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

[Waazraath]

Interesting read, thanks for sharing. Having said that:

1) I have the opinion that creating tiers in 5e is a hopeless task to begin with. All classes would be 'tier 3' in JaronK's 3.5 tier system (ok, with the few tier 2 exceptions of the nuclear wizard, simulacrum/wish abusers, and maybe coffeelocks). The funny thing is: on the one hand the OP seems to acknowledge this ("the most balanced version of DND", and the observation that at the higher levels classes are even closer in power), but on the other hand the tier names that are chosen are "Pinnacle of the edition", "powerhouses", "quasi-strong", "ordinary joe" and "weak classes"... I mean... how does that correspond? Why 5 tiers when they are close together, why not 2 or 3? Especially when the metric you can use is (very) far from exact, and more like, you know, your opinion man?

2) I also quite strongly feel that it's better to have no information than misinformation, and thus no ranking is better than a flawed ranking;

3) even disregarding the two points above, and in the hypothetical situation that a ranking could work, I can't agree with most of this. Classes whose subclass really isn't that interesting for theri power are all over the place; wizard from 'powerhouse' to 'weak'? No way. Land Druid weak, shepard druid "ordinary joe"? Nope. Lore bard super and glamour bard ordinary joe? Nope nope.

[Nagog]

(Samurai is low because...) It has no ability to cast spells and is relatively fragile, so it falls in trouble more often than the hexblade,

Parenthesis added for clarity.

"Because this fighter subclass has a d10 hit dice, heavy armor, and shields, it is considered more fragile than the Hexblade, who far outclasses it in tankiness due to it's d8 hit dice and medium armor/shields."

Tbh I stopped reading there. This sounds like the rater highly favors full casting Gish without doing the proper research.

First strike was the warning. Everybody knows 5e has optimized builds (see Elven Accuracy/Sharpshooter or PAM/GWM), reading an article on what you feel they are doesn't change my playstyle, nor would it. Implying that I should fear what you know because it will change my game forever is arrogant in the extreme.

Second strike was seeing Bladesinger as #2 on the list, when in reality Bladesinger is heavily, heavily dragged down by d6 hit dice, reliance on War Caster and Tough, and MADness (need good Dex for armor, good Con for Health, and good Int for spellcasting and armor, as well as Tough because even +5 Con isn't enough to supplement a d6 hit dice. Also Mobile because even after all that you can't afford to take any hits you don't absolutely have to).

Third was the opening quote, and I'm out. Assuming your opinion will shake the foundations of other's fun, then proving you haven't done any actual research just pushes the arrogance further. No thank you, I'll pass.

[MaxWilson]

This list feels emotion-driven--more like a list of someone's personal favorites than a principled analysis of which classes are dominant. Others have commented on the strangeness of ranking Enchanters T4 when Bladesingers are ranked T1 explicitly on the strength of the exact same spells that an Enchanter has: <<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.>> and yet somehow, the Enchanter winds up rated T4, right next to the Assassin. That gives me the impression that T4 doesn't have a definition, it's just a way of expressing distaste.

I get the impression that the Paladins and Lore Bards are top-tier primarily because they have abilities which give bonuses to the whole party (and that explains the Banneret's anomalously high ranking too), without necessarily considering the alternatives and opportunity cost.

However, that hypothesis conflicts with a key data point: the extremely low ratings for all of the Artificers with no explanation given, despite Artificers having excellent support abilities across the board in the form of magic items, healing/resurrection spells, advantage-granting spells (Faerie Fire, Web), Flash of Genius for saving throw/skill bonuses, various forms of party protection via Steel Defenders or Protective Turrets. So perhaps my impression is wrong, or perhaps Artificers are just being overlooked by the community which produced this document, and they may revise their collective opinions later, e.g. when they discover the awesomeness of Protection turrets that spew enormous amounts of protective webbing/etc. (temp HP) at the entire party from level 3 onward.

I suspect the low rating for Artificer is simply an emotional reaction to the fact that they seem kind of like wizards, but only get half as much spellcasting. It's just ironic that the Enchanter/Conjuror/Transmuter all have that spellcasting but get rated identically anyway, for lack of special abilities.

As a cultural perspective that was an interesting read, but not a persuasive one.

[Joe the Rat]

Rather than reading as an all-in-one list across classes, this might be worth a look at differences within classes, with an eye towards the different perspectives.

But the other thing I am seeing is not "who hits best" but "who couldn't be easily replaced" - and that's where wizard and warlock fall down. If you can effectively replace anyone, you can effectively be replaced by anyone.

I'm also seeing a fair bit of gish/spell melee favoritism here. But that's not anything unique to the goddess board take. Westerners seem to favor having a wand up your, er, business, no matter the class.

[Nagog]

I'm also seeing a fair bit of gish/spell melee favoritism here. But that's not anything unique to the goddess board take. Westerners seem to favor having a wand up your, er, business, no matter the class.

While I can't argue the favoritism point, this post is translated from Chinese, a nation in what is known as the Far East.

[Valmark]

But the other thing I am seeing is not "who hits best" but "who couldn't be easily replaced" - and that's where wizard and warlock fall down. If you can effectively replace anyone, you can effectively be replaced by anyone.

That's not fully true- if one can replace multiple people/cover multiple roles, there is no guarantee somebody else will be able to replace them.

Of course, if we are talking about a single role then yeah, there's plenty classes/subclasses/what have you that can cover each specific role.

[Joe the Rat]

While I can't argue the favoritism point, this post is translated from Chinese, a nation in what is known as the Far East.

I was referring to the local audience, not the author.

[Nagog]

I was referring to the local audience, not the author.

Ah, my mistake.

[MrStabby]

Ok... so I disagree with much of this, but that isn't really interesting. What is interesting to me is what needs to happen in a campaign for this to make sense - i.e. can I infer something about D&D gaming culture in China from the ranking?

A few thoughts:

There is an emphasis on lower levels and top levels... but little in the middle. Martial characters which do well at low levels are rated highly wheras the caster that overtake them at high levels are rated lower. But some high level abilities seem to also have a disproportionate effect on rankings. Its like T3 doesn't exist.

Adventuring days are LONG. Resource free abilities are seen as stronger - look at the champion placement for example; good, but only in very long, arduous days.

Supporting characters are undervalued - OK, Paladin has great support and is top, and divine soul/lore bard is high... but clerics and druids and bards are lower than I would have expected whereas those characters more focussed on dealing damage are higher. Maybe there is a culture of higher HP in the English speking regions/forums such that inflicting the Dead condition is no longer the most effective way of removing something from the fight. Or maybe it is:

Wisdom isn't a useful stat. Maybe there is an expectation that mental saves are more charisma and intelligence focussed than wisdom? That would lower the ranking of wisdom based classes? Or maybe there is a culture of most enemies meing martial type enemies that don't cast spells or force saves at all?

[sambojin]

I like it that it points out the differences of play styles, game types, etc, as well as the authors views on them. It doesn't necessarily have to be correct, and I don't have to agree with a lot of their ratings, and it may not even completely represent the wider Chinese d&d community (merely the author's play ecosystem). But it does give food for thought on what I rate as powerful, compared to others, potentially from similar experiences and even adventure modules played.

I will admit, I tend to lump Paladins into the "they just do damage" category, but they actually do a lot more than that, and do it in many enjoyable ways. I even know this, know the multiclassing options available, and just how powerful they are, but that sort of sticks in my mind. They do have an immense "enjoyment factor", being able to explodify stuff on command, which probably leads to a fairly high rating. And while combat isn't everything, it probably is at least a third of the game or more, so doing it well is great. Druids, Wizards, etc tend to rely on other characters being around to be powerful, whereas a Pally can just slowly chop through everything, regardless of party makeup.

Whereas I tend to rate versatility to almost equal power. These days I tend to rate Land and Shepherd druids as more powerful than Moon, even if Moon is the class I tend to play. There's something fantastic in my mind to having heaps of free spells prepped as well as an open and very variable spell list. Where a cleric will mostly just SG+SW at lvl5+, a Land or Shepherd actually can approach things in different ways, so the extra spells or abilities seem better to me than they do to the author. Admittedly, SG+SW it also very effective, and just casting Bless can be as useful as casting several higher level druid spells, so I understand the reasoning, I just don't necessarily agree with it. Similar to how I would rate all wizards higher. To me, they're just plain good, and none would be rated as lower than tier 1-2. Arcane recovery and a big/ good spell list is just that good to my mind. I don't even play wizards much. But that's just my opinion.

So yeah, thanks for taking the time to translate the post. It's food for thought, to see another viewpoint, for sure. I can't really say "you're wrong", because I have little to justify me being "right", other than my own play experiences, opinions and theory-crafting. You're most definitely right in posting it here regardless. Cheers! :)

[KorvinStarmast]

I will admit, I tend to lump Paladins into the "they just do damage" category, but they actually do a lot more than that, and do it in many enjoyable ways.

Yep. And my half elf ancients paladin was that kind of cool before anyone could MC into Hexblade ...

[Lucas Yew]

The only thing I can infer even slightly from this bizarre Tier list is that the Chinese players value Combat As Sport very much over Combat As War.

[zghzgh1779]

The purpose of this ranking is to evaluate the effectiveness and ability for one subclass in finishing its own business, not to compare one class with another. The author have explained this in discussing but not in main text. It is obviously odd that saying about "Scout is better than Enchanter".

[xgxxgg]

The original author:
First, thank you for your comments on this ranking.
The author has realized a long time ago that trying to persuade others to change their views through Internet discussions is almost impossible, and the author is also very happy that everyone has original opinions. I will try to explain my point of view with a neutral attitude.

① Some readers think that the ranking of this list is based on "who can not be easily replaced", I think this is the correct way to read it. In China, there are many optimizers discussing“how to make the most powerful team with a limited number of players.” In fact, a team can only fill 4-6 characters, inevitably most of the classes are considered to be less competitive.

The reason why the paladins are ranked first is that players cannot get a large group saving throws bonus from any other way. And Lore Bard has the most comprehensive spell table (yes, more than the wizards’ and the clerics’), as well as very strong Dispel Magic checks and Counterspell checks to help the team win the spell battle.

A team cannot only be simply made up of pure casters. Fighters have uniqueness is because of their stable and powerful DPR. The reason why other gish classes are at the top is that they have more versatilities for spells and can also contribute stable DPR (although it may be lower than fighters). The divine soul sorcerer has become one of the most favored casters in China, because divine soul sorcerer has access to both the sorcerer’s spell list and cleric’s spell list, and Metamagic.

These classes are difficult to be replaced by lower-tier classes in terms of their uniqueness: other classes have the lower DPR than fighters’; other wizards can hardly provide stable DPR and cast as a caster like Bladesinger; other clerics do not have sorcerer’s spell list and Metamagic as divine soul sorcerer, although they also have some domain features, the distinctiveness of domain features are not enough to get them into the upper tiers.

There is a very popular view in China that the perfect five-person team is made of a paladin + a main caster (such as lore bard, chronurgist) + divine soul sorcerer + DPR classes (such as fighter, gish) + one other class depending on the situations. This may be biased, but it also has some reference value.

② Regarding the versatility of the 9th-level spellcaster, I believe that people in this forum and Chinese players have different views. I will try to explain the difference.

Including the author, many players in China are willing to play as wizard, but Chinese players generally think some spells in the huge spell list of wizards are better than others (such as Shield/ Absorb Elements/ Find familiar/ Misty Step/ Counterspell/ Haste/ Fireball/ Dimension Door/ Wall of Force/ Forcecage/ Simulacrum) and use them heavily in their builds.

When there are only 20-30 spells commonly used in the game, the emphasis of wizard’s spell list reaching hundreds has no significance. The versatility of the wizard is limited by the spell slots and preparation. The author and many Chinese players think wizard’s spell list alone cannot make up wizard’s core competency. We can apply the same reason to the clerics.

Many of these "powerful spells" are not unique to the wizard, and they can be used better in other classes hands; powerful spell unique to wizard such as Wall of Force, Simulacrum, and other spells can also be acquired by bards, or from magic items like Staff of Power. When the spell list is no longer unique, the wizards need to strengthen their spell-casting feature to compete with the sorcerers’ Metamagic.


Taking into account of the title, it is said that the ranking is mainly based on the combat effectiveness. Please continue to give comments. I will give feedback based on my own time, and thanks for the hard work of the translator.

[Satori01]

The only thing I can infer even slightly from this bizarre Tier list is that the Chinese players value Combat As Sport very much over Combat As War.

Holy Opaque Statement, Batman! I don't have the foggiest clue what you even meant by that.

As was clarified, the list values versatility...versatility defined as the ability to either cast a wide range of spells from multiple class spell lists, or use those spell slots to Smite.

The list assumes that two attacks should be considered standard. It also prioritizes a definition of self sufficiency that values the ability to "set yourself up", without necessarily making the rest of the party unnecessary.

It is refreshing to have a perspective that does not push the Solo Wizard build of Simulacrum/Magic Jar/Wish.

It is refreshing to see the Samurai Archer build rated higher than the Battle Master.

All best/worst ranking list are subjective. The top tier might be a bit Paladin heavy for some, a little lacking in Druid builds for others, but the list isn't unreasonable.

[zghzgh1779]

Ok... so I disagree with much of this, but that isn't really interesting. What is interesting to me is what needs to happen in a campaign for this to make sense - i.e. can I infer something about D&D gaming culture in China from the ranking?

A few thoughts:

There is an emphasis on lower levels and top levels... but little in the middle. Martial characters which do well at low levels are rated highly wheras the caster that overtake them at high levels are rated lower. But some high level abilities seem to also have a disproportionate effect on rankings. Its like T3 doesn't exist.

Adventuring days are LONG. Resource free abilities are seen as stronger - look at the champion placement for example; good, but only in very long, arduous days.

Supporting characters are undervalued - OK, Paladin has great support and is top, and divine soul/lore bard is high... but clerics and druids and bards are lower than I would have expected whereas those characters more focussed on dealing damage are higher. Maybe there is a culture of higher HP in the English speking regions/forums such that inflicting the Dead condition is no longer the most effective way of removing something from the fight. Or maybe it is:

Wisdom isn't a useful stat. Maybe there is an expectation that mental saves are more charisma and intelligence focussed than wisdom? That would lower the ranking of wisdom based classes? Or maybe there is a culture of most enemies meing martial type enemies that don't cast spells or force saves at all?

1. Indeed T3 adventures are less than others in chinese communities. But as far as I remember T3 is also the least one in a statistics analysis of Roll20 or something else... I believe this isn't a unique phenomenon.

2. Champion is just because we have used a simulator to calculate the exactly DPR and found that no matter the ACs and ABs, the Champion proved its value in most cases after 15th level, especially with the Holy Weapon spell. However few want to play a Champion in a real adventure as its class features are too vanilla to role-playing.

3. In the ranking the only two non-supporting characters of T0 and T1 are Hexblade and Samurai. The College of Valor is placed in T1 because it's a supporting character that can deal some significant damage, not because it's a indifferent damage dealer. However I think there should be a discussion between communities about who is supporting characters.

4. There is a consensus in chinese D&D communities that cleric players enjoy less pleasure in combat than other classes. I have runned and joined adventures for years ending with same conclusion. I always find that I cannot use any cleric abilities in battlefield. The Bless spell is done, The concentration is none, The HP of partners are full, I can do nothing but cantrip or aid or trying to taunt the enemy and none of them are cleric specific.

[zghzgh1779]

The only thing I can infer even slightly from this bizarre Tier list is that the Chinese players value Combat As Sport very much over Combat As War.

Indeed. But if one want to find a deadly War, Mythras2e or L5R4e or SoTDL or WFRP are all better choices for a deadly and thrilling combat. The characters in D&D5e are sturdy and somekind of unbeatable, in most D&D5e official adventures if players do jobs right they should survive or "win" in combat. The role of rolls are not important as those D100s and D10 pools, and combat is always an acceptable or even profitable choice. I think it is a trait of sport, not war.

[Merudo]

The original author:
In China, there are many optimizers discussing “how to make the most powerful team with a limited number of players.” In fact, a team can only fill 4-6 characters, inevitably most of the classes are considered to be less competitive.

Very interesting!

I find that when westerners review a class, they tend to assume a relatively balanced party exists already, and ask themselves "what would add the most value to the average party?".

The Wizard has the most exclusive spells, and those unique spells tend to be quite powerful (Find Familiar, Grease, Phantom Steed, Bigby's Hand, Wall of Force, etc.) so a Wizard will always contribute something unique to the team.

Meanwhile, while we also agree that Paladin is an excellent class, if there already martials on the team, adding a Paladin may not add as much value as adding an extra pure spell caster.

However, if we instead consider the team as the unit of analysis, and ask ourselves "our team should have at least a martial, which one should we make sure to include"?, I believe most people on this forum would agree that the Paladin is the best martial, by a considerable amount.

This may be why we have such different opinions: optimized "parties" should probably include a Paladin. On the other hand, if a party is one person short, adding a Wizard might be the most optimal choice.

[KorvinStarmast]

Indeed. But if one want to find a deadly War, Mythras2e or L5R4e or SoTDL or WFRP are all better choices for a deadly and thrilling combat. The characters in D&D5e are sturdy and somekind of unbeatable, in most D&D5e official adventures if players do jobs right they should survive or "win" in combat. I think it is a trait of sport, not war.

That is an interesting analysis, thanks. I play 5e in a 'combat as war' mode as both player and DM.

And it works.

[xgxxgg]

The Wizard has the most exclusive spells, and those unique spells tend to be quite powerful (Find Familiar, Grease, Phantom Steed, Bigby's Hand, Wall of Force, etc.) so a Wizard will always contribute something unique to the team.

A little off the topic, just to share my own experience, since we mentioned Phantom Steed several times. I just finished my BGDiA campaign. It was in AL context, so they could get magic items elsewhere. My players got a Ring of Spell Storing from the White Plume Mountain. In t2, they had a paladin and a Ring of Spell Storing. Guess what happened? Find Steed for everyone.

[zghzgh1779]

The original author:
There is a very popular view in China that the perfect five-person team is made of a paladin + a main caster (such as lore bard, chronurgist) + divine soul sorcerer + DPR classes (such as fighter, gish) + one other class depending on the situations. This may be biased, but it also has some reference value.

In the other hand, most chinese adventuring parties are not the perfect five-person team, or have not any business about it.
Optimization is useless. lol.

[Dork_Forge]

In the other hand, most chinese adventuring parties are not the perfect five-person team, or have not any business about it.
Optimization is useless. lol.

It may not be 'perfect' (though that's so subjective I doubt we'd ever agree on what is) but it is a very strong party composition.

[zghzgh1779]

It may not be 'perfect' (though that's so subjective I doubt we'd ever agree on what is) but it is a very strong party composition.

No there is no 'perfect team' for everyone. But the fact is that most players in most parties care little about the party composition, even those optimizers and the founder of this principle.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Wow, talking about reversing the 'Wizards of the Coast' trend. Interesting.

[T.G. Oskar]

Thanks for that intra-cultural insight. Probably forgot to mention, but the ranking didn't really seem to explain much. This post, on the other hand, brings key insight into the playstyle, showing where things differ.

① Some readers think that the ranking of this list is based on "who can not be easily replaced", I think this is the correct way to read it. In China, there are many optimizers discussing“how to make the most powerful team with a limited number of players.” In fact, a team can only fill 4-6 characters, inevitably most of the classes are considered to be less competitive.

Interesting to see this. I've DMed for two players during my 3.5 days, so I know how difficult it can be to balance a battle where, even with NPC support to cover up things, you can challenge them in a way it's neither overwhelming nor a joke. However, the classic "balanced" party is often comprised of 4 characters; I'd consider the challenge with 3, which I consider the absolute minimum. Two character parties adventuring on their own, without any kind of support, should only be left to players and DMs who are very experienced.

The reason why the paladins are ranked first is that players cannot get a large group saving throws bonus from any other way. And Lore Bard has the most comprehensive spell table (yes, more than the wizards’ and the clerics’), as well as very strong Dispel Magic checks and Counterspell checks to help the team win the spell battle.

As a player biased towards Paladins, I recognize that the Aura of Protection is one of the most powerful buffs a character can offer, but that is selling the Paladin only for one thing. Aura of Protection comes online at 6th level, which means that for 5 levels the Paladin must rely on something else. I'd consider the Paladin's biggest selling feature is their ability to go controlled nova - that is, measuring the moment when they can unleash the greatest amount of damage in a single hit. That, however, is their selling feature; Paladins are strong because they can deal huge damage when necessary (Smites), provide emergency healing on a pinch (Lay on Hands, Aura of Vitality) AND provide a solid sustained buff (Aura of Protection, plus Aura of Courage, Aura of Warding and so forth). My issue, though, is that the PHB subclasses are a bit oversold - they're good, don't think anything otherwise, but they're sold as absolutely better than anything else. I do find that Vengeance Paladins get a huge bias because of Vow of Enmity, but that's because I consider that there are ways to get advantage that are relatively easy, and even though it's on-demand, it's limited to one person - and their CD being refreshed on a short rest, it means you need to maximize that action by using it on the most dangerous opponent. If all sessions have only one big battle and then a long rest, or if you're obviously facing one big enemy (i.e., a Dragon), then Vow of Enmity becomes a huge resource - that said, Sacred Weapon is just as good, applies to everyone, and provides a sustained bonus that couples very well with advantage and GWM.

I do agree on Lore Bard, though. Most of the stuff is specific mostly to Bard, but Lore Bards don't only get Magical Secrets, but Cutting Words which is insane when used tactically. It's arguably one of the better debuffs out there, though it loses some of its shine with enemies holding Legendary Resistance.

A team cannot only be simply made up of pure casters. Fighters have uniqueness is because of their stable and powerful DPR. The reason why other gish classes are at the top is that they have more versatilities for spells and can also contribute stable DPR (although it may be lower than fighters). The divine soul sorcerer has become one of the most favored casters in China, because divine soul sorcerer has access to both the sorcerer’s spell list and cleric’s spell list, and Metamagic.

These classes are difficult to be replaced by lower-tier classes in terms of their uniqueness: other classes have the lower DPR than fighters’; other wizards can hardly provide stable DPR and cast as a caster like Bladesinger; other clerics do not have sorcerer’s spell list and Metamagic as divine soul sorcerer, although they also have some domain features, the distinctiveness of domain features are not enough to get them into the upper tiers.

Divine Soul Sorcerers are great, but they're hindered by the Sorcerer's greatest weakness - spell slots. I made a Divine Soul Sorcerer build just for fun, and trying to get the best spells for both Clerics and Sorcerers into the Divine Soul list was an exercise in careful consideration. One good thing is that they get one spell for free (I chose Bless), but afterwards it was mostly a choice of which were the best spells for each level, and in particular, which spell was essential for that last four spell levels. If you consider Sorcerers as having a 3/2/2/2/2/1/1/1/1 spell split, even considering the first five levels only, it's obvious that a Divine Soul Sorcerer will have, for those levels, one Cleric and one Sorcerer spell each. (And that's debatable; in at least one of those spell levels, I found having two Sorcerer spells much better than two Cleric spells.) Their 6th level subclass feature isn't that great, and they're only saved because Sorcerers make for the best buffers in the game with Twin Spell (twinning Haste is extremely effective).

That said, this portion of the post shows a huge divide between schools of thought in the East and the West. Most of us that played 3.5 focused on Crowd Control over DPS - therefore, a spell like Web, Evard's Black Tentacles or Forcecage is vastly more useful than a spell like Fireball, because such spells lead to the enemy being completely neutralized, giving your allies a way to whittle them down without threats. 5e optimization doesn't exactly follow these lines anymore (most of the CC spells were either given a concentration rank, or can be outright negated with Legendary Resistance and/or Counterspell), but you'll notice some of these spells are still invaluable. I could see gishes being useful because they have that PLUS a way to deal good damage and most importantly survive for longer (the Bladesinger's utility is really for its survivability, not its ability to add Int to Attack and Damage rolls, since it's limited in that aspect), but some full caster's subclasses do make them much better in that regard. Life Clerics are superb healers, Arcana Clerics add Wizard spells to their list (which includes both Simulacrum and Wish) plus cantrips, Dream Druids and Shepherd Druids are solid healers with very little effort, and so on. A Cleric-only team can definitely exist, if you choose subclasses carefully (again: Life and Arcana, plus War and/or Forge; Trickery, though, is...tricky.)

There is a very popular view in China that the perfect five-person team is made of a paladin + a main caster (such as lore bard, chronurgist) + divine soul sorcerer + DPR classes (such as fighter, gish) + one other class depending on the situations. This may be biased, but it also has some reference value.

Hmm. My ideal team is very close to what that perfect team represents (Crown Paladin, Lore Bard, Divine Soul Sorcerer, Monster Slayer OR Beastmaster Ranger, Alchemist Artificer), because all the characters rely on redundancies. So I can see the worth on that line of thought. However, as you can see, most of them (barring Lore Bard and Divine Soul Sorcerer) are personal preferences - heck, I consider Beastmaster, which is reviled on this side of the Pacific, as one of the weakest options, if only because some of the companions are actually pretty strong.

② Regarding the versatility of the 9th-level spellcaster, I believe that people in this forum and Chinese players have different views. I will try to explain the difference.

Including the author, many players in China are willing to play as wizard, but Chinese players generally think some spells in the huge spell list of wizards are better than others (such as Shield/ Absorb Elements/ Find familiar/ Misty Step/ Counterspell/ Haste/ Fireball/ Dimension Door/ Wall of Force/ Forcecage/ Simulacrum) and use them heavily in their builds.

When there are only 20-30 spells commonly used in the game, the emphasis of wizard’s spell list reaching hundreds has no significance. The versatility of the wizard is limited by the spell slots and preparation. The author and many Chinese players think wizard’s spell list alone cannot make up wizard’s core competency. We can apply the same reason to the clerics.

Many of these "powerful spells" are not unique to the wizard, and they can be used better in other classes hands; powerful spell unique to wizard such as Wall of Force, Simulacrum, and other spells can also be acquired by bards, or from magic items like Staff of Power. When the spell list is no longer unique, the wizards need to strengthen their spell-casting feature to compete with the sorcerers’ Metamagic.

Again, this comes to a difference of thought schools, and again, this stems from 3.5.

One of the things that made Wizards so powerful back then was that they had access to a spell list they could change. Yes, there were spells that were incredibly useful, but the core thought of the Wizard was that they could tailor their spell list to whatever challenge they could face, compared to Sorcerers who had to draw more from the few spells they knew - versatility vs. utility. However, that relied on lateral thinking (aka. "out of the box" thinking); the use of Divination spells to essentially predict which opponents they'd face. Thus, with a heavy use of Scrying, Divination, Augury and so forth, you could gain a key insight into which spells to prepare to maximize your adventuring day. That made a caster that could deal with any circumstance, provided they had prior information about it - logistics, which any soldier would tell you is the most important thing in any battlefield. This line of thought seeped into 5e, since a Wizard that prepares its spell list to face their situation will do better than a Sorcerer that, even with their metamagic, can only rely on those spells that provide the greatest utility.

Consider the following: Sorcerers don't take Scrying, but Wizards do. Even if Sorcerers could take Scrying, they wouldn't, because it competes with other very good, very useful 5th level spells (Synaptic Static comes to mind). Sorcerers wouldn't consider taking Teleportation Circle either, even if they have it, because it's only useful at specific points, even if the spell itself is one of the most useful spells to have accessible. A Lore Bard would, however, because they can spare the spell slots. When a Sorcerer has only 2 5th level spell slots to play with, and one is already taken because Synaptic Static is just THAT good, you have to consider which other 5th level spell slot to choose, in particular one that doesn't get disabled that easily. Wizards, on the other hand, can have that luxury, because they can prepare their spell slots each day.

I've always said that's the main difference between Wizards and Sorcerers - the versatility of choosing your spell list almost every day, versus the knowledge of those spells that will be useful the maximum amount of times.

Now, you mentioned on another post that a Wizard's power comes mainly from its subclasses, as other classes can easily gain access to the spells with maximum utility and/or from items. And the ranking list places Diviner Wizards low because Portent doesn't play well with Legendary Resistance - however, Portent's greatest utility is playing with success chances by tactically using which rolls to apply it to. Sure - you'll want to reduce that saving throw on that save-or-die spell, but you can instead use it to negate a critical hit, give a heavy hitter a critical hit, cause one attack to miss so that the ally can reposition, and so forth. It's almost like the Lucky feat - it's flexible enough to be used in nearly any circumstance, so you save them for those moments you know they're absolutely necessary, and because it's flexible, those circumstances come often enough to use them. I can see why you'd argue that a Divine Soul Sorcerer is better (the versatility of access, though not of choice), but the difference IMO between a Diviner Wizard that can weaponize Portent and a Divine Soul Sorcerer that chooses its spells poorly is so minimal, you could switch their places.

As a final remark, though - these are well-thought reasons why to set each class/subclass combination in their place. I do still defy the ranking of Paladins, in particular the Crown Paladin: it may be bland, but it's practical, and the spell list they have is huge - they're one of the few classes to which Spirit Guardians can be hugely effective, since they can add Charisma to their saving throws, and with Resilient (Constitution), they can have the highest concentration save bonus in the game, plus enough HP and AC to withstand all the blows coming from you; couple that with the right weapon to make perfect use of Polearm Master and Sentinel, and you have the stickiest tank around, all the while maximizing that damage. (And if you make it a Scourge Aasimar with a dip on Sorcerer or Warlock, you can add War Caster and have a devastating opportunity attack.) Couple that with another source of emergency healing and good stickiness (their CD, plus their spell list), and I feel that their position in the tier is too low. But then again - that's my opinion on things.

[MaxWilson]

Indeed. But if one want to find a deadly War, Mythras2e or L5R4e or SoTDL or WFRP are all better choices for a deadly and thrilling combat. The characters in D&D5e are sturdy and somekind of unbeatable, in most D&D5e official adventures if players do jobs right they should survive or "win" in combat. The role of rolls are not important as those D100s and D10 pools, and combat is always an acceptable or even profitable choice. I think it is a trait of sport, not war.

I like Combat As War but this is indeed a very strong argument: 5E just isn't designed for Combat As War. Touche, sir.

That is an interesting analysis, thanks. I play 5e in a 'combat as war' mode as both player and DM.

And it works.

...sort of. If you're willing to make up a lot of missing rules, and throw out other rules that don't fit, and steal a bunch of ideas from different game systems.

And if the PCs voluntarily refrain from hiring mercenaries or animated skeleton armies or Planar Binding or any of the other things that you'd actually want to do if you were serious about moving to war footing, partly because the game would be unrunnable if you actually did try to run tactical combat on that scale, especially using PHB-style initiative.

[Eldariel]

This is a very interesting post and reading it provides some perspectives for people who mostly come to D&D not from earlier D&D editions but perhaps MMOs and board gaming (at least far as I understand, tabletop market has been fairly small in China in the past).

I agree with the idea of creating the optimal 4-6 party composition but I fundamentally disagree with the need for a steady DPS class. I believe the more resources you have, the longer you can go - I think the optimal scenario is having either a ridiculous number of no-rest classes or only rest classes. That way all the classes are on the same page. Champion can't handle encounters for 4 alone no matter how much at-will ability it has. That is to say, the more at-will power you have, the longer you can go with all your resources depleted while the more resources you have, the longer you can go before them being depleted. Thus for an optimal party of 4, I generally prefer:
- Lore Bard (Cutting Words is irreplaceable)
- Diviner Wizard (Portent is irreplaceable)
- Martialish Cleric (Arcana if going late; Forge, Grave, etc. are all fine choices too)
- Shepherd Druid (or Moon if the early levels are a huge slog)


That setup gives you plenty of at-will power and daily power and access to basically every ritual in the game. If I were adding a 5th member, Swords Bard and Ancients Pally/Divine Soul are both strong candidates. But I think the more casters you have the better you ultimately get at long slogs simply because you have more resources for a long slog than a party with some at-will characters who will not be able to extend the resources of the party and their at-will ability will be of little use when the party is otherwise unable to adventure. Of course, all-day minionmancy is also a big thing.

[MaxWilson]

This is a very interesting post and reading it provides some perspectives for people who mostly come to D&D not from earlier D&D editions but perhaps MMOs and board gaming (at least far as I understand, tabletop market has been fairly small in China in the past).

I agree with the idea of creating the optimal 4-6 party composition but I fundamentally disagree with the need for a steady DPS class. I believe the more resources you have, the longer you can go - I think the optimal scenario is having either a ridiculous number of no-rest classes or only rest classes. That way all the classes are on the same page. Champion can't handle encounters for 4 alone no matter how much at-will ability it has. That is to say, the more at-will power you have, the longer you can go with all your resources depleted while the more resources you have, the longer you can go before them being depleted.

If you don't mind me sticking my oar in for a second...

Spoiler: Tangent, Philosophy of party evaluation

Show

Personally I believe it's ideal for all four party members to have both nova capability (for emergencies) AND at-will DPR capability (for efficiently solving non-emergencies).

The way I evaluate a party is to look at the party and count up how much coverage it has on a variety of roles that I consider important.

E.g. Alert Shadow Monk 11, Paladin 9/Wild Sorc 3 [Extended Spell, Quicken Spell], Hexblade 2/Lore Bard 9 [Aura of Vitality, Conjure Animals; Stealth, Perception Expertise], and Cthulock 2/Necromancer 9 [Inspiring Leader, Spell Sniper]:

I see

3 Tanks (Paladin, Monk w/ Darkness, Hexblade)
2 Recon specialists (Monk and Bardlock)
3 at-will ranged damage specialists (Bardlock, Necrolock, plus Shadow Monk and Wild Sorc put together sort of equals three)
2 Summoners (Bardlock, Necromancer)
2 single-target controllers (Monk Stunning Strike, Paladin with Wrathful Smite or grappling)
2 area controllers (Bardlock and Necromancer with spells like Hypnotic Pattern and Confusion)
2.5 Healers (Paladin and Bardlock are both amazing, and the Necromancer's self-healing via Grim Harvest is sort of an extra 0.5)
3 teleporters (monk (Shadow Jump), Necrolock and Bardlock (Dimension Door))

Minimal nova capability here (Monk nova with Flurry + Stunning Strike is merely okay, and the paladin can dual-wield for smiting but it's nothing special compared to e.g. a Hexvoker) so I'm calling that zero.

TL;DR having both at-will and nova capabilities doesn't require having separate characters.

[Hael]

Yea, in what world is an Echo Knight a tier below a Champion or monk of the open hand in a combat tier list... The justification is completely incoherent....

In what world is a Shepherd or dream druid below a thief rogue?

This tier list is nonsense and I don't agree about subjectivity, this is objectively incorrect at so many levels and is not even close to being an accurate list.

[Kane0]

With the justification provided i’m having a hard time seeing how the Clerics end up so low. Their combat potential is plenty high enough between spirit guardians/weapon on top of support keeping the rest of the 5-man-band in fighting shape throughout a series of encounters long or short.
And that cannot be replicated by a divine sorcerer in the same manner. A celestial warlock or dreams druid might be more comparable.