fighting games (tier lists) is rather putting the thumb on the scale in favor of the (nonsense) idea that higher difficulty == more skill == intended. No, in this context all it does is distort the game and create pathological results where only a few really cramped, distorted builds can even hope to play.

Any style of play that declares most of the possible, rules-conforming, viable-by-system-guidelines builds to be non-viable is a style of play that has caused its own problems. You cannot generalize from those non-conforming play styles to the game as a whole--the "scale list" is dominated entirely by your style of play. Changing that up even slightly[1] results in a completely different style of play and a completely different "scale list". Thus, the ranking is not stable under play style and cannot tell us anything about the game as a whole. It's not about "stronger" vs "weaker" classes writ large, it's about "classes that fit one particular, very non-conforming and pathological (from the game's perspective) style of play." Which is...well..not very valuable to anyone not in that style of play.

Your statement makes critical assumptions about what matters. Ones that the system does not support.

[1] consider a change in difficulty where instead of fewer, stronger monsters with few fights per rest (your chosen style and the one the OP uses), you have a style that looks like

* most encounters have between 3 and 8 (for a party of 4) monsters but with high variance; some have a big guy and minions, others have waves of tiny ones coming at intervals
* There are between 4 and 10 encounters per working day, and you can't engineer extra rests, but you do usually get a short rest every other combat. Sometimes 1, sometimes 4 short rests. But rarely if ever none. A working day tends to have 16-50 rounds in it.
* Many combats happen at very short ranges and unexpectedly, with no room to maneuver or kite. Some do not, but ones where you have full prep and knowledge are rare.
* Many combats have hazards, terrain, cover, and other elements. Especially dynamic elements.

This is actually the recommended, expected style. And produces a very different, much more difficult environment, one where your "low tier" characters actually shine and your high-tier ones fall short. What's the wizard going to do when he's out of slots? Especially at lower levels?

Because the dirty secret is that increasing difficulty by ramping up the single monsters actually is the least effective way of doing it. Single monsters are bad encounters. Cinematic as bosses, maybe. But as sources of difficulty? Crap. Always will be. Even duos are bad encounters for challenging players. And always will be. Single monsters are vulnerable to nova tactics, which turn the game into a solved problem. Duos can be divided and conquered trivially. Heck, any consistent, predictable encounter style produces bad results.

+1 to this.

[Skrum]

In that case, why do you say that the notion of Warlocks being rated higher than Barbarians 'boggles your mind'?

What's earning the Barbarian such a high position on your tier list?


I mean I put barb in T3 (group C?). A class that only has a narrow focus and struggles to do things in other areas. To me, the rogue and warlock are rather uniquely underpowered relative to the rest of the classes.

That one post from me was much more objecting to putting warlocks just beneath the *full casters.* Playing warlocks (and more, seeing my friend play a pure warlock from 1 to 8), like there's just no way. They have a fraction of the power of a full caster. Way less spells, way less spells known, and a more limited spell list to draw from. They can kinda hang at very low levels, but the full casters leave them in the dust ~level 5. And then 6-10 is the absolute pits for warlocks.

My reason to rate warlocks so low is 1) their poor spellcasting, and 2) a lack of other tools to let them do other things. They have a melee build (hexblade), but they lack the durability to actually hang in melee beyond very low levels. Their kit is extremely eclectic. Makes them a great class to dip in, but by themselves I find them to be quite underpowered.



What is the source of these base ACs?

base is 18 plate, +2 for a shield, and +1 defensive fighting style (it's by far the most popular fighting style at the table). That's 21.

a +1 shield, armor, or ring of protection gets it to 22 (our table rules prevent us from stacking these items, but we can have 1). The characters that have more than that have a custom item that gives additional armor, and the forge clerics have +2 to the AC in their class features. The 25 AC forge cleric (mine, actually) is a warforged fighter 1 cleric 6 w/ a ring of protection for 25 total AC.

[Just to Browse]

In all honesty? Not good, imo. Due to a number of reasons.

Agreed with some of those arguments, wanted to make notes on a few others.

RE:Build > Class: This has always been true of tier lists. Your Druid vs Samurai example shows a stark contrast between Tier 1 and Tier 5, but there was a lot of room for builds to push a class beyond the normal tier relationships. For example, a Mailman sorcerer (Tier 2) regularly outperforms a reserve-focused evocation wizard (Tier 1), and a Dungeoncrasher fighter outperforms a Druid that doesn't wild shape (the latter player was actually in the 3.0 D&D playtests!). In 4e, optimized Dragon Sorcerers tend to outperform run-of-the-mill Intvengers despite the Avenger generally being ranked above the Sorcerer in terms of power.

If we threw away any relationships that could be overcome by builds, there would be no value in tier lists across any edition. Despite that, I've seen tier used to great effect in 3e and 4e discussions. The original 3e tier list explicitly encouraged using tier lists to help determine builds:


Thus, this system is created for the following purposes

[...]

2. To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.

Subclasses, though... yeah, that's tough. The Alchemist / Battlesmith divide is a really good example. Arcane Archer / Rune Knight comes to mind too.


RE:Campaign > Class: This is also true of all tier lists. In 3e, cramped dungeon environments hurt ranged characters, unsafe resting environments and long adventuring days hurt casters, presence of various creature types could just ruin a rogue's day, etc. But as with the previous point, I think tier lists were useful despite all of that.

There's a point I want to emphasize with all D&D tier lists: Tier lists should be used to start a conversation, not to end one. Tier lists are inherently reductive. They're simplifications, designed to establish a shared language that we can use to have deeper discussions.


RE: Level Affects Performance: In terms of direct feedback, you are the 3rd person of 3 to mention that we need to take levels into account. I'm of 2 minds here, and I would love to get other folks' thoughts:
On one hand, level-based granularity gives us more accuracy, and accuracy is great. "The barbarian is weak in T3 and T4" is very different from "The monk is bad in every tier" (these are just illustrative examples, don't yell at me!)
On the other hand, breaking this down by level at minimum quadruples the size of a tier list. I think tier lists are most valuable when they're used to establish a shared language at the start of a conversation, so asking folks to remember 4x as much stuff before they start talking seems like a bad idea.
Am I overthinking it? Would breaking a list across adventuring tiers by fine?

[LudicSavant]

I mean I put barb in T3 (group C?). A class that only has a narrow focus and struggles to do things in other areas. To me, the rogue and warlock are rather uniquely underpowered relative to the rest of the classes.

So again I'm curious why you rate the Barbarian a higher tier than the Warlock, especially as you don't seem to regard their durability as the thing.

[Zuras]

Honestly, I see zero value in a tier ranking of 5e classes as a tool to help new players. 5e classes are close enough in power level that subclass and build differences can easily make a nominally “worse” class far stronger than a “better” one.

A more useful discussion would center on on which class/subclass combos are widely effective and which ones require specific builds to be effective.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Honestly, I see zero value in a tier ranking of 5e classes as a tool to help new players. 5e classes are close enough in power level that subclass and build differences can easily make a nominally “worse” class far stronger than a “better” one.

A more useful discussion would center on on which class/subclass combos are widely effective and which ones require specific builds to be effective.

Or what play styles push towards which particular builds, so you can check at session 0. Ie: If the table tends to the 5MWD with one big solo, very different builds will shine compared to a average 6-8 medium/hard encounter day with mostly swarms of little guys, or one where you're guaranteed a short rest after every fight and 3-6 fights/day.

Or some discussion of balancing between builds, ie

"If the rest of your party is bringing builds like ABC, then here are builds (XYZ) that fit various niches at that same rough optimization level."

Because if most of the party is playing multiclass abominationsbuilds designed for maximum combat output, bringing a very fluffy but less-than-optimized build is probably (note probably, tables differ) something you want to avoid. And vice versa.

[Ignimortis]

Not to 3e's extent, but I wouldn't agree that 5e has everyone at old T3. Build and GM play a larger role than in 3e, but you still have classes that are pretty much upper or middle T4, and classes that aren't exactly T1, but have so much versatility that they transcend being T3 due to how powerful AND versatile they are.

In short, 5e would need a different tiering system, something along the lines of:
T1: Powerful enough to keep around at all times, versatile enough to have something to contribute at all times. Mostly consists of Wizard and Bard.
T2: No real downsides aside from not being versatile enough to tussle with the big 'uns at T1. Probably applies to Paladin, Druid, maybe Cleric.
T3: Decent enough in their own way, performance will vary wildly based not only on build, but on how the GM interprets certain rules or lack of rules. Put Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Artificer here.
T4: Only has one foolproof build/best option, needs actual work to make function well outside of it: Warlock, Monk, Ranger, Sorcerer.

[LudicSavant]

T4: Only has one foolproof build/best option, needs actual work to make function well outside of it: Warlock, Monk, Ranger, Sorcerer.

That description doesn't apply to any of those 4 classes in the current state of 5e.

[Pex]

The Conglomeration Sects Of The True Believers Of The Tier System, aka the same arguments over and over again infinitum.

Sect 1 - Tiers 1 and 2 are an abomination. They ruin the game. They should not exist. If you play them you are a power gaming munchkin. How dare players have so much power. If you play Tier 1 or 2 you are playing the game wrong.

Sect 2 - Tiers 4 and 5 are The Suck. They ruin the game. They should not exist. If you play one you are a drain on the other players making the game unfun. No one else can do anything because they must carry you along. If you play Tier 4 or 5 you are playing the game wrong.

Sect 3 - Tier 3 is the One True Way to play the game. It is perfect balance and harmony. Everyone should play Tier 3 for everyone to have the ultimate fun in everything. You are not too strong nor too weak. This is how the game was meant to be played. If you are not playing Tier 3 you are playing the game wrong.

Sect 4 - The Tier System is proof that D&D is a terrible game. You should not play it. It should not exist. That is why I play (insert game system). It is absolutely perfect in every way. It does not have any of these problems the Tier System talks about. If you are playing D&D you are playing RPGs wrong.

Sects 1 and 3 were the more common vocalists, but the other two had their share of the debates. Do not bring the Tier System back into D&D.

[Ignimortis]

That description doesn't apply to any of those 4 classes in the current state of 5e.

I concede that I'm far from being as knowledgeable on 5e as you, but I still don't think there are many simple builds for those classes that emphasize their strengths compared to other classes.

Sorcerer generally loses to Wizard in most respects that aren't metamagic-specific (and even then a lot of metamagics are very situational), Ranger is much harder to make work in melee than at range, Monk needs some support for their skirmishing and Warlock can probably do a lot of fun stuff, but also needs player expertise to get there instead of being the EB turret.

In comparison, Wizard has never been easier, and is still very powerful and versatile, while, say, Barbarian is very simple to grasp and play semi-optimally. I don't think any of the T4 classes are actually bad - it's more that they take noticeably more effort to bring them to par when you're doing anything that isn't their most simple power option (Twin Spell+buff/debuff, Archery Hunter/Gloomstalker ranger, Monk+Mobile, EB spam Warlock).

Again, I might be wrong, but that's my perception of how the classes are, or at least have been back in 2020, which was the last time I played (shouldn't have changed much, no real content released in a while).

[JNAProductions]

Warlock's easy mode is Eldritch Blast spam.
But there's two important things to note about that:

1) That build is a competent party member. If that's ALL they do, they won't be MVP, but they'll contribute just fine.
2) That build consists of taking Agonizing Blast and maxing Charisma. That's the entirety of it-meaning you've got a lot of space to add more to it.

[LudicSavant]

I concede that I'm far from being as knowledgeable on 5e as you, but I still don't think there are many simple builds for those classes that emphasize their strengths compared to other classes.

Well I'd say there's at least more than one good, straightforward way to make each of those classes. A Celestial doesn't play like a Hexblade doesn't play like a Genie doesn't play like an Undead, and those subclasses are all great. Same goes for the pacts -- Tome and Chain are pretty different but both good. Even Bladelocks do pretty well as, say, Hexarchers. Certainly comparable to at least the martial archers.


Ranger is much harder to make work in melee than at range
So play 'em at range. They've got a few things to make them relevant compared to a ranged Fighter, such as a Gloomstalker's stealth shenanigans, or the Swarmkeeper's movement shenanigans. Or being able to carry around a bundle of goodberries or summon a swarm of animals and other such half-caster utilities.


their most simple power option

Monk+Mobile
Is that their most simple power option? With regards to simplicity, it seems to me like running in and out of combat is a more complex playstyle than just being a ranged character. With regards to power, Mobile is often rated red or orange by Monk guides, and (IMHO) with good reason (I can elaborate why if desired).


Sorcerer generally loses to Wizard in most respects
A lot of things lose to Wizard. I presume that's why you rated Wizard top tier :smalltongue:


Warlock can probably do a lot of fun stuff, but also needs player expertise to get there instead of being the EB turret.
I think all of the casters need player expertise beyond raw EB spam to reach their potential. That said EB spam can potentially get pretty good (but not because of Agonizing blast, it's because of the forced movement combos on top of it).

If all a player's doing is 1 cantrip and 1 invocation, well... they've still got most of their character sheet left to explore.

[Psyren]

In short, 5e would need a different tiering system, something along the lines of:
T1: Powerful enough to keep around at all times, versatile enough to have something to contribute at all times. Mostly consists of Wizard and Bard.
T2: No real downsides aside from not being versatile enough to tussle with the big 'uns at T1. Probably applies to Paladin, Druid, maybe Cleric.
T3: Decent enough in their own way, performance will vary wildly based not only on build, but on how the GM interprets certain rules or lack of rules. Put Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Artificer here.
T4: Only has one foolproof build/best option, needs actual work to make function well outside of it: Warlock, Monk, Ranger, Sorcerer.

While I agree that trying to apply to 3.5's tier ranges to 5e is a bad idea that will result in a lot of empty rows, for the reasons LudicSavant is stating this one isn't any better, and several of the placements like Warlock, Sorcerer, and even Ranger are particular headscratchers.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I've never found tiers relevant at all in D&D. It's a cooperative game. All the classes can be useful, fun and succeed in a group effort. It doesn't matter if one can do it slightly more efficiently or who can take who in a fight.

The Navy Seal can 100% take me in a fight but they still need me to walk through their insurance policies and claims. Doesn't matter that they're "Stronger" than me.

[Skrum]

So again I'm curious why you rate the Barbarian a higher tier than the Warlock, especially as you don't seem to regard their durability as the thing.

Barbarians are randomly fragile, but generally tough. They're also pretty well equipped to do the thing they're supposed to do - melee damage.

TBC, I don't think barbarian is a good class. There's not much reason to stay in the class passed 8, and even 8 would only be for builds that *really* want their second ASI. Probably better to leave at 5 or 6. If I were to organize the classes within the categories, barb would be at the bottom.

The difference between barb and warlock is barb is underpowered but still basically does what it's supposed to. I think the warlock has much deeper problems that relegate the class to strictly 1 or 2 level dips.

[Anymage]

I've never found tiers relevant at all in D&D. It's a cooperative game. All the classes can be useful, fun and succeed in a group effort. It doesn't matter if one can do it slightly more efficiently or who can take who in a fight.

If one character can be effective in more scenes than another, that can lead to the second player feeling overshadowed. That's especially true if the second character winds up being outdone in their chosen area of specialty. This rarely happens in 5e, but it was a thing in 3.5 and why balance consciousness is a good thing.

Overall to the idea of class tier lists, though, I wonder whether fighters are being evaluated based on rune knights or arcane archers. There are some classes that don't quite scale well into higher levels and some that do rather too well, but overall subclass can be a big enough influence on power level that just looking at bare classes seems excessively reductive.

[Witty Username]

An optimized Monk will often be something like a bugbear Shadow Gunk hitting people with 3 sharpshooter attacks while teleporting at will, running on the ceiling, and acting as a Pass Without Trace / Darkness / Silence battery for the party all day.

The better Rogues have some nifty tricks up their sleeves too, but Sneak Attack has a very real weakness -- you have to qualify for it. Sure, this may be easy against a basic foe, but it can get harder when challenging enemies are imposing Disadvantage (or just denying Advantage) and aren't letting your allies close with them for free, especially if the turn order doesn't line up well (example: The enemy goes right before you and is good at disengaging).


Eh, I suppose it comes to if it is easier to restore ki or proc sneak attack.

I personally find even with smart play it is easy to over extend as a monk. Like the 3 attacks, that is only for as long as ki allows, and any uses of step of the wind, flurry, subclass abilities, or especially stunning strike shorten that time frame.

Rogue also has build advantages due to the nonbo/lack of reliance on sharpshooter. Take falling prone, it can be used as a defense against ranged attacks but also generates advantage for melee. Elven accuracy style builds get alot of value as a switch hitter for reasons like this.

[Unoriginal]

I've never found tiers relevant at all in D&D. It's a cooperative game. All the classes can be useful, fun and succeed in a group effort. It doesn't matter if one can do it slightly more efficiently or who can take who in a fight.

The Navy Seal can 100% take me in a fight but they still need me to walk through their insurance policies and claims. Doesn't matter that they're "Stronger" than me.

It was somewhat relevant in 3.5, where new players could try one of the hundreds of classes & prestige classes because they looked cool and spend a terribly unfun time because the option they've chosen was not just slightly less efficient than another, it was actively hindering their capacity to do stuff they wanted to do.

It may not be a cooperative effort and not a competition, but you still need to be able to contribute and do what you want.

Meanwhile some classes had class features with more options and capacity to contribute than whole classes.

5e does not have that kind of problem, so a tier list is not relevant.

[Zuras]

I concede that I'm far from being as knowledgeable on 5e as you, but I still don't think there are many simple builds for those classes that emphasize their strengths compared to other classes.

Sorcerer generally loses to Wizard in most respects that aren't metamagic-specific (and even then a lot of metamagics are very situational), Ranger is much harder to make work in melee than at range, Monk needs some support for their skirmishing and Warlock can probably do a lot of fun stuff, but also needs player expertise to get there instead of being the EB turret.

In comparison, Wizard has never been easier, and is still very powerful and versatile, while, say, Barbarian is very simple to grasp and play semi-optimally. I don't think any of the T4 classes are actually bad - it's more that they take noticeably more effort to bring them to par when you're doing anything that isn't their most simple power option (Twin Spell+buff/debuff, Archery Hunter/Gloomstalker ranger, Monk+Mobile, EB spam Warlock).

Again, I might be wrong, but that's my perception of how the classes are, or at least have been back in 2020, which was the last time I played (shouldn't have changed much, no real content released in a while).

As others have noted, Sorcerer and Warlock can be quite competent, and have multiple different builds that work well in play. Because you have a reduced spell list, and must choose your metamagics or invocations, though you run into many more pitfalls in your build. If a wizard player picked the wrong spells for the campaign, the only thing the DM needs to do to fix it is let them find a spellbook with the right spells, while a sorcerer or warlock needs a rebuild. Tasha's basically updated 5e to give players minor rebuilds to fix build issues at every ASI, so WotC seems to agree that this was an issue needing a formal fix.

That said, Sorcerer isn't just a Wizard who gets a worse spell list and limited spells known in exchange for some metamagic. Having Charisma as their casting stat instead of Intelligence is a big deal, as in 5e Charisma is vastly more useful. If you roll stats, you might be able to build a charming high-charisma Enchanter, but normally a Sorcerer will get vastly more mileage out of a spell like Disguise Self than a Wizard can because they're so much better at deception.

If Wizards are consistently outshining Sorcerers all the time, either the Social pillar in your game is really odd, or your balance of the Combat/Exploration/Social pillars is significantly different from the designers' assumptions.

[Rukelnikov]

As others have noted, Sorcerer and Warlock can be quite competent, and have multiple different builds that work well in play. Because you have a reduced spell list, and must choose your metamagics or invocations, though you run into many more pitfalls in your build. If a wizard player picked the wrong spells for the campaign, the only thing the DM needs to do to fix it is let them find a spellbook with the right spells, while a sorcerer or warlock needs a rebuild. Tasha's basically updated 5e to give players minor rebuilds to fix build issues at every ASI, so WotC seems to agree that this was an issue needing a formal fix..

Or they could've tried to make some retraining rules like there were back in 3.5

[Witty Username]

But if I were to have a go at it:
First are there any classes clearly more powerful than others,
Sure- Druid, Cleric, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard
Then are that classes that struggle at their functions or need more significant up front work,
Yeah - Artificer, Barbarian, Monk, Ranger
And then a middle ground
Bard, Fighter, Rogue, Warlock

To try for some formality,
Tier 1 - versitile with a range of options, and powerful in ways that can end or drastically simplify encounters.
Tier 2 - lacking in versatility, sacrifices in options but can excel in other areas
Tier 3 - struggles either with weak or non-intuitive mechanics, can suceed with either a critical eye or significant build decisions

Even with this, I am second guessing some of these, primarily cleric and ranger

[Angelalex242]

In general....casters rule, martials (except Paladins) drool.

[tokek]

But if I were to have a go at it:
First are there any classes clearly more powerful than others,
Sure- Druid, Cleric, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard
Then are that classes that struggle at their functions or need more significant up front work,
Yeah - Artificer, Barbarian, Monk, Ranger
And then a middle ground
Bard, Fighter, Rogue, Warlock

To try for some formality,
Tier 1 - versitile with a range of options, and powerful in ways that can end or drastically simplify encounters.
Tier 2 - lacking in versatility, sacrifices in options but can excel in other areas
Tier 3 - struggles either with weak or non-intuitive mechanics, can suceed with either a critical eye or significant build decisions

Even with this, I am second guessing some of these, primarily cleric and ranger

Hard disagree on Ranger. I've been playing a Ranger for 2 1/2 years now and while its true that the full casters at lvl 17 now have things he can''t match this is really the first level where it has felt that way. Even then with help from his Rogue dip he can sometimes negate an encounter just as much as one of the casters can with a big spell.

Pick one of the better subclasses and use the Tasha's optional rules and Rangers do great in tiers 1 & 2. They begin to drop off in tier 3 when they get no new nice things from Tashas. Rangers are nicely mid-power right up until you hit the crazy stuff in tier 4 - in which case if a full caster chooses to go crazy then the Ranger has nothing to match that.

Artificer is a trickier one. Their tier 3 and 4 power comes from combining magic items in ways (and numbers) that no other class can match. If you have a campaign with no magic items they stand out for having magic items in lower tiers. If you have a campaign with plentiful magic items they are a powerhouse of combos in upper tiers. They can suffer if the DM thinks that artificers already have magic items so everyone else gets ones tuned to their character but the artificer does not. Artificer is complex and I don't think its suited to players who can't handle that. One of the players in that long campaign tried one for while and abandoned it because they could not see how the moving parts all work together.

[Ignimortis]

Well I'd say there's at least more than one good, straightforward way to make each of those classes. A Celestial doesn't play like a Hexblade doesn't play like a Genie doesn't play like an Undead, and those subclasses are all great. Same goes for the pacts -- Tome and Chain are pretty different but both good. Even Bladelocks do pretty well as, say, Hexarchers. Certainly comparable to at least the martial archers.

So play 'em at range. They've got a few things to make them relevant compared to a ranged Fighter, such as a Gloomstalker's stealth shenanigans, or the Swarmkeeper's movement shenanigans. Or being able to carry around a bundle of goodberries or summon a swarm of animals and other such half-caster utilities.
My general point was exactly that it's very easy to make poor build decisions with those classes, and some decisions are rather subpar (for instance, playing a ranged Hexblade is usually worse than just spamming Eldritch Blast with Agonizing on top, unless I'm missing something, and Ranger can mess up with attempts at Beastmaster and melee combat style). Then again, Barbarian has Berserker, which can solidly compete for "worst subclass in the game" in any game with more than 2 combats per long rest...



Is that their most simple power option? With regards to simplicity, it seems to me like running in and out of combat is a more complex playstyle than just being a ranged character. With regards to power, Mobile is often rated red or orange by Monk guides, and (IMHO) with good reason (I can elaborate why if desired).
Yes, please do. I was under the impression that it was borderline mandatory at lower levels (though hardly of much use at higher levels, somewhere past 8 to 10 skirmishing becomes good even without Mobile).



A lot of things lose to Wizard. I presume that's why you rated Wizard top tier :smalltongue:
But not all of them compete in the same niche as Wizard, which is why Sorcerer seems to get it the worst. I honestly see very little reason to play straight Sorcerer over Wizard mechanically, unless you really need a social face, or are going for the "dedicated Twin buff spammer" role in a party that could use double Haste or something.



I think all of the casters need player expertise beyond raw EB spam to reach their potential. That said EB spam can potentially get pretty good (but not because of Agonizing blast, it's because of the forced movement combos on top of it).

If all a player's doing is 1 cantrip and 1 invocation, well... they've still got most of their character sheet left to explore.
Same thing as the Sorcerer - too easy to pigeonhole yourself into one thing that certainly does work, but provides very little utility when it's not needed. Then again, in hindsight, a Fighter isn't doing much better on that front, and has fewer non-combat abilities even in potentia... Yes, I might've made a gaffe here.


As others have noted, Sorcerer and Warlock can be quite competent, and have multiple different builds that work well in play. Because you have a reduced spell list, and must choose your metamagics or invocations, though you run into many more pitfalls in your build. If a wizard player picked the wrong spells for the campaign, the only thing the DM needs to do to fix it is let them find a spellbook with the right spells, while a sorcerer or warlock needs a rebuild. Tasha's basically updated 5e to give players minor rebuilds to fix build issues at every ASI, so WotC seems to agree that this was an issue needing a formal fix.
That was my reasoning, yes.



That said, Sorcerer isn't just a Wizard who gets a worse spell list and limited spells known in exchange for some metamagic. Having Charisma as their casting stat instead of Intelligence is a big deal, as in 5e Charisma is vastly more useful. If you roll stats, you might be able to build a charming high-charisma Enchanter, but normally a Sorcerer will get vastly more mileage out of a spell like Disguise Self than a Wizard can because they're so much better at deception.

If Wizards are consistently outshining Sorcerers all the time, either the Social pillar in your game is really odd, or your balance of the Combat/Exploration/Social pillars is significantly different from the designers' assumptions.
That falls under the purview of my proposed T3 and below - really, really depends on how the GM works with skill rules, which are rather unclear to say the least. If your +8 or +9 to social skills routinely work out well, then you have an advantage over the Wizard in this particular area. But if you often face DC 20+ checks and may easily fail most of your CHA-linked rolls even as a specialist, then it's a different story, and it's often easier to bypass the particular issue entirely by using some of other classes' tricks of the trade.

Basically, being good at any skill without also being an Expertise class is very inconsistent and may or may not happen at any particular table. Expertise classes usually get to actually be good at stuff.

[Zuras]

But if I were to have a go at it:
First are there any classes clearly more powerful than others,
Sure- Druid, Cleric, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard
Then are that classes that struggle at their functions or need more significant up front work,
Yeah - Artificer, Barbarian, Monk, Ranger
And then a middle ground
Bard, Fighter, Rogue, Warlock

To try for some formality,
Tier 1 - versitile with a range of options, and powerful in ways that can end or drastically simplify encounters.
Tier 2 - lacking in versatility, sacrifices in options but can excel in other areas
Tier 3 - struggles either with weak or non-intuitive mechanics, can suceed with either a critical eye or significant build decisions

Even with this, I am second guessing some of these, primarily cleric and ranger

Fundamentally the 5e classes just don’t break as badly as 3e ones. You can build a melee wizard, but with the same degree of optimization you can build an absolutely deadly fighter.

How do you categorize the Ranger, for instance? If you want to build a competent archer there are multiple possible builds and lots of obvious spell support. If you want a competent melee ranger that won’t get eclipsed by a bog-standard Paladin, you better know exactly what you’re doing. Does the greater density of trap options over a Fighter mean the Ranger should be tier C rather than B?

Can we even discuss classes without subclasses? 3.5 had something like 90 official classes, and 5e has 13. Different classes lock more features away in their subclasses, too.

As I see it:

A Tier:
Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Sorcerers, Wizards

Good at multiple things, but with at least a few glaring shortcomings (Paladins and ranged combat, Druids and good non-concentration spells, Wizards and healing, etc.) that aren’t easily remedied.

B Tier:
Artificers, Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, Warlocks

Very good at combat but limited in other areas, or flexible but requiring significant system expertise and/or teamwork to be effective.

C Tier:
Barbarians, Monks

Better at something than any other class, but that one thing isn’t as important or reliable as other class specialties. Barbarians can absorb damage better than anyone, but that requires that the dm target them. Monks move faster than any other class, but movement speed is the least important game stats and is only significant in a fraction of encounters. Barbarians and Monks don’t get new combat options after 6th level, so combat can get pretty stale, even if you’re effective with your face-tanking or stunning strike spam.

This is all very game and DM dependent—house rules like Martial Exploits would do a lot to bring Barbarians and Monks up a tier, and an urban intrigue campaign can let a rogue or specialized warlock outshine A tier classes. B or C tier classes will have more problems if the intrigue campaign suddenly shifts to several sessions of swashbuckling pirate hunting, however.

[LudicSavant]

Mobile is often rated red or orange by Monk guides, and (IMHO) with good reason (I can elaborate why if desired). Yes, please do. I was under the impression that it was borderline mandatory at lower levels (though hardly of much use at higher levels, somewhere past 8 to 10 skirmishing becomes good even without Mobile).

Okay! https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png

I generally recommend that most Monks don't take Mobile.

If you want to be a full kiting playstyle, you should probably just be an actual ranged Monk. There's no need to blow a significant amount of your movement running in to punch someone, just shoot them and use all that movement you saved for superior positioning. Run up a wall and drop prone or something. If you took Mobile, you're now a Sharpshooter or Gunner behind the bloke who decided to just shoot things. You're less evasive and less damaging and (if you're always retreating after your punches) aren't even taking up space to control a forward position.

If you want to be a melee Monk, you want to get some extra payoff for getting into melee, and that doesn't mean giving up ASIs for feats that don't do much to help you kill, suppress, or absorb attacks from enemies. If you're not getting some extra payoff for getting into melee (such as threatening unusually heavy-hitting OAs, controlling space, protecting allies, etc), it often isn't worth it to actually get into melee. Spending an ASI (or race) on mobile means you're not taking an ASI (or race) that helps you get that extra battlefield presence.

You're already more mobile than most martials without this feat. You already have tools to help you disengage in a pinch -- not just Step of the Wind, but also Stunning Strike, and subclass abilities (e.g. you can't OA a person in Darkness, or if they're teleporting into shadows, or if they knocked you away and/or disabled your reactions on a flurry, etc. And some subclasses like Mercy and Long Death just plain grow into chonky bois after a bit).

If you're always feeling that your Monk constantly needs to run away, realize that taking Mobile might have increased that feeling relative to other builds because you're giving up features that would help both you and your party stand your ground better (or make it harder for your enemies to stand theirs, which is just as good).

What can you take instead of Mobile?
Well, here's a couple options.

There's Gunner (+1 Dex). You now basically have a greataxe as a Dex weapon you can swing 3 times (with KFA), that also can hit people from range. And you boosted the best stat in the game (Dex) and all attendant class features (almost all of them) while you were at it.

Want a different tack? There's also Fighting Initiate. If you wanna be a Monk that's fully unarmed from the get-go, a VHuman with the Unarmed Fighting Style is an option for Monks at tier 1. Being able to hit for about 30 (3d8+1d4+12) at full accuracy is a serious threat at tier 1 -- outdamaging early PAM users and the like.

The style goes obsolete later, but Fighting Initiate conveniently allows you to swap which Fighting Style you have any time you gain an ASI, so it can just transform it into Blind-Fighting (helps any Monk take advantage of vision blockers, and is especially good for Shadow Monks) or Archery (good for ranged Monks) or whatever floats your boat.

Want some more ideas? Try Crusher, Sharpshooter, Elven Accuracy, Aberrant Dragonmark, Skill Expert (Perception), Fey-Touched, heck you could even just take Tough and pretend you have a d12 hit die instead of Mobile (though other stuff is often more valuable than Tough, even hp-wise).

There's also not being VHuman. There's tons of good races for Monks these days. Multiverse Bugbears are one of the best around. There's also stuff like Mountain Dwarf, Half-Drow, Half-Wood Elf, Half-Sun Elf, Shadar-Kai, Fairy, Aarakocra, Winged Tiefling, Eladrin, Astral Elf, Beasthide Shifter, Gem Dragonborn, Protector Aasimar, Simic Hybrid, Satyr, Ravenite Dragonborn, or multiverse Goliath (which gives you nearly 20 extra effective hit points at level 1 and grows from there).

[Asmotherion]

Every class in 5e is roughly tier 3. Everything you play is roughly equivalent, and even top tier optimisation will, at best, make you 15% more effective than your non-optimised pal.

[Hael]

Every class in 5e is roughly tier 3. Everything you play is roughly equivalent, and even top tier optimisation will, at best, make you 15% more effective than your non-optimised pal.

15% is low. A kobold peace shepherd with conjure animals (where its a random selection) will outdamage and outtank even the most optimized monoclass martial by over 2 to 1 with a single spell on a 1hr duration. Nevermind the utility.

A simulacrum or planar binding spamming wizard essentially goes infinite.

15-30% is roughly what i consider the disparity at say lvl 5-6 between two nonoptimized/nonbroken classes chosen at random (undying warlock vs say a glamour bard). But when it comes to optimization and comparing the extremes, things are always going to be rough (a lvl 6 twilight cleric vs a sunsoul monk for instance).

[Waazraath]

One wonders if this one will follow that trend... :smallwink:

Remarkably, it doesn't seem so! Wonderful, maybe the forum is finally maturing beyond this!

I think the following posts are nice illustrations:


Not to 3e's extent, but I wouldn't agree that 5e has everyone at old T3. Build and GM play a larger role than in 3e, but you still have classes that are pretty much upper or middle T4, and classes that aren't exactly T1, but have so much versatility that they transcend being T3 due to how powerful AND versatile they are.

In short, 5e would need a different tiering system, something along the lines of:
T1: Powerful enough to keep around at all times, versatile enough to have something to contribute at all times. Mostly consists of Wizard and Bard.
T2: No real downsides aside from not being versatile enough to tussle with the big 'uns at T1. Probably applies to Paladin, Druid, maybe Cleric.
T3: Decent enough in their own way, performance will vary wildly based not only on build, but on how the GM interprets certain rules or lack of rules. Put Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Artificer here.
T4: Only has one foolproof build/best option, needs actual work to make function well outside of it: Warlock, Monk, Ranger, Sorcerer.


But if I were to have a go at it:
First are there any classes clearly more powerful than others,
Sure- Druid, Cleric, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard
Then are that classes that struggle at their functions or need more significant up front work,
Yeah - Artificer, Barbarian, Monk, Ranger
And then a middle ground
Bard, Fighter, Rogue, Warlock

To try for some formality,
Tier 1 - versitile with a range of options, and powerful in ways that can end or drastically simplify encounters.
Tier 2 - lacking in versatility, sacrifices in options but can excel in other areas
Tier 3 - struggles either with weak or non-intuitive mechanics, can suceed with either a critical eye or significant build decisions

Even with this, I am second guessing some of these, primarily cleric and ranger

I mean, this is wonderful right? In the first place both neither are the boring old 'full casters best, half casters second and non-casters worse', but also both are extremly different! Like, what is the sorcerer, 'clearly more powerful than others' best tier, or 'needs work to function' worst tier? Is the Warlock middle ground or trash?

The answer, I think, is that they probably are both true, in respective gaming environments/experiences - it simply depends on the stuff already mentioned: subclasses, DM-style, number of encouters, available short rests, subclass. And thus, 'class' isn't a usable metric to asign tiers to.

Take for example Ignimortis thrash tier, in it are Warlock, Monk, Ranger, Sorcerer. I think you can build an extremly powerful party from this, at all levels. For example, play (very basic without even racials/feats taken into account):
- Ranger Drakewarden, sword & board, melee (e.g. see https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?655425-Drakewarden-powerful-amp-even-overtuned-frontloaded ) - melee, party stealth (PWT), secondary healing, some skill;
- Mercy monk: secondary melee, primary healer, debuff (poison, stun);
- Genie Chain Warlock, EB focussed: Ranged single target damage, scouting (familiar), spells and invocations for EB, 'face' role and utility;
- Sorcerer: one of Tasha's subclasses, generalist build with in any case area of effect spells (and metamagic attuned to that).

I really don't see any (published) campaign where such a party would struggle.


Agreed with some of those arguments, wanted to make notes on a few others.

RE:Build > Class: This has always been true of tier lists. Your Druid vs Samurai example shows a stark contrast between Tier 1 and Tier 5, but there was a lot of room for builds to push a class beyond the normal tier relationships. For example, a Mailman sorcerer (Tier 2) regularly outperforms a reserve-focused evocation wizard (Tier 1), and a Dungeoncrasher fighter outperforms a Druid that doesn't wild shape (the latter player was actually in the 3.0 D&D playtests!). In 4e, optimized Dragon Sorcerers tend to outperform run-of-the-mill Intvengers despite the Avenger generally being ranked above the Sorcerer in terms of power.

If we threw away any relationships that could be overcome by builds, there would be no value in tier lists across any edition. Despite that, I've seen tier used to great effect in 3e and 4e discussions. The original 3e tier list explicitly encouraged using tier lists to help determine builds:



Subclasses, though... yeah, that's tough. The Alchemist / Battlesmith divide is a really good example. Arcane Archer / Rune Knight comes to mind too.


RE:Campaign > Class: This is also true of all tier lists. In 3e, cramped dungeon environments hurt ranged characters, unsafe resting environments and long adventuring days hurt casters, presence of various creature types could just ruin a rogue's day, etc. But as with the previous point, I think tier lists were useful despite all of that.

There's a point I want to emphasize with all D&D tier lists: Tier lists should be used to start a conversation, not to end one. Tier lists are inherently reductive. They're simplifications, designed to establish a shared language that we can use to have deeper discussions.


RE: Level Affects Performance: In terms of direct feedback, you are the 3rd person of 3 to mention that we need to take levels into account. I'm of 2 minds here, and I would love to get other folks' thoughts:
On one hand, level-based granularity gives us more accuracy, and accuracy is great. "The barbarian is weak in T3 and T4" is very different from "The monk is bad in every tier" (these are just illustrative examples, don't yell at me!)
On the other hand, breaking this down by level at minimum quadruples the size of a tier list. I think tier lists are most valuable when they're used to establish a shared language at the start of a conversation, so asking folks to remember 4x as much stuff before they start talking seems like a bad idea.
Am I overthinking it? Would breaking a list across adventuring tiers by fine?

You make a number of points I agree on. Yes, some of these were also valid in 3.x, and for me the tier system was more a theoretical thing than something need in practice, with experienced players who tend to have a tier 0 discussion on what powerlevel we want to be on anyway, or at least instinctively understood that when playing a wizard or psion less optimization should be done than when playing a pally.

But as for build > class: that was less the case than you say ime. I mean 'a druid that didn't wildshape', yeah, ok, but then we are talking about a player ignoring 1/3rd of its main class features, and second, even then you need a seriously overtuned dungeon crasher to outperform the druid's animal compainion, if the druid only spend a few spells to buff it (ignoring it's a full caster for the rest). The difference was so big that it required a lot of effort to get you fighter to play with non-optimized clerics and druids at the higher level, and as soon as those classes optimized they could be playing quite another game.

Same goes for campaign, yes, up to a point this was true in 3.5, but at higher levels casters could easily counter this - I mean, time constraints and unsafe resting places stopped mattering as soon as the party plane shifted to a plane without time, could fully rest there, and return - just to mention one thing. And if the casters have effectively more hp, ac, and better saves than the others, they ran out of gas latest.

I understand 'its the start of the conversation', but if you want a tool for that, you need some variables, and even then I don't know if 'classes' is the best variable. You could do the level based thing, that would make it more useful, but at least one should also include 'how many short rests does the average adventuring day has' and 'how many encounters does the average adventuring day has'. Much more complex, but that would provide a useful start of the conversation for 5e, contrary to tiering classes.

[finley]

IMO, there are very large gaps between classes in 5th edition, usually breaking down along the lines of spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Spellcasting classes with feats and multiclassing can essentially do almost anything a non-caster can do. The obvious ones are control, buffing, debuffing, out-of-combat utility, and AoE burst damage, but even things martials are intended to specialize at get done better by casters. Every caster can achieve a 19 AC either with multiclassing or starting armor proficiencies, and can beat classes like Rogue on scouting with spells like Find Familiar and Arcane Eye. They can even beat martials on sustained single-target damage by spending concentration on summoning spells. Most Martial classes also just suck from tier 3 onwards-Barbarian and Monk barely have any built-in scaling for their damage after they get Extra Attack, and Rogues rely on a feature that deals less damage than an optimized martial's extra attack and is far less reliable. Fighters get an 11th level attack, but have nearly nothing else going for them from their base class.

Within spellcasting classes, the gaps are smaller, but you still have the jank nightmare that is Warlock. Bard and Ranger are the next tier up, with a few holes in their base kit that need patching. The top shelf selections IMO are Paladin, Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer, who are around similar levels of power, while Wizard reigns as the undisputed king. Some people may disagree with my exact placement(Like placing Bard with the other non-Wizard full casters, or placing Fighter and Warlock above Ranger), but I think this is the general consensus in most optimization communities.

These rankings do assume a table allowing multiclassing and feats. In a table with neither, things change, but not drastically-Casters can't multiclass to build their defensive package, but Martials can't use feats to build their DPR. Fighters benefit from a table with feats and no multiclassing, but the other 3 non-casters lose their ability to multiclass out to escape their horrendous drought of useful features at higher levels. And at a table that allows multiclassing, but doesn't use feats, martials are more or less unplayable.

[finley]

But not all of them compete in the same niche as Wizard, which is why Sorcerer seems to get it the worst. I honestly see very little reason to play straight Sorcerer over Wizard mechanically, unless you really need a social face, or are going for the "dedicated Twin buff spammer" role in a party that could use double Haste or something.


An appropriately built Clockwork Soul can vy for supremacy with a wizard reasonably well. Metamagic itself brings a lot of options the Wizard can't replicate, like Twinned Polymorphs, Counterspell-immune Subtle spells, rest-casted Extended spells, or spell slot hacking with Coffeelocking, as well as just on-demand spell slot creation. The retraining mechanic also allows the Sorcerer to essentially copy the Wizard's homework for spells like Wall of Force or Rope Trick that constitute a large amount of the class' power budget, and patch up the Sorcerer's poor spells-known count, at some points outpacing the Wizard's preparations. I still think the Wizard is better than Sorcerer, but I don't think there's nothing the Sorcerer brings to the table that would make me want to play one.

[Zuras]

And at a table that allows multiclassing, but doesn't use feats, martials are more or less unplayable.

The idea that any 5e class is unplayable wildly diverges from my play experience. The only time I’ve even seen something approaching an unplayable character has been with spellcasters when you have a build overly focused on fire attacks rendered mostly useless for multiple sessions against fire immune enemies.

If casters are outperforming martials in your game to the extent that the martials seem useless, that’s a result of the DMs encounter design warping to favor long rest classes.

From experience I will say that it’s much easier to unintentionally build 5 minute workday scenarios. Nobody builds an 8-encounter combat and puzzle sequence on accident.

Beyond the long rest/short rest issue, if the DM doesn’t provide interesting non combat stuff to do, then of course the non-combat, non-spell abilities of non-caster classes are worthless. If the invisible floating eyeball of Arcane Eye is just as good for scouting as a 9th level rogue, then the scouting task is clearly neither very complicated nor interesting.

[Skrum]

IMO, there are very large gaps between classes in 5th edition

I really thought 5e had done a pretty great job at making the classes pretty even, until I started playing a lot more in the 8-10 range. I've swung pretty far back in the other direction now - the classes are quite balanced at level 6 and less. Above that casters are king, and outside of a few very particular builds/subclasses, martial characters should really think about dipping caster instead of more levels in their initial class.




Most Martial classes also just suck from tier 3 onwards-Barbarian and Monk barely have any built-in scaling for their damage after they get Extra Attack, and Rogues rely on a feature that deals less damage than an optimized martial's extra attack and is far less reliable. Fighters get an 11th level attack, but have nearly nothing else going for them from their base class.

The leveling for most classes in this game is a TRAVESTY. The full casters get proper progression, paladins get it, artificers get it, and everyone else gets GARBAGE. Barb has no meaningful base features beyond level 5, and level 5 is only for the generic Extra Attack. Even their 6th level subclass ability is very hit or miss. It's ridiculous.



jank nightmare that is Warlock.

Warlock is the most broken (not the good broken, the bad broken) class in the game. My hot take.

[Skrum]

Beyond the long rest/short rest issue, if the DM doesn’t provide interesting non combat stuff to do, then of course the non-combat, non-spell abilities of non-caster classes are worthless. If the invisible floating eyeball of Arcane Eye is just as good for scouting as a 9th level rogue, then the scouting task is clearly neither very complicated nor interesting.

Scouting is (usually) not a good or fun part of the game, and thus it's mostly doable by a familiar or arcane eye. As it should be. What is the DM going to do, run a complicated Mission: Impossible scenario that only the rogue can take part in? While the rest of the table listens quietly?

One of the primary problems with rogues is the game doesn't particular support what they're supposed to be good at. Skills are woefully underdeveloped compared to combat. Running fun, varied, and satisfactory skill-based challenges requires the DM to make up a whole system and glue it on to skill checks, while the combat system is core to the game.

[LudicSavant]

Every class in 5e is roughly tier 3. Everything you play is roughly equivalent, and even top tier optimisation will, at best, make you 15% more effective than your non-optimised pal.

15% is low. A kobold peace shepherd with conjure animals (where its a random selection) will outdamage and outtank even the most optimized monoclass martial by over 2 to 1 with a single spell on a 1hr duration. Nevermind the utility.

A simulacrum or planar binding spamming wizard essentially goes infinite.

15-30% is roughly what i consider the disparity at say lvl 5-6 between two nonoptimized/nonbroken classes chosen at random (undying warlock vs say a glamour bard). But when it comes to optimization and comparing the extremes, things are always going to be rough (a lvl 6 twilight cleric vs a sunsoul monk for instance).

Yeah, there's no way it's 15% between floor and ceiling. Heck, the difference between a poorly put together Purple Dragon Knight and a well-put-together one is significantly more than that. Let alone the difference between that and an optimized Chronurgist.

[finley]

The idea that any 5e class is unplayable wildly diverges from my play experience. The only time I’ve even seen something approaching an unplayable character has been with spellcasters when you have a build overly focused on fire attacks rendered mostly useless for multiple sessions against fire immune enemies.

I agree that casters can be made unplayable much more easily than non-casters. Their power is locked behind repeated decision points rather than built into their class, but navigating these decision points is incredibly easy if you're making an effort to gather information and make a strong character. I rank classes assuming players are making an effort to optimize their characters, and are doing so with a large amount of game and systems knowledge. In that case, casters give you a lot more to work with than martials, to the point I often find myself deliberately building my casters to be significantly suboptimal in order to fit in with the rest of my table. A wizard made by someone who's never played 5E before will suck, but that isn't really useful information in my opinion.


Beyond the long rest/short rest issue, if the DM doesn’t provide interesting non combat stuff to do, then of course the non-combat, non-spell abilities of non-caster classes are worthless. If the invisible floating eyeball of Arcane Eye is just as good for scouting as a 9th level rogue, then the scouting task is clearly neither very complicated nor interesting.

This is more a system-level issue than a DM issue. Rogues are obviously meant to be able to contribute with out-of-combat utility, but there's no game system for that utility other than making skill checks with binary success-failure states. The DM can make that situation more interesting, but with no rules support, they basically just end up calling for improv, and every class is as good at improv as every other.

But, really, even if the DM is providing non-combat stuff to do, casters are going to be better at that. A non-caster's tools for interacting with non-combat scenarios are skill proficiencies. Casters get just as many proficiencies, and have a suite of abilities letting them charm enemies, transform into animals, turn invisible, teleport, or scry, among other things. A martial player can hypothetically make up for this with creativity and DM buy-in, but they have to work so much harder to get the level of fun, creative interaction that a caster gets for free.

[finley]

I really thought 5e had done a pretty great job at making the classes pretty even, until I started playing a lot more in the 8-10 range. I've swung pretty far back in the other direction now - the classes are quite balanced at level 6 and less. Above that casters are king, and outside of a few very particular builds/subclasses, martial characters should really think about dipping caster instead of more levels in their initial class.


The leveling for most classes in this game is a TRAVESTY. The full casters get proper progression, paladins get it, artificers get it, and everyone else gets GARBAGE. Barb has no meaningful base features beyond level 5, and level 5 is only for the generic Extra Attack. Even their 6th level subclass ability is very hit or miss. It's ridiculous.

I would move that number a little lower, even! It depends on the caster specifically, but the first major encounter-enders are Web and Spike Growth, which come online at 3rd level at the earliest. Still, a caster who uses 2 of these per day still has 2-6 encounters they can't cover with mass, crippling CC effects. I think the real 10-ton gorilla is 3rd level spells. You get absolute juggernaut spells like Sleet Storm, Hypnotic Pattern, Conjure Animals, Spirit Guardians...stuff that really just completely blow encounters up. Martials just cannot compete, and the gap only grows from there.

[LudicSavant]

IMHO, one of the main weaknesses of the Rogue is that they tend to rely on getting Sneak Attack very consistently in order to put up relevant numbers, and that gameplan is relatively easy for me to throw a monkey wrench into.

Getting consistent sneak attack on basic enemies is easy, but getting Sneak Attack on especially dangerous enemies can be more unreliable (especially if your subclass doesn't have some inbuilt way to get it without Advantage or an ally in 5 feet). And that matters when your role is single target damage, which means that I'm going to judge them based on their ability to reliably knock down solars and dragons and such.

So for instance in order to sneak attack an Adult Blue Dragon, you've got to deal with fear (which can give you Disadvantage or make it harder for allies to close within 5 feet of them). And a 30 foot burrow and 80 foot fly speed (and possibly the fact that you didn't take Sharpshooter so your non-disadvantage range is 80 feet). And a Legendary action that lets them simultaneously damage + CC your allies, disengage without provoking OAs, and fly 40 feet right before your turn in initiative order. And they've got good senses to make hiding more difficult. And they've got Lair Actions to CC your allies or blind you (giving you disadvantage). And then there's the spellcasting variant and the FTD variants that make them stronger.

All of these things can be dealt with, but they can lead to inconsistency, or further investments in order to reduce that inconsistency. All while some of the competition is just shooting them in the face for more damage than you do with sneak attack anyways.


Rogue also has build advantages due to the nonbo/lack of reliance on sharpshooter. Take falling prone, it can be used as a defense against ranged attacks but also generates advantage for melee. Elven accuracy style builds get alot of value as a switch hitter for reasons like this.

While this is true, as soon as you forego taking Sharpshooter, all of a sudden it matters that a light crossbow only makes shots out to 80 feet before you get Disadvantage, and that partial cover is very easy to come by (heck, even that ally within 5 feet of the enemy to help you qualify for sneak attack can lend the foe cover).

[Witty Username]

I don't doubt that rogue that rouge can have issues like disadvantage (I think it is somewhat manageable with some subclasses, especially AT).

But I am not sure most of that doesn't also apply to monk. Disadvantage essentially turns off the bonus damage from sharpshooter and from experience there is not alot a monk can do against an ancient dragon.

And it combines with the resource issue. Like take a 5th level shadow monk, you got the spells, gunner, ki fueled focused aim and stunning strike and 5 ki to work with.
So for the stealth section, cast pass without trace - 2 ki
This leaves 3 ki for combat, something like darkness or silence, and we are left with 1 ki.
This is fine if we get a short rest right away, but this is on the group and the DM to allow.
And once we are out of ki, we do still have extra attack, but that gets us to fighter without a fighting style damage wise.

While rogues can hit this position, especially depending on the subclass, it is reliant on both running out of resources and being unable to proc sneak attack.

[Zuras]

This is more a system-level issue than a DM issue. Rogues are obviously meant to be able to contribute with out-of-combat utility, but there's no game system for that utility other than making skill checks with binary success-failure states. The DM can make that situation more interesting, but with no rules support, they basically just end up calling for improv, and every class is as good at improv as every other.

But, really, even if the DM is providing non-combat stuff to do, casters are going to be better at that. A non-caster's tools for interacting with non-combat scenarios are skill proficiencies. Casters get just as many proficiencies, and have a suite of abilities letting them charm enemies, transform into animals, turn invisible, teleport, or scry, among other things. A martial player can hypothetically make up for this with creativity and DM buy-in, but they have to work so much harder to get the level of fun, creative interaction that a caster gets for free.

The whole point of having backgrounds, a skill system, and defined stats tied to various activities is to give some structure and guidelines to improvisational play. Some players will always be better at justifying their improv, but (and this may just be my experience with FATE flavoring my DMing style) it isn’t hard as DM to say “No, But…” to player ideas to make sure the appropriately backgrounded PCs are featured in various activities.

I really don’t know where the “casters can do anything better than martials” idea is coming from in 5e. AoEs and travel, sure, but for most other tasks Concentration limits what a caster can do, and normally the best bet is for the wizard to make the rogue invisible, not turn invisible themselves and try to sneak in.

[Anymage]

Rogues have two major things going against them. The first is that one of the big things rogue archetype characters are known for is sneaking off to do a side project, when watching one guy go off to do their own thing is pretty boring in TTRPGs. The second is that rogues are well known for skill tricks, but bounded accuracy and the lack of detailed skill mechanics limits what skills can do in 5e. Combat efficiency can come after those foundational issues.

[Skrum]

I really don’t know where the “casters can do anything better than martials” idea is coming from in 5e.

I'm saying this half-jokingly, but have you played the game?

They have more tactical movement tools
They have more answers to enemy effects/defensive tools
They have more crowd control
They even have (at least comparable, if not better) single-target damage if either built for it (see: nuclear wizard), or by using summoning spells

Wizards are the worst example of it cause they know so many spells, but even sorcerers get enough spells to have answers for most situations. An 8th level sorcerer knows 9 spells. They can take

absorb elements
shield
charm person

misty step
hold person

fireball
counterspell

banishment
polymorph

This gives them AoE, single target damage, 3 different CC's, mobility, 3 different reactions, and a little out of combat in charm person. This is going to make them an important part of virtually *every single encounter,* no matter what form it takes. The AoE and single target damage eclipses almost anything a martial character can do, not to mention all the other things that most martial builds have no offerings at all on.




AoEs and travel, sure, but for most other tasks Concentration limits what a caster can do, and normally the best bet is for the wizard to make the rogue invisible, not turn invisible themselves and try to sneak in.

Could the sorcerer i just laid out beat the rogue sneaking? No. But that's a very thin thing to hang your hat on.

[JNAProductions]

I'm saying this half-jokingly, but have you played the game?

They have more tactical movement tools
They have more answers to enemy effects/defensive tools
They have more crowd control
They even have (at least comparable, if not better) single-target damage if either built for it (see: nuclear wizard), or by using summoning spells

Wizards are the worst example of it cause they know so many spells, but even sorcerers get enough spells to have answers for most situations. An 8th level sorcerer knows 9 spells. They can take

absorb elements
shield
charm person

misty step
hold person

fireball
counterspell

banishment
polymorph

This gives them AoE, single target damage, 3 different CC's, mobility, 3 different reactions, and a little out of combat in charm person. This is going to make them an important part of virtually *every single encounter,* no matter what form it takes. The AoE and single target damage eclipses almost anything a martial character can do, not to mention all the other things that most martial builds have no offerings at all on.

Could the sorcerer i just laid out beat the rogue sneaking? No. But that's a very thin thing to hang your hat on.

What does that Sorcerer do at levels 1 and 2, before they learn ANY offensive spells?
Or levels 3 and 4, when facing undead?
Levels 5 and 6, when facing a fire elemental?

It's not till level 7 that that proposed list gets stuff that can directly help in a fight in most circumstances, with Polymorph allowing them to make an ally more powerful. Not likely worth casting on themself, since it's Concentration.

Edit: In response to the bolded bit, what single target damage? Their only direct damage spell is Fireball, which is notably an AoE and not party friendly.
Giant Ape form, I suppose, can count as single target damage... But with only +4 to Con saves in that form, you have a 30% of losing the spell every single time you take damage. Not ideal for a melee spell.

[LudicSavant]

But I am not sure most of that doesn't also apply to monk. Why would it?

Let's take that same Adult Blue Dragon. What's, say, the very last Monk I saw played in that level range (just a couple days ago) got here? Well...

1) The dragon's attacks are less of a threat. The Mercy Monk can apply Disadvantage to all of the dragon's attack rolls with no saving throw (Legendary Resistance is irrelevant), dramatically cutting its damage against the entire party. They'll also tend to have more AC than a ranged rogue.

2) Frightening Presence is less of a threat. For a Rogue, Frightening Presence can trip up your SA output by either by giving you or your allies the fear state. For a Monk, your Wis save is better by default (both before and after the Rogue gets Slippery Mind). And even if they do fail, the worst case scenario is just that you use an Action to cure fear and are immune to it for 24 hours.

3) Everything else the dragon does is less of a threat. The Monk is virtually immune to the Dragon's breath weapon, wing attack, and all of its lair actions, including the one that blinds (which they can remove from themselves and their allies as a bonus action that also heals about as much as the Celestial Warlock's BA heal on full blast).

4) They were a bugbear sharpshooter that was nearly guaranteed to win initiative, meaning they had a pretty good chance to take a fat chunk out of the dragon's HP (and apply Disadvantage) before they even act.

___

Other Monks have other stuff going for them. For example a Kensei is extremely accurate and hits harder than Mercy at range.

[Skrum]

What does that Sorcerer do at levels 1 and 2, before they learn ANY offensive spells?
Or levels 3 and 4, when facing undead?
Levels 5 and 6, when facing a fire elemental?

Sorcerers can swap a spell known with another spell at every level. So they can easily take more more low-level appropriate spells, like thunderwave or tasha's caustic brew, and then get rid of them for better stuff as they go up.




In response to the bolded bit, what single target damage? Their only direct damage spell is Fireball, which is notably an AoE and not party friendly.
Giant Ape form, I suppose, can count as single target damage... But with only +4 to Con saves in that form, you have a 30% of losing the spell every single time you take damage. Not ideal for a melee spell.

Hold Person maintains a pretense of party unity since the martial characters get to go ham and land a bunch of crits. The hold person won the fight, but the martials at least get to style.

Polymorph does away with this pretense entirely. As you point out, it is indeed FAR better to cast it on an ally. But that player is going to set aside their entire character sheet and use the one the sorcerer just handed them. IMO, that's the sorcerer doing damage, not the character that got polymorphed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

@Skrum, that's not the sorcerer being better. That's one particularly, notoriously broken application of one particularly, notoriously broken spell being better. And other than that one one-note thing...that sorcerer isn't going to do much. Even fireball has a lot more limited applications than it seems, especially when you can't exclude allies from the area.

And hold person? Yeah...as long as you're only fighting humanoids. Which are a substantial number, to be sure, but many campaigns they'll be fewer and further between than one would like to pin all your output on.

And that polymorph (as broken as it is)? At 8th level you get it at most 2x/day. Yay. Again, if you only have 1-2 fights, that's great. But that's a consequence of the 5MWD problem again.

[Skrum]

@Skrum, that's not the sorcerer being better. That's one particularly, notoriously broken application of one particularly, notoriously broken spell being better. And other than that one one-note thing...that sorcerer isn't going to do much. Even fireball has a lot more limited applications than it seems, especially when you can't exclude allies from the area.

And hold person? Yeah...as long as you're only fighting humanoids. Which are a substantial number, to be sure, but many campaigns they'll be fewer and further between than one would like to pin all your output on.

And that polymorph (as broken as it is)? At 8th level you get it at most 2x/day. Yay. Again, if you only have 1-2 fights, that's great. But that's a consequence of the 5MWD problem again.

I literally don't know what game you guys are playing.

Twice this week I played in games with a very large map and the players fighting masses of enemies. Some were strong, but most were weaker, CR 1/4 types. Fireball was invaluable. My general rule, if you can hit 4 enemies, the fireball is worth it. The amount of damage that adds up to, even if some save, is very very impressive. Throw in a range of 150' and yeah, fireball is almost never useless.

Ok, so let's throw polymorph off the list. And we're fighting in a cramped area, or against only a few enemies so fireball isn't worthwhile/practical. So, the sorcerer banishes one of the threats. With a single action, they've taken an enemy out of the combat, and the only way to get em back is breaking concentration. The sorc can still

- use counterspell
- use cantrips (twinning cantrips is a solid damage option)

That's an incredible amount of value

[PhoenixPhyre]

Twinning cantrips gets you at slightly worse, on average, than a baseline rogue. Spread across two targets, so even less valuable. While using resources.

And enemy spellcasters show up in only a small fraction of encounters. And when they do, you're often trading a 3rd for a 1st or cantrip, unless your DM bends the rules and lets you know what's being cast ahead of time. It's also got a short range.

Oh, and if there are enemy casters, they can counter you.

[LudicSavant]

I'm personally not a huge fan of Hold Person, due to it being an all-or-nothing save, Humanoid-limited, and wis-targeting (a lot of the scary humanoid monsters are casters with excellent Wisdom saves, magic resistance, etc).

On the other hand, when it works, the payoff is significant. I just prefer my consistency, personally.

[Skrum]

Twinning cantrips gets you at slightly worse, on average, than a baseline rogue. Spread across two targets, so even less valuable. While using resources.

And enemy spellcasters show up in only a small fraction of encounters. And when they do, you're often trading a 3rd for a 1st or cantrip, unless your DM bends the rules and lets you know what's being cast ahead of time. It's also got a short range.

Oh, and if there are enemy casters, they can counter you.

You are responding to the most meaningless part of what I said. Cantrips are by their nature a time-filler. But if it mattered, a sorcerer can twin one for cheap to get a little more work out of it. The banishment + counterspell, if needed, is enough to significantly alter most encounters.

[Zuras]

Sorcerers can swap a spell known with another spell at every level. So they can easily take more more low-level appropriate spells, like thunderwave or tasha's caustic brew, and then get rid of them for better stuff as they go up.

That really doesn’t mean they are going to simultaneously be actively good at both AoEs and single target from low levels on. The spells you posted still have significant limitations. Fireball does nothing against fire immune creatures, so it’s pretty risky as your lone AoE. It also seems a stretch to label Hold Person and Polymorph “single target damage” when both require help from other party members to actually work and have significant limitations in any event. Hold Person just isn’t reliable, and Polymorph doesn’t show up till 7th level and isn’t very impressive on the damage front ( compared to the insane hp buffer).

A not-particularly optimized martial PC should be outputting 20-25 damage/turn at 7th level without expending any resources, so you’re either risking your 4th level slot on some dubious concentration checks or spending your own action *and* a 4th level slot to add an unoptimized fighter’s worth of damage each turn. Polymorph shines far more for the 150+ hp you absorb than the extra damage you dish out.

[LudicSavant]

I really don’t know where the “casters can do anything better than martials” idea is coming from in 5e. AoEs and travel, sure, but for most other tasks Concentration limits what a caster can do, and normally the best bet is for the wizard to make the rogue invisible, not turn invisible themselves and try to sneak in.

At a very minimum, you'd want to show the Rogue beating out people using Pass Without Trace if you want to claim that casters can't do the stealth job better.

[Ogre Mage]

I believe something to take in consideration in Skrum's analysis are the levels he's talking about. Levels 9 and 10 are the absolute worst for Warlock compared to the other casters; it's where they really fall behind, even with 2 Short Rests. It gets better once level 11 roll around.

I've said before, Warlocks should get their 3rd slot at level 9, that would make the math more balanced.

I am playing a single-classed 10th level genie warlock and our DM runs a VERY tough campaign. The hardest 5E I have ever played. The last two levels have been a major struggle. 6-8 was much better between getting non-concentration flight and shadow of moil.

[Witty Username]

I'm personally not a huge fan of Hold Person, due to it being an all-or-nothing save, Humanoid-limited, and wis-targeting (a lot of the scary humanoid monsters are casters with excellent Wisdom saves, magic resistance, etc).

On the other hand, when it works, the payoff is significant. I just prefer my consistency, personally.

I think it is worth on a build where you have alot of options but a different game plan from spells as primary.

Soradin gets alot out of it because it combos nice with quicken and smite.

Oh, and I would take it on enchanter wizard because of the high upside with split enchantment, but I wouldn't expect to cast it very often.


At a very minimum, you'd want to show the Rogue beating out people using Pass Without Trace if you want to claim that casters can't do the stealth job better.

Well, you can hide as a bonus action as a rogue, Pass without trace is good but it has limits. AT tossing a fog cloud, and they vanish without a trace.

I due feel the point though, I think it is less an issue with individual spells or such an more martial fronloading, and past 10ish being a bit dry for martials.

I feel like monk is the only one that feels about right with the 14+ abilities feeling worth the wait (I think this is part of the disconnect with rogue-monk, since low level play is more what I DM, and high level play I have seen a couple monks but one was sun soul which I think we agree doesn't count). Paladin and Ranger too, but that isn't really a ringing endorsement for non casters.

[Skrum]

That really doesn’t mean they are going to simultaneously be actively good at both AoEs and single target from low levels on. The spells you posted still have significant limitations. Fireball does nothing against fire immune creatures, so it’s pretty risky as your lone AoE. It also seems a stretch to label Hold Person and Polymorph “single target damage” when both require help from other party members to actually work and have significant limitations in any event. Hold Person just isn’t reliable, and Polymorph doesn’t show up till 7th level and isn’t very impressive on the damage front ( compared to the insane hp buffer).

A not-particularly optimized martial PC should be outputting 20-25 damage/turn at 7th level without expending any resources, so you’re either risking your 4th level slot on some dubious concentration checks or spending your own action *and* a 4th level slot to add an unoptimized fighter’s worth of damage each turn. Polymorph shines far more for the 150+ hp you absorb than the extra damage you dish out.

I'm sorry, we just don't see eye to eye at all, and none of the things you listed as "limitations" match up with any of the games I've played in. And I've played in a lot of games.

Is fire the most "common" resistance. Sure. But that's very misleading. The vast majority of monsters do not have fire resistance (or any resistance). If you fight a lot of demons, I'll grant that fireball is less useful. But most foes aren't demons. And fireball is otherwise one of the best spells in the game. Range, damage, area of effect, it's incredibly good.

Giant Ape has 2 attacks at +9 for 3d10+6 each. I.e., a better chance to hit and more damage than all but the most optimized, magic-item stacked melee builds. I really don't see what you're on about. I'll grant that the polymorph options fall off as the game heads into T3, but when polymorph becomes available and for several levels after, the forms it gives access to are very very strong.

I don't count Hold Person as single target damage - it's CC. Situational CC, but very high payoff and it upcasts/metamagics really well. Polymorph though I credit to the caster. The person it gets cast on doesn't matter at all. A player could hire a daring peasant to follow them around and turn into an ape when needed, and it would come out the same. The target is basically a spell component. And the spell's effect outclasses most martial characters, at least when the spell first becomes available.

You are nitpicking uses of these spells, when the real point is the sorcerer in question has ALL of these spells. Enemies are humanoids? Twin or upcast a hold person and paralyze half the enemies. There's a bunch clustered up? Fireball. There's 3 really powerful enemies? Banish one of them, gang up on the others. We're finally down to the boss, just the party and them? Polymorph and rip him to shreds. There really is no "working around" this character. Even without a lot of spells known a sorcerer can pick spells to address all different kinds of situations. This is a type of versatility and efficiency that martial characters simply lack.

[Leon]

They never were. Some people got fixated on them but all in all it was a player generated construct that was easily dismissible as useless.

[LudicSavant]

Well, you can hide as a bonus action as a rogue

And also as a caster. :smallwink:

[Keltest]

And also as a caster. :smallwink:

Sure, if youre a rogue who is also a caster.

Or a good enough ranger, I guess, but thats kind of stretching the definition of "caster" here.

[LudicSavant]

Sure, if youre a rogue who is also a caster.

Just a straight class caster will do.

[Frogreaver]

Anyone can bonus action hide as a goblin. My tortle wizard cannot bonus action hide though.

I think the more accurate statement is Goblins can bonus action hide. Casters in general cannot.

[Witty Username]

Anyone can bonus action hide as a goblin. My tortle wizard cannot bonus action hide though.

I think the more accurate statement is Goblins can bonus action hide. Casters in general cannot.

If we are going that route any martial can cast pass without trace.

[LudicSavant]

If we are going that route any martial can cast pass without trace.

Sure, but their ability to do so will be considerably more limited -- the reverse isn't true.

[Skrum]

Sure, but their ability to do so will be considerably more limited -- the reverse isn't true.

I actually this this is a really good point about the game overall.

A lot of the "defining" features of martial characters can be accessed very easily, either by selecting a particular race or taking a single level dip into fighter, cleric, paladin, etc. But the reverse is absolutely not true of casters. 1/day castings of very select 1st and 2nd level spells is all that's available unless the character takes actual levels in a casting class.

It really adds to the dynamic that casters can largely do what martials do, and a whole lot besides. And the best martial builds are in reality some form of gish-type build, especially as the game gets into late T2 and T3.

[LudicSavant]

I actually this this is a really good point about the game overall.

A lot of the "defining" features of martial characters can be accessed very easily, either by selecting a particular race or taking a single level dip into fighter, cleric, paladin, etc. But the reverse is absolutely not true of casters. 1/day castings of very select 1st and 2nd level spells is all that's available unless the character takes actual levels in a casting class.

It really adds to the dynamic that casters can largely do what martials do, and a whole lot besides. And the best martial builds are in reality some form of gish-type build, especially as the game gets into late T2 and T3.

Getting rituals up to 6th level with Ritual Caster is pretty cool, at least.

So of course they nerfed it for martials and buffed it for casters in the 1D&D playtest... :smallfrown:

[stoutstien]

I actually this this is a really good point about the game overall.

A lot of the "defining" features of martial characters can be accessed very easily, either by selecting a particular race or taking a single level dip into fighter, cleric, paladin, etc. But the reverse is absolutely not true of casters. 1/day castings of very select 1st and 2nd level spells is all that's available unless the character takes actual levels in a casting class.

It really adds to the dynamic that casters can largely do what martials do, and a whole lot besides. And the best martial builds are in reality some form of gish-type build, especially as the game gets into late T2 and T3.

Yea. Doesn't matter if it's weapon/armor Prof or extra attack the feature budgets are out of wack.

[Ignimortis]

Okay! https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png

I generally recommend that most Monks don't take Mobile.
*snip*
Enlightening. I guess I have vastly underestimated, at the very least, how much Tasha's has affected the general landscape, since it came out right around the point I was dropping out of 5e.


I actually this this is a really good point about the game overall.

A lot of the "defining" features of martial characters can be accessed very easily, either by selecting a particular race or taking a single level dip into fighter, cleric, paladin, etc. But the reverse is absolutely not true of casters. 1/day castings of very select 1st and 2nd level spells is all that's available unless the character takes actual levels in a casting class.

It really adds to the dynamic that casters can largely do what martials do, and a whole lot besides. And the best martial builds are in reality some form of gish-type build, especially as the game gets into late T2 and T3.

I have stated previously that martial features and caster features are quite obviously weighed differently. Case in point: you can get pretty much every feature that defines a martial in a single caster subclass (weapon/armor proficiency, some sort of durability increase, extra attack, some sort of damage increase - Bladesinger gets all of this, for instance). But if you take a caster subclass as a martial, you get a severely limited (1/3 casting, school limitations, little or no extra features that support casting) version of such.

For instance, if Eldritch Knight was on the level of Bladesinger in regards to stealing other classes features and using them to augment their original ones, it would have full casting out of limited schools, spellstrikes with Disintegrate or Cone of Cold behind a sword swing, and would still be able to do ritual spells of any school regardless of restrictions. Oh, and it would cast with STR or DEX per user's choice, of course.

[Skrum]

Getting rituals up to 6th level with Ritual Caster is pretty cool, at least.

So of course they nerfed it for martials and buffed it for casters in the 1D&D playtest... :smallfrown:

I want rituals to be so much better than they are.

Here is the entire list of ritual spells -

1st
Alarm
Ceremony
Comprehend Languages
Detect Magic
Find Familiar
Identify
Illusory Script
Purify Food and Drink
Speak with Animals
Tenser's Floating Disk
Unseen Servent

2nd
Animal Messenger
Augury
Beast Sense
Gentle Repose
Locate Animals or Plants
Magic Mouth
Silence
Skywrite
Wristpocket

3rd
Feign Death
Leomund's Tiny Hut
Meld into Stone
Water Breathing
Water Walk
Phantom Steed

4th
Divination

5th
Commune
Commune with Nature
Contact Other Plane
Rary's Telepathic Bond

6th
Drawmij's Instant Summons
Forbiddance

A creative player can get some mileage out of Find Familiar (at the cost of slowing down the game and possibly annoying the table lol)
Water Breathing is situationally extremely useful
Leomund's Hut is absolutely the highlight, and a very good spell to have
Gentle Repose might save a PC if you use it to prolong the window for Revivify

The rest of these I'd put in the ribbon category - they're not really going to make a difference to anything. If you say you're using them the DM will weave them into the narrative, but it's not going to "change" any outcomes.

[finley]

The whole point of having backgrounds, a skill system, and defined stats tied to various activities is to give some structure and guidelines to improvisational play. Some players will always be better at justifying their improv, but (and this may just be my experience with FATE flavoring my DMing style) it isn’t hard as DM to say “No, But…” to player ideas to make sure the appropriately backgrounded PCs are featured in various activities.

I really don’t know where the “casters can do anything better than martials” idea is coming from in 5e. AoEs and travel, sure, but for most other tasks Concentration limits what a caster can do, and normally the best bet is for the wizard to make the rogue invisible, not turn invisible themselves and try to sneak in.

That's what I was saying, though. Martials and Casters are on equal ground in terms of backgrounds, skills, and stats. In fact, casters usually have the stat advantage, given that Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma give you a lot more to do out of combat at most tables. They also have tons of utility or exploration based spells on TOP of that. A DM can put their finger on the scales to help martials have fun, but casters straight up have more to do out of combat.

Concentration does limit a caster, and I'm glad it was added to 5th edition. But that just means a caster has an option of doing one of several things better than a martial, rather than all those things at once. The only exception I'd give is resourceless single-target damage, where Martials do rule for the whole game, assuming they sacrifice their first 2 feats to rush one of the two viable damage builds. But every other type of contribution is ruled by casters, and if that caster is willing to spend concentration on a summon spell, they can often match or exceed a well-built martial's damage. If that martial hasn't picked their feats properly, it's not even close.

[LudicSavant]

I want rituals to be so much better than they are.

Here is the entire list of ritual spells -

1st
Alarm
Ceremony
Comprehend Languages
Detect Magic
Find Familiar
Identify
Illusory Script
Purify Food and Drink
Speak with Animals
Tenser's Floating Disk
Unseen Servent

2nd
Animal Messenger
Augury
Beast Sense
Gentle Repose
Locate Animals or Plants
Magic Mouth
Silence
Skywrite
Wristpocket

3rd
Feign Death
Leomund's Tiny Hut
Meld into Stone
Water Breathing
Water Walk

4th
Divination

5th
Commune
Commune with Nature
Contact Other Plane
Rary's Telepathic Bond

6th
Drawmij's Instant Summons
Forbiddance

A creative player can get some mileage out of Find Familiar (at the cost of slowing down the game and possibly annoying the table lol)
Water Breathing is situationally extremely useful
Leomund's Hut is absolutely the highlight, and a very good spell to have
Gentle Repose might save a PC if you use it to prolong the window for Revivify

The rest of these I'd put in the ribbon category - they're not really going to make a difference to anything. If you say you're using them the DM will weave them into the narrative, but it's not going to "change" any outcomes.

I dunno, I might consider taking some of those spells that got called a ribbon over Tiny Hut and maybe even Find Familiar.

Also a few rituals seem to be missing from the list. Where's Phantom Steed?

[finley]

IMHO, one of the main weaknesses of the Rogue is that they tend to rely on getting Sneak Attack very consistently in order to put up relevant numbers, and that gameplan is relatively easy for me to throw a monkey wrench into.
.

It's also worth noting that a Rogue is essentially a force multiplier for enemy control. Usually, if the fighter/paladin/barbarian/etc. is hit with a control effect, that only takes 1 party member out of the fight. But if the Rogue is relying on that melee fighter to switch on sneak attack, the enemy basically gets to remove 2 party members from the action economy for the price of one.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I actually this this is a really good point about the game overall.

A lot of the "defining" features of martial characters can be accessed very easily, either by selecting a particular race or taking a single level dip into fighter, cleric, paladin, etc. But the reverse is absolutely not true of casters. 1/day castings of very select 1st and 2nd level spells is all that's available unless the character takes actual levels in a casting class.

It really adds to the dynamic that casters can largely do what martials do, and a whole lot besides. And the best martial builds are in reality some form of gish-type build, especially as the game gets into late T2 and T3.

Yeah. This is one of the things that grinds my gears the most.

Casters can grab most of the martial stuff with a simple dip or race. Because most martial stuff is pretty-much binary--you have it or you don't (like proficiency). Very few scale in any way other than uses.

Martials, on the other hand, are sharply restricted from picking up caster stuff. Spending a full subclass to get 1/3 casting off of a tiny fraction of the wizard list.

Imagine if being a gish meant giving up at minimum your subclass to get "1/3 martial abilities". Which might be one of armor, shield, or weapon proficiency and maybe one extra attack. That might be more balanced.

Edit: swordsaged.

As for rituals, I agree. That's why I came up with the idea for Incantations (which are 4e-style rituals, but better and less obnoxiously weak). The end goal is to remove those from spell lists entirely, but it can be run (as I currently am) with just being "things anyone can pick up and use", with the necessary items (the Ritual Scrolls you need to do the incantation) being purchasable or findable as treasure. Basically spell scrolls that don't go away on use and anyone can use.

Incantations (https://wiki.admiralbenbo.org/index.php?title=Incantation)

[Skrum]

I dunno, I might consider taking some of those spells that got called a ribbon over Tiny Hut and maybe even Find Familiar.

Also a few rituals seem to be missing from the list. Where's Phantom Steed?

Missed it! Added. Would also put Phantom Steed in the useful category. And what the heck, throw Alarm in there too. Might save you a surprise round.

I mean it really depends on your game I guess. I just feel like it takes it very experienced, exceptional DM to meaningfully work in divination spells. And that's the bulk of the higher level spells.

[Just to Browse]

The note on casters being able to emulate noncaster features but not vice versa is an interesting one. I think there's value in thinking about that.

I personally have found tier lists most useful for the following:
As a PC: Building my character to avoid overshadowing other players, most useful in a party with unenfranchised players.
As a DM: Planning magic item / boon handouts to accentuate strengths for weaker classes (and avoid doing so for stronger ones).
As a Designer: Writing features that fit within a target band of power.
I don't want to speak for everyone, but those use cases tend to focus on mid- and high-level contributions, which I think is where tier lists are at their most valuable. I think it was Skrum that mentioned the level 7 dropoff point for the Barbarian, for example. The Same Game Test from 3e also does something similar.

Maybe we look at classes through these lenses:

What breadth of solutions can a class offer? Fighting is useful, but it's also valuable to pick locks, climb up towers, navigate.
What is the strength of the class's solutions? A bonus to climb is good, but flight is better.
How well do the class's strengths scale with level? (does anyone have a good word for this?) Many tier 1 abilities can be emulated by feats and races, but in tier 2 and onward, your access to features begins to matter much more.
Maybe giving us something like this?



Tier
Classes


S
Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard


A
Artificer, Bard, Paladin, Warlock


B
Fighter, Ranger, Monk


C
Barbarian, Rogue

[LudicSavant]

How well do the class's strengths increase with level? (does anyone have a good word for this?)

Word: Scale.

[Keltest]

Just a straight class caster will do.

Is there a spell I'm unfamiliar with or did you just misunderstand bonus action for just action?

[Zuras]

At a very minimum, you'd want to show the Rogue beating out people using Pass Without Trace if you want to claim that casters can't do the stealth job better.

Fundamentally, a Rogue is going to be much better at doing roguish stuff that requires multiple complementary skills. A spellcaster with the right spell will be able to do a single task or enhance a single ability/skill. If that's all that you need--if the DM does not come up with complicated scenarios that allow for player shenanigans, then yes, a dabbler will perform just as well as an expert.

On the other hand, if you're trying to steal a MacGuffin, you're going to need an excellent stealth score and a solid sleight-of-hand score. If you just want to look around somewhere, then an Arcane Eye will do the same job as a Rogue with less risk. If you need to find a piece of evidence or something to blackmail someone with in an office, your Arcane Eye won't be able to open drawers or even look under the top sheet of paper on a desk.

Sure, in the end everything comes down to DM encounter design, and long rest caster classes will always have an advantage because naively built encounters often turn into 5 minute work days. It isn't intuitive, and frankly exposes a bit too much of the guts of game design, to force the DM to think about extending the adventuring day to provide players a challenge. Still, it's not that much harder to set up varied encounters giving different PCs chances to shine. I have dozens of tropes in my head from thriller and heist movies to fold into game situations. Giving the Rogue something to do in your D&D game doesn't require as much effort as giving Aquaman something to do in an episode of Super-Friends.

Casters start overpowering non-casters in Tier 3 play mostly because the number and quality of transportation tools makes it less and less plausible to force them into a proper adventuring day. You can do it, but it can feel very forced if it happens every session. The dearth of class features for Fighters, Rogues and Barbarians after 11th level and the insanity of Simulacrum don't help, but if you can get long rest casters to conserve their spell slots as the game envisions, the classes are pretty balanced. If the party gets a long rest before every big set-piece battle, then there won't be any balance at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Conglomeration Sects Of The True Believers Of The Tier System, aka the same arguments over and over again infinitum.

Sect 1 - Tiers 1 and 2 are an abomination. They ruin the game. They should not exist. If you play them you are a power gaming munchkin. How dare players have so much power. If you play Tier 1 or 2 you are playing the game wrong.

Sect 2 - Tiers 4 and 5 are The Suck. They ruin the game. They should not exist. If you play one you are a drain on the other players making the game unfun. No one else can do anything because they must carry you along. If you play Tier 4 or 5 you are playing the game wrong.

Sect 3 - Tier 3 is the One True Way to play the game. It is perfect balance and harmony. Everyone should play Tier 3 for everyone to have the ultimate fun in everything. You are not too strong nor too weak. This is how the game was meant to be played. If you are not playing Tier 3 you are playing the game wrong.

Sect 4 - The Tier System is proof that D&D is a terrible game. You should not play it. It should not exist. That is why I play (insert game system). It is absolutely perfect in every way. It does not have any of these problems the Tier System talks about. If you are playing D&D you are playing RPGs wrong.

Sects 1 and 3 were the more common vocalists, but the other two had their share of the debates. Do not bring the Tier System back into D&D. Nice post. :smallsmile:


Warlock's easy mode is Eldritch Blast spam.
But there's two important things to note about that:

1) That build is a competent party member. If that's ALL they do, they won't be MVP, but they'll contribute just fine.
2) That build consists of taking Agonizing Blast and maxing Charisma. That's the entirety of it-meaning you've got a lot of space to add more to it. And (IME) it consists in using repelling blast to move some enemies around the battlefield. Handy. No size limit.

In general....casters rule, martials (except Paladins) drool. I am going to guess that you haven't played a monk.


Maybe giving us something like this?



Tier
Classes


S
Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard


A
Artificer, Bard, Paladin, Warlock


B
Fighter, Ranger, Monk


C
Barbarian, Rogue

I don't see the point in trying to shoehorn the dubious 'tier system' in to 5e, but the reason I responsed to you is to ask, as I did Angelaxe242, Have You Actually Played a Monk? from level one on up, or from level 3 on up.
I have two monks playing for me as DM, one at level 12 and one at level 11. They both started at level 1. They can both do stuff that other party members can't do.
I've played them as a PC for a variety of level ranges (mostly 1-11); in a couple of one-shots I got to play at levels 15 and 17.
Don't diss the monks, man. :smallwink:

[Just to Browse]

Word: Scale.

Great idea. So the wording would be: "How well do the class's strengths scale with level?" I'll edit the comment.


Have You Actually Played a Monk?

As and with!

I'm not dissing the monk here any more than I'm dissing the fighter, barb, etc. My experience with the monk is that they have a broader array of tools than their sibling classes in the same tier, but they tend to be weaker numerically than those siblings, and many of their tools come pretty late compared to higher-tier characters.

Now I'm sure folks disagree what what I wrote. At the level of simplicity we're looking at, there's no one answer, much as there was disagreement over whether a Dread Necromancer & a Beguiler belonged in Tier 3 back in 3e. A confident playgrounder could well write up their own tier list, and I'd happily read it.

In my experience with tiering in 3e and 4e, a lot of folks look at a class in a low tier and assume it means something extreme like "this class does nothing", "don't play this class", "you won't have fun with this class", or "hotfix this class ASAP RIGHT NOW!!!!!!1!!". But I think tiering systems are at their least valuable when used this way. The goal of a tiering system is to get a rough description of class contributions which can then by informed by further discussion & play.

[LudicSavant]

Fundamentally, a Rogue is going to be much better at doing roguish stuff that requires multiple complementary skills. Why?
A spellcaster with the right spell will be able to do a single task or enhance a single ability/skill.

Casters built to do the skill monkey role are often good at doing many things simultaneously.



Sure, in the end everything comes down to DM encounter design, and long rest caster classes will always have an advantage because naively built encounters often turn into 5 minute work days. It's pretty normal for me to be doing 6+ Deadly encounters a day, actually.

[KorvinStarmast]

As and with! Thank you.


Casters built to do the skill monkey role are often good at doing many things simultaneously. Bard and AT being fine examples, and Knowledge Cleric.

[Hael]

Skill monkey stuff is also heavily influenced by the DMs worldbuilding. If you just take published adventures, its frequently heavily diluted.

For instance, a lockpicking skill check is presented for a chest, but if there is an important plot item in there, then alternate paths are by necessity made available, like the fact that the key might be on an npc who can be convinced with social or spell combinations.

Which means that a rogues primary schtick is made somewhat redundant (also the fact that there are relatively few really important skills in the game, which parties of 3-4 usually have covered). Often the things that require esoteric skill checks (like eg survival or religion) provide very marginal gains.

[Zuras]

LudicSavant, it may well be that you can build a Batman Wizard who can out-Rogue a Rogue, but I haven't ever seen one at the table. Certainly not one that could duplicate the feats I've seen 5e Rogues pull off, like stealing an imprisoned god from under the BBEG's nose, unlocking prison doors to free prisoners while still fighting, or simply infiltrating a location by knocking out a guard with a single blow.

Assuming equal build resources, a Rogue is going to have a much better Dexterity than a caster, since they don't have to pump a casting stat, plus they have expertise and additional proficiencies. I've seen Bards and Knowledge Clerics that cover a good section of the skill spectrum, but if you want full coverage of the stealth & infiltration skills you will need to multiclass and sacrifice some of the full caster high-end spell capability. Additionally, unless you're dipping two rogue levels for Cunning Action, a rogue will have much better action economy when trying to accomplish sneaky stuff during combat.

Our experiences are obviously very different. I mostly run open games at my FLGS, often with a new batch of players each fresh campaign, so I regularly see wide gaps in player proficiency. I've honestly never seen any class besides Moon Druids at low levels thoroughly outpace the rest of the party, and that includes Wizards run by experienced 5e players. Rogues and Monks definitely see fewer spotlight moments, and Barbarians mostly get to shine by face tanking, so I agree they're on the weaker end of the spectrum, but the idea that they're unplayable is ludicrous. I know that's not your argument, but it's one that was made up-thread.

[Just to Browse]

Skill monkey stuff is also heavily influenced by the DMs worldbuilding. If you just take published adventures, its frequently heavily diluted.

For instance, a lockpicking skill check is presented for a chest, but if there is an important plot item in there, then alternate paths are by necessity made available, like the fact that the key might be on an npc who can be convinced with social or spell combinations.

Which means that a rogues primary schtick is made somewhat redundant (also the fact that there are relatively few really important skills in the game, which parties of 3-4 usually have covered). Often the things that require esoteric skill checks (like eg survival or religion) provide very marginal gains.

5e published content also puts giant black holes in for some skills. Like the DiA example I posted on page 2 (?) of this thread: There's a dungeon suspended high in the air, how hard is it to climb up there? WotC ain't gonna tell you. So the DM has to make something up, which means a skillmonkey's performance hinges heavily on whether a DM is skilled enough to target the skillmonkey's strengths and proactive enough to shape an adventure around them on the fly. That's not a great place to be.

[Skrum]

For instance, a lockpicking skill check is presented for a chest, but if there is an important plot item in there, then alternate paths are by necessity made available, like the fact that the key might be on an npc who can be convinced with social or spell combinations.



This is the failure of the binary skill system in 5e. One of the early things you learn as a DM is to *never* have the plot hinge on a single die roll. Even if the lock is relatively easy, even if the rogue has a high check, 5% of the time they roll a 1. Then what do you do. Multiple ways to get to the same place is a sign of *good* DMing, but yeah, it does make any particular skill much less valuable.

[ender241]

Even if the lock is relatively easy, even if the rogue has a high check, 5% of the time they roll a 1. Then what do you do.

Follow the RAW which don't treat natural 1s on ability checks as automatic failures?

[Skrum]

Follow the RAW which don't treat natural 1s on ability checks as automatic failures?

so only have checks where it's not mathematically possible for the rogue to fail? Why have the skills?

[ender241]

so only have checks where it's not mathematically possible for the rogue to fail? Why have the skills?

I never said that. My point is that if you wanted to set a DC low enough so that it's impossible for the rogue to fail you can. And anyway, there's nothing saying that you can't have degrees of success. So if they roll a nat 1 they still get it open but it takes significantly longer, and maybe there are negative consequences as a result, like guards show up before they finish.

[finley]

LudicSavant, it may well be that you can build a Batman Wizard who can out-Rogue a Rogue, but I haven't ever seen one at the table.

A 3rd-level Druid with 14 DEX and Stealth proficiency can cast Pass Without Trace, wild shape into a spider, and then sneak through enemy territory with a MINIMUM stealth roll of 15, and average stealth roll of 24.5, while Tiny. A 3rd-level Bard can gain Stealth expertise and turn themselves invisible, and sneak into enemy territory, with an average roll only 1 point lower than the Rogue's. They can also use Disguise Self to disguise as an enemy guard, and deflect social encounters with a combination of Suggestion, Persuasion expertise, and Charm Person. A Level 3 Chain Warlock can summon an Imp familiar with +5 Stealth that can turn invisible at will, which can gather intelligence without worrying about getting caught. A level 1 Wizard can summon a familiar of a rat, cat, or other common animal, and explore enemy territory without arousing suspicion. Once that wizard hits 7th level, they can use Arcane Eye to create an invisible eye with infinite range that can fit through any 1-inch gap, which can fully scout most normal dungeons with absolutely no risk to the caster.

These are 4 casters that can scout just as well as the rogue, along with bringing additional benefits. A Rogue can't scout with spiderclimb, turn invisible, roll Stealth with a +14 at 3rd level, scout through a summon, or disguise as an enemy to navigate social encounters. All of these options can at least do 2 of these things, and often are capable of more!

[Witty Username]

Assuming equal build resources, a Rogue is going to have a much better Dexterity than a caster, since they don't have to pump a casting stat, plus they have expertise and additional proficiencies. I've seen Bards and Knowledge Clerics that cover a good section of the skill spectrum, but if you want full coverage of the stealth & infiltration skills you will need to multiclass and sacrifice some of the full caster high-end spell capability. Additionally, unless you're dipping two rogue levels for Cunning Action, a rogue will have much better action economy when trying to accomplish sneaky stuff during combat.


Not to mention that rogue comes online very quickly, they start out with 3 extra skills over their closest competition (well, full caster competition, ranger is only 2 behind as of tasha's) as a base class, by second level they are more mobile then a monk due to cunning action being free and not conflicting with a bonus action attack. Even when it starts to run a bit dry for them, they get and extra ASI over everyone but fighter and reliable talent which makes failing most skill checks impossible. For reference, a Druid with Pass without Trace will have a minimum stealth roll of about 13, a rogue will have a minimum stealth roll of about 23 factoring in reliable talent, and they won't loose concentration on their stealth bonus because of a trap to boot.
Same goes for damage, for the most part, to use the monk example, gunk doesn't really start working as a ranged character until 4th level when they pick up gunner, rogue starts as essentially the best ranged damage shell because how sneak attack works, by 5th level extra attack starts, generally, outperforming sneak attack, but even then the builds that try to double up on sneak attack (crits, off turn attacks, phantom) can do scary amounts of damage in very short time frames. and most of it from the first few levels

Standard martial problems that classes get no features for the second half of the game though.


A Rogue can't scout with spiderclimb, turn invisible, roll Stealth with a +14 at 3rd level, scout through a summon, or disguise as an enemy to navigate social encounters.
Actually, a rogue can do all of those things, mostly AT, but Thief gets in on some of that to because of second story work. Assassin can disguise as enemies (its their entire subclass for some reason, but they can) and any smuck can get find familar. plus 14 stealth is somewhat out of reach, but soul knife gets a comfortable +11 (and by 5th it will be +15) with no concentration.
Soul knife is a big one here, as they can get a +6 on basically any skill between proficiency, ability score bonuses and psi-bolstered knack. party face, scout and dps in an all in one deal. from basically 3rd level.

[LudicSavant]

LudicSavant, it may well be that you can build a Batman Wizard who can out-Rogue a Rogue, but I haven't ever seen one at the table. Certainly not one that could duplicate the feats I've seen 5e Rogues pull off, like stealing an imprisoned god from under the BBEG's nose, unlocking prison doors to free prisoners while still fighting, or simply infiltrating a location by knocking out a guard with a single blow.

I appreciate the vote of confidence. I have indeed seen casters doing those sorts of feats and then some in real play.


I've seen Bards and Knowledge Clerics that cover a good section of the skill spectrum, but if you want full coverage of the stealth & infiltration skills you will need to multiclass and sacrifice some of the full caster high-end spell capability.

I don't see why I would need to multiclass. Take the first class you mentioned here, Bard. If it's a Lore Bard, they've got...

- Six extra skill proficiencies from their class. And extra tool proficiencies too.
- Expertise in four skills.
- Jack of All Trades (including on raw attribute checks that skill proficiencies cannot be applied to)
- Inspiration (useful for most checks) and Cutting Words (useful for contested checks).
- Peerless Skill to add +1d10 or +1d12 to any skill check, after seeing the roll (that stacks with other bonuses).

This is all before we even begin to consider everything that their spells can do (and their spells can do an awful lot).


the idea that they're unplayable is ludicrous. I know that's not your argument, but it's one that was made up-thread.

Indeed; no class is unplayable. I play (almost) all of them regularly, including the ones I rate lowest, and would never seek to discourage anyone from playing a given class.

I'm generally more interested in showing people the potential of characters they might not have previously noticed was there.

[Flik9999]

Iv always found those tiers a bit lopsided in favor of high levels tbh. For example in 3e wizards were pretty sucky until 5th level when they got 1 good spell for one fight, while the fighters were doing there job of being a tank and killing stuff since level 1 at level 5 its possible for a wizard with not much con to even get one shot by a level 1 fighter. Also the tier lists seam to be based around solo theory. In reality a fighter is tier 1 because you need one especially at the low levels and also to stop the wizard getting chomped.
The average end level of 5e is around 12th level so I feel like that is the level where the tier lists should be made if they are relevant.

[Skrum]

Iv always found those tiers a bit lopsided in favor of high levels tbh. For example in 3e wizards were pretty sucky until 5th level when they got 1 good spell for one fight, while the fighters were doing there job of being a tank and killing stuff since level 1 at level 5 its possible for a wizard with not much con to even get one shot by a level 1 fighter. Also the tier lists seam to be based around solo theory. In reality a fighter is tier 1 because you need one especially at the low levels and also to stop the wizard getting chomped.
The average end level of 5e is around 12th level so I feel like that is the level where the tier lists should be made if they are relevant.

Part of the impetus to make this thread was the table I play at graduated from mostly playing around levels 5-7 (with a fair amount below 5) to mostly playing in levels 8-10. Even at 6 and 7, and certainly below 5, the classes are pretty well balanced in the sense that everyone has their role to play, and no one feels grossly overshadowed. The full casters are certainly *better*, but it's not by such a margin that it becomes unignorable, at least compared to well-built, well-equipped martial classes.

But 8-10, casters are really overtaking things. It's quite noticeable.

All of which is to say, it's not very high level when spells become incredibly central to party success. By far the most balanced levels are sub 5. To lose that as early as level 6, well, it's not great.

[Zuras]

Part of the impetus to make this thread was the table I play at graduated from mostly playing around levels 5-7 (with a fair amount below 5) to mostly playing in levels 8-10. Even at 6 and 7, and certainly below 5, the classes are pretty well balanced in the sense that everyone has their role to play, and no one feels grossly overshadowed. The full casters are certainly *better*, but it's not by such a margin that it becomes unignorable, at least compared to well-built, well-equipped martial classes.

But 8-10, casters are really overtaking things. It's quite noticeable.

All of which is to say, it's not very high level when spells become incredibly central to party success. By far the most balanced levels are sub 5. To lose that as early as level 6, well, it's not great.

Given that casters add spells every level, are you sure that it isn’t just that non-casters have a class feature desert from 8th to 10th level? Fighters and Rogues get marginal improvements, while Barbarians and Monks get an ASI and some ribbons.

Also, and I think this relates to why class effectiveness is inescapably tied to game/DM style—three of the consensus lower tier classes have extremely powerful features that are almost entirely reactive. Rogues and Monks with Evasion and Barbarians with their rage resistances. There’s no way to force the DM to target you, so a DM playing “optimally” like combat is a minis skirmish game may mean you don’t get to use those features at all. Additionally, all the more spectacular Barbarian combat exploits I’ve seen have required interesting terrain features (grappling an enemy spellcaster and jumping off a cliff is a perennial favorite).

This whole trend (devaluing reactive features) is exacerbated in a combat-as-war style game, because if you’re relying on evasion multiple times during a combat, the initial plan has clearly gone wrong. I also think it explains why most people rate the Wizard as the most powerful class—it uses the fewest build resources in reactive abilities like healing.

Consider an analogy with video games. In practically every game, when you set it at Impossible difficulty, enemies deal so much damage armor is useless, and you want to choose the character build or ship with the greatest maneuverability and damage output. Should a guide to the game intended to help new players complete the game on the standard difficulty level rate the Agility build as the only viable option?

[Skrum]

Given that casters add spells every level, are you sure that it isn’t just that non-casters have a class feature desert from 8th to 10th level? Fighters and Rogues get marginal improvements, while Barbarians and Monks get an ASI and some ribbons.

It is absolutely this. A 7th level battlemaster can spend a minute studying someone to learn some numbers on their character sheet, and a wizard can cast sickening radiance, polymorph, and summon aberration.



Also, and I think this relates to why class effectiveness is inescapably tied to game/DM style—three of the consensus lower tier classes have extremely powerful features that are almost entirely reactive. Rogues and Monks with Evasion and Barbarians with their rage resistances. There’s no way to force the DM to target you, so a DM playing “optimally” like combat is a minis skirmish game may mean you don’t get to use those features at all. Additionally, all the more spectacular Barbarian combat exploits I’ve seen have required interesting terrain features (grappling an enemy spellcaster and jumping off a cliff is a perennial favorite).

I'd call them passive features, personally. Generally the most boring of the abilities to get.



This whole trend (devaluing reactive features) is exacerbated in a combat-as-war style game, because if you’re relying on evasion multiple times during a combat, the initial plan has clearly gone wrong. I also think it explains why most people rate the Wizard as the most powerful class—it uses the fewest build resources in reactive abilities like healing.

Consider an analogy with video games. In practically every game, when you set it at Impossible difficulty, enemies deal so much damage armor is useless, and you want to choose the character build or ship with the greatest maneuverability and damage output. Should a guide to the game intended to help new players complete the game on the standard difficulty level rate the Agility build as the only viable option?

I don't disagree. But, my preference would be for ALL classes to have lots of activated abilities. Those are the ones that create the greatest feeling of "I'm playing the game" when they get used. Not that all classes should be equally complicated, sometimes it's nice to play a mechanically simpler character, but I think they took this principle too far for martials.

[Frogreaver]

Given that casters add spells every level, are you sure that it isnÂ’t just that non-casters have a class feature desert from 8th to 10th level? Fighters and Rogues get marginal improvements, while Barbarians and Monks get an ASI and some ribbons.

Also, and I think this relates to why class effectiveness is inescapably tied to game/DM style—three of the consensus lower tier classes have extremely powerful features that are almost entirely reactive. Rogues and Monks with Evasion and Barbarians with their rage resistances. There’s no way to force the DM to target you, so a DM playing “optimally” like combat is a minis skirmish game may mean you don’t get to use those features at all. Additionally, all the more spectacular Barbarian combat exploits I’ve seen have required interesting terrain features (grappling an enemy spellcaster and jumping off a cliff is a perennial favorite).

This whole trend (devaluing reactive features) is exacerbated in a combat-as-war style game, because if you’re relying on evasion multiple times during a combat, the initial plan has clearly gone wrong. I also think it explains why most people rate the Wizard as the most powerful class—it uses the fewest build resources in reactive abilities like healing.

Consider an analogy with video games. In practically every game, when you set it at Impossible difficulty, enemies deal so much damage armor is useless, and you want to choose the character build or ship with the greatest maneuverability and damage output. Should a guide to the game intended to help new players complete the game on the standard difficulty level rate the Agility build as the only viable option?

Great analogy.

Though IÂ’ve also seen times where the reverse is true, the mobile high burst damage class becomes non-viable because 1) they die too quickly even when piloted well and 2) encounters take so long that high sustained damage is usually better than high burst. It all depends on the exact parameters for what class/build ends up being better.

Also D&D is a team based game. If you have a barbarian or other melee friend that charges into melee then your ability to kite is mostly moot.

[Psyren]

The Conglomeration Sects Of The True Believers Of The Tier System, aka the same arguments over and over again infinitum.

Sect 1 - Tiers 1 and 2 are an abomination. They ruin the game. They should not exist. If you play them you are a power gaming munchkin. How dare players have so much power. If you play Tier 1 or 2 you are playing the game wrong.

Sect 2 - Tiers 4 and 5 are The Suck. They ruin the game. They should not exist. If you play one you are a drain on the other players making the game unfun. No one else can do anything because they must carry you along. If you play Tier 4 or 5 you are playing the game wrong.

Sect 3 - Tier 3 is the One True Way to play the game. It is perfect balance and harmony. Everyone should play Tier 3 for everyone to have the ultimate fun in everything. You are not too strong nor too weak. This is how the game was meant to be played. If you are not playing Tier 3 you are playing the game wrong.

Sect 4 - The Tier System is proof that D&D is a terrible game. You should not play it. It should not exist. That is why I play (insert game system). It is absolutely perfect in every way. It does not have any of these problems the Tier System talks about. If you are playing D&D you are playing RPGs wrong.

Sects 1 and 3 were the more common vocalists, but the other two had their share of the debates. Do not bring the Tier System back into D&D.

Personally I would say that 1/2/5/6 shouldn't exist. 3 and 4 are totally fine, even together.


Is there a spell I'm unfamiliar with or did you just misunderstand bonus action for just action?

The only one I can think of is Borrowed Knowledge, but as you correctly said that's an action. It also uses your concentration and doesn't grant tools, so I'm as confused as you are.

[Just to Browse]

I see very little difference between the above-labeled reactive abilities and their non-reactive counterparts. There are plenty of non-reactive character features that are also game-dependent: spells like knock, gentle repose, clairvoyance, etc and skills like Animal Handling, Performance, or Religion. I'd argue that everything I've listed above is even more DM-dependent than Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, or the damage resistance of a Rage. Any old monster with a breath weapon can force a Dexterity saving throw, but you need a special focus and something worth scrying on before clairvoyance matters.

So while I think certain abilities depend on the types of games your character plays in, the existence of niche abilities on a class are wholly separate from the idea of combat as war and the concept of reactivity/proactivity.

I think a more useful model would involve looking at the various solutions / strengths of classes, and judging the frequency with which those solutions / strengths could apply. There's definitely a spectrum here. Some class's tools require intentional adventure design to accommodate, others are practically guaranteed to be valuable, and most features will sit somewhere in the middle. Looking at a class like the monk, we could judge that Extra Attack is more universally useful than Stunning Strike, which comes before Slow Fall, which comes before Tongue of Sun and Moon.

Thinking about this more, it's not a binary like "your DM doesn't include locks so thieves tools proficiency is worthless". Even if there's 1 door to pick every session, a party is still likely to make more Perception and attack rolls in that session, which makes a bonus to attack rolls more valuable than a bonus to rolls made with thieves' tools. We should consider the frequency at which a particular class's skill / spell / feature comes into play at a macro-level.

Also, unrelated: the word "capability" seems a lot better than "solution".

That gives 4 criteria for tiering:
What breadth of capabilities does a class have in play?
What is the strength of the class's capabilities?
How well do a class's capabilities scale with level?
At what frequency are a class's capabilities expected to come into play?

[Ignimortis]

Personally I would say that 1/2/5/6 shouldn't exist. 3 and 4 are totally fine, even together.

I am of the same opinion, although low T2s that can be brought down to T3 are fine.

[Zuras]

I see very little difference between the above-labeled reactive abilities and their non-reactive counterparts. There are plenty of non-reactive character features that are also game-dependent: spells like knock, gentle repose, clairvoyance, etc and skills like Animal Handling, Performance, or Religion. I'd argue that everything I've listed above is even more DM-dependent than Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, or the damage resistance of a Rage. Any old monster with a breath weapon can force a Dexterity saving throw, but you need a special focus and something worth scrying on before clairvoyance matters.


All classes have reactive/situational features. My argument is simply that if you assigned notional point values to various features (like a 2e Skills & Powers version of 5e) evasion and rage resistance would be a large chunk of the point value for those classes. For those classes to play as intended by the designers, those features should be getting used a lot.

[JNAProductions]

All classes have reactive/situational features. My argument is simply that if you assigned notional point values to various features (like a 2e Skills & Powers version of 5e) evasion and rage resistance would be a large chunk of the point value for those classes. For those classes to play as intended by the designers, those features should be getting used a lot.

I think Rage does get used a lot. Evasion less so, but I don't think Evasion is as big a feature as you're making it out to be.

[Skrum]

Rage does get used a lot because the majority of a barb's features are tied to raging. Even if it didn't provide the resistances, a barb would still be heavily constrained by rage uses, and would be much less potent if they couldn't rage.

One of my main complaints about the barb though is the degree to which they *need* to be resistant to enemy attacks to be effective. At low level, most attacks are b/p/s and barbs do great. Level up though, and the frequency of elemental attacks goes up (not to mention saving throws, but that's a whole other problem). When I'm playing my barb and he's not resistant to what the enemy is doing, I'm just....sorry guys, I got nothing. Please scrape me off the floor when it's over.

IMO, rage would be a much better feature if it provided less damage reduction, but it was universal. Getting caught out as a medium armor wearing, probably no shield, with no other defensive features melee character is really crummy.

That's why it's a passive feature. The barb needs to rage anyway, and they're left hoping their feature applies. Same with rogues - sorry, this AoE forces a Con save. Good luck though!

[Zuras]

I think Rage does get used a lot. Evasion less so, but I don't think Evasion is as big a feature as you're making it out to be.

Evasion is the biggest class feature Rogues and Monks get from 7th to 10th level, so if it’s in the “nice but not amazing” category, that would be another indicator why those classes have trouble in the mid-high levels.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The number of monsters that don't do physical damage is very small and stable across the levels. The only wild card is pure casters, but that's highly campaign dependent. In my campaigns, being resistant to bps is only not useful in like 1 or 2 combats for the entire campaign.

So yeah. Playing off spec means results don't generalize.

[LudicSavant]

The relevant question isn't if a monster can do physical damage to a Barbarian, it's if they cannnot do anything else that works better. These options are common, and do in fact become more statistically common as levels increase.

Even physical damage becomes more of a problem for Barbs later because they usually don't adapt especially well to groups (for whom AC and advantage/disadvantage matters more than Resistance).

[Witty Username]

But 8-10, casters are really overtaking things. It's quite noticeable.


This is also where martials tend to start dropping off on features that relate to their game plan.

The better martials in the ring, by no accident, tend to be the ones that least have this problem.

Take for example a cleaner case than rogue vs monk, fighter vs barbarian,
At 5th level, they are pretty competitive with eachother, but by 11th the drought for barbarian has set in pretty hard, while fighter passes nearly every martial build on damage due to the extra attack upgrade.

To me this signals a design problem with Tier 3 - 4* with martials, they just don't get alot to change and improve the classes.

Higher level features that actually continue to improve the character and are harder to poach with racial features, feats and multiclassing.

*this touches on a thing with Tier in terminology, while a tier guide in the style of 3.5 might have utility, tier is already in use for 5e for arcs of play (1-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-20), so Tier may be poor for word choice reasons.
Something worth considering if we find any value with this stuff.

[diplomancer]

*this touches on a thing with Tier in terminology, while a tier guide in the style of 3.5 might have utility, tier is already in use for 5e for arcs of play (1-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-20), so Tier may be poor for word choice reasons.
Something worth considering if we find any value with this stuff.

I was reminded of this:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html

It IS D&D, after all...

[finley]

Actually, a rogue can do all of those things, mostly AT, but Thief gets in on some of that to because of second story work. Assassin can disguise as enemies (its their entire subclass for some reason, but they can) and any smuck can get find familar. plus 14 stealth is somewhat out of reach, but soul knife gets a comfortable +11 (and by 5th it will be +15) with no concentration.
Soul knife is a big one here, as they can get a +6 on basically any skill between proficiency, ability score bonuses and psi-bolstered knack. party face, scout and dps in an all in one deal. from basically 3rd level.

You can sort of mimic some of this with build choices, it's true. But I'd argue that spending a feat(Ritual Caster/Magic Initiate) or an entire subclass is a way heavier investment than a caster choosing or preparing a spell or two. Also, if your Rogue is gonna be scouting through a Familiar, why even pick Rogue in the first place?

ALSO also, some of these things Rogues actually just can't do. Thieves get a climb speed, but a wild-shaped Druid can get a climb speed AND spiderclimb, along with a swim or fly speed at higher levels. An Assassin needs a week of downtime and 9 levels in Rogue to mimic a first-level Disguise Self spell(admittedly, theirs is immune to True Sight, which is a benefit). Reliable Talent is awesome, agreed, but if you have 11 levels in Rogue you've got much bigger things to worry about than passing stealth checks. I really wish I could agree that Rogues are the kings of sneaking, but I can't see anything a Rogue can do that a caster can't match or exceed, while bringing full spellcasting to the table.

[Psyren]

I was reminded of this:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html

It IS D&D, after all...

On the topic of OotS, there's a much more direct reference to this thread's usage of "tier" here: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0764.html (panel 5)

[finley]

This is also where martials tend to start dropping off on features that relate to their game plan.

The better martials in the ring, by no accident, tend to be the ones that least have this problem.


Totally. I seriously wonder sometimes how the designers even envisioned Monks and Barbarians scaling at higher level after their damage virtually plateaus as 5. Like, was there someone out there who thought Brutal Critical was adding about the same damage as a fighter's 3rd attack? Or gaining +1 damage per attack from the Martial Arts die?

IMO, there should be a standardized Extra Attack schedule across all martial classes, similar to the standardized spellcasting schedule across casters. Then they'd all have a baseline you could build extra features to differentiate them, rather than having 1 class that stays online until 11, and 3 you basically have to multiclass out of after 7 or 8.

[Just to Browse]

*this touches on a thing with Tier in terminology, while a tier guide in the style of 3.5 might have utility, tier is already in use for 5e for arcs of play (1-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-20), so Tier may be poor for word choice reasons.
Something worth considering if we find any value with this stuff.

Eldariel's comment (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25801954&postcount=45) mentioned that as well. They used scale, which I also promptly messed up by applying the word to one the judgement criteria.

The default term with S/A/B/C categorization is "grade". I'm hesitant to use that word because "high grade" implies that something is more valuable, which "high tier" doesn't... at least to me. Maybe that's wrong, and grade is the correct word to use here? Any other suggestions?

[LudicSavant]

Take for example a cleaner case than rogue vs monk, fighter vs barbarian

Yeah, Rune Knight in particular makes the comparison to Barbarians (any of them, really) rather straightforward.

They've got burst damage that scales, they've got top shelf grappling that works on even the biggest creatures, they've got the ability to mitigate a wide array of offensive tools against both themselves and their allies, they've got a good stock of resources, they've even got some noncombat features.

[Skrum]

IMO, there should be a standardized Extra Attack schedule across all martial classes, similar to the standardized spellcasting schedule across casters. Then they'd all have a baseline you could build extra features to differentiate them, rather than having 1 class that stays online until 11, and 3 you basically have to multiclass out of after 7 or 8.

Neither here nor there, but I was just thinking today that it would be cool if barbs got cleaving and fighting multiple enemy-based abilities. This would be in contrast to the fighter that more specializes in fighting one on one.

Level 11 - One Against the Many 1: when you make a melee attack using strength, you may use the same weapon to make another attack at an adjacent target within range.

Level 17 - One Against the Many 2: when you make a melee attack using strength, you may make an attack against any number of targets within range using the same weapon

This of course wouldn't solve their problems by itself (like what would they do in the boss fight), but it would be a step in the right direction and give them a cool flavor that distinguishes them from the fighter

[Rukelnikov]

Neither here nor there, but I was just thinking today that it would be cool if barbs got cleaving and fighting multiple enemy-based abilities. This would be in contrast to the fighter that more specializes in fighting one on one.

Level 11 - One Against the Many 1: when you make a melee attack using strength, you may use the same weapon to make another attack at an adjacent target within range.

Level 17 - One Against the Many 2: when you make a melee attack using strength, you may make an attack against any number of targets within range using the same weapon

This of course wouldn't solve their problems by itself (like what would they do in the boss fight), but it would be a step in the right direction and give them a cool flavor that distinguishes them from the fighter

So, horde breaker and whirlwind attack?

I think the idea of differentiating Barbs as being the 1 big hit instead of multiple medium hits is ok, the execution is the problem. If Brutal Critical allowed you to turn a hit into a crit by expending a resource or, worst case scenario, by taking a level of exhaustion, they could at least fill that role of single powerful hit, the problem with current BC is its unreliability.

More in general, I think Barbs problem is its design is so reductive it doesn't leave place for much, if rage was for instance a score that fluctuated, then you could "spend" rage to do things, and gain rage when things happen, like, each point of damage you take gives you a point of rage, then you can spend X rage points to "enter" PHB rage, or spend Y points in turning a hit into a crit, but now maybe you let all your anger go in that hit and can't maintain rage anymore.

I think managing a resource like that would have been fitting to the fantasy (probably better fitting than current "that's my secret pally, I'm always angry!"), and would have been a better mechanical groundwork in which to base a class on.

[Skrum]

So, horde breaker and whirlwind attack?

That can be used on each attack. A barb could attack 4 total times with their action, if there's two adjacent enemies. One Against the Many similarly could be used for each attack (so, twice per action)



I think the idea of differentiating Barbs as being the 1 big hit instead of multiple medium hits is ok, the execution is the problem. If Brutal Critical allowed you to turn a hit into a crit by expending a resource or, worst case scenario, by taking a level of exhaustion, they could at least fill that role of single powerful hit, the problem with current BC is its unreliability.

More in general, I think Barbs problem is its design is so reductive it doesn't leave place for much, if rage was for instance a score that fluctuated, then you could "spend" rage to do things, and gain rage when things happen, like, each point of damage you take gives you a point of rage, then you can spend X rage points to "enter" PHB rage, or spend Y points in turning a hit into a crit, but now maybe you let all your anger go in that hit and can't maintain rage anymore.

I think managing a resource like that would have been fitting to the fantasy (probably better fitting than current "that's my secret pally, I'm always angry!"), and would have been a better mechanical groundwork in which to base a class on.

Yeah one big hit would be cool too. Maybe just let them add a bunch of damage dice, once per turn, and have it scale up as they go up in level. Like what if rage was "once per turn, you may add a number of d6 to a melee weapon damage roll equal to your proficiency bonus."

I would like to see them get both of these abilities, actually. Good complements.

[Talionis]

Tiers as defined in 3.5 are still present in 5e. The differences are smaller and I think many are able to ignore the differences. But some classes are better designed than others. I doubt anyone doubts that the full casters are still in a different tier than martials. I think it’s agreed that Monks have MAD Attribute and too little Ki resource issues. Ranger had to be reworked. Barbarians really are only okay in combat and have almost no function in non combat roles in the game. The casters are probably relevant or can be relevant in most roles in the game. Tiers are still present because people commonly can rank the classes.

[JNAProductions]

Tiers as defined in 3.5 are still present in 5e. The differences are smaller and I think many are able to ignore the differences. But some classes are better designed than others. I doubt anyone doubts that the full casters are still in a different tier than martials. I think it’s agreed that Monks have MAD Attribute and too little Ki resource issues. Ranger had to be reworked. Barbarians really are only okay in combat and have almost no function in non combat roles in the game. The casters are probably relevant or can be relevant in most roles in the game. Tiers are still present because people commonly can rank the classes.

So what's the T1 or T5 class?

Classes in 5E are pretty much all T3-4, with some specific builds hitting T2 (the big one being Wish-Simulacrum chaining).

[Psyren]

Yeah, Rune Knight in particular makes the comparison to Barbarians (any of them, really) rather straightforward.

They've got burst damage that scales, they've got top shelf grappling that works on even the biggest creatures, they've got the ability to mitigate a wide array of offensive tools against both themselves and their allies, they've got a good stock of resources, they've even got some noncombat features.

Their chassis is stronger too, since with those bonus ASIs you could shore up their performance in the other two pillars if you wanted to (e.g. Skill Expert, Ritual Caster) without overly impacting their combat effectiveness relative to the Barb.


Neither here nor there, but I was just thinking today that it would be cool if barbs got cleaving and fighting multiple enemy-based abilities. This would be in contrast to the fighter that more specializes in fighting one on one.

Level 11 - One Against the Many 1: when you make a melee attack using strength, you may use the same weapon to make another attack at an adjacent target within range.

Level 17 - One Against the Many 2: when you make a melee attack using strength, you may make an attack against any number of targets within range using the same weapon

This of course wouldn't solve their problems by itself (like what would they do in the boss fight), but it would be a step in the right direction and give them a cool flavor that distinguishes them from the fighter

Is the Fighter specialized in 1-on-1? I would think getting twice as many attacks means they have more freedom to spread them out.

[Skrum]

Is the Fighter specialized in 1-on-1? I would think getting twice as many attacks means they have more freedom to spread them out.

Well, in the sense that a fighter can hit one target 4 times (or 8 times, since they have action surge) while the barb would be geared towards diving into the middle of a crowd and attacking everyone.

But yeah, a fighter could spread them out too. Which is fine; fighters should be the more versatile of the two. But if with those abilities, if there were 4 enemies within reach of the barb, they'd make 8 attack per action. If they got to bonus action attack, it's be 12 attack. That's equal to or better than a fighter using Action Surge.

[finley]

Yeah, Rune Knight in particular makes the comparison to Barbarians (any of them, really) rather straightforward.

They've got burst damage that scales, they've got top shelf grappling that works on even the biggest creatures, they've got the ability to mitigate a wide array of offensive tools against both themselves and their allies, they've got a good stock of resources, they've even got some noncombat features.

It's always puzzled me how the Barbarian and Rogue bring weak chassis to the table along with horrendously weak subclasses.

Fighter and Monk both have multiple "killer app" subclasses that skyrocket them in terms of power-Rune Knight, Echo Knight, Battlemaster, Way of Shadow and Way of Mercy all come to mind. Meanwhile, Barbarian and Rogue get...maybe Zealot, Soul Knife and Arcane Trickster? Those three are good, don't get me wrong, but they're not nearly the jump in power Monk or Fighter get from their best subclasses.

I wonder what Martial optimization would look like if Tasha's had given Barbs and Rogues their own Way of Mercy. It's frustrating, because Tasha's shows that WotC CAN make Martials good. The facelift they gave Monks, both with subclasses and optional features, was a huge help for that class. They just decided not to do the same for Barbs and Rogues for...reasons?

[Witty Username]

I wonder what Martial optimization would look like if Tasha's had given Barbs and Rogues their own Way of Mercy. It's frustrating, because Tasha's shows that WotC CAN make Martials good. The facelift they gave Monks, both with subclasses and optional features, was a huge help for that class. They just decided not to do the same for Barbs and Rogues for...reasons?

I mean they kinda did, phantom rogue and soul knife are pretty solid subclasses. Barbarian got not alot in Tasha's but they still get to live in a post damage world with zealot from Xanathar's.

Steady Aim also is surprisingly effective for its looks.

Monk also got Astral self, which has a run for worst subclass in Tasha's (wild soul barbarian is pretty bad though, so I could see an argument for it), for what it is worth.

[Eldariel]

So what's the T1 or T5 class?

Classes in 5E are pretty much all T3-4, with some specific builds hitting T2 (the big one being Wish-Simulacrum chaining).

Eh, Wizard has a dozen ways to break the game from Tier 1 (Conjuration Wizard creating e.g. Catapult Munitions for throwable 10d6 damage) to Tier 2 (just Animate Dead and Glyph of Warding, with Planar Binding in the tow, also Arcane Abeyance and company) to Tier 3 (Magic Jar chain for body upgrades without Dispel vulnerability, Simulacrums that in turn, with the 1.5k cost, could create new Simulacrums in parties with multiple Wizards, Malleable Illusions + Creation [poison, explosives, whatever], Illusory Reality + Mirage Arcana, Convergent Future + Shadar-kai Magic Jar, Demiplane Glyph room, Symbols on objects you show/throw at people, etc.) to Tier 4 (True Polymorph your Sim into Atropal for infinite Wraith army, Shapechange into Matron Mother and back for a Retriever army, Wish Mirage Arcana/Druid Grove/Temple of the Gods, demiplane + Gate anything to prepared hell trap, etc.).

Can easily frontline (Bladesinger, any Wizard with Moderately Armored), has the best CC and damage spells in the game, borderline best minionmancy (Druid wins out early on especially due to Shepherd but by Tier 3, Wizard wins), has great ranged prowess, insane mobility, access to spells to either bypass (Find Familiar gives you great perception with no investment, Disguise Self/Suggestion/Charm Person/Detect Thoughts/etc. can often substitute or at least help out with social skills, teleportation and flight can solve many exploration challenges, divinstions can solve lots of orientation/location challenges, etc.) or alleviate the need for many skills as well as skill buffing (Borrowed Knowledge + Enhance Ability with Skill Empowerment as necessary, also minions for Help). Subclasses add some stuff but even subclassless Wizard can tick all the basic boxes. Therefore I would certainly say Wizards qualify as Tier 1 based on the description (as do Druids IMHO, though they are weighted more towards Tier 1-2 with decent 3-4 while Wizards are steadily awesome 1-20 but probably slightly behind Druids on 2-7).

[Witty Username]

I believe those of us that played 3.5 have forgotten (or I was misinformed originally) what the Tiers were defined by.

Being able to break encounter difficulty and outshine other party members was a Tier 2 definition - with the controling aspect being specialization.
In 3.5 sorcerer was Tier 2, not because it was any less broken than wizard, but because it couldn't have most of its build options readily available, so it could only break the game some of the time.

By this lens, Tier 1 has been soundly eliminated in 5e. Because the cap has been reduced to about Tier 2.

As for the lower Tiers, I think Tier 5 (requires specialization to perform to expectations) and Tier 6 (does not perform to expectations even when specialized). Have also been eliminated in my mind, even the barbarian we have been ragging on can do pretty scary things with specific builds, and most classes are less weak and more jank (difficult to play/understand).

This would leave us with
Tier 2 - breakable in specific ways when optimized
Tier 3 - well rounded generally, unlikely to break encounter design
Tier 4 - specialized to a detriment, has issues performing outside the areas the class is designed to excel in

I feel like there is an argument that Tier 4 is still a thing, Rogue has most of the playstyle that got it there before so that isn't a surprise. I would also add Barbarian, Artificer, Monk and debatebly ranger to that list for 5e.

As for Tier 2 and 3, how one rates will likely depend alot on their mood that day.

[Eldariel]

I believe those of us that played 3.5 have forgotten (or I was misinformed originally) what the Tiers were defined by.

Being able to break encounter difficulty and outshine other party members was a Tier 2 definition - with the controling aspect being specialization.
In 3.5 sorcerer was Tier 2, not because it was any less broken than wizard, but because it couldn't have most of its build options readily available, so it could only break the game some of the time.

By this lens, Tier 1 has been soundly eliminated in 5e. Because the cap has been reduced to about Tier 2.

Here's how it was defined in JaronK's tier list (which I linked earlier):
"Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

(Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.)"

The primary difference between Wizard and Sorc was that Sorc was locked into a single set of options to break the game - they could do totally busted stuff, but this was limited to a particular set of abilities they could not switch - if they didn't pick certain things, they couldn't go back on their choice (outside Limited Wish > Psychic Reformation -kinda stuff at any rate). Wizard OTOH was able to do busted things and outshine people in their specialty and switch out their loadout for another day to tackle a very different set of challenges. And that part is certainly there, with Wizard as well as Druid and Cleric (but the Cleric list is more combat oriented than the other two) have vast spell lists with broken stuff and can switch spells daily; Druid and Cleric just plain know their whole list while Wizards know a lot of spells and can learn essentially an unrestricted amount of extras.

And their lists are still broad enough to solve different days with different sets of abilities every day. Therefore, Tier 1 rating is totally warranted. Wizard has a bunch of busted stuff that can solve very different encounters each day, complete with ritual access to some busted stuff (Contact Other Plane, Find Familiar, Magic Mouth, Phantom Steed, Tiny Hut, etc.) that can negate specific types of encounters or solve specific types of issues with unparalleled efficiency. This honestly has changed very little between the prepared and the fixed list casters.

[finley]

I mean they kinda did, phantom rogue and soul knife are pretty solid subclasses. Barbarian got not alot in Tasha's but they still get to live in a post damage world with zealot from Xanathar's.


Yeah, Phantom is kind of a tragic tale. They're just really screwed over by the Rogue's wonky subclass progression. I think if Tokens of the Departed came online at 6, you could make a really solid character with it. As it stands, though, your subclass isn't really giving you that massive oomph until nearly halfway through character progression, when your campaign is probably almost over.

[Witty Username]

Sorcerer has gotten more broadly versitile since 3.5, exclusive access to metamagic and spells known broad enough to get all the problem spells (there is less of them generally so it is easier to grab all).

It doesn't really fit the, less stuff than wizard. And coffee lock nonsense is definitely beyond basically anything else in the system.

[KorvinStarmast]

I believe those of us that played 3.5 have forgotten (or I was misinformed originally) what the Tiers were defined by.

Being able to break encounter difficulty and outshine other party members was a Tier 2 definition - with the controling aspect being specialization.
In 3.5 sorcerer was Tier 2, not because it was any less broken than wizard, but because it couldn't have most of its build options readily available, so it could only break the game some of the time.

By this lens, Tier 1 has been soundly eliminated in 5e. Because the cap has been reduced to about Tier 2.

As for the lower Tiers, I think Tier 5 (requires specialization to perform to expectations) and Tier 6 (does not perform to expectations even when specialized). Have also been eliminated in my mind, even the barbarian we have been ragging on can do pretty scary things with specific builds, and most classes are less weak and more jank (difficult to play/understand).

This would leave us with
Tier 2 - breakable in specific ways when optimized
Tier 3 - well rounded generally, unlikely to break encounter design
Tier 4 - specialized to a detriment, has issues performing outside the areas the class is designed to excel in

I feel like there is an argument that Tier 4 is still a thing, Rogue has most of the playstyle that got it there before so that isn't a surprise. I would also add Barbarian, Artificer, Monk and debatebly ranger to that list for 5e.

As for Tier 2 and 3, how one rates will likely depend alot on their mood that day. That's a pretty nice summary.

[Zuras]

I think we agree there is significant separation between the classes. Where I would disagree is on whether the 5e classes all fit within the 3.5 definition of Tier 3. From personal experience, no class approaches Tier 2 for its entire level span—Druids are bonkers for a few levels with Conjure Animals, and Wizards get crazy with Simulacrum. Otherwise, every class has at least one solid subclass that fits somewhere in Tier 3.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think we agree there is significant separation between the classes. Where I would disagree is on whether the 5e classes all fit within the 3.5 definition of Tier 3. From personal experience, no class approaches Tier 2 for its entire level span—Druids are bonkers for a few levels with Conjure Animals, and Wizards get crazy with Simulacrum. Otherwise, every class has at least one solid subclass that fits somewhere in Tier 3.

Yeah. The floor is higher--you can't accidentally pull a Sir Bearington and invalidate another player for the whole span of levels. The ceilings are lower--you have to actually try to cause real disruptions (although it's certainly possible), and that only works at specific level ranges and for specific types of encounter/adventure design.

Beyond that, it gets really subjective and adventure design, player skill/choices, and even just luck dominate.

There are certainly subclasses that are weaker than others. And subclasses/builds that are much stronger than others.

[Anymage]

It's also worth noting that it's harder to accidentally have the wide spread of competencies you did in 3.5. It's possible (summon/minionmancy builds in specific come to mind here), but generally it takes work and intent. Some resistance to optimizers would be nice to have built into the system. But resistance to optimizers vs. resistance to general build differences are different things.

[Twelvetrees]

Beyond that, it gets really subjective and adventure design, player skill/choices, and even just luck dominate.
Emphasis mine.

Seeing rogues consistently rated by folks in this thread near the bottom of their tiers shocked me.



Scale 5: Barbarian, Rogue


T3: Decent enough in their own way, performance will vary wildly based not only on build, but on how the GM interprets certain rules or lack of rules. Put Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Artificer here.





Tier
Classes


C
Barbarian, Rogue



I admittedly play games that extend into higher levels with folks who don't worry about optimizing their characters too much, but rogues with access to Reliable Talent are a force to be reckoned with.

What they want to happen? It happens. In a bounded accuracy system, having the minimum number they can get on many skill checks being high enough to meet the DC for Moderate or Hard skill DCs? Ridiculously useful.

[LudicSavant]

Reliable Talent is definitely nice, no doubt about it. Great ability. That said, let's try to get a more specific idea of how nice we're talking.

- It comes online at tier 3 -- so this is about the time that heavy duty spells and features are clocking in for many classes.

- If you're rolling normally, there's a 55% chance that Reliable Talent will not apply to the roll. If you're rolling with Advantage, there's about an 80% chance that it will not apply to the roll.

- To the other 45% (or ~20% with advantage) of rolls, it provides a bonus. On a normal roll, it's a 5% chance of +1, 5% chance of +2, etc up to +9 (when you roll a 1). This works out to an average bonus of +2.25 to a normal roll (less to an advantage roll, more to a disadvantage roll). If that sounds like it's a smaller average bonus than getting Advantage on a roll, that's because it is. However, this stacks, and is also better than Advantage at hitting lower DCs.

- If the skill you wanna use isn't one you can add your proficiency bonus to, it also doesn't apply. So it is still a bonus to a finite selection of skills, as opposed to any skill you want. It also won't help Passive checks, nor checks above a certain DC.

- There is meaningful extra tactical value in being able to rely on the knowledge that some things simply succeed, period (e.g. there's not even a 5% chance you'll fail things below a certain DC).

____

This is all nice, but it doesn't strike me as like, showstoppingly nice, especially since all a Rogue's getting besides this for skill utility is a few Expertises and whatever their subclass gives.

Compare for instance a Lore Bard (who has Expertise in just as many skills as the Rogue). It has Peerless Skill or Bardic Inspiration that grants +5.5 average to a skill check in tier 3. And -5.5 to enemy skill checks they don't like with Cutting Words. Aaaand access to some serious heavy duty skill-boosting spells and utility spells that do things that skills just can't do at all. Many of which can be pasted not only onto themselves but onto the checks of whichever ally is best suited for the task.

And of course Eloquence Bards already had Reliable Talent in their favorite skills (but only those two skills) at level 3, and just get to stack all their other Bard stuff too.

[Ignimortis]

The primary difference between Wizard and Sorc was that Sorc was locked into a single set of options to break the game - they could do totally busted stuff, but this was limited to a particular set of abilities they could not switch - if they didn't pick certain things, they couldn't go back on their choice (outside Limited Wish > Psychic Reformation -kinda stuff at any rate). Wizard OTOH was able to do busted things and outshine people in their specialty and switch out their loadout for another day to tackle a very different set of challenges. And that part is certainly there, with Wizard as well as Druid and Cleric (but the Cleric list is more combat oriented than the other two) have vast spell lists with broken stuff and can switch spells daily; Druid and Cleric just plain know their whole list while Wizards know a lot of spells and can learn essentially an unrestricted amount of extras.

And their lists are still broad enough to solve different days with different sets of abilities every day. Therefore, Tier 1 rating is totally warranted. Wizard has a bunch of busted stuff that can solve very different encounters each day, complete with ritual access to some busted stuff (Contact Other Plane, Find Familiar, Magic Mouth, Phantom Steed, Tiny Hut, etc.) that can negate specific types of encounters or solve specific types of issues with unparalleled efficiency. This honestly has changed very little between the prepared and the fixed list casters.
In full agreement on this. While spells in general might have gotten nerfed a bit, full prepared casters' versatility has only been buffed. Wizard is still T1, with Cleric and Druid also having that potential. While no class is T5 anymore (mostly due to the fact that "you must be this tall to ride" bar is now significantly lower, not due to lower-tier classes being significantly better), there are cases where T1 to T4 would certainly still apply.


Emphasis mine.

Seeing rogues consistently rated by folks in this thread near the bottom of their tiers shocked me.

I admittedly play games that extend into higher levels with folks who don't worry about optimizing their characters too much, but rogues with access to Reliable Talent are a force to be reckoned with.

What they want to happen? It happens. In a bounded accuracy system, having the minimum number they can get on many skill checks being high enough to meet the DC for Moderate or Hard skill DCs? Ridiculously useful.
Reliable Talent is very useful, no doubt about it...

But to add to what LudicSavant has already said, it is also extremely GM-dependent. If your GM allows you to do, for example, impossibly good wall-running (basically Climb speed for a round) with a DC20 or DC25 Acrobatics check (so you almost automatically succeed at it), it's one thing, and if the best Acrobatics can do is a cartwheel that serves no practical purpose whatsoever, but still requires a DC25 check "because nobody can do it untrained", it's a whole different thing.

There are, of course, cases between those two points, but that's what holds skill users back - you never know what they can do at any particular table, and how useful that guaranteed result of 23+ will be.

[Chaos Jackal]

I'll agree with the takes on Reliable Talent - it is a good ability and there's no doubt about that, but it is not as reliable as it'd like to be, primarily because skills aren't reliable in the first place. While some people try to deflect the issue, there aren't really two ways about it; the skill system in 5e just isn't developed enough, and that means Reliable Talent can very much range from amazing to borderline pointless, with the truth usually being somewhere in between.

Despite the common belief that it's casters who have been the most toned down compared to 3.5, I'd argue that (excellent points such as those of Eldariel regarding casters still playing their own game not even withstanding) skill monkeys are the ones truly shafted. Diplomancy? It's not there. Intimidation builds debuffing an enemy to oblivion without magic? Nope, can't really do that. Pulling weird shenanigans with Jump or whatever? Think again. And so on and so forth. Like sure, I don't disagree that there exist permissive DMs who'll allow you to marry the princess with a 30 persuasion to the king or make someone sit down and cry in the middle of combat with a 25 intimidation, but can you rely on those? Can you expect those? Personally, of all of my DMs, and I've had at least six, maybe one of them would allow something of the kind and even then not too consistently; he did have someone practically dive off a castle wall (they didn't survive the fall) after a really high intimidation check, for example, but when a barbarian asked to charge through a house wall he wasn't even allowed to roll.

Since we're talking rogues, I'll bring up my typical and rather tired by this point example: you have a long empty corridor lit by many candles or whatever, with guards at the end of it before the vault door or the gate or something. If the DM is the type to rule that a high stealth roll is effectively a combination of invisibility and teleportation allowing you to pop Batman-style right behind them then sure, have fun with Reliable Talent, those DMs do exist. But in the, arguably highly likely, chance that the DM isn't that type... well, all the stealth in the world will not get you through that corridor unnoticed without actually being invisible or the guards all falling asleep or whatever (incidentally, things that magic can accomplish).

Skills can do stuff. The problem is, there is a maybe there. And a big one.

And well, on top of that... rogues just don't get much anyway. OK, great, hooray, Reliable Talent. What else is there? Usually mediocre damage, which is usually relying on the rest of your party to boot and can be shut down in a lot of ways, less opportunities to bump up that mediocre damage because let's face it, having only one attack by default is pretty bad when it comes to synergies with items, spells, other features and whatnot, and defenses, mobility and utility that range from "alright" to "pretty cool, but not exactly game-changing".

I've played rogues. Lots of them in fact. I've optimized rogues. I've had fun with rogues. It's not like they're unplayable; as many have said upthread, no class is actually unplayable in 5e without turning the difficulty to 11 (and even then it's debatable, though I sure as hell wouldn't wanna be a t3/t4 barbarian in any high-difficulty game). But on the lower end? Yes, very much so. They don't get many impactful enough tools and their specialty just isn't reliable, despite the name of its backbone.

[Zuras]

I’m in full agreement with the argument “wizards are super-versatile and have lots of tools for the exploration tier”, but I don’t see how that translates to “can regularly break the game in multiple ways without needing a specialized build”, which is my understanding of what a Tier 1 class means in the old 3.5e terms. We may be disagreeing over definitions rather than facts here, though.

I don’t see how Tiny Hut, Phantom Steed or any of the other rituals wizards get break the game. Yes, they significantly reduce or eliminate specific exploration pillar challenges, but it’s hardly breaking the game when 5e gives casters ways to ignore every built-in exploration mechanic.

They made Light a spammable cantrip and gave almost everyone darkvision. Goodberry lets you ignore food for 10 people for a whole day. They made Tiny Hut a ritual. Later with the Artificer, they created a class that can guarantee you always have a Bag of Holding if you want one. The designers effectively hung a big sign saying “if you think these bits of exploration rules are boring, use magic to bypass them”, so I don’t think using them is breaking the game.

My personal experiences with game breaking character classes have been:

2nd level Moon Druids are entirely off the power curve, but it doesn’t matter for long because the gap narrows by 4th level.

5th-8th level Druids breaking the game if the DM lets them get whatever they want with Conjure Animals and Conjure Woodland Beings.

Wizards able to cast Simulacrum. In a game where combat is centered on action economy and concentration is a limited resource, giving high level wizards an extra concentration slot and extra full turn every round is gross. Add a Staff of the Magi to keep from exhausting your spell slots too fast and things get entirely out of hand.

Beyond that, though, spellcasters regularly break encounters with their higher-level spells, but that always seemed like what the game expects. The solution is simply to throw multiple varied encounters at the players and carefully design your climactic encounters so a single strategy or spell won’t derail it. When things tend to get out of hand is when multiple spellcasters stack concentration spells, like the Animated Objects/Crusader’s Mantle combo, which is less breaking the game and more “teamwork makes the dream work” as far as I’m concerned.

As far as relative class rankings go, where you place them is influenced by how you value performance. Rogues are generally effective contributors, but rarely get a chance to hog the spotlight for a whole session even if they wanted to. Monks on the other hand are weaker overall, but periodically will be top performers for multiple sessions with the right opponents (basically really dangerous things with bad con saves).

I also want to reiterate a point someone else made, that martial PCs high level issues are exacerbated by 5e giving them the worst mental saves of any version of D&D. A 20th level 5e fighter’s saves are garbage overall compared to a 20th level AD&D fighter.

[KorvinStarmast]

I also want to reiterate a point someone else made, that martial PCs high level issues are exacerbated by 5e giving them the worst mental saves of any version of D&D. A 20th level 5e fighter’s saves are garbage overall compared to a 20th level AD&D fighter. Wizards of the Coast, not Warriors of the Coast, so who saw that one coming? :smallbiggrin:

One of my disappointments with 5e remains that point in bold, though.

[Skrum]

- snip -

I've been arguing in the other direction from you on this thread, but yeah, it does seem like most of the difference in our opinions is definitional.

Do the top 5e classes break the game the way 3e's did. No. Absolutely not. Nor are the bad classes as bad as the bad classes of 3e. Perhaps even more importantly, it is much harder to make a bad character by accident the way it was in 3rd. That is definitely all true. So, can the tiers as used in 3e be meaningfully applied in 5e. I'm gonna say no.

That said. I do think the game bends pretty hard towards "caster supremacy" by the end of tier 2 (lol the 5e use of tier). So, 8-10 basically. While no particular option that a caster has "breaks the game," the sheer amount of tools that casters get means that full casting classes get to contribute to FAR more situations than the martial classes do.

Not to break out even more rating systems, but if each class was rated, 1 to 10, on each pillar and sub-pillar of the game and their ability to contribute in those situations, casters would rate decent to high in all categories. Martials would not.

I think that's a real problem, and is starting to really impact the way I think about and play the game.

[Zuras]

Not to break out even more rating systems, but if each class was rated, 1 to 10, on each pillar and sub-pillar of the game and their ability to contribute in those situations, casters would rate decent to high in all categories. Martials would not.

I think that's a real problem, and is starting to really impact the way I think about and play the game.

The problem with rating classes rather than class/subclass combinations is that some classes keep far more functionality in their subclass choice. Artificers and Rangers are particularly bad in this regard. In a letter grade type system Artillerist and Alchemist are a full letter grade apart.

[Psyren]

I also want to reiterate a point someone else made, that martial PCs high level issues are exacerbated by 5e giving them the worst mental saves of any version of D&D. A 20th level 5e fighter’s saves are garbage overall compared to a 20th level AD&D fighter.

The OneD&D fighter on the other hand is getting a vastly superior version of Indomitable to shore up their saves, and Unconquerable to get extra uses. And that's before counting the extra 1st level feat for Lucky or their Epic Boon.

[Eldariel]

I’m in full agreement with the argument “wizards are super-versatile and have lots of tools for the exploration tier”, but I don’t see how that translates to “can regularly break the game in multiple ways without needing a specialized build”, which is my understanding of what a Tier 1 class means in the old 3.5e terms. We may be disagreeing over definitions rather than facts here, though.

I don’t see how Tiny Hut, Phantom Steed or any of the other rituals wizards get break the game. Yes, they significantly reduce or eliminate specific exploration pillar challenges, but it’s hardly breaking the game when 5e gives casters ways to ignore every built-in exploration mechanic.


Phantom Steed can be absolutely gamebreaking: in overland encounters you pretty much ignore anything without long range (and that means LONG range) attacks and even in dungeons, your first round has you move 200' or more. And you can maintain up to 5 at any given time. It's a ridiculous spell all told, way better than anything short of Find Greater Steed or like Planar Binding -level stuff on this front.

As for how Wizards break the game, please refer to my earlier post:

Eh, Wizard has a dozen ways to break the game from Tier 1 (Conjuration Wizard creating e.g. Catapult Munitions for throwable 10d6 damage) to Tier 2 (just Animate Dead and Glyph of Warding, with Planar Binding in the tow, also Arcane Abeyance and company) to Tier 3 (Magic Jar chain for body upgrades without Dispel vulnerability, Simulacrums that in turn, with the 1.5k cost, could create new Simulacrums in parties with multiple Wizards, Malleable Illusions + Creation [poison, explosives, whatever], Illusory Reality + Mirage Arcana, Convergent Future + Shadar-kai Magic Jar, Demiplane Glyph room, Symbols on objects you show/throw at people, etc.) to Tier 4 (True Polymorph your Sim into Atropal for infinite Wraith army, Shapechange into Matron Mother and back for a Retriever army, Wish Mirage Arcana/Druid Grove/Temple of the Gods, demiplane + Gate anything to prepared hell trap, etc.).

That's not an exhaustive list but a list of stuff that most certainly can absolutely trounce anything that's supposed to be challenging for normal PCs or parties of any given level.


The problem with rating classes rather than class/subclass combinations is that some classes keep far more functionality in their subclass choice. Artificers and Rangers are particularly bad in this regard. In a letter grade type system Artillerist and Alchemist are a full letter grade apart.

I think it's enough to rate the best non-Schrödinger's subclass.

[Frogreaver]

The problem with rating classes rather than class/subclass combinations is that some classes keep far more functionality in their subclass choice. Artificers and Rangers are particularly bad in this regard. In a letter grade type system Artillerist and Alchemist are a full letter grade apart.

I’d go a step further. It’s also usually not classes or subclasses themselves, it’s specific spells that pull up the caster classes.

Consider A Druid non moon Druid without conjure animals. A wizard without simulacrum. A cleric without spirit guardians. Etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's not an exhaustive list but a list of stuff that most certainly can absolutely trounce anything that's supposed to be challenging for normal PCs or parties of any given level.

Wizards are powerful, but most/all of those require extremely...suspect readings of the rules that require massive amounts of DM favoritism. Or need a lot more explanation.

From the top:

1. What are "catapult munitions"? If you mean the ammo used by a catapult...no, you can't throw those. They only deal that damage if and when they're launched by a catapult. If you mean using the spell catapult to throw things like acid flasks, etc...that's a very particular reading that is not generally accepted.

2. Animate dead + glyph of warding requires very particular conditions. Don't get me wrong. Animate dead is strong. But all the shenanigans that actually break games require a DM to basically roll over and let you do whatever you want without actually, you know, running the game. Same with planar binding. To actually use it requires 2 cooperating casters and abusing it requires some questionable readings. Arcane Abeyance is fundamentally broken, from a setting-specific book known for being particularly broken. And doesn't come online until level 10.

3. Magic Jar body chaining requires a) the DM to hand you monsters to magic jar into, b) extremely favorable readings on how that works. Simulacrum is, absolutely, busted. Hands down. I'll give you that one. But no sane DM is going to allow you to chain simulacrum in any form. All of the rest of them require particularly convoluted readings.

4. The only one of these that even plausibly works without the DM basically rolling over for you and without you metagaming like crazy is the wish -> temple of the gods (et al). Shapechange into Matron Mother, in particular, requires very cramped readings of things. Demiplane + gate means you're stuck there too. Because you can only bring someone to you, unless you have a way of forcing them through the gate. And even then, getting it to work requires a lot of DM favoritism and tons of downtime.

So yeah. Wizards are powerful. No doubt. But that list? Reads like someone who thinks that DMs have to give in whenever they hear the magic words "RAW". Most of those are debatable at best. And all of them rely on a DM who basically rolls over and lets you break things instead of saying "no, that doesn't work, sorry."


I’d go a step further. It’s also usually not classes or subclasses themselves, it’s specific spells that pull up the caster classes.

Consider A Druid non moon Druid without conjure animals. A wizard without simulacrum. A cleric without spirit guardians. Etc.

This. In general, "broken" things revolve around a small handful of particularly out-of-band spells. Fix those and those abusive builds drop back down into the pack. And not just any use of those spells--only particularly abusive uses. Simulacrum may be the one exception on the list you posted, where it's just too strong for the game as written, even if not twisted, chained, or otherwise abused.

[Eldariel]

1. What are "catapult munitions"? If you mean the ammo used by a catapult...no, you can't throw those. They only deal that damage if and when they're launched by a catapult. If you mean using the spell catapult to throw things like acid flasks, etc...that's a very particular reading that is not generally accepted.

They're detailed in Strixhaven p. 174 IIRC. Basically thrown Fireball doing 10d6.


2. Animate dead + glyph of warding requires very particular conditions. Don't get me wrong. Animate dead is strong. But all the shenanigans that actually break games require a DM to basically roll over and let you do whatever you want without actually, you know, running the game. Same with planar binding. To actually use it requires 2 cooperating casters and abusing it requires some questionable readings. Arcane Abeyance is fundamentally broken, from a setting-specific book known for being particularly broken. And doesn't come online until level 10.

Eh, just Animate Dead is pretty ridiculous. And Glyph in demiplane with buffs is pretty ridiculous. Glyph with Magic Circle also enables Planar Binding straight-up solo.


3. Magic Jar body chaining requires a) the DM to hand you monsters to magic jar into, b) extremely favorable readings on how that works. Simulacrum is, absolutely, busted. Hands down. I'll give you that one. But no sane DM is going to allow you to chain simulacrum in any form. All of the rest of them require particularly convoluted readings.

Magic Jar body chaining requires one reasonable body. You can produce it yourself on level 17 but it's likely you'll face one strong humanoid over 11 levels of the game. Just knock 'em unconscious and take their body. Handy. It can even be much lower level than yours to be useful due to particulars of how that spell works.


4. The only one of these that even plausibly works without the DM basically rolling over for you and without you metagaming like crazy is the wish -> temple of the gods (et al). Shapechange into Matron Mother, in particular, requires very cramped readings of things. Demiplane + gate means you're stuck there too. Because you can only bring someone to you, unless you have a way of forcing them through the gate. And even then, getting it to work requires a lot of DM favoritism and tons of downtime.

It requires one day to Gate someone in and you can always Plane Shift or use Demiplane to get out. You'll typically have one day at some point, especially since you can sidestep having to go through a dungeon to get to a BBEG. "DM favoritism" really in this mostly means "DM running the game as normal". DM doesn't need to do anything to make this work. None of the other stuff really requires anything much either. As long as said creatures exist, you can just pump out Wraiths or Retrievers or whatever. Of course it's stupid and of course you should Rule 0 it but it's in the game; if we go by what's broken, well, that stuff is. The stuff that you have to houserule out of the game is broken.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They're detailed in Strixhaven p. 174 IIRC. Basically thrown Fireball doing 10d6.



Eh, just Animate Dead is pretty ridiculous. And Glyph in demiplane with buffs is pretty ridiculous. Glyph with Magic Circle also enables Planar Binding straight-up solo.



Magic Jar body chaining requires one reasonable body. You can produce it yourself on level 17 but it's likely you'll face one strong humanoid over 11 levels of the game. Just knock 'em unconscious and take their body. Handy. It can even be much lower level than yours to be useful due to particulars of how that spell works.



It requires one day to Gate someone in and you can always Plane Shift or use Demiplane to get out. You'll typically have one day at some point, especially since you can sidestep having to go through a dungeon to get to a BBEG. "DM favoritism" really in this mostly means "DM running the game as normal". DM doesn't need to do anything to make this work. None of the other stuff really requires anything much either. As long as said creatures exist, you can just pump out Wraiths or Retrievers or whatever. Of course it's stupid and of course you should Rule 0 it but it's in the game; if we go by what's broken, well, that stuff is. The stuff that you have to houserule out of the game is broken.

So, let's see.

You need unfettered access to a particular adventure book and arbitrary stuff in it. Yeah, that's the DM breaking the game for you.

Glyph in demiplane requires massive time-and-money sinks to set up and works...once. Before requiring another month and your entire fortune to redo. Yay.

Abusing planar binding requires the DM to allow you to give arbitrary, open-ended, suicidal commands and never getting push-back.

Magic jar body chaining isn't actually RAW. Sure, you can magic jar once (if the DM actually allows the spell, which many do not), but the idea of carrying buffs along? Yeah, that's not only not RAW, it's way outside the realms of reason to ask a DM. That's a hard no from any reasonable DM.

Shapechange into a particular individual (and yes, Matron Mothers are all individuals) is not well defined. You can transform into an average member of a particular species. Not a specific stat block for an individual. Atropals may or may not exist in any given campaign, and you certainly don't know about them in-character. So yeah, metagaming and DM favoritism.

So no, none of those actually work without active DM intervention on your behalf. This is not 3e--those types of thought experiment/TO crap just don't fly by the default rules. You need the DM to actively intervene on your behalf to enable this stuff.

Basically, all this stuff is on the level of pun-pun as far as stinky TO cheese. It's not actually relevant for any game that isn't set up intentionally to break stuff.

[LudicSavant]

Glyph in demiplane requires massive time-and-money sinks to set up and works...once. Before requiring another month and your entire fortune to redo. Yay.

Even the simplest case of using one or two glyphs in any extradimensional space is arguably overly strong, and doesn't require nearly (or even remotely) the kind of exaggerated setup you suggest.


Abusing planar binding requires the DM to allow you to give arbitrary, open-ended, suicidal commands

It of course requires no such thing.

"A bound creature must follow your instructions to the best of its ability. You might command the creature to accompany you on an adventure"

That's all it takes for Planar Binding to give you a potent ally that doesn't eat Concentration and lasts an arbitrarily long time.

You don't even have to send the bound creature into combat to get significant benefits, like having it use its own spell slots for support. That alone would be enough to propel it to extreme levels of utility.


if the DM actually allows the spell, which many do not

The spell isn't balanced because it's banned. It's banned because it's unbalanced.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Even the simplest case of using one or two glyphs in any extradimensional bag is arguably overly strong, and doesn't require nearly (or even remotely) the kind of exaggerated setup you suggest.


The ability to put a glyph in an extradimensional bag is...contested at best. Again, you need active DM allowance for that. And I'd consider doing that as seriously cheesy.



It of course requires no such thing.

"A bound creature must follow your instructions to the best of its ability. You might command the creature to accompany you on an adventure"

That's all it takes for Planar Binding to give you a potent ally that doesn't eat Concentration and lasts an arbitrarily long time.

You don't even have to send the bound creature into combat to get significant benefits, like having it use its own spell slots for support. That alone would be enough to propel it to extreme levels of utility.


Sure. I'll stipulate to that. Planar binding is strong. Probably too strong, to be honest (minionmancy is already pushing the bounds, and this is even worse). But abusive, gamebreaking uses of it require cheese. Of the stinky kind.

And it's something that isn't a wizard class feature. So ascribing broken spells to wizards is, IMO, rather cheating.

It goes back to the idea that the only reason wizards rate so highly is because of a small handful of broken spells that any sane DM has already fixed. Spells that overtly break all the game's expectations. Put them on a commoner and the game falls apart. It's like WBL-mancy in 3e--it's just a disfunction that subverts all the rest of the system.



The spell isn't balanced because it's banned. It's banned because it's unbalanced.

My point exactly. In order for any of this to break the game, you need to get it past a DM. And no sane DM will allow that unless that's exactly what they're going for.

Basically, all of the things listed are TO. You'll never see them at any table that didn't intentionally set out to do that. And TO, for the purposes of ranking things, is utterly useless.

-----

This is the sort of thing that only happens intentionally, with malice aforethought. And getting to any of these requires a rather obscene (relative to the rest of the game) level of forum-shopping, DM-manipulation, and optimization know-how. Which is definitionally out of scope for the tier system as originally set up. A 3e wizard was T1 because even at normal, intended optimization, it had obvious "ok, the game just doesn't work as written" points. The druid was T1 because you could accidentally break the game by taking the obvious options.

The 5e wizard is nowhere close to that. You have to cheese things by manipulating rulings in rather contentious ways and get it by DMs who are much more empowered than they were in 3e.

[LudicSavant]

The ability to put a glyph in an extradimensional bag is...contested at best.

What would prevent a player from putting a Glyph in an extradimensional space, such as a demiplane?


Sure. I'll stipulate to that. Planar binding is strong. Probably too strong, to be honest (minionmancy is already pushing the bounds, and this is even worse). But abusive, gamebreaking uses of it require cheese. Of the stinky kind.

I mean, the main difference between 'super strong' planar binding and 'break the game over your knee' planar binding is basically just going from casting the spell once to casting it multiple times.


And it's something that isn't a wizard class feature. So ascribing broken spells to wizards is, IMO, rather cheating.

Planar Binding is a Wizard spell, unless you're referring to something else? :smallconfused:


And getting to any of these requires a rather obscene (relative to the rest of the game) level of forum-shopping, DM-manipulation, and optimization know-how.

I dunno man. I noticed much of the stuff Eldariel mentions on my first reading of the Player's Handbook -- I didn't need to do any forum browsing.



The spell isn't balanced because it's banned. It's banned because it's unbalanced. My point exactly. In order for any of this to break the game, you need to get it past a DM. And no sane DM will allow that In order for a sane DM to disallow it (which is entirely reasonable, and something I do at my own tables), they must first recognize that it is, in fact, too strong. A tier above the curve, one might say.

Now if you'd instead like to have a conversation about how strong the Wizard is if you ban the most troublesome spells, then that's an interesting conversation to have too. But it doesn't somehow refute what Eldariel was saying about those spells being overpowered.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What would prevent a player from putting a Glyph in an extradimensional space, such as a demiplane?


Demiplane, not much. But that restricts you to much higher levels (as demiplane is 8th level). He was saying this kicked in during T2.

Putting it into a bag of holding? Yeah, that's contentious.



I mean, the main difference between 'super strong' planar binding and 'break the game over your knee' planar binding is basically just going from casting the spell once to casting it multiple times.


And having the spell slots and time. It's a 5th level spell that requires another, lower level spell to actually work, takes an hour, and lasts for 24 hours. So minimum 9th level to cast it once. 10th to cast it twice. 6th level spells to get it up to where it's actually usable for most adventuring, so level 11 to do it once.

Again, you're looking at well into T3 before you can "break the game over your knee" to start.



Planar Binding is a Wizard spell, unless you're referring to something else? :smallconfused:


It's also a druid and a cleric spell. And bards can steal it. So it's not intrinsic to wizards. So ranking the class higher because it has one busted thing seems, to me, to be a little distorted.



In order for a sane DM to disallow it (which is entirely reasonable, and something I do at my own tables), they must first recognize that it is, in fact, too strong. A tier above the curve, one might say.

Now if you'd instead like to have a conversation about how strong the Wizard is if you ban the most troublesome spells, then that's an interesting conversation to have too. But it doesn't somehow refute what Eldariel was saying about those spells being overpowered.

But that's not what he was saying. He was saying the wizard was broken. It's not. The wizard and his spells are two separate things with separate "solutions" (assuming they're problems).

And we're not tiering spells, we're tiering classes. Assuming that the wizard === their strongest spells is assuming the highest levels of optimization, which aren't being assumed for everyone else.

[LudicSavant]

And having the spell slots and time. It's a 5th level spell that requires another, lower level spell to actually work, takes an hour, and lasts for 24 hours.

24 hours is the minimum duration. The duration goes up dramatically with each level of upcasting (to 10 days, then 30 days, then 180 days, then a year and day).


It's also a druid and a cleric spell. And bards can steal it. So it's not intrinsic to wizards. So ranking the class higher because

He rated Druids, Clerics, and Bards higher too.


But that's not what he was saying. He was saying the wizard was broken. It's not. The wizard and his spells are two separate things with separate "solutions" (assuming they're problems).

And we're not tiering spells, we're tiering classes.

What should we evaluate the Wizard's power on, if not the utility of their tools -- the most prominent of which being their spells?

[PhoenixPhyre]

24 hours is the minimum duration. The duration goes up dramatically with each level of upcasting (to 10 days, then 30 days, then 180 days, then a year and day).


Sure. But then you're not in T2 anymore, which was what was stated. In fact, you're barely in T2 by the time you can cast it once.

I discount T3+ heavily when considering things. Because the modal campaign never reaches there or never gets very far into it.

And the things you can actually summon at 9th level...aren't that impressive. Especially as a wizard. You have basically conjure elemental (which means you're down 2 5th level spells), which gives you a beat-stick. And not an impressive one. You've got summon greater demon, which is less likely to actually work with planar binding because they're generally either Magic Resistant or have good CHA, and is CR 5 or lower, which are generally unimpressive with a few cheesy exceptions that require metagaming via book diving. You've got infernal calling, which actually gives you a few good options. But nothing spectacular. And burns your 5th level spell slot.

So it's not until level 10 where you can actually use any of the good ones (elemental or infernal calling). And then you're burning both your biggest slots on this. Hope it works and they don't make their save (the good ones tend to have advantage AND have decent CHA saves)!

So to pull this off and "break the game", you're needing to have tons of prep time (especially if it fails and you have to try again the next day), a fair bit of money (ok, this isn't hard), and need to be an evil character. Because good characters aren't summoning demons or devils, which are the only ones that actually can support you.

Celestials (the best supporters) don't come on until you have a 7th level slot, and that's not even on your list as a wizard, so you need to wish for it.



He rated Druids, Clerics, and Bards higher too.

What should we evaluate the Wizard's power on, if not the utility of their tools -- the most prominent of which being their spells?

Consistent optimization levels and realistic game scenarios. Finding the broken spells and hammering on those...tells you really nothing about the game except "ok, here are broken things that won't fly at any table". Everyone accepts they're broken, and fixes them. Including in AL, where none of those tricks even begin to work.

Evaluating anyone based on the most tendentious readings of already broken things makes the whole exercise meaningless. Putting wizards in tier 1 (can casually break the game in multiple ways) because they have 1-2 utterly broken spells that no one actually lets them use that way is a statement, to be sure. Just not a useful one IMO.

[Olive_Sophia]

In my limited experience, Paladins have been remarkably strong at low-mid levels in 5e. There wasn't much optimization for me to do when I played them, but I had a lot of offense and defense, and some interesting niche choices with the spell list expansions from my Sacred oath.

And I'm sure this isn't a new observation, but casters seem to be much toned down in the core mechanics of what they can do. The new concentration and metamagic mechanics go a long ways towards limiting them (although I'm sure the spells are still ridiculous at high levels.)

[LudicSavant]

Consistent optimization levels Which means what, exactly?


Including in AL, where none of those tricks even begin to work. Why not?


Demiplane, not much. But that restricts you to much higher levels (as demiplane is 8th level). He was saying this kicked in during T2.

He actually mentioned demiplane as a Tier 3 trick. He mentioned a different usage of Glyph of Warding for Tier 2.


Tier 3 (snip) Demiplane Glyph room

[Frogreaver]

It goes back to the idea that the only reason wizards rate so highly is because of a small handful of broken spells that any sane DM has already fixed. Spells that overtly break all the game's expectations. Put them on a commoner and the game falls apart. It's like WBL-mancy in 3e--it's just a disfunction that subverts all the rest of the system.

I would love to see wizards rated apart from the typical cheese that gets brought up.

Take away the extreme cheese, unlimited downtime, unlimited gold and 5MWD assumptions and Wizards are strong but not overly so.

[Hael]

I would love to see wizards rated apart from the typical cheese that gets brought up.

Take away the extreme cheese, unlimited downtime, unlimited gold and 5MWD assumptions and Wizards are strong but not overly so.

They’ll still be the strongest class in the game, its just harder to trivially win any conceivable argument. I mean, how do you rate divination and illusion, and spells like fabricate? Its very hard to even quantify.

Ultimately when you deal with spells, the DM has to deal with creative application of superpowers interacting with the natural world in uncountable ways. So unless you have the type of DM that says no to absolutely anything creative, its really hard to reign their power in.

I’ve seen too many relatively crappy spells absolutely wreck encounters to have any doubt about that.

[LudicSavant]

I would love to see wizards rated apart from the typical cheese that gets brought up.

I can do that.

In my own games, we ban, nerf, or otherwise limit the craziest spells (Magic Jar, Planar Binding, Glyph of Warding, etc) or features (Chronurgist), have a time limit on objectives, give relatively low wealth (certainly lower than the DMG guideline, at least), and frequently run long adventuring days (it's not uncommon to see 6+ deadlies on a dungeoneering day in our more experienced groups). Oh, and occasionally have enemy factions actively trying to prevent the party from resting, surveil the party to ambush them at inopportune moments, or even target the Wizard's spellbook.

In these circumstances I still find that Wizards are one of the strongest classes in the game, assuming the player knows what they're doing.

[Anymage]

Wizards also have the issue that often when a dev/freelancer thinks of a cool mechanical trick they want to do, their first instinct is to make it a wizard spell. So while there is a bit of schrodinger's wizarding and cherry picking based on particular busted spells, wizards would still lead the pack even without those.

Still, wizards do play the same or at least complementary games as mundanes, instead of leaving the muggles out in the cold. So I will grant that a lot of the issues that 3.5 tiers highlighted are either vastly reduced or nonissues.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can do that.

In my own games, we ban, nerf, or otherwise limit the craziest spells (Magic Jar, Planar Binding, Glyph of Warding, etc) or features (Chronurgist), have a time limit on objectives, give relatively low wealth (certainly lower than the DMG guideline, at least), and frequently run long adventuring days (it's not uncommon to see 6+ deadlies on a dungeoneering day in our more experienced groups). Oh, and occasionally have enemy factions actively trying to prevent the party from resting, surveil the party to ambush them at inopportune moments, or even target the Wizard's spellbook.

In these circumstances I still find that Wizards are one of the strongest classes in the game, assuming the player knows what they're doing.

See, this I can agree with. Wizards are strong in many circumstances even if the worst-tuned spells aren't in the picture. That, I think, does make them top tier.

I disagree that in 5e, played as people actually play, rather than in some TO world, wizards are "casually break the game" good.

Plus what @Anymage said--there's a lot of "hey, this is cool...thus it must be a spell. And since wizards are defined almost solely by getting all the best spells...it must be a wizard spell (even if other people get it)." Which biases things tremendously. And WotC has doubled and tripled down on that since Xanathar's (including that book). Non-spells get minor QoL fixes. Spells get major power creep because it's easy and you don't have to worry about fitting it into a thematic or class-feature framework, since spells are already so ill-defined and "no limits".

[Dork_Forge]

So, let's see.

You need unfettered access to a particular adventure book and arbitrary stuff in it. Yeah, that's the DM breaking the game for you.


I'd just like to highlight this part. The mentioned munitions aren't even a listed item in the book, like the stuff added in the Dragonlance book, it's the equivalence of in a videogame needing to get a cannon to destroy a gate:

It's mentioned in an exploration section of the adventure and is intended to destroy an obstruction.

Treating that as something that can be used by a PC in anything but that specific scenario in that specific adventure is ridiculous. It's the DM handing a Fallout fatman to the PCs and has literally nothing to do with the class.



Separately, the way this whole discussion has turned is basically whether or not spells are class features, which they're not. Class features are listed in the class. Spellcasting is a class feature, specific individual spells are not. Specific spells can be notoriously swingy and potentially broken, but they're also subject to banning and modifying more than probably anything else in the game.

If a class' power is directly related to unmodified access to a certain subset of overpowered spells, then it isn't that class' power to begin with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If a class' power is directly related to unmodified access to a certain subset of overpowered spells, then it isn't that class' power to begin with.

Or at least heavily asterisk that rating.

Consider a thought experiment. Consider a class that's a commoner. Gets no proficiencies, d8 hit die, no features...except one. He can cast wish at will with no backlash, no chance of losing the ability. From level 1.

What do you rate him? Well, it's either tier 0 or tier INFINITY. In a game where you can play him (good luck finding one), he's utterly broken. Even with just the safe uses. In any other game, he's unplayable.

Any feature or spell that will get auto-banned or severely constrained at any sane table should be rated as such unless the job is to rate it in TO, white-room settings. And I'd argue that the latter...just isn't all that useful to anyone.

[Witty Username]

Plannar binding also requires finding applicable targets in the wild, which isn’t going to to come up in all games.

[Just to Browse]

Consider a thought experiment. Consider a class that's a commoner. Gets no proficiencies, d8 hit die, no features...except one. He can cast wish at will with no backlash, no chance of losing the ability. From level 1.

What do you rate him? Well, it's either tier 0 or tier INFINITY. In a game where you can play him (good luck finding one), he's utterly broken. Even with just the safe uses. In any other game, he's unplayable.

This seems, at least to me, an example of a tier system working as intended. "I am banning tier 0 broken stuff like the at-will wish caster" is neither inconsistent with the scenario you're presenting, nor does it devalue the idea of putting this class at tier 0. The at-will wish caster is banned at a bunch of tables because it is tier 0.

[finley]

See, this I can agree with. Wizards are strong in many circumstances even if the worst-tuned spells aren't in the picture. That, I think, does make them top tier.

I disagree that in 5e, played as people actually play, rather than in some TO world, wizards are "casually break the game" good.

Plus what @Anymage said--there's a lot of "hey, this is cool...thus it must be a spell. And since wizards are defined almost solely by getting all the best spells...it must be a wizard spell (even if other people get it)." Which biases things tremendously. And WotC has doubled and tripled down on that since Xanathar's (including that book). Non-spells get minor QoL fixes. Spells get major power creep because it's easy and you don't have to worry about fitting it into a thematic or class-feature framework, since spells are already so ill-defined and "no limits".

I think the common topics actually do a disservice to the real balance issues with Wizards. It's obviously true that shenanigans with Magic Jar or Planar Binding will ruin games, but it's also true that those will almost never see play, since players making a good-faith attempt to have fun will rarely attempt them, and DMs will often not allow them.

However, there are plenty of things a player making a good-faith attempt to have fun will probably do playing a wizard. They'll invalidate wandering monsters and perception rolls by letting their party rest in Tiny Hut, and kite around encounters with Phantom Steed. They'll drop encounter-ending spells across the whole course of the campaign, like Web, Hypnotic Pattern, Sleet Storm, Wall of Force, or Forcecage. They'll deal and soak damage with Conjure Elemental or Animate Objects, though they do fall behind Druids in this respect. They'll provide unmatched out-of-combat utility with Ritual Caster and fully scout entire areas with Find Familiar and Arcane Eye. The Wizard is really good at almost everything in the game, if they're not just the straight-up best at it.

And, IMO, this is a lot harder to fix! A player using these spells isn't trying to break the game, they're actually trying to play their class and help the party. As a DM, what do you do? Ban one spell of every category, so the Wizard can just use the second-best one? Ban all of a certain category(I.e. all control/summon/etc. spells) and hope the Wizard doesn't just start focusing on one of their other strengths? It's just really hard to keep an optimizing wizard in check relative to other party members, sometimes even other casters, and players who know which spells to pick often have to consistently self-nerf so they don't become the main protagonist of the campaign.

[Dork_Forge]

I think the common topics actually do a disservice to the real balance issues with Wizards. It's obviously true that shenanigans with Magic Jar or Planar Binding will ruin games, but it's also true that those will almost never see play, since players making a good-faith attempt to have fun will rarely attempt them, and DMs will often not allow them.

I think realism is often missed out in these conversations, yes.


However, there are plenty of things a player making a good-faith attempt to have fun will probably do playing a wizard. They'll invalidate wandering monsters and perception rolls by letting their party rest in Tiny Hut, and kite around encounters with Phantom Steed. They'll drop encounter-ending spells across the whole course of the campaign, like Web, Hypnotic Pattern, Sleet Storm, Wall of Force, or Forcecage. They'll deal and soak damage with Conjure Elemental or Animate Objects, though they do fall behind Druids in this respect. They'll provide unmatched out-of-combat utility with Ritual Caster and fully scout entire areas with Find Familiar and Arcane Eye. The Wizard is really good at almost everything in the game, if they're not just the straight-up best at it.

This is both greatly overvaluing the things you are talking about and ignoring that a single Wizard is never doing all of these things. They won't have all these spells, they can't always cast them if they do, and if they can and do the spells themselves are often over-rated.

[finley]

I think realism is often missed out in these conversations, yes.



This is both greatly overvaluing the things you are talking about and ignoring that a single Wizard is never doing all of these things. They won't have all these spells, they can't always cast them if they do, and if they can and do the spells themselves are often over-rated.

I don't know if you can see a Web or a Sleet Storm get cast and have that opinion. Imagine a hypothetical 7th-level wizard with this spell list.

Cantrips
Mage Hand
Firebolt
Minor Illusoin
Ray of Frost

1st
Shield
Absorb Elements
Find Familiar(R)
Unseen Servant(R)

2nd
Web
Misty Step

3rd
Sleet Storm
Hypnotic Pattern
Phantom Steed(R)
Leomund's Tiny Hut(R)

4th
Evard's Black Tentacles

Inside the dungeon, the Wizard Mage Hand to explore everything for traps, and send an owl familiar into every room with enemies to scout it in advance. Before every combat, they ritual-cast Phantom Steed for the entire party. This lets all of them move 200 feet per round, completely kiting around any level-appropriate enemies. In the first combat, they cast Hypnotic Pattern. Half the enemies fail their save, and are stuck until they take damage. With half the enemies incapacitated, the combat is more or less over. They repeat this two more times until they run out of 3rd-level slots, so in the last combat, they cast Evard's Black Tentacles to similar effect. The enemies are just stuck, sometimes restrained, inside the tentacles as the Wizard runs away from them on the Phantom Steed. If enemies ever get in close, the Wizard can just Misty Step out of melee(admittedly leaving their Steed behind). If the Wizard is ever in danger, they can use Shield or Absorb Elements. If the party want to short rest, they can do so completely safely inside the wizard's Tiny Hut.

Note that this Wizard only used 7 prepared spells out of their allowed 10(assuming an INT modifier of +3), and was basically the star of the show the entire dungeon. Half the monsters failing the Hypnotic Pattern save may also be an underestimate-a level 7 wizard will probably have a 14 or 15 Spell DC, and a CR 7 monster only has +2 to Wisdom saves on average, meaning the average save of enemies found in groups will be even lower. Evard's Black Tentacles targets Strength, which is a worse save, but also packages damage. I sincerely wish I could agree with you, but I just think Wizards are way too overtuned relative to the rest of the classes, even some other full spellcasters.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't know if you can see a Web or a Sleet Storm get cast and have that opinion. Imagine a hypothetical 7th-level wizard with this spell list.

Cantrips
Mage Hand
Firebolt
Minor Illusoin
Ray of Frost

1st
Shield
Absorb Elements
Find Familiar(R)
Unseen Servant(R)

2nd
Web
Misty Step

3rd
Sleet Storm
Hypnotic Pattern
Phantom Steed(R)
Leomund's Tiny Hut(R)

4th
Evard's Black Tentacles

Inside the dungeon, the Wizard Mage Hand to explore everything for traps, and send an owl familiar into every room with enemies to scout it in advance. Before every combat, they ritual-cast Phantom Steed for the entire party. This lets all of them move 200 feet per round, completely kiting around any level-appropriate enemies. In the first combat, they cast Hypnotic Pattern. Half the enemies fail their save, and are stuck until they take damage. With half the enemies incapacitated, the combat is more or less over. They repeat this two more times until they run out of 3rd-level slots, so in the last combat, they cast Evard's Black Tentacles to similar effect. The enemies are just stuck, sometimes restrained, inside the tentacles as the Wizard runs away from them on the Phantom Steed. If enemies ever get in close, the Wizard can just Misty Step out of melee(admittedly leaving their Steed behind). If the Wizard is ever in danger, they can use Shield or Absorb Elements. If the party want to short rest, they can do so completely safely inside the wizard's Tiny Hut.

Note that this Wizard only used 7 prepared spells out of their allowed 10(assuming an INT modifier of +3), and was basically the star of the show the entire dungeon. Half the monsters failing the Hypnotic Pattern save may also be an underestimate-a level 7 wizard will probably have a 14 or 15 Spell DC, and a CR 7 monster only has +2 to Wisdom saves on average, meaning the average save of enemies found in groups will be even lower. Evard's Black Tentacles targets Strength, which is a worse save, but also packages damage. I sincerely wish I could agree with you, but I just think Wizards are way too overtuned relative to the rest of the classes, even some other full spellcasters.

Well, you gave a detailed example so I will address it.

Mage Hand - This is a great and useful cantrip, it is not the be all end all of trap handling. It is a useful tool, but to suggest that it can handle even most trap scenarios is outlandish. Pressure plates? Trip wires? Magical effects operating on conditions? Mage Hand is good for touching stuff you think might be sus, that's about it and even then the limit on weight locks it out of some stuff.

Find Familiar - Useful, but it seems like this is the common assumption that the familiar will see everything, be able to go everywhere it needs to, and/or won't be killed (possibly multiple times). Find Familiar as a base spell is a useful tool for scouting, but like Mage Hand it is far from the one-stop solution.

Phantom Steed - This is one of the more ridiculous fascinations the optimisation community has imo, before every combat the Wizard is going to spend 44 minutes or more casting this spell, seriously? Let's ignore that not all combats are telegraphed and assume that you have the safe time to spend ritually casting to this insane degree. The horse stops the moment it takes a single point of damage. Ranged attacks and losing initiative are things that exist. Nevermind that assuming that an entire party riding Large mounts will even be able to move around properly, nevermind have 200ft to kite with. I'd really rather people didn't try and shoehorn an exploration spell into combat situations.

Hypnotic Pattern - This doesn't end encounters. It makes it easier for other people to end them. Half the encounter fails? Okay, now deal with the other encounter, oh and the ones that did fail making more saves or getting damaged out. I've seen this spell used a lot by a Bard at my table, not once has it ended an encounter and sometimes it doesn't even do anything. See, you talk about how half might be generous for saving, but there are plenty of monsters that may have magic resistance (like fighting fiends), or charm resistance (like fighting elves) or other benefits like multiple heads or be straight up immune to charm. Oh and then there's monsters that don't use conventional sight. Again, the effect and reliability of this spell are being oversold here and that is based on experience not theorycraft.

Evard's Black Tentacles - So... what if the monsters aren't all in a nice AoE formation? Or are fliers? Or just leave the area, by walking or teleporting? You seem to be assuming a massive open plain for the PCs on their Phantom Steeds by the monsters are all walking around in a tight group? I don't really feel like I need to fight this one that much, it's a nice spell, but come on.

Shield and Absorb Elements! - This Wizard apparently has an AC of 12/13 (you didn't list Mage Armor) so running out of first level slots or Shield not helping because they rolled too high. Absorb Elements does jack against damage types outside it's list and you're still taking damage, so still conc checks and lowering that fragile Wizard HP count. Oh, and you could need both in a single round, so competing reactions.

The real overtuning was the assumptions we made along the way.

[diplomancer]

The spell isn't balanced because it's banned. It's banned because it's unbalanced.

I believe many DMs bar Magic Jar not because it's unbalanced, but because it screams "evil villains only need apply".

I may be mistaken, but it looks like to me that there's enough in the spell to make it unpractical for a travelling adventurer, and therefore not really unbalanced. What are you doing with your comatose body meanwhile? Bringing it along on a Tenser's floating disk? Isn't it terribly easy to destroy it in that case? Or maybe you stick it in a bag of holding? Even if the DM rules that your comatose body does not need to breathe (why should they rule it like that?), that would mean that you are NOT, in fact, within 100' of your body, which means a successful Dispel Magic kills you.

[Frogreaver]

Phantom Steed - This is one of the more ridiculous fascinations the optimisation community has imo, before every combat the Wizard is going to spend 44 minutes or more casting this spell, seriously? Let's ignore that not all combats are telegraphed and assume that you have the safe time to spend ritually casting to this insane degree. The horse stops the moment it takes a single point of damage. Ranged attacks and losing initiative are things that exist. Nevermind that assuming that an entire party riding Large mounts will even be able to move around properly, nevermind have 200ft to kite with. I'd really rather people didn't try and shoehorn an exploration spell into combat situations.


Agreed. ThereÂ’s also the impact on stealth, the impact on survival tracking, the issue of being in a stationary location large enough for 4 horses and 4 PCs for 44 minutes and if the party is any larger then the trick doesnÂ’t really work at all.

Like I struggle thinking of a single real game scenario where itÂ’s that useful.

Trying to intercept another group - they would cover more ground on foot than you doing this, also your stealth and survival checks should be taking a hit making it hard to locate the group to intercept.

Trying to attack an enemy camp, if thereÂ’s fortifications at all, the pcs will get in easier without the horses and thereÂ’s high risk a patrol would spot the party before all the horses are summoned.

Perhaps an un walled encampment? But even then ranged enemies tend to be able to counter phantom steeds with a single hit, and you still have the enemy patrol and stealth issues.

Like outside a white room where someone can just say we did this. I donÂ’t see what realistic in game trigger is going to cause the wizard and party to determine that stopping for 44 mins to cast phantom steeds is the clearly optimized decision.

[Dork_Forge]

Agreed. ThereÂ’s also the impact on stealth, the impact on survival tracking, the issue of being in a stationary location large enough for 4 horses and 4 PCs for 44 minutes and if the party is any larger then the trick doesnÂ’t really work at all.

Like I struggle thinking of a single real game scenario where itÂ’s that useful.

Trying to intercept another group - they would cover more ground on foot than you doing this, also your stealth and survival checks should be taking a hit making it hard to locate the group to intercept.

Trying to attack an enemy camp, if thereÂ’s fortifications at all, the pcs will get in easier without the horses and thereÂ’s high risk a patrol would spot the party before all the horses are summoned.

Perhaps an un walled encampment? But even then ranged enemies tend to be able to counter phantom steeds with a single hit, and you still have the enemy patrol and stealth issues.

Like outside a white room where someone can just say we did this. I donÂ’t see what realistic in game trigger is going to cause the wizard and party to determine that stopping for 44 mins to cast phantom steeds is the clearly optimized decision.

This is really compounded by the repeated casting creating mounts with difffering durations and the first a measely 27 minutes I think.

[Xervous]

For a thought experiment, do we have a sufficient spread of printed adventures by which to measure the probable relevance and contribution of a given class? Obviously not everyone runs stuff like a WotC adventure book, but it seems like a fitting baseline to look at.

[diplomancer]

This is really compounded by the repeated casting creating mounts with difffering durations and the first a measely 27 minutes I think.

When people talk about the power of Phantom Steed, specially in its more abusive format, they usually believe that DMs will allow casting the spell as a Ritual while on the move.

I'm sure some, more permissive, DMs, allow that, but in my experience, most DMs require that you remain more or less in the same place while you're casting a ritual spell; even more so for Ritual Spells that summon creatures or things.

So, if the DM does allow it to work like that, you can always have the steeds for the full duration, because the Wizard is continuously casting the spell.

But I definitely would not say "wizards can provide 100' speed mounts for the whole party" as an absolute, unconditional statement. Specially in a thread where people also make the argument "Reliable Talent is not so reliable, it's totally DM dependant, because some DMs require DC25 Acrobatics check for simple somersaults".

[Dork_Forge]

When people talk about the power of Phantom Steed, specially in its more abusive format, they usually believe that DMs will allow casting the spell as a Ritual while on the move.

I'm sure some, more permissive, DMs, allow that, but in my experience, most DMs require that you remain more or less in the same place while you're casting a ritual spell; even more so for Ritual Spells that summon creatures or things.

I don't think many DMs would allow it, but my point was more that by the time everyone has a steed the first one is mostly spent. And time where only some of the party have steeds may as well be none of the party unless you move slow and negate the point of them or split the party.

[diplomancer]

I don't think many DMs would allow it, but my point was more that by the time everyone has a steed the first one is mostly spent. And time where only some of the party have steeds may as well be none of the party unless you move slow and negate the point of them or split the party.

I think you may have missed my edit, sorry. As I said then, if the DM allows the caster to move and ritual cast, he can always renew the first Steed before it expires, so it's not a problem that, after he finished summoning the last Steed, there's only about 20 minutes remaining on the first one.

[stoutstien]

For a thought experiment, do we have a sufficient spread of printed adventures by which to measure the probable relevance and contribution of a given class? Obviously not everyone runs stuff like a WotC adventure book, but it seems like a fitting baseline to look at.

Published adventures are fairly 'light' regarding challenge outside some spikes of got ya moments. Anything above a party with halfway decent tactics and opportunity cost picks falls in the win more category. Not a bad thing really as it prevented the treadmill for a long time but it's starting creeping up with new(er) NPCs blocks.

[Eldariel]

For a thought experiment, do we have a sufficient spread of printed adventures by which to measure the probable relevance and contribution of a given class? Obviously not everyone runs stuff like a WotC adventure book, but it seems like a fitting baseline to look at.

That qould be precisely what Gauntlets (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?655101-The-Gauntlet) seem to try and capture. I would look there, though I have used "All WotC adventures" baseline before.

[Witty Username]

Phantom Steed - This is one of the more ridiculous fascinations the optimisation community has imo, before every combat the Wizard is going to spend 44 minutes or more casting this spell, seriously? Let's ignore that not all combats are telegraphed and assume that you have the safe time to spend ritually casting to this insane degree. The horse stops the moment it takes a single point of damage. Ranged attacks and losing initiative are things that exist. Nevermind that assuming that an entire party riding Large mounts will even be able to move around properly, nevermind have 200ft to kite with. I'd really rather people didn't try and shoehorn an exploration spell into combat situations.
I have seen a few optimization things where phantom steed makes sense, but often more as a poor mans find steed. That and they tend to look real weird (like the most interesting one a single class phantom rogue).

It works ok as a travel spell, and has edge cases, but it definitely be overhyped.

Generally, maintaining one steed works, multiple gets weird.

[Eldariel]

I have seen a few optimization things where phantom steed makes sense, but often more as a poor mans find steed. That and they tend to look real weird (like the most interesting one a single class phantom rogue).

It works ok as a travel spell, and has edge cases, but it definitely be overhyped.

Generally, maintaining one steed works, multiple gets weird.

As long as you can ritualize on horseback (which works just fine by the rules), it works just fine. As you travel, keep ritualizing the spell and you can maintain up to 5 steeds at all times. And if you need to fight (many fights even in dungeons and even while squeezing you can simply ignore or kite due to your speed), simply stop ritualizing, obliterate your opponent and continue.

Once you get Sim or have a second Wiz/Rit Cast: Wiz in the party, that doubles the number of Steeds you can maintain and halves the time needed to get up there (and far as speed goes, if the distance to travel is 1.5h+ on foot, it's just faster to use Phantom Steed instead even if you need to ritualize full 5).

[Frogreaver]

As long as you can ritualize on horseback (which works just fine by the rules), it works just fine. As you travel, keep ritualizing the spell and you can maintain up to 5 steeds at all times. And if you need to fight (many fights even in dungeons and even while squeezing you can simply ignore or kite due to your speed), simply stop ritualizing, obliterate your opponent and continue.

Once you get Sim or have a second Wiz/Rit Cast: Wiz in the party, that doubles the number of Steeds you can maintain and halves the time needed to get up there (and far as speed goes, if the distance to travel is 1.5h+ on foot, it's just faster to use Phantom Steed instead even if you need to ritualize full 5).

1. Nothing in the rules say you can cast a ritual spell on horseback. They don’t say you can’t either, but it’s not safe to assume that because they don’t specify you can’t that you can. Many DMs are going to rule no on that trick.

2. Phantom steed specifically got brought up when asked to rate wizards outside all the cheese like Simulacrum, etc. Bringing Simulacrum back into the discussion given that context just seems wrong.

3. Bringing in a second character to prove Wizard is strong kind of defeats the point.

4. Fighters with ritual caster can also cast phantom steed. Even if it was conceded that’s a strong use of the spell (it’s not) but even if it was it’s not something remotely unique to a wizard.

[Eldariel]

1. Nothing in the rules say you can cast a ritual spell on horseback. They don’t say you can’t either, but it’s not safe to assume that because they don’t specify you can’t that you can. Many DMs are going to rule no on that trick.

Well, rules say you can: you need to spens your action each round to ritual cast and horses don't interact with your action at all. So there are no rules grounds to prohibit it.

[diplomancer]

Well, rules say you can: you need to spens your action each round to ritual cast and horses don't interact with your action at all. So there are no rules grounds to prohibit it.

Rules are silent whether the "point on the ground" where the horse appears should be determined at beginning or at end of casting. A DM can easily rule that the horse starts forming once you start casting the spell, and that you have to remain in range of that point you chose throughout the casting. I'd say this ruling is also more consistent with the fantasy of conjuring a Phantom creature.

[Frogreaver]

Well, rules say you can: you need to spens your action each round to ritual cast and horses don't interact with your action at all. So there are no rules grounds to prohibit it.

@Diplomancer just pointed out the most relevant. The targeting rules. I think most DMs would rule the target must be in range the whole casting time of the spell.

I suppose you could do 30 ft circles on horseback around that point. So you win on that technicality, but what was really meant by on horseback, was riding the horse to a new location, and the targeting rules would be a strong basis for preventing that - even though they leave open ambiguity on the topic.

[Eldariel]

Rules are silent whether the "point on the ground" where the horse appears should be determined at beginning or at end of casting. A DM can easily rule that the horse starts forming once you start casting the spell, and that you have to remain in range of that point you chose throughout the casting. I'd say this ruling is also more consistent with the fantasy of conjuring a Phantom creature.

This is wrong actually. Slow section on Sage Advice Compendium says: (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA279)
"You choose the targets of a spell when you complete casting a spell, not when you start."

[diplomancer]

This is wrong actually. Slow section on Sage Advice Compendium says: (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA279)
"You choose the targets of a spell when you complete casting a spell, not when you start."

Sage Advice is not the rules. I usually follow Sage Advice, but there is no guarantee that any particular DM will... specially if the player is trying to cheese.

[Amnestic]

Sage Advice is not the rules. I usually follow Sage Advice, but there is no guarantee that any particular DM will... specially if the player is trying to cheese.

Sage Advice Compendium is the rules though.


Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.

Yes, the DM always has final say, but the DM could also say "actually, your attack modifier is negative fifteen on this attack, because Mercury is in retrograde". We shouldn't treat "the DM decides to ignore/disregard the rules" as anything but them doing exactly that. This isn't them adjudicating some grey area. The rules say (multiple times, even - it gets referenced again in the question on Readied spells) you choose the target of a spell when you finish casting a spell. That's it.

[diplomancer]

Sage Advice Compendium is the rules though.



Yes, the DM always has final say, but the DM could also say "actually, your attack modifier is negative fifteen on this attack, because Mercury is in retrograde". We shouldn't treat "the DM decides to ignore/disregard the rules" as anything but them doing exactly that. This isn't them adjudicating some grey area. The rules say (multiple times, even - it gets referenced again in the question on Readied spells) you choose the target of a spell when you finish casting a spell. That's it.

Rulings and rules are different things. Sage Advice Compendium has official rulings, not rules; And the very text you quoted makes it clear DMs are not bound by them at all (I guess AL DMs are bound by it, but that's about it); which is why if you are trying to cheese, you'd better not be relying on rulings, even if they are official ones.

In this particular case, a DM could very well say "yes, and I'll make sure to follow that ruling when adjudicating the slow spell".