Is the Bard overrated?

[Nagog]

A. My point is that (1) the Bard is usually ranked as the best or second best class, and that (2) doing so is overrating the class. Linking to a list in which the Bard is ranked second best is actually supporting point 1.

B. The list is of poor quality and unprincipled.

I'd say I agree that its often highly rated, and that that list is indeed of poor quality and unprincipled, but they do earn their spot as a high tier class pick. They're at least capable of everything, and excel at a few things. While there will always be points in which another class can do something better than a bard can, there isn't likely to be a situation in which a bard can't do something at least well enough to get the job done.

[Dork_Forge]

Funny how this thread gets posted, then shortly after we get this other thread in which Bard (Lore) is stated to be one of two classes (four total subclasses) at Tier 0, best of the best at combat. And Bard (Valor) is Tier 1, equal to or better than nearly every other class/subclass at combat. That's coming from a community of optimizers who actually know how to play the class.

At this point anyone who actually thinks Bard is overrated is doing it wrong, or focusing on the wrong things, or both. Even if you've only got the core rulebooks, Bard is literally one of the two strongest classes in the game, regardless of which college you pick.

If you read through that ranking, it isn't exactly the strongest support for your argument.

[Dime]

I agree that the Bard is excellent in a melee-centrip party. However in a party full of archers and spell casters, dissonant whispers won't do much damage, and grapples/shoves won't happen.

The biggest problem for an all ranged party is opponents closing to melee before the party can position itself. A Glamour Bard can solve that problem four times per short rest without spending a spell slot, while dishing out temp hp. Plus the other casters will love the ability to move friendlies out of the way for AoE spells. In combat this Bard might not do a ton of damage but he will massively increase the survivability and effectiveness of the party, in a way that no other class can match. At the same time he will still be a full caster, and be the best face you can get, and potentially fill a skill gap with expertise in Athletics.

[Skylivedk]

If you don't distinguish between what's good because you're a Bard and what's good because you're MC'd then your feedback is misleading at best in a discussion about the Bard class.

Obviously YMMV, but to me, a class' capacity and meshability with other classes is part of that class - same for Paladins and Sorcerers who also get points in my book for their ability to complement one another (and minus points for the Barbarian who blocks his concentration slot/spell casting with Rage).

I'd be tempted to agree, to a point. For spellcasters, the real benefit of increasing your main stats is often not a simple +1 to a roll, but rather being able to prepare an additional spell or having an extra use of bardic inspiration.



Bards are missing the important Flaming Sphere and Moon Beam, which I consider to be the best level 2 AoE spells in the game.

Again, YMMV. I don't like either much since I prefer using my concentration slots for control normally.

I agree it was the player. I played high-level bard before and it was fine. I wasn't doing anything I'd consider "spectacular" since bounded accuracy also bounds the guaranteed failure of enemies and there are some limits to things that usually get ignored until real play, but it isn't like Bards are any better or worse than most other classes in the game at their fullest potential.

At higher levels, spellcasters and AoE attacks become more common so when an intelligent creature sees a bard, they'll want to target their wisdom and dexterity. Depending on the effect, it could be debilitating. Noncasters or innate casters are the most frustrating as counterspell isn't much of an option against their AoE.

But that doesn't make them "weak." They're just backliners specifically. Even playing as a Valor Bard, it's hard to justify being on the frontlines with so little features to back you up. It feels more like a "just in case" or something that lets you do good damage while using healing word (HW then Extra Attack is phenominal).

Even though I agree with your conclusion, I keep seeing that we don't play the same way. Extra attack is a cantrip substitution for the tier 2 Valor Bard. The Attack action is/was rarely my go to recommendation for any bard.

Ah, misread the feature.

However, BA disengage is a powerful defensive ability as well, especially at these lower levels. A bard and rogue's worse nightmare is being singled out from their crowd. If a rogue gets singled out, though, they can disengage and prevent another hit from occurring while retreating. Bards have extremely little in "get off me" features, with cutting words being a limited resource that only comes back at a long rest, which also shares the same resource as your primary bard resource.

You mean besides Invisibility, Dissonant Whispers and the Glamour Bard Ability? Disengage is great, no doubt. I just find it less than credible that you don't re-evaluate your stance because it's pretty far from being BA Dodge.

Yes I was, as this was explicably about damage output and I wasn't considering accuracy, just the amount of damage each can push out under optimal conditions. You seem to be factoring durability in as a damage output factor, which is a little unusual to me in this instance, Rogues are hardly glass cannons with a d8 hit die and a suite of defensive class features. The bonus action to run away concern is addressed by just being a Swashbuckler to get the free disengage, all the damage calculations for the Rogue didn't factor a subclass into it at all.

Mediocre isn't necessarily a bad thing, I just don't believe it's true, in tier 1 Rogues are up there with Monks and TWF style users as high and reliable damage output and they only start looking meh or mediocre in comparison to novas from other classes, which are novas: impressive and short lived.

We've disagreed on this before. Accuracy in my, and most others' I guess, book and damage are linked. Vice versa of my comment to Asisreo1 though: even though I disagree with some of your arguments, I do agree that rogues fare fairly in early level play and certain subtypes can remain somewhat damage relevant even in later tiers (most notably the Arcane Trickster and Hazard enabled Scout-grapplers).

As for the main topic. I really can't see the Bard being rated anything less than outstanding. In a feat-less of and MC-less game, I can see tier 1 being harder and leaving a negative impression. I rarely play level 1 (and 2), so it doesn't affect my impression much. I also always play with feats and MC allowed, so again that colours my perspective.

It is one of the classes I want to have in my builds the most often, it can arguably fill the most roles of any class and be supreme in the skill monkey roll, especially since it also enables the wider still pool of the party and can approach both out of combat and combat with a powerful mix of unique class features and very strong spells.

[Asisreo1]

Even though I agree with your conclusion, I keep seeing that we don't play the same way. Extra attack is a cantrip substitution for the tier 2 Valor Bard. The Attack action is/was rarely my go to recommendation for any bard.

Extra attack is better than any damaging cantrip available to a bard at all. It's just better to have a longbow with your semi-decent dex.

You mean besides Invisibility, Dissonant Whispers and the Glamour Bard Ability? Disengage is great, no doubt. I just find it less than credible that you don't re-evaluate your stance because it's pretty far from being BA Dodge.

At level 3, invisibility is extremely limited. It's the best "get off me" option, but it's your highest level spellslot. It would definitely be a great loss trading invisibility for a creature's reaction. Dissonant Whispers is okay, but it isn't reliable, it's a save. Same with GB's enthralling perfomance but it also only works with humanoids which makes it even less reliable as a tool.

[/QUOTE]

[Guy Lombard-O]

Extra attack is better than any damaging cantrip available to a bard at all. It's just better to have a longbow with your semi-decent dex.

I always found it so when I played a Valor from 1-13. I even picked up Sharpshooter to add some value.

At level 3, invisibility is extremely limited. It's the best "get off me" option, but it's your highest level spellslot. It would definitely be a great loss trading invisibility for a creature's reaction. Dissonant Whispers is okay, but it isn't reliable, it's a save. Same with GB's enthralling perfomance but it also only works with humanoids which makes it even less reliable as a tool.

Have to agree once again. In fact, I agreed so much that I "wasted" one of my picks on Misty Step. Even the most heavily armored bard rarely wants to stay in melee range with the more dangerous foes, and using your concentration for any magical defense is a bad idea when you're most potent ability is concentration-based debuffs and controls.

[KorvinStarmast]

Funny how this thread gets posted, then shortly after we get this other thread in which Bard (Lore) is stated to be one of two classes (four total subclasses) at Tier 0, best of the best at combat. And Bard (Valor) is Tier 1, equal to or better than nearly every other class/subclass at combat. That's coming from a community of optimizers who actually know how to play the class.

I find that Tier List to be badly flawed. But I do agree with you that both Lore and Valor bards are good kits.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Even though I agree with your conclusion, I keep seeing that we don't play the same way. Extra attack is a cantrip substitution for the tier 2 Valor Bard. The Attack action is/was rarely my go to recommendation for any bard.

Extra attack is better than any damaging cantrip available to a bard at all. It's just better to have a longbow with your semi-decent dex.

I always found it so when I played a Valor from 1-13. I even picked up Sharpshooter to add some value.

Even as a Lore Bard, I found that my fall-back option on a long adventuring day in T1-2 play was shooting once with a longbow (proficient via Elf, or variant half-elf, or in one case starting my career with a single level of Ranger for RP reasons). At 1d8+3 damage and 150 ft. range, it's a more reliable damage source than any cantrip to which you have native access, up until T3. Even without investment into Sharpshooter/more Dex/martial dip, it's a big step up for at-will damage for the Valor Bard. With that said, it's a testament to how Bard has the worst at-will DPR, at least before investment. Of course, to really get your money's worth, a 2-level Warlock dip for Agonizing EB is better than what a Valor Bard with a bow will ever pull off, due to SADness and a bigger die and scaling into T3-4.

[Dork_Forge]

Obviously YMMV, but to me, a class' capacity and meshability with other classes is part of that class - same for Paladins and Sorcerers who also get points in my book for their ability to complement one another (and minus points for the Barbarian who blocks his concentration slot/spell casting with Rage).


Again, YMMV. I don't like either much since I prefer using my concentration slots for control normally.

I can see that as part of evaluating the class, I don't see any particular synergy with Cleric (which is the MC in question) besides just not delaying slot progression whilst also requiring a 13 Wis. Part of what the poster said however was their AC, which had absolutley nothing to do with being a Bard.

We've disagreed on this before. Accuracy in my, and most others' I guess, book and damage are linked. Vice versa of my comment to Asisreo1 though: even though I disagree with some of your arguments, I do agree that rogues fare fairly in early level play and certain subtypes can remain somewhat damage relevant even in later tiers (most notably the Arcane Trickster and Hazard enabled Scout-grapplers).

I can appreciate accuracy as a factor, however I didn't really feel like going through doing a whole analysis of the 4 classes like that, particularly because if I take the accuracy impact of Reckless into consideration, then I'd also need to evaluate how it reduces the durability of the Barbarian (as durability was one of the things Willie was talking about). Overall accuracy would only really be a concern regarding the Barbarian's Reckless in the analysis I provided (same prime stats, no -5+10 feats etc.), if anything the stereotypical Rogue tactic of hiding for advantage would need to be considered then too. Overall though I never see a Rogue being sub par for damage or even just meh, though I do understand that it can look like that depending on the game (how many encounters per rest etc.).


Separate note, the Glamour Bard in my game has been a force multiplier for the Barbarian/Rogue and Paladin, between the stupid amounts of temp hp, spells and turning into a T-Rex it's been really hard to challenge the party in my eyes (they often finish the last combat of a day with some resources left and with no one going down, but they feel like they were close to dying).[/QUOTE]

[Skylivedk]

Even as a Lore Bard, I found that my fall-back option on a long adventuring day in T1-2 play was shooting once with a longbow (proficient via Elf, or variant half-elf, or in one case starting my career with a single level of Ranger for RP reasons). At 1d8+3 damage and 150 ft. range, it's a more reliable damage source than any cantrip to which you have native access, up until T3. Even without investment into Sharpshooter/more Dex/martial dip, it's a big step up for at-will damage for the Valor Bard. With that said, it's a testament to how Bard has the worst at-will DPR, at least before investment. Of course, to really get your money's worth, a 2-level Warlock dip for Agonizing EB is better than what a Valor Bard with a bow will ever pull off, due to SADness and a bigger die and scaling into T3-4.

In my very first 5e game I did play a Valor Bard and missed having DPR (a Halfling with Crossbow Expert, pretty horrible build by any standard).

I did agree that it's a cantrip replacement for tier 1 and 2 (for Valor bards). It's not free though. You lose 2 ac from your shield (one of the major draws of Valor over Swords) and if you got war caster that sweet AoO goes as well. I would never recommend going Sharpshooter without MC due to the lack of Archery and Dex being a secondary stat. In later experiences, I've found having other uses for my action to be more useful... Whether that's utility items, Dodge, using Help on someone or throwing a cantrip/spell. That being said, my point wasn't that you should never use a longbow (all my characters who can use a longbow will carry one just for its range) just that I don't find it a terribly good option and would never characterise using a longbow with a secondary stat as a power move.

I can see that as part of evaluating the class, I don't see any particular synergy with Cleric (which is the MC in question) besides just not delaying slot progression whilst also requiring a 13 Wis. Part of what the poster said however was their AC, which had absolutley nothing to do with being a Bard.

Agreed on the multiclass with cleric.

I can appreciate accuracy as a factor, however I didn't really feel like going through doing a whole analysis of the 4 classes like that, particularly because if I take the accuracy impact of Reckless into consideration, then I'd also need to evaluate how it reduces the durability of the Barbarian (as durability was one of the things Willie was talking about). Overall accuracy would only really be a concern regarding the Barbarian's Reckless in the analysis I provided (same prime stats, no -5+10 feats etc.), if anything the stereotypical Rogue tactic of hiding for advantage would need to be considered then too. Overall though I never see a Rogue being sub par for damage or even just meh, though I do understand that it can look like that depending on the game (how many encounters per rest etc.).

YMMV, I think my DMs have usually not been happy about rogues hiding the same places and once the -5/+10 feats and team generated advantage kicked in, the rogues were usually markedly behind the heavy hitters.

I have recently finished a campaign where the lore bard had spent a magical secret on getting Eldritch Blast. I never saw that as even close to a good decision.

[EdenIndustries]

I don't know if the Bard itself is overrated, but the thing I do think is overrated related to Bards is Dissonant Whispers. It's talked about as an amazing spell for generating OAs but when the spell Command also exists (uses an enemy action instead of reaction, can be upcast for multiple targets, and probably burns their next action too dashing back into range or just not being able to get into melee range) it pales in comparison to me. And sure I know Bards don't get Command, but even so I feel like people who talk about Dissonant Whispers don't know Command exists...

[Dork_Forge]

I don't know if the Bard itself is overrated, but the thing I do think is overrated related to Bards is Dissonant Whispers. It's talked about as an amazing spell for generating OAs but when the spell Command also exists (uses an enemy action instead of reaction, can be upcast for multiple targets, and probably burns their next action too dashing back into range or just not being able to get into melee range) it pales in comparison to me. And sure I know Bards don't get Command, but even so I feel like people who talk about Dissonant Whispers don't know Command exists...

It's worth keeping in mind that Dissonant Whispers also does damage, if a monster saves against command nothing happens, if they save against Dissonant Whispers they still take half damage (lower level slot needed too).

[EdenIndustries]

It's worth keeping in mind that Dissonant Whispers also does damage, if a monster saves against command nothing happens, if they save against Dissonant Whispers they still take half damage (lower level slot needed too).

It is true that Dissonant Whispers does a bit of damage, but that seems to be pretty insignificant to making an enemy waste at least one turn and maybe two turns (one turn moving away by the fastest possible means, one turn moving back).

They're both first level spells though so I'm not sure I understand your comment about lower level slot?

Anyway to phrase my point a bit differently I wish people would say "I know Command is better for generating OAs and making enemies waste turns, but hey at least Dissonant Whispers does a bit of damage!" It's the seeming blindspot when it comes to Command at all that makes me think Dissonant Whispers is overrated, not that it's a bad spell or anything.

[Nifft]

The 5e Bard might be overtuned.

[Dork_Forge]

It is true that Dissonant Whispers does a bit of damage, but that seems to be pretty insignificant to making an enemy waste at least one turn and maybe two turns (one turn moving away by the fastest possible means, one turn moving back).

They're both first level spells though so I'm not sure I understand your comment about lower level slot?

Anyway to phrase my point a bit differently I wish people would say "I know Command is better for generating OAs and making enemies waste turns, but hey at least Dissonant Whispers does a bit of damage!" It's the seeming blindspot when it comes to Command at all that makes me think Dissonant Whispers is overrated, not that it's a bad spell or anything.

Apologies on the level front, I just misremembered the level and thought it was 2nd. Command can be more potent in some situations but there's the following:

-It isn't on the Bard list, so you either need Magical Secrets or to be a Glamour Bard

-It won't work if the creature is Undead or doesn't understand you (as the Glamour Bard in my game found out to their surprise)

-Flee for OAs can be a little iffy depending on your DM, because it is directly harmful unless the creature disengages

-On a save you've spent an action and resource on nothing unfortunately

[Dime]

It is true that Dissonant Whispers does a bit of damage, but that seems to be pretty insignificant to making an enemy waste at least one turn and maybe two turns (one turn moving away by the fastest possible means, one turn moving back).

They're both first level spells though so I'm not sure I understand your comment about lower level slot?

Anyway to phrase my point a bit differently I wish people would say "I know Command is better for generating OAs and making enemies waste turns, but hey at least Dissonant Whispers does a bit of damage!" It's the seeming blindspot when it comes to Command at all that makes me think Dissonant Whispers is overrated, not that it's a bad spell or anything.

Command is underrated, but for this kind of use the OAs are much less reliable because they happen on the target's turn. If the target dies, or suffers forced movement, or is obscured, or your allies fail to end their turns next to it, then you get no OAs. Dissonant Whispers is better because when the right tactical situation arises you get the impact immediately, before the tactical situation changes.

[EdenIndustries]

Apologies on the level front, I just misremembered the level and thought it was 2nd. Command can be more potent in some situations but there's the following:

-It isn't on the Bard list, so you either need Magical Secrets or to be a Glamour Bard

-It won't work if the creature is Undead or doesn't understand you (as the Glamour Bard in my game found out to their surprise)

-Flee for OAs can be a little iffy depending on your DM, because it is directly harmful unless the creature disengages

-On a save you've spent an action and resource on nothing unfortunately

RAI seems to be that Flee for OAs is legit according to Crawford: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/...99239989993472

And while it's true on a save it does nothing, on a save Dissonant Whispers does an average of 6 damage. Which...is more than 0, yes. But still a pretty brutal result of an action and a spell slot.

Command is underrated, but for this kind of use the OAs are much less reliable because they happen on the target's turn. If the target dies, or suffers forced movement, or is obscured, or your allies fail to end their turns next to it, then you get no OAs. Dissonant Whispers is better because when the right tactical situation arises you get the impact immediately, before the tactical situation changes.

While it's certainly possible that forcing an OA as a reaction *can* be tactically beneficial, it seems just as likely to me that knowing a target failed a save from Command gives your allies a chance to get into position to capitalise on the upcoming OA. That doesn't seem worse to me, just different.

[Dork_Forge]

RAI seems to be that Flee for OAs is legit according to Crawford: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/...99239989993472

And while it's true on a save it does nothing, on a save Dissonant Whispers does an average of 6 damage. Which...is more than 0, yes. But still a pretty brutal result of an action and a spell slot.

6 on a fail isn't bad at all on a failed save, it is the worse case afterall and only a 1st level slot but the primary things here are that it isn't an option for most Bards anyway (so there isn't a conflict of choice to begin with) and Dissonant Whispers is applicable in a lot more situations than Command is.

[EdenIndustries]

6 on a fail isn't bad at all on a failed save, it is the worse case afterall and only a 1st level slot but the primary things here are that it isn't an option for most Bards anyway (so there isn't a conflict of choice to begin with) and Dissonant Whispers is applicable in a lot more situations than Command is.

Well anyway we probably don't need to belabour the point too much. I guess I'll just end by saying over the years I've seen many threads discussing the OA-generating power of Bards and Dissonant Whispers, and nary a mention of Command. And I was almost ready to make a thread expressing my bewilderment about that when this thread was created. So if one were to argue for Bards being overrated (a point I haven't made my mind up about one way or another), it seems to me they could point to that fact in support of their claim.

[Dime]

While it's certainly possible that forcing an OA as a reaction *can* be tactically beneficial, it seems just as likely to me that knowing a target failed a save from Command gives your allies a chance to get into position to capitalise on the upcoming OA. That doesn't seem worse to me, just different.

In my own experience it's just worse. Allies who start next to the target will often want to attack it, running the risk of killing it before Command takes effect. Allies who start away from the target will often not want to move to it, due to the risk of taking OAs or just because they have other plans.

I should add that I think Command is just worse for dealing damage. It's much better than Dissonant Whispers for burning the target's action.

[Nhorianscum]

Bards are great for bardic inspiration and past that they're.... very medium. That said the class offers a ton of role compression and can often fill an "extra" role.

The class is solid but it's... thoroughly unexciting when stood between a sorcerer and an AT.

On the note of command vs disonant....Upcast command is sorta bonkers, it's up there with upcast blindness/deafness.

[EdenIndustries]

On the note of command vs disonant....Upcast command is sorta bonkers, it's up there with upcast blindness/deafness.

Completely agree. Also, it might be the cheapest way to burn Legendary Resistance? Losing even one turn (possibly two if the monster has to run away and then run back) is pretty brutal, I can't see deciding *not* to use LR on that. All for the low, low cost of a first level slot.

[Dork_Forge]

Completely agree. Also, it might be the cheapest way to burn Legendary Resistance? Losing even one turn (possibly two if the monster has to run away and then run back) is pretty brutal, I can't see deciding *not* to use LR on that. All for the low, low cost of a first level slot.

Okay, so using D&D Beyond (which named NPCs as individual entries):

There's 160 Legendary creatures, of which 26 are undead (and thus not valid for Command) and of what remains there's only 79 creatures that understand common or have all languages. Of those 79, 31 are just various types of dragon.

So 16.25% of all legendary creatures are completely invalid.

You're only guaranteed that it can work on 49.3% of monsters (with 19.37% of legendary monsters being just different flavours of dragon)

So you'll most likely need a specific language to make Command work if what you're fighting isn't a Dragon of somekind.

So whilst it can be a cheap way of burning legendary resistances, it's far from the most reliable.

[EdenIndustries]

Okay, so using D&D Beyond (which named NPCs as individual entries):

There's 160 Legendary creatures, of which 26 are undead (and thus not valid for Command) and of what remains there's only 79 creatures that understand common or have all languages. Of those 79, 31 are just various types of dragon.

So 16.25% of all legendary creatures are completely invalid.

You're only guaranteed that it can work on 49.3% of monsters (with 19.37% of legendary monsters being just different flavours of dragon)

So you'll most likely need a specific language to make Command work if what you're fighting isn't a Dragon of somekind.

So whilst it can be a cheap way of burning legendary resistances, it's far from the most reliable.

Good research, thanks for doing that! Although if it's viable on a minimum of 49.3% of legendary monsters, and likely a good chunk more, that still seems pretty darn good. Is it a silver bullet? Surely not. Is it a fabulous trick up your sleeve against likely the majority of legendary monsters? Absolutely!

[heavyfuel]

Completely agree. Also, it might be the cheapest way to burn Legendary Resistance? Losing even one turn (possibly two if the monster has to run away and then run back) is pretty brutal, I can't see deciding *not* to use LR on that. All for the low, low cost of a first level slot.

I'd put Stunning Strike above it, although it doesn't take credit away from DW.

[EdenIndustries]

I'd put Stunning Strike above it, although it doesn't take credit away from DW.

You might be right. I'll revise my statement to best *spell* to drain LR.

[Nhorianscum]

You might be right. I'll revise my statement to best *spell* to drain LR.

Oh the best spells for that IMO are the continual effect nonsense machines that quicken allows. (If for some reason no-save nonsense is off the table)

[Ogre Mage]

The bard has a similar power curve to the wizard. Both classes are mediocre in Tier 1. Their power ramps up in Tier 2. This is most notable with the lore bard who gets magical secrets at level 6. Unsurprisingly, the lore bard is considered by many to be the strongest bard subclass and one of the strongest subclasses in the game. After that they are definitely one of the strongest classes.

The wizard going from so-so in Tier 1 to very strong in the upper levels is well-known in D&D history well before 5E. But the bard being like that is relatively new. Often in past editions they were regarded as weak at any stage. Some people may have read optimization guides about how awesome the bard is now, only to start their bard in Tier 1 and get a rude awakening. Whereas most wizard players probably expect to be mediocre in Tier 1 since that has always been part of the game.

[EdenIndustries]

Oh the best spells for that IMO are the continual effect nonsense machines that quicken allows. (If for some reason no-save nonsense is off the table)

Care to share some of your favourites?

[Waazraath]

The bard has a similar power curve to the wizard. Both classes are mediocre in Tier 1. Their power ramps up in Tier 2. This is most notable with the lore bard who gets magical secrets at level 6. Unsurprisingly, the lore bard is considered by many to be the strongest bard subclass and one of the strongest subclasses in the game. After that they are definitely one of the strongest classes.

The wizard going from so-so in Tier 1 to very strong in the upper levels is well-known in D&D history well before 5E. But the bard being like that is relatively new. Often in past editions they were regarded as weak at any stage. Some people may have read optimization guides about how awesome the bard is now, only to start their bard in Tier 1 and get a rude awakening. Whereas most wizard players probably expect to be mediocre in Tier 1 since that has always been part of the game.

I think you make a good point, but on the bolded part: they always were solid tier 3 in 3.5, with a high optimization ceiling.