New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 147
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiveness

    Translator's Note: To enter the larger discussion and share game experiences with different communities, I translated this article from goddessfantasy.net, a Chinese board game forum. We have game experiences based on the same set of rule books and campaigns, but we have different concepts on the strengths of different classes. It would be interesting to have oversea discussions. This article is translated from goddessfantasy.net/bbs/index.php?topic=118675.0 and goddessfantasy.net/bbs/index.php?topic=107987.0

    Thanks to Ophidia for proofreading.


    This article may have serious impacts on your game experience, please carefully consider before deciding whether to read it. I do not assume any responsibility for any consequences caused by reading this article.



    Doing a ranking of the classes has always been a thankless thing, especially in the most balanced version of DND, 5E. There may be many people who oppose this ranking, think that I have misled the beginners, or think that I have influenced their choices, and so on.

    The reason why I am willing to meet these criticisms and spend time doing this ranking is first to satisfy my own vanity, and secondly to make a sound and give beginners some neutral and objective suggestions when starting a game.

    Although this article is based on the value of combat power to rank various classes, my position is to oppose choosing a class solely based on the strength of the combat power. The purpose of learning is to broaden horizons, rather than have tunnel vision. I always think that only after knowing the characteristics and abilities of a class, knowing the advantages of the class comparing to “stronger classes,” can one achieve the role of the chosen class in the party. Not believing those "authorities" blindly, thinking critically, I always think these are the real fun of TRPG.

    Thanks to my friends who have been arguing with me and enlightening me. Without your help, this rank cannot be done.


    Before starting, the author would like to respond to some of the frequently seen opinions.

    Q: Games hosted by many DMs are below level 5. The ranking in this post does not guide low-level games well. Why not write around level 5 or below?
    A: Actually, the level at which the game is played mainly depends on the comfort zone of the DMs and PCs. I don't really like games of level 1-5, because the core features of each class are not fully obtained in this level range. There is not much differentiation between classes, resulting in a lack of playability. I have contacted many different DND players. Some of them like low-level games and some like high-level games, for their own reasons. I believe that there is no such thing as good or bad in preference for the level range.

    Nevertheless, the author still believes that it is necessary to make a comprehensive evaluation of classes at various levels. Looking at the strength of the classes with a holistic view would promote a comprehensive understanding of the game. If people only focus on the low-level and few-changes environment, you would deduce misleading judgments, like " Circle of the Moon Druid is invincible!" I would not like to see misleading or lopsided views.

    On the other hand, it is more obvious which class is more powerful at a lower level. It is not that simple to rank when reaching a higher level, because there are more variables. From this perspective, it is more challenging and valuable to analyze the strength of each occupation at a higher level.

    Q: Every DM and every module has differences. Does the general ranking really have a reference value in a specific game?
    A: The environments of games are constantly changing, and differences do exist. In different games, the performance of each class will fluctuate around the theoretical performance (depending on the players' tactics, battle maps, monster types, rests, etc.). However, as rational players, we should view the influence of different environments objectively, critically. When reviewing the impact of the environment, too much emphasis or neglect will lead to misunderstanding.

    The first thing to be clear: the encounter designed by DMs and modules does not depend on the personal preferences of the DMs (or designers), but depends on the ability and stats that the players have. In essence, this is a game that can only be carried out in cooperation with each other. The goal of DMs/Modules is not to defeat the players, but to make the players play various roles. Under this premise, classes that are easy to play a part are often referred to as "strong", otherwise they will be considered "weak", or at least "lack of presence".

    When based on the players’ stats, the monster's data does not deviate too much from the models given by MM or DMG, why? Because the players’ stats are limited by the rules. Level 1 players’ attack bonus is +5, DMs cannot have 50AC monsters to confront players; players’ damage is 1d8+3, and monsters can't be 1 hp when fighting against a single boss; unless these monsters are for arguing. The goal of designing monsters is to allow every player to play a role, and in the above examples, (almost certainly) some players will be dissatisfied because they cannot shine. The monsters preset by MM and the encounters preset by DMG exist for this purpose, and most of them are excellent examples.

    The author is not against that DMs modifying monsters or creating the original monsters, but emphasizes that "any modified/original monsters must be carried out from the perspective of letting the players’ to play a role better." Creating/modifying monsters should also pay attention to the basic rules. In normal games, the changes of the environments would not cause the rank to have no references at all.


    Rating Principles
    Principle of generalization: In order to avoid making the post confusing, this article mainly evaluates the performance of the classes under general (not special) circumstances and assumes that the DMs use the variation rules normally and unfavorably, design encounter normally, and have a normal distribution of magic items.

    Principle of main class: Many classes are often used together. However, in the rating of this article, multi-class figures are classified according to the features they mainly rely on.

    The principle of all material: when rating, all official DND5E resources can be used.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    T0: Classes at the pinnacle of this edition. Both the strength as a single character and the strength as a team player are often cited as examples, and few people object these classes as the strongest.
    Paladin: Oath of Devotion
    Paladin: Oath of Vengeance
    Paladin: Oath of the Ancients
    It is often said that "the paladin is indispensable", which may be a little exaggerated, but it is enough to illustrate the strength of the paladins. Among all the paladins, the core three oaths are prominently at the top. In comparison, the Oath of Vengeance focuses on offense, the Oath of the Ancients focuses on support, and the Oath of Devotion balances both offense and defense.
    Later edit:
    Paladin: Oath of Vengeance: Stable advantage is actually very rare. Self-sufficient advantage makes the Oath of Vengeance becomes the strongest DPS among all the paladin subclasses. The chance of the class being played in the actual game is not uncommon.
    Bard: College of Lore
    Lore bard is the never faltering support, while DPS classes are often replaceable. This is the main reason for placing the lore bard on top of other classes. Inspiration dice and spells from any class, these two tools strengthen the team's casting end and attacking end respectively. After a short period of low power in the early games (level 1-5), the lore bard will have a long period of glory.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    T1: The powerhouses below the peak, each class has its own unique points that are difficult to replace, and relatively, its weaknesses are not particularly obvious.

    Warlock: Hexblade
    Hexblade is the benchmark of any self-sufficient DPS and is probably the most comprehensive DPS class in the game today. Regardless of melee, ranged, the environment of damage output, and the pressure of the enemies’ damage output, hexblade can perform stably while maintaining its damage. At the same time, hexblade, as a common dip, has also helped many other classes perform better.
    Wizard: Bladesinger
    Bladesinger is a survivability-oriented wizard subclass. Although it also has some damage output potential, it is best not to forget that it is a ninth level spell caster. DPS is a backup option for the bladesinger. Use it as a transition option in a long-term battle instead of relying too much on it.
    Wizard: School of Chronurgy
    Although chronurgist is often in a state of being overhyped, it does not negate the absolute strength of the chronurgist. All features are very practical, and they are also difficult to operate. If you are not adept at using the wizard, it may be difficult to achieve a similar power level as a bladesinger.
    Sorcerer: Divine Soul
    Divine soul sorcerer is the ideal spell caster. It has a very comprehensive spell list, every sorcerer metamagic feature. If you are willing to have a few levels dip, you can also have a good range damage output. The disadvantage is that the number of known spells is too limited, and often requires the cooperation of other casters to make up for it.
    Fighter: Samurai
    The highlights are the stable self-sufficient advantage and the one more arrow at level 15. In groups where maintaining advantage becomes an issue, samurai is often a stable solution. It has no ability to cast spells and is relatively fragile, so it falls in trouble more often than the hexblade, but if teammates can cooperate well and provide timely support for them, then the samurai will return the favor with a stable and dreadful damage output.
    Bard: College of Valor
    Valor bard is the traditional boss level ninth level spellcasting DPS class. It is best known for taking Swift Quiver at level 10. After XGE, valor bard can get Holy Weapon as the icing on the cake (or let others buff the bard). In general, 1-3 level fighter dip is recommended to get the archery fighting style, constitution save proficiency, and action surge. When built properly, valor can become an excellent top-tier DPS.
    Later edit:
    Bard: College of Valor: Many people may think that the overall damage output of the valor bard is mediocre, but in fact, the valor bard itself does not drag down the DPR, and they could support the team with buff spells such as Holy Weapon. Considering the overall situation, valor bard could bring a great improvement to the team.
    Paladin: Oath of Redemption
    Paladin: Oath of Conquest
    Although these two subclasses of paladins are not as powerful and versatile as the PHB oaths, they still have some unique skills.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    T2: Quasi-strong classes, challengers of T1 classes. These classes also have unique skills, or they are particularly strong at certain levels. However, their weaknesses are more prominent than T1 classes.
    Barbarian: Path of the Totem Warrior (stronger early)
    Barbarian: Path of the Zealot (stronger early)
    Barbarian: Path of the Ancestral Guardian (stronger early)
    While barbarians have a standard 2 attack per turn, they also have good abilities to absorb damage, and solid team supporting features. However, the shortcoming of the barbarians is that the features are bounded to melee, and because of class features, it is impossible to cast spells. They often suffer in situations that are not friendly to melee. In early games when the environments are not so complicated, the barbarian could be considered a tier 1 class, due to its early features.
    Bard: College of Sword
    College of sword has a decent AC and a standard two attack per turn. Although it seems bland, after combining 2-level paladin dip, the sword bard will become a very good melee combat class. Compared with the similar type of hexblade build and sorcadin build, the main weakness of college of sword is that the transition in the early games is not smooth.
    Later edit:
    The reason why the sword bard can't be ranked in T1 as other gish builds is that Blade Flourish will consume too many Inspiration dice, which virtually squeezes out the bards’ most distinctive feature. In addition, the bards’ own spell list is not very compatible with gish builds. However, after getting infinite d6s and spells from all lists in the later stage, this sub-class is pretty good.
    Bard: College of Eloquence
    The author believes that it is a very promising supporting class. First of all, it is very worthwhile to use low-cost inspiration dice to lower enemies’ saving throws (compared to the sorcerer), and the subtraction is also very huge. When cooperating with some of your own spells or spell casting teammates, they can pose a great threat to enemies in the early stage. In the later period, when it is hard to take advantages of monsters’ saving throws, the 6th and 14th level features will bring a lot of help to teammates. More inspiration dice can reduce the difficulty of playing a bard and allow more people to pass key checks and saves. The author feels that the weakness of this bard is that the 14th level feature requires a reaction, which will make the bard very vulnerable after using it.
    Cleric: Arcana Domain (stronger late)
    Cleric: Grave Domain
    Cleric: Life Domain
    The arcana priest who can get spells from the wizard spell list is undoubtedly one of the best candidates in the T4 level, but before entering T4 level, they will perform poorly. The grave domain and the life domain are the benchmarks for clerics on the offensive end and the defensive end. Their unique channel divinities allow them to play a role among other powerful characters in 5E, without being completely outclassed.
    Later edit:
    After various dragonmarks from ERftLW, the clerics are finally able to get counterspell into their spell list. This strengthens clerics greatly, but it is still too difficult for clerics to compete with divine soul sorcerer for T1 position. The ability for divine soul sorcerer to do damage output, teleport, support, and other arcane abilities is beyond the reach of the clerics.
    Druid: Circle of the Moon (stronger early)
    The invincibility of moon druid in early games has been known by many. What I want to say here is that the moon druid is still an excellent attack support who could provide with advantages in the middle and late stages. Many wildshapes are able to restrain foes, which should be made good use of.
    Ranger: Gloom Stalker Conclave (stronger early)
    The strength of gloom stalker is clearly not on the same level as other rangers. There has also been early discussion about a 2-level fighter dip and getting 6 attacks in one turn. If you want to play a ranger and care about power, maybe gloom stalker will be the best choice.
    Fighter: Eldritch Knight
    Fighter: Battle Master (stronger early)
    Fighter: Champion (stronger late)
    Eldritch knight is the fighter with the least shortcomings. When other fighters are bothered by various problems such as low AC, dragon breath attacks, Wall of Force, relying on support, etc., eldritch knight can have good answers to these problems. Battle master and champion are the classic archetypes in PHB. Compared with eldritch knight which makes up deficiencies, battle master and champion focus more on improving the damage output. Choose the most suitable archetype depending on the team.
    Later edit:
    In fact, the author believes that the eldritch knight is the most underrated fighter. If a DPS does not have a certain degree of casting ability to protect him, her, or itself, it is easy to be forced to waste rounds because of its own limitations. This is a huge loss when the average combat length is 3 rounds in 5e. The eldritch knight is the fighter with the strongest self-sufficient ability. He, she, or it can help his, her, or its companions to fight against spells after having counterspell in the later games. However, be careful to avoid the trap build, sword and shield.
    Paladin: Oath of Glory
    Oath of Glory from tMOoT is generally a weaker version of the UA one. Giving teammates temporary HP with divine smite is great, but the sum of the 2d8+level is too few; the 5 feet aura at level 7 is also confusing. It may be because considering that many people now know the strength of the paladin, so the designer has weakened its early ability so that it cannot be easily muticlassed with other classes.
    Warlock: Celestial
    Alternative warlock with certain supporting features. You can choose either the casting route or the DPS route. It can provide stable DPS and also provide some treatment with healing. It is suitable for teams lacking both healing and counterspell.
    Rogue: Arcane Trickster
    Rogue: Thief (stronger late)
    Arcane trickster is the rogue version of eldritch knight. The highlight is mainly from choosing from a spell list to make up for shortcomings, and versatile trickster is also a good self-sufficient advantage feature. In the current version, illusionist's bracers further improve the damage output of arcane trickster. The reason why thief is nominated is that 2 turns per round in the late 17th level is extremely powerful.
    Monk: Way of the Open Hand
    Way of the open hand is the most versatile and stable tradition that helps monks use their core features to the fullest extent. Although the way of the open hand has no special advantage in damage output, its core feature does not consume ki and is relatively practical. The 17th-level feature, reducing to 0 hp, is quite unique.
    Sorcerer: Shadow Magic
    Sorcerer with more survivability. Compared with other warlocks, shadow sorcerer has strong self-protection features, while darkness and hound also provide a certain damage output benefit. If possible, it is best to have 2-level warlock dip to make up for the shortcomings when attacking single targets.
    Wizard: School of Divination
    Wizard: School of Illusion (stronger late)
    Wizard: School of Evocation (stronger late)
    The main value of diviner is having more spell slots, changing initiatives, and changing enemy saving throws. Although many people advocate for the power portent dice, performance of portent does not meet expectations when facing legendary resistance. The illusionist and evocationist are typical of the later game wizards: although the features of the first few levels are close to nothing, after having the key features, these wizards can show their dominance.
    Artificer: Battle Smith
    The damage output of battle smith is still unsatisfactory among other DPS, but there are still some hidden highlights. Flash of genius is a helpful supplement for teammates to pass saves/counterspell/dispel magic checks. Although it can be used less than inspiration, reactions are more flexible to use than bonus actions, and it will never be wasted. More attunement for DPS means stronger damage output and survivability in the later games. Using scrolls and magic items from all classes means that the battle smith’s items are not very limited by the campaign. With the continuous release of new resources and new campaigns, there is a reason to think that battle smith has more potential.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    T3: Ordinary Joe. Because the strengths of these classes are relatively average, it is difficult to find a particular strength compared to the T2 classes. Often forgotten in the discussion of builds.
    Barbarian: Path of the Battlerager
    Barbarian: Path of the Berserker
    Barbarian: Path of the Storm Herald
    Because of the restriction on race, battlerager from SCAG is rarely used. However, using a bonus action to attack and dash has a certain remedy to the defects of barbarians. The main disadvantage of the berserker barbarian is that the exhaustion is difficult to be removed. The damage types and attack methods (against saves) of storm herald barbarian are not very good, and because they use bonus actions, they may only be utilized to clean up regular opponents.
    Bard: College of Glamour
    Bard: College of Whispers
    Glamour bard has a good ability to adjust the position of teammates, but it is still a little late to get the all classes spell list at the 10th level. Whisper bard has very interesting out of combat features, but it may still be difficult to launch a sneak attack based on one single attack in exchange for one inspiration. Whisper bard is suitable for multiclassing or illusionist’s bracers builds.
    Cleric: Knowledge Domain
    Cleric: Light Domain (stronger early)
    Cleric: Nature Domain
    Cleric: Tempest Domain
    Cleric: War Domain (stronger early)
    Cleric: Forge Domain
    Cleric: Order Domain
    Many clerics are in this tier. Their main flaw is still: channel divinity is not unique and outstanding compared to the T2 clerics. Nonetheless, depending on the cleric's good buff spell list, these clerics are still sufficient for normal use in most games.
    Druid: Circle of Dreams
    Druid: Circle of the Shepherd
    Druid: Circle of Spores
    Since many of the Druid's class features are bound to wild shape, sub-classes that do not strengthen wild shape will be a bit strange while played. A common view is that wild shapes that have not been strengthened should be viewed as out-of-combat features. And these druids either have a good extra resource pool or have the different ability to utilize wild shape, which can be regarded as flavorful druids.
    Later edit
    Druid: Circle of the Shepherd
    2nd level class feature can be used as gaining temporary hp for the group, which is pretty nice. However, it's a pity that this is all the help provided by shepherd druid to the party. It is a reasonable idea to give the summoned creatures magic weapons to support a summoning build, but only in the short period of T2 level will this feature has an advantage against other offensive abilities. Soon the summoning druid will be weaker than other summoning builds.
    Fighter: Arcane Archer
    Fighter: Cavalier
    Fighter: Banneret
    Arcane archer’s performance in the early game is good, but when facing monsters with higher saving throws in the mid and late game, Arcane Archer will become weak. Essentially, arcane archer lacks improvement in the middle and late stages. The cavalier is a very special defensive archetype. To fully utilize all the features, cavalier must use a shield as a tank, which is not consistent with the mainstream view of fighters. The banneret has some unique supporting features, but overall it is not prominent enough.
    Fighter: Echo Knight (stronger early)
    Echo knight is very flexible and can move and teleport relatively freely on the battlefield, but other abilities seem to be mediocre. Although the avatar can be displayed unlimited times, it is easy to be killed by AOE, which means that an extra bonus action is required to manifest another echo, which means losing out on damage. The author's overall evaluation of this archetype is not great.
    Paladin: Oath of the Crown
    Just too bland.
    Monk: Way of the Kensei
    Monk: Way of Shadow
    Monk: Way of the Long Death
    Monk: Way of the Sun Soul
    Monk: Way of the Drunken Master
    Although people are generally optimistic about kensei, the actual game performance is not amazing. The conflict between various mechanisms of class features makes kensei . +3 flame tongue and sword of the paruns as a support are a few highlights. The 17th-level feature of the shadow monk is actually pretty good. In addition, the class has a distinctive flavorful theme, which is very suitable for playing reconnaissance and infiltrating roles in certain parties. The long death monk has a very strong ability to absorb damage; the sun soul monk and the drunken master monk can do damage at a safe distance at the early games; their ability to fight multiple enemies is also worth noting in certain scenarios.
    Ranger: Hunter (stronger early)
    Ranger: Beast Master
    Ranger: Monster Slayer
    Ranger: Horizon Walker
    After errata, Beast Master was strengthened, and have nothing particular to cry about except companion’s survivability. Hunter, monster slayer, horizon walker are all relatively balanced choices. The class features not only strengthen their damage output, but also survivability. However, compared to gloom stalker, there are no real stand-out features.
    Rogue: Inquisitive
    Rogue: Swashbuckler
    Rogue: Scout
    The inquisitive’s stable sneak attack should be well-known to many people. Although the 17th-level feature does not have burst damage, it gains in the long term. The swashbuckler has theme features, and hit and run is also an excellent improvement for the fragile rogue, but swashbuckler lacks improvement in the middle and late games. The scout is relatively dull in the early to mid games, but advantages for the group at level 13 and the 2 sneak attacks at level 17 are both great features worthy of attention.
    Sorcerer: Draconic Bloodline
    Sorcerer: Storm Sorcery
    Sorcerer: Wild Magic
    The features of draconic sorcerer and storm sorcerer are relatively close. They both focus on enhancing the damage output of a certain theme. In the later game, they both have the ability of flying, which can perform well in many games that have restrictions on broom of flying. The performance of wild sorcerer kind depends on the DMs. The random mechanism is not very friendly in the early games. However, as long as DMs allow it triggers twice per day, after 14th level, it can be regarded as a competitive class.
    Later edit
    After 14th level, when wild magic surge is controllable, wild magic surge more likely to be a kind of buff, but in the first few levels are still too easy to kill teammates.
    Warlock: Fiend
    Warlock: Undying
    Warlock: Archfey
    The reason why fiend warlock is T3 is mainly due to the impact of hexblade, which makes casting warlocks seem to be uncompetitive; however, after the getting illusionist’s bracers started in the middle and late stages, the fiend warlock can still shine relying on its stable counterspell and disabling an enemy for 1 round. The main highlight of the undying warlock is that it can cast Death Ward for the entire team. Archfey warlock can provide Greater Invisibility to teammates, and at the same time, it also has good survivability, because of teleportation + invisibility. These warlocks all have some relatively bright spots.
    Wizard: School of War Magic
    Wizard: School of Necromancy
    Wizard: School of Abjuration
    Although the school of war magic provides powerful in self-protection, they lack prominent highlights other than self-protection. At present, in order to attract firepower, the war wizard should go physical damage build which is more promising. The performance of necromancer highly depends on how many skeletons the DMs allow. Abjuration wizard is generally mediocre, the ability to have stable dispel magic/counterspell does not appear to have a great advantage, compared to bards’ Glibness. The wizards placed here are schools that are neither overwhelmingly weak or particularly strong.
    Later edit
    Wizard: School of Abjuration
    The overall ability of school of abjuration is meh. Although the counterspelling ability is strong, it is not as strong as bards; although survivability is strong, it is not as strong as the school of war magic. The author believes that the school of abjuration is a school that is too mediocre, and its highlights are covered by other classes so much that it can only be ranked in this tier.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    T4: Weak classes, because people often crying about them, so they have a stronger presence than T3 classes.
    Cleric: Trickery Domain
    Channel divinity that requires concentration is already very bad. If you ask “what could be worse?”, it could be divine strike with poison damage and the subsequent strengthening of this channel divinity. The pathetic point is that channel divinity is what makes clerics unique and valuable. If people still wants to play the characteristics of trickery cleric, they may still have to do shenanigans with the channel divinity.
    Druid: Circle of the Land
    Bland class features are the greatest tragedies for land druid. Except for 2nd level feature, land druid’s class features feel like patchworks, making it difficult to grasp the theme. If you are really looking for something, the only highlight of the land druid is the circle spells. If you want to play a ninth-level spell druid with haste, the land druid may be the only choice.
    Monk: Way of the Four Elements
    The failure of the four elements monk is that they have pseudo-spellcasting features, but they do not get extra resources like arcane trickster or eldritch knight, nor normal progression. Consuming the same resources with stunning strike impacts the actual performance of four elements monk. Only in games with abundant short rests can four elements monk have a little advantage with fangs of the fire snake.
    Rogue: Assassin
    Because of the mechanism of surprise, unless the assassin goes alone, or unless the whole team is sneaking, assassin rarely can play out his, her, or its main characteristics. Only when the DMs give the assassin extra convenience in surprise (for example: allowing to use group checks to determine surprise), the assassin can have good performance.
    Rogue: Mastermind
    The mastermind is a rogue subclass with nearly no combat features, which completely goes against the principle of this ranking. Players who like Mastermind are advised to try their best to use their abilities and advantages outside the combat. I am afraid that the only thing mastermind rogue can do within the combats is to provide teammates with the advantage by using bonus actions.
    Warlock: Great Old One
    An overall roleplaying-oriented subclass. The main features in the battle are forcing enemy disadvantages and resistance to psychic damage, which are very mediocre compared to other warlocks. The 14th level feature not only has a difficult requirement but also only applies charm to humanoids, which is only useful when DMs interprets its effects extremely in favor of the PC. However, GOO warlock has a large number of 5th level spell slots for telekinesis. If focusing on this spell, great old one warlock can become a good advantage provider in the team.
    Wizard: School of Transmutation
    Transmuter is the first of the top three wizards in PHB. The most valuable feature is transmuter’s stone which can resistance to certain types of damage and proficiency in constitution saves, which is approximately equal to one-third of the paladins’ aura. Master transmuter would consume the stone. You have to spend another 8 hours in order to remake the transmuter’s stone...... Of course, if you have a very generous DM that allows you to have a lot of transmuter’s stone with Simulacrum shenanigan, then this subclass is completely useless; however, the premise of this gameplay is based on the destruction of the game structure.
    Wizard: School of Conjuration
    Conjurer is the second of the top three wizards in PHB. Of course, I know that in theory, conjurer could get some strange things through the 2nd level feature, which would make many people yell "imba." However, believe me, that there won’t be more DMs allowing this shenanigan than DMs allowing assassin to surprise each combat. The other abilities of conjurer are quite insipid. Perhaps the best way to save conjurer is to take care of 2nd level feature: don’t allow it to destroy your game, but don’t use it as an off-combat ability that helps purely for role play.
    Wizard: School of Enchantment
    Enchanter is the last of the top three wizards in PHB. Even if it is endorsed by Treantmonk, I must say that this is a trap option. Don't try to use your armorless d6 body to use your 2nd level feature within 5 feet of the front line when you don’t have a multi-class that will give you armor and shields. The split enchantment looks great but it is difficult to choose a spell in the actual game. The 14th level feature is completely a role-playing feature. Of course, if you want to play a hypnotist who focuses on negotiation, then this sub-class is good, but don’t expect enchanter to have strong control ability in combat. No such thing.
    Wizard: School of Graviturgy
    Artificer: Alchemist
    Artificer: Artillerist
    I don't want to comment. You know where the weakness is anyway, don’t you?

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2018

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Thank you for sharing this interesting analysis from a different cultural perspective.

    A few questions for you:

    - Is the ranking you posted well-regarded among the goddessfantasy forum?
    - Is goddessfantasy one of the leading D&D forums in China?
    Last edited by Merudo; 2020-07-07 at 09:18 AM.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Quote Originally Posted by Merudo View Post
    Thank you for sharing this interesting analysis from a different cultural perspective.

    A few questions for you:

    - Is the ranking you posted well-regarded among the goddessfantasy forum?
    - Is goddessfantasy one of the leading D&D forums in China?
    It is the best boardgame forum in China. It has the largest DnD board game community.
    The author is the admin of DnD sub-forum, and all of his posts are well regarded including this one.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2018

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Quote Originally Posted by 憂鬱鬱 View Post
    It is the best boardgame forum in China. It has the largest DnD board game community.
    The author is the admin of DnD sub-forum, and all of his posts are well regarded including this one.
    Thank you for your answers.

    One thing that surprises me is the huge discrepancy in the rankings of the subclasses of the same class. For example, Bladesinger Wizard is top Tier 1, but Abjuration Wizard is Tier 3, and Enchantment Wizard is bottom Tier 4, below the Four Elements Monk.
    Last edited by Merudo; 2020-07-07 at 09:41 AM.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Quote Originally Posted by Merudo View Post
    Thank you for your answers.

    One thing that surprises me is the huge discrepancy in the rankings of the subclasses of the same class. For example, Bladesinger Wizard is top Tier 1, but Abjuration Wizard is Tier 3, and Enchantment Wizard is bottom Tier 4, below the Four Elements Monk.
    It did kinda make sense to me. Bladesinger has always been regarded as being just a blatantly strong Wizard option, due to its high AC and Concentration bonuses without really any notable cost. Four Elements Monk still has a lot of options to be relevant, even if they are too expensive early on. A lot of those 4E features are things no other Monk, heck Martial, is capable of doing. And while I like the Enchanter conceptually, most enchantment spells are pretty bad compared to most conjured/AoE stuff, and the Enchantment Wizard doesn't provide enough support for them. Abjuration never really seemed all that great to me, since you don't have too many options to regain your Ward or even protect your allies in combat, and your best feature is a strong Counterspell, which might be usable in 50% of encounters if you're lucky. Compare that to a bonus to AC, Concentration, and Speed, and I think I'd just take my chances with an unbuffed Counterspell. I think I would have liked the Abjurer a lot more if it had the means of protecting his allies with his Abjuration spells in place of himself (so he can use Absorb Elements on the Fighter or something).
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Amnestic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Castle Sparrowcellar
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    I can't see a world in which Arcane Archer or Banneret are Tier 3 but Land druids are Tier 4.
    DMing:
    Iron Crisis IC | OOC
    Cyre Red IC | OOC

    Playing:
    OotA IC | OOC

    Master Homebrew Index (5e)

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Interesting to note that there are no clerics at all until T2, and i’d like to hear that they think about the other artificers down the bottom there.
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Quote Originally Posted by Amnestic View Post
    I can't see a world in which Arcane Archer or Banneret are Tier 3 but Land druids are Tier 4.
    I'll admit, that does seem a little odd, but I think part of that might be the attempt to weigh all levels equally, even when most players never played a game at level 10+.

    In that regard, I think the results are flawed, as it states that it assumes generalizations for most DM's/tables/playstyles, but clearly puts more weight into combat features and disproportionately favors higher level features (due to the fact that most 10+ features never see use).
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2020-07-07 at 10:12 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    I disagree with numerous of those rankings.

    The list is long, so I'm not gonna write the entire thing down. However, the majority of those disagreements are derived from the same two issues, so I'll list the issues instead.

    The first issue is the minor one. Combat alone just isn't a great metric. Typically, rankings are based on an overall problem-solving capacity. However, since the list goes off of combat this is, as I said, a minor issue, and ultimately irrelevant.

    The second and major issue, however, is the extreme focus on subclass.

    Not all classes are similarly dependent on their subclass features. A number of them end up defined by their subclass, but plenty are based more on their chassis than whatever features the subclass grants them. Most prominent examples of these are full casters, who are defined by their spell list way more than any of their features, unless said feature radically alters the class' direction and playstyle (such as Moon druids and, to a lesser extent, Hexblade warlocks) or creates a substantial difference in the core feature, spellcasting (such as a divine soul sorcerer having access to a lot more spells than other sorcerers).

    With that in mind, differences of even one tier are often questionable, while two or three are flat out impossible no matter the point of comparison. An enchanter, an abjurer and a bladesinger, for example, share the exact same spell list and draw most of their power from that spell list. Better defenses and some melee capability are nowhere near enough to propel a bladesinger far ahead of two other wizards who can have the exact same spells prepared. Sleep, invisibility, the incredible array of 3rd-level spells, banishment, synaptic static, mass suggestion and forcecage are always there, regardless of whether you can add Int to AC for two minutes a day or stare into someone's eyes intently, and are a lot more impactful than either of those features. Same with clerics and most druids, and to an extent sorcerers and bards. Even non-full casters can fall into this category; again, the subclass is far from the be all, end all of a character.

    The above stops being an issue if each subclass is rated only in comparison to other subclasses of a same class. For example, an enchanter wizard is weak compared to a diviner, but not to a berserker barbarian, even though it ends up lower in the list. If that is the case, however, then the list does a poor job of presenting it. It should note that this compares subclasses within the same class, possibly even have a separate list for each class rather than blending them together.

    And if it is, indeed, a full comparison of classes based on combat merit and compared to every other class, then many of the rankings are based on the power of less-than-relevant features and the aforementioned major issue leads to poor results. Because only with outrageous differences in player ability can a banneret or a battlerager outdo any cleric, druid or wizard, in any pillar of the game.
    Last edited by Chaos Jackal; 2020-07-07 at 10:18 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Titan in the Playground
     
    J-H's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    This is the best tier analysis I've seen for 5e. JaronK's influence lives on....

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Quote Originally Posted by J-H View Post
    This is the best tier analysis I've seen for 5e. JaronK's influence lives on....
    Mind elaborating, or am I missing the blue (sub)text?

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Titan in the Playground
     
    J-H's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    JaronK did a big Tier analysis/list for 3.5. It started on another forum, so I'm not sure how old it is, but I think it was started over a decade ago. With some dispute over exact placement, it's generally been accepted as an accurate assessment, and most GITP 3.5 players are familiar with it.

    There are a lot of threads on the topic, including ranking PRCs, explanations of why each class is in its tier, etc. Not sure if it's truly all consolidated in 1 place.
    Last edited by J-H; 2020-07-07 at 10:25 AM.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Quote Originally Posted by J-H View Post
    JaronK did a big Tier analysis/list for 3.5. It started on another forum, so I'm not sure how old it is, but I think it was started over a decade ago. With some dispute over exact placement, it's generally been accepted as an accurate assessment, and most GITP 3.5 players are familiar with it.

    There are a lot of threads on the topic, including ranking PRCs, explanations of why each class is in its tier, etc. Not sure if it's truly all consolidated in 1 place.
    Yes, I am familiar with the 3.5 tier list, as well as the article on why each class is in its tier. I'm a fan.

    I just don't see how the list presented here is in any way similar. It uses different metrics and principles.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Aug 2016

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Quote Originally Posted by Merudo View Post
    One thing that surprises me is the huge discrepancy in the rankings of the subclasses of the same class. For example, Bladesinger Wizard is top Tier 1, but Abjuration Wizard is Tier 3, and Enchantment Wizard is bottom Tier 4, below the Four Elements Monk.
    Mmm...I admit to skimming it but a few things stuck out at me like Glamour Bards being ranked T3 and wizard subclasses being spread between T1-4 which I feel I so strongly disagree with that I can't say I can give any real weight to the rest. They would need much more substantial justifications to even begin winning me over.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    I appreciate the effort and thought that went behind sharing this post, thank you!

    However am I reading it right that Artillerist is bottom of the list and apparently so blatantly flawed it's not worth commenting on?

    Samurai is an entire tier above Battlemaster and the only Fighter subclass in that tier?

    Druids are apparently all about Wildshape and any circle that doesn't enhance it is eh at best?

    This is a very questionable ranking...
    For D&D 5e Builds, Tips, News and more see our Youtube Channel Dork Forge

    Feel free to message for any build requests or challenges

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Amnestic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Castle Sparrowcellar
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    I'll admit, that does seem a little odd, but I think part of that might be the attempt to weigh all levels equally, even when most players never played a game at level 10+.
    It's a weird approach, and one that I think is a mistake fundamentally. The best (sub)classes at 1-5 are almost certainly not identical to the best (sub)classes at 16-20, so why try to analyze them as such? Especially when rarely do players take a class from 1-20.

    So I mean, just personally, I think this list is actually harmful for players rather than helpful since it might promote weird conceptions.
    DMing:
    Iron Crisis IC | OOC
    Cyre Red IC | OOC

    Playing:
    OotA IC | OOC

    Master Homebrew Index (5e)

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Something interesting, if minor, that I picked up from this is a bit of a focus on bows. Not for a lot of subclasses, but Samurai and Valor Bard are mentioned as archers. And then cavalier tanking with a shield is mentioned as unusual.

    Not really enough to draw any firm conclusions from, I just found it interesting.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Weird list. Some of it is right on, but some of it is out of left field. For example, a Wizard's power comes mostly from its full caster status and versatile spell list. I don't think subclass is impactful enough to make Bladesinger top tier and other wizards bottom tier.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Thanks for the hard work in translating and presenting this.
    It feels a bit video game centric in outlook, as do a lot of optimization presentations.
    This article may have serious impacts on your game experience, please carefully consider before deciding whether to read it.
    Uh, not likely in my case. But thanks for thinking ahead and offering the caveat.
    Here is an example for why I am not all that keen on this 'tier' attempt:
    Sorcerer: Shadow Magic
    Sorcerer with more survivability. Compared with other warlocks, shadow sorcerer has strong self-protection features, while darkness and hound also provide a certain damage output benefit. If possible, it is best to have 2-level warlock dip to make up for the shortcomings when attacking single targets.
    Shadow is my personal favorite for sorcerer, but I get why Divine Soul is listed very high on the raking. It's also a fine choice.

    I think your overall scheme too often overlooks that D&D 5e is played as a team, PvE. For "attacking single targets" you have these allies who are often martial characters whose whole schtick is to lay down damage. I will say quite frankly: if what you aim to get out of D&D 5e is a contest within the party for who does the most damage in combat, I think you are approaching the game from too narrow of a perspective - though I suppose that is a matter of taste.
    If that's what gets you all your fun at your table, have at it.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2020-07-07 at 12:18 PM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Quote Originally Posted by Merudo View Post
    Thank you for your answers.

    As for the rankings, I'm surprised by the huge discrepancy in the rankings of the subclasses of the same class. For example, Bladesinger Wizard is top Tier 1, but Enchantment Wizard is bottom Tier 4, below the Four Elements Monk.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaos Jackal View Post
    The second and major issue, however, is the extreme focus on subclass.

    ......

    And if it is, indeed, a full comparison of classes based on combat merit and compared to every other class, then many of the rankings are based on the power of less-than-relevant features and the aforementioned major issue leads to poor results. Because only with outrageous differences in player ability can a banneret or a battlerager outdo any cleric, druid or wizard, in any pillar of the game.
    Some classes spread all over is because these classes’ main class features are very mediocre, and they need the support of sub-class features to have a useful role in the party.

    Take the wizard as an example. Many Chinese players regard wizard as a "weak class", because the wizard spell list is versatile but not unique. Wizard’s spells can be acquired easily by classes like bards and sorcerers and these classes often have strong and special class features. In these situations, classes mentioned above can completely cover the role of the wizard. Therefore, it can be considered that the strength of the wizard is more dependent on the sub-class feature than other.

    Not "9th level spell list so a class is strong", but "9th level list + strong class feature so a class is strong", this is a common view of Chinese players.

    In addition, DPR plays a key role in the game, so some classes that only serve as good strikers still are ranked higher than weaker wizards.
    Last edited by xgxxgg; 2020-07-07 at 01:40 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Quote Originally Posted by 憂鬱鬱 View Post
    Some classes spread all over is because these classes’ main class features are very mediocre, and they need the support of sub-class features to have a useful role in the party.
    Take the wizard as an example. Many Chinese players regard wizard as a "weak class", because the wizard spell list is versatile but not unique. Wizard’s spells can be acquired easily by classes like bards and sorcerers and these classes often have strong and special class features. In these situations, classes mentioned above can completely cover the role of the wizard. Therefore, it can be considered that the strength of the wizard is more dependent on the sub-class feature than other.
    Not "9th level spell list so a class is strong", but "9th level list + strong class feature so a class is strong", this is a common view of Chinese players.
    In addition, DPR plays a key role in the game, so some classes that only serve as good strikers still are ranked higher than weaker wizards.
    I see. Then this explains where the divergence comes from, as well as why the list was made solely on a combat (with focus on damage) metric.

    It is a common perception among optimizers here (though by no means the only one) that for full casters, their spellcasting is what matters the most. Larger lists and more spells known are generally regarded as more powerful than most class features. While other classes have means of poaching the spells from wizards, clerics and druids, they can never have as big of a list, both in available and known options.

    For example, a wizard with no subclass and no class features other than Arcane Recovery would still be considered one of the powerful classes. What is often viewed as their strongest feature by far would remain intact. Not "9th-level list is strong" alone, but "the more options up to 9th, the stronger".

    DPR is also not valued as much by many. Certainly not key. Since nearly all enemies are just as effective at 1, 10 and 100hp, having reliable ways to disable enemies or control the field are considered more important than DPR. It doesn't matter how much damage you can do if a wall or a debuff just shut down half the encounter.
    Last edited by Chaos Jackal; 2020-07-07 at 02:31 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Aug 2016

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaos Jackal View Post
    I see. Then this is explains where the divergence comes from, as well as why the list was made solely on a combat (with focus on damage) metric.
    I'm not sure this makes complete sense though when Lore Bards are one of the T0 classes.

    I'm also quite bemused by Hexblades being top of T1 (apparently solely for DPR reasons) while other warlocks languish down at the bottom of T3 or T4.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Quote Originally Posted by Contrast View Post
    I'm not sure this makes complete sense though when Lore Bards are one of the T0 classes.

    I'm also quite bemused by Hexblades being top of T1 (apparently solely for DPR reasons) while other warlocks languish down at the bottom of T3 or T4.
    My guess is that Lore bards are there because they are the ones who can most easily poach spells from other lists and have quite solid class features. I certainly don't see how it is "easy" to get spells from the powerful lists, the methods are limited and spells known limits these methods even more (divine soul can poach the entire cleric list, but they can still only learn 15 spells), but if anything can make a case in that regard, it's Lore. T0 might seem a bit exaggerated for the reasons they're giving, but it's plausible.

    Overall, however, I still believe some things don't make sense under that prism either. The reasoning given explains the general discrepancies with what we consider strong, but the list seems somewhat inconsistent even by its own standards. Perhaps it's because what I noted earlier about in-class comparisons actually exists, to an extent; it does feel like that, for many classes, the author of this tier list has decided that if he believes one or two subclasses are much stronger, the rest of the subclasses are rendered obsolete, more because there's no reason to play them in their eyes rather than being so much weaker.

    Still inconsistent, and I'm not a fan, but this is my best guess.
    Last edited by Chaos Jackal; 2020-07-07 at 02:33 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaos Jackal View Post
    I disagree with numerous of those rankings.
    I completely agree. In fact, even if Paladin is my favorite class, I have to disagree that the PHB subclasses are the best of the best of the best in the entire game. (Spot on with the College of Lore, though.)

    Don't get me wrong: Paladins are strong in this edition. Even if I argue about the lack of Warding Bond, they have one of the best controlled nova options in the entire game, superb defenses and a set of awesome spells (Aura of Vitality, Crusader's Mantle, Elemental Weapon, Holy Sword, Destructive Wave, etc.) as well as shared utility spells that are awesome (Bless being the key one). However, even disregarding the powerhouse of full spellcasting, I think this definition of Paladins takes it a bit too far.

    Considering that their benchmark is Tier 1 and Tier 2 (the OP places a lot of emphasis on Tier 1, as it's the area of the game where most DMs start to play; Tier 2 is because most adventure paths explore this portion of the game), it feels odd to see Paladins so strong. Again - this is me, biased in favor of Paladins, stating something's fishy. Mostly: though their nova'ing is impressive, I have to challenge that the PHB subclasses are so, so potent.

    For starters, Oath of Devotion. Sacred Weapon is HUGE, particularly to offset the penalties of GWM, so with GWF and a Greatsword you can dish huge amounts of damage with a minimal loss of accuracy, effectively turning your Charisma (low at first, but once you hit 20) into damage. Not a reliable source of advantage as stated in Oath of Vengeance, but with a much better source of accuracy in raw numbers, you'll see that GWM bonus damage hit a lot more - it's sustained, and it's spread out. However, other than that and maybe Flame Strike later on, I feel that the blander Oath is Devotion - it's just too vanilla. It's basically the definition of "Boring but Practical": not that flashy (again, other than frickin' Flame Strike), but it works.

    Then, Oath of the Ancients. I get it - Aura of Warding is the bee's knees, but I feel it's seriously overrated. It's half damage from spells of all kinds - except breath weapons aren't spells, big monster attacks aren't spells, and most importantly, some spells don't do damage. It's useful because it's a layer of mitigation that you can provide your party for no cost, so the opportunity cost is immense - slap it into someone that has resistance to physical damage, and very little things can affect you. And the spells aren't THAT amazing - 2nd level spells are awesome, and Ensnaring Strike is hilarious but you need high CHA to really exploit it, and it eats your Concentration - that is, no Smite spells while it's active (though Divine Smite is fair play).

    Finally, Oath of Vengeance. Sure - Vow of Enmity is an excellent way to single out a target, and between that, Divine Smite and Hunter's Mark (or Haste), you can lay down massive amounts of damage to a single target, making them perfect for bosses...but not exactly against bosses with strong mooks. Or bosses you can't reach. They got one of the better spell lists, though - Hunter's Mark, Misty Step, Haste, Dimension Door...heck, even Bane is fairly good.

    On the other hand, Oath of the Crown is seriously misguided. It's definitely a tank subclass, much like the Oaths of Conquest and Redemption - Champion's Challenge is a rather solid lockdown power, Command and Compelled Duel are solid early-game Crowd Control spells, it has Warding Bond, and it's the one official way to get Spirit Guardians into a Paladin, a combination that most people here would argue to be pretty OP. That the subclass features after 3rd are poor? Sure - Redemption's Aura of the Guardian is vastly superior to Crown's 7th level feature, and their super-form at 20th level is kinda disappointing, but the spell list of Crown Paladins is golden. They're definitely not your Average Joes, particularly once you get into that last leg of Tier 2. (This doesn't include a dip into Hexblade, or choosing War Caster/Resilient [Con]).

    I'd rather say I'd lower the tiers of PHB Paladin subclasses down one tier (they're good, but nowhere near the level of a Hexblade, to the point people in the forums consider it was a massive oversight from Wizards of the Coast) and boost up Crown Paladins one notch (seriously - their spell list is pretty good, and both CDs are actually quite good - one being a mass Lockdown and the other being an emergency AoE heal), amongst some reconsiderations. Hexblade is immense early on, allowing a short-rest CHA caster to become pretty much SAD, giving them a solid set of proficiencies, and with Hexblade's Curse, a trait far, far superior to Vow of Enmity; then, the ability to summon a Specter at 6th level, when it's still quite relevant (after all - it's an incorporeal creature, so it has resistances tagged in) gives it a very solid progression. Sure, maybe the Warlock suffers from short-rest spellcasting recovery when most of the games are usually based off one big battle rather than multiple battles designed to whittle down the PCs, but even after using their two big spells, Warlocks still have incantations and Eldritch Blast, making Hexblades immense in both ranged and melee combat. I'd argue THAT as a Tier 0 subclass. In fact, I feel that classes that provide a mental stat to damage should be higher (Hexblade, of course, as well as Bladesinger and Battle Smith), particularly since they bring up other nice stuff (Bladesinger also adds Int to a few other things, and Battle Smith has a friggin' Steel Defender and AoE Heals and a way to do in-combat healing and/or deal extra damage), so it feels odd that their combat effectiveness seems so stifled.
    Retooler of D&D 3.5 (and 5e/Next) content. See here for more.
    Now with a comprehensive guide for 3.5 Paladin players porting to Pathfinder. Also available for 5th Edition
    On Lawful Good:
    Quote Originally Posted by firebrandtoluc View Post
    My friend is currently playing a paladin. It's way outside his normal zone. I told him to try to channel Santa Claus, Mr. Rogers, and Kermit the Frog. Until someone refuses to try to get off the naughty list. Then become Optimus Prime.
    T.G. Oskar profile by Specter.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven

    Quote Originally Posted by 憂鬱鬱 View Post
    Some classes spread all over is because these classes’ main class features are very mediocre, and they need the support of sub-class features to have a useful role in the party.
    Take the wizard as an example. Many Chinese players regard wizard as a "weak class", because the wizard spell list is versatile but not unique. Wizard’s spells can be acquired easily by classes like bards and sorcerers and these classes often have strong and special class features. In these situations, classes mentioned above can completely cover the role of the wizard. Therefore, it can be considered that the strength of the wizard is more dependent on the sub-class feature than other.
    Not "9th level spell list so a class is strong", but "9th level list + strong class feature so a class is strong", this is a common view of Chinese players.
    In addition, DPR plays a key role in the game, so some classes that only serve as good strikers still are ranked higher than weaker wizards.
    But... That's just not true. At least, not this specific example.

    Wizards have access to the largest number of unique spells, which includes pretty useful ones like:
    - Phantom Steed, which is the best form of long distance travel by a long shot assuming you don't need it for more then 5 people;
    - Bigby's hand is an awesome spell that can work as cover, damage and control with a bonus action;
    - Arcane Eye is one of the best scouting spells;
    - Grease works wonders to stop enemies for a lv.1 spell;

    And those were four out of thirty, and not even the best ones. A sorcerer doesn't get easy access nor ritual casting, while a bard can only copy a few and that stops them from getting other useful spells which aren't unique but still aren't native for bards.

    Plus, even in general sorcerer and bards are still more limited in spell selection then wizard besides sorcerer divine soul (I think, not sure) if you simply consider the number of spells to choose from, even more if you consider the difference between spells known and the wizard's spellbook.

    It's true that they have little in the way of not-subclass features, but what they get... Spell slot recovery which bard doesn't get. Sorcerer does, but eats through the sorcery points for metamagic which would be their iconic class feature (or one of them anyway).

    Wizard high-level features capitalize on this giving two free low-level spells and two free 1/day less-low level spells (dunno you, but I'm always using those 3rd level slots).

    Sorcerer gets 4 more points on short rest, which imo isn't quite as good though still welcomed.

    Bard has one excellent support feature (Bardic Inspiration), song of rest which I've yet to see make a difference especially when you get stronger, Expertise which is very pretty, JOAT which gives minor boosts to a lot of things and MS which as I already said in no way closes the gap.

    Without subclasses, wizard is about on par in quality with bard and sorcerer (actually I personally like bard's features less, but that's strictly my opinion). If we don't consider spellcasting ability.
    With spellcasting wizard scores higher- and if we consider DPR as a defining factor, they pull ahead even more since they got more overall damage potential (in terms of single round damage combined with sustained barrage).

    Don't get me wrong- maybe on some of those rankings you're right and it is true that some classes get more fun stuff from the sub then from the general features. But I can't see how this example could be true, assuming I'm not overlooking anything- wizard's class features compared to bard or sorcerer, DPR capacity, unique spells and spell selection.
    The only thing wizard falls behind in is, I think, the fact that their class features do only one thing, though very good. Sorcerer's features do two things (though they share the same resource so doing both reduces your ability to do either) while bard's do a lot of things with a wide application, so in terms of class features versatility (not strenght) I'd consider the bard and sorcerer above the wizard, yes.

    Boldened to make it clear I'm not just saying your opinion is wrong and mine is right- just, I can't seem to understand this example. Not the way you explained it, anyway. I'd welcome an explanation on this.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •