As the thread says. Years ago in 3.5 class they rated the classes by tier which was 5 or 6 tiers for the various classes. Back then primary caster such as Druids, Clerics and Wizards were tier 1, tier 2 was a class like the Sorcerer and Favoured Soul , Psion who had access to whatever spell they like but not the depth of the tier 1 classes, tier 3 was the sweet spot with powerful classes often the best of the martial classes and other powerful spellcasters but focused like Beguiler. Tier 4 was where a good chunk of the martial classes were, some builds could scrap into tier 3, tier 5 was the bad classes like Monk, and tier 6 was for the bottom feeder classes like Samurai and Healer who were outclassed by bad builds of tier 4 classes.
The classes are a lot more even and I do not think any of them are bad as such and I would be inclined to go with 3 tiers ATM.
Tier 1 Strong
Tier 2 Average
Tier 3 Weak
5 tiers may also be a better way to rate tihgs for some classes that are hoveinrg between to tiers. If we can get some consensus on the boards where a class actually is in terms of power. For example if a class is average leaning toward stong breaking the classes down with 5 tiers may make more sense.
And in some cases I think the subclasses may have to be rated at different tiers. Another factor to consider is some classes get drastic boosts to power at certain levels such as level 5 for martial types and any level where feats are gained to enable a build or combo.
Barbarian
This class is a poweful beatstick but I suspect it is more or less a one trick pony and I would prefer to have a fighter in the party. It is not a bad class as such but I would probably rate it as a weak class.
Bard. The College of Lore Bard I think I would rate as a strong class and probably one of the best classes in the game. I suspect the Valorious bard is weaker and is an average class and may even be weak.
Cleric. There are a lot of cleric subclasses which may need to be rated individually but overall I would say this is a strong class.
Druid. Oh how the might have fallen. I owuld need to see a Druid in play but I suspect they are outclassed by the other spellcasters but at the end of the day spellcasters in general are powerful and wildshape is usefiul. May have to be rated for each subclass but right now I think they would be average.
Fighter
Hard to say but I think weak or average depending on the subclass or even the build. The battlemaster is probably the best one, the eldritch knight seems hard to rate but seems to be a popular multiclass build for theory crafting. Champions are always nice to have around though and I would prefer one over the barbarian.
Monk: Hard to rate, seems to be a weak or average class. I would need to see one in action or get feedback from others.
Paladin: Seems to be the best gish class and I keep hearing great things about it. It looks good as well so for now I think I will rate is as a strong class as it has some utility as well and overall it just looks fun.
Ranger. A popular to dump on class this class may be a slow burning class and suffers from a lack of in game testing from board members. The hunter Ranger seems to be better than a fighter with more utility so average at worst maybe even a strong class. The beastmaster however seems to have issues and may be a weak class.
Rogue: At the risk of getting shot I think this class may have some issues or at least obsoleted by other classes and back grounds. Average at best leaning towards weak and I have not missed having the class that much in games where we lack one.
Sorcerer: This class is going to be compared with the wizard a lot. The wildmage doesn't look that impressive being honest the Dragon one has some uses and the Sorcerer/Warlock combo may win the highest DPR combo award in the game. For now I would rate the class as average leaning towards srong.
Warlock: Probably one of the best multiclass PCs often with Eldritch Knight or Sorcerer or both. If you look it as a archer as opposed to a weak wizard I think the class makes more sense. Overall an average class but could be strong in multiclass builds.
Wizard: May vary by subclass but the class is likely a strong one overall. Not to the extent of 3.5 craziness but there you have it.
I am ignoring multiclass combinations but if a particular MC build stands out and is decent at all levels and just not level 10+ or whatever it could be worth posting.
Strong:
Cleric, Wizard
-changing the main casters to "spontaneous" is a huge buff. Without getting into individual ratings, the subclasses for both are also nicely varied and powerful.
Lore bard: I agree, probably one of the best classes in the game if not the best. Full spellcasting, ability to get any spell they want, and skill bonuses. The bardic inspiration is way better than bardic music stuff has ever been
Average:
Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, barbarian
I consider all of these pretty much "auto attack" type classes. While they are much more varied than previous editions they are still somewhat limited
Warlock
I really would have preferred a warlock that is more of a caster, giving them their own unique spellcasting mechanism seems odd and very much not in keeping with the rest of the classes. Still can do good damage.
Sorcerer
Giving spontaneous casting to everybody else really steals his thunder. Still has good damage capability and some interesting things with metamagic. Remains to be seen if that is enough to make the class shine.
Weak:
Rogue: Pretty much zero reason to take him for skills anymore. Sneak attack is the same ability it's always been, except no chance to get it on multiple attacks now.
I don't know enough about druids or monks to rate them.
Classes are far more balanced then 3.5. So much that every class would be on the same teir as before.
That said, i would peliminaraly rank them...
Moon druids, bards, sorcerer's, paladins, clerics, wizards, fighters, land druids, warlocks, barbarians, rogues, rangers, monks.
Of course, i havn't seen them all in play, so it's tough to tell.
Well, the rogue doesn't amaze me either, but it's worth acknowledging that while the rogue can no longer take advantage of the 3.5 skill system, the main strength is sneak attack, and the 5e rogue doesn't have the lower attack bonus. Not only that, but he can gain damage bonus through his dex with finesse weapons. I would consider the rogue a "tier 2" class.
Joining the Rogue in this tier is the Monk...not bad but in a fight but gets a bunch of somewhat forgettable abilities instead of the fighters bashing superiority. Better than 3.5 since in that edition it was impossible for most of the Monks foes to fail their saves against abilities like stunning fist.
The Paladin falls into my tier 2 for similar reasons as the Monk. Good, but I'd rather have a fighter.
The cleric falls to tier 2. Still a useful class but not what it was in 3.5.
The wizard, sorc, fighter, and barbarian are tier 1. All are pinnacles of doing what spellcasters or sword swinger do best.
I'll also put the Bard in tier 1...in 25 years of D&D I never thought I'd ever say that! I admit I'm not entirely in love with their spell selection but at least the Lore Bard can compensate for this somewhat.
The Ranger gets put in my tier 3 trash pail, and the Druid might belong here as well. Edition after edition D&D demonstrates it's anti-environmentalist agenda. :p
The Warlock...not sure yet but it will probably end up tier 2 or 3.
Tier 2: Ranger, Cleric, Monk, Bard, Warlock
Tier 3: Pally, Rogue
:: Rank S
Simulacrum Wizard
Moon Druid
:: Rank A
Wizard
Magic Bard
Land Druid
Cleric
:: Rank B
Fighting Bard
Sorcerer
Warlock
:: Rank C
Paladin
Eldritch knight
Arcane Trickster
:: Rank D
Hunter Ranger
Assassin Rogue
Battlemaster
Monk
Champion fighter
Pet Ranger
While the classes are starting out a lot less disparately powered, the problem casters (wizards, druids, clerics) still have the potential to grow out of hand, not to mention we already have animate dead borking up the action economy.
Simply put a lot depends on how new spells are introduced.
Tier 1: Wizard, Druid, Bard, Cleric
Tier 2: Sorcerer, Paladin, Warlock
Tier 3: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Monk
Tier 4: Ranger
I agree with Vowtz, lets all use different ranking systems.
Classification α:
Cleric, Druid, Wizard
Classification β:
Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock
Classification ε:
Ranger, Rogue, Monk
Barbarian 1 / Moon Druid 2 is significantly stronger and tankier than any other level 3 character and can level either way.
Beastmaster Ranger 3 / anything else is also pretty good because the beast scales with proficiency bonus.
Tier 1: Wizard, Cleric, Druid
Tier 2: Warlock, Bard, Sorcerer
Tier 3: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin
Tier 4: Ranger, Monk, Rogue
SilentSin wrote:
This thread makes my head hurt.
wills2009 wrote:
rampant wrote:
I find the Barbarian's resistances make them superiror to Fighters at high levels because the monsters have such high attack bonuses that the Fighters armor becomes obsolete.
Atheosis wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
We already have a standard system of rating things.
Red is outclassed.
Purple is a substandard.
Black is average.
Blue is a good choice.
Sky Blue is a fantastic choice.
Gold is mandatory.
Looking at the classes, I consider them to have these rankings. I'm sure people will disagree.
Barbarian (Berserker) its primary mechanic (frenzy) is super risky. It wants four different stats.
Barbarian (Totem) one dimentional, but strong at what it does well.
Bard (Lore) the ability to cherry-pick spells from any class makes him the best spellcaster in the game. Plus he out-skills other classes.
Bard (Valor) not quite as great magic- and skill- wise as the lore college, but a little bit more damage and survivability at early levels.
Cleric (Knowledge, Light, Trickery) solid spells but nothing particularly amazing in their class abilities.
Cleric (Life, Nature, Tempest, War) a-grade spellcaster with interesting things to do and a neat combination of class features.
Druid (Land) a top-notch spellcaster but without much interesting happening in the first few levels.
Druid (Moon) combines amazing spells with lots of utility and essentially 100%+ more hit points than other characters. Potentially even better if there's anything good in the Monster Manual.
Fighter (Champion) solid abilities mathematically, but a bit of a snoozer.
Fighter (Battlemaster) incredibly flexible and with lots of in-combat utility.
Fighter (Eldritch Knight) its primary mechanic (War Magic) conflicts with its other primary mechanic (Extra Attack). I think spells like shield and haste underrated on a fighter, but in general just feels poorly designed.
Monk (Open Hand) brings strong damage and control in a fairly tight theme.
Monk (Shadow) great thematically, but difficult mechanics to utilize well.
Monk (Elemental) looks amazing on paper, but incredibly resource-constrained. Its spell-like abilities struggle to outclass the baseline monk stun.
Paladin (Devotion, Ancients, Vengeance) each build brings a little flavor different to the table, but they're not mechanically very distinct until high levels. Paladin brings strong nova, good defenses and a unique spell kit.
Ranger (Hunter - Archer) the most underrated build in the game. Great skills, solid damage and good spell support.
Ranger (Hunter - Melee) while solid offensively, he lacks the defenses or mobility to rank with Fighter.
Ranger (Beast Master) its primary mechanic is sloppily designed and scales poorly. Bad luck or a cranky DM can ruin your character at any moment. I think this might be an underrated build, but a lot of it depends on what's in the Monster Manual.
Rogue (Thief) excells in the exploration part of the game, and not nearly as difficult to get sneak attacks as previous editions, and pretty good hit-and-run utility.
Rogue (Assassin) everything he does is tied to surprise, a mechanic that--in my experience--is incredibly rare. Would probably be really fun in a solo campaign.
Rogue (Arcane Trickster) you give up very little to get some really nice utility. Plus scaling cantrips make for a good option when sneak attack is off the table.
Sorceror (Draconic) I know I should rate this higher since he's a great spellcaster, but his class abilities are just so boring.
Sorceror (Wild Mage) gets bonus points because Wild Surge can be so fun in play.
Warlock (Book) the best cantrip in the game (until it gets nerfed). The best ritual caster. Unless your combats tend to last incredibly long, you have plenty of magic and great utility.
Warlock (Chain) when your familiar dies in the first round of combat you're going to wish you were a booklock. A nice level 15 feature.
Warlock (Blade) nice on paper, but you're MAD and your blade requires a lot of extra investment to even come close to Agonizing Blast.
Wizard (Abjurer, Conjurer, Diviner, Evoker, Necromancer) great spells, a nice theme and class features that make a huge impact on your playstyle
Wizard (Enchanter, Illusionist, Transmuter) still a wizard, but with class features of questionable utility.
I'd bump the Vengeance Paladin up to sky blue ahead of the other two. Vow of Enmity is a boss-killer right from Lv. 3, and don't forget Oath spells. Vengeance gets Hold Person starting at Lv. 5. They distinguish themselves quite early.
Berserker I'd bump to black. Yes, Frenzy is risky early on, but one exhaustion level isn't going to hurt you that much (two though ...). Plus at Lv. 9, someone in the party (Cleric, Druid, Bard) is going to have Greater Restoration to remove your exhaustion. And Lv. 14 Retaliation is a huge damage bump that makes the Berserker one of the top damage dealers starting at that level.
Assassin ... purple, I guess? I agree their mechanics are far more suited to acting alone, or at best in a part where everyone has high DEX and is proficient in Stealth. But sneaking ahead and popping an enemy, possibly killing them right off, certainly has its own value.
RCanine wrote:
Cleric (Death) is blue, judging from that. Get Chill Touch and target two with it? Yes please. Death Touch can also get pretty darn nice at high level.
Now I'm curious whether they'll get Potent Spellcasting or Divine Strike at Lv. 8. Since they've got one ability that boosts their cantrips and a CD that works with a melee attack. They could go either way there.
Anyone who is giving the Moon Druid a low ranking has obviously never seen one in play. At 2nd level, a Moon Druid can have an effective pool of 90 temporary hit points (by wildshaping into a Giant Hyena twice) that are fully replenishable every time he or she takes a short rest without expending any healing resources. That's over and above their normal hit points. Pause for a moment and try to absorb that. A 2nd-level Barbarian with an 18 Constitution has a maximum of 32 regular hit points that require normal healing resources to replenish. The Barbarian gains some extra durability while raging in the form of resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage, but its still not even close to the Moon Druid. The Moon Druid is quite arguably the best tank in the game, and is definitely the best tank in the game at low levels of play. Throw in Druid spells that are maintainable in wildshape form, and there's no question that it should be rated as a tier 1 class.
RCanine wrote:
Dwalon wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
The light clerics domain spell list alone shoul keep it out of le suck range and it gets one of the best buff spells in the game as well. Its flare ability is also good.
Ashrym wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Roughly converting all these rankings (except Vowtz.... too esoteric for me, sorry) to a 1 - 5 ranking and averaging them we get:
Barbarian 2.7
Bard 1.9
Cleric 1.7
Druid 1.8
Fighter 2.6
Monk 4
Paladin 3.1
Ranger 4
Rogue 4.1
Sorcerer 2.2
Warlock 2.6
Wizard 1
I ignored sub-classes except where ratings were given for 2 or more, where I took the best rating for each class.
RCanine wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I honestly think that this needs to be broken down by level range. What makes a class great at low level isn't what makes it great at higher level. A low level Moon Druid is an absolute brute. A higher level Moon Druid is pretty well balanced. A low level Draconic Sorcerer has such a survivality advantage over a Wild Mage that they are pracyically not even comparable.
Atheosis wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Huntsman57 wrote:
How are people solving the AC problem of the Lore Bard? Lowest AC in the game, lower even than Wizard with mage armor. Doesn't matter much if your foe has disadvantage, if both of their attack rolls are likely to hit your 15 AC. And if Bards are as good as people claim (I like them, but I don't think they're as good as claimed), then foes WILL target the bard. How are you dealing with the squish? Are you spending a feat to get medium armor proficiency? Multi-classing? Picking Dwarves as an otherwise sub-optimal bard race? Pretending it won't come up?
Mistwell wrote:
Lore bards have a ton of ways to mess with the attack rolls of their enemies. Rather than making their own AC higher (though that's easy enough to do with a bit of level dipping), they subtract from the rolls of enemies and give them disadvantage. Even more fun is when the ogre charges you, only for you to dance around him and set up the perfect Dissonant Whispers to send him in a beeline straight through the gauntlet of opportunity attacks from your party. Lore Bards are plenty effective, but beyond that, they are a blast to play as the annoying trickster class.
Mistwell wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Strong - all classes except Sorceror
Average - sorceror (or strong, if there is no wizard also in your party).
Weak - none
I can think of strong or fun builds for all classes except sorceror, and even sorceror I think will be fine - if you're the only true arcane caster in your party, and also pick the ritual caster feat.
RCanine wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Siderealmotion wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Huntsman57 wrote:
Tier 1
Cleric
Fighter
Sorc/Wizard
Barbarian
Bard
Paladin
Tier 2
Rogue
Ranger
Warlock
i dont know druid so no tier vote from me ^^
Mistwell wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Minor history note here, 3.5e was 5 years old (3.0e was 8) before the original hash-out for Tiers happened, and was still being debated 6 years after that. You can near assume that ideas will change as time goes by.
NimrodVanHall wrote:
5e has made a strong and fairly successful effort to feel a lot like D&D has in the past, so there's little reason to expect the optimization tiers to have changed greatly. At the top, of course, are the extremely flexible neo-Vancian full casters, followed by the less-broadly-capable sorcerer & warlock (in what order is hard to say), the various half-casters, and the nom-casters in their accustomed place.
One new wrinkle is that backgrounds divorce some skills from class....
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Siderealmotion wrote:
A bard is hardly OP. They are useful, I am not disputing that - but they are hardly the be-all-end-all class.
A bard can poach spells from other classes....
- With the exception of Warlocks and half-classes, they cannot cast them as efficiently as the primary class in most cases. An Evoker has empowered evocation. High level Wizards cast some 1st-3rd level spells at-will; Life clerics heal with increased efficiently; etc.
A bard can do fun things with Bardic Inspiration and/or Vicious Mockery
- Bardic Inspiration chews up their bonus action; while VM deals significantly reduced damage compared to other spells and cantrips. Both can be used in a controlling fashion (lore bards especially). Neither are OP, and provide a meaningful asset to the party - but no moreso than what other classes bring to the table.
- Bardic inspiration compares against the likes of the guidance cantrip.... An ability which is only slightly more powerful than a cantrip is hardly what I call OP - especially when the cantrip can be cast at-will (or nearly so). The only real advantage, is that BI doesn't require concentration. Given the time scales that guidance is normally used - this is largely a non-issue.
A bard is a Skill Monkey with good Initiative
- Hardly OP. Going first grants you +1 turn at most. After the first round, it cycles making its value of diminishing worth. High initiative is of greater importance when using multi-target spells and effects. Bards have few such abilities excluding they poached from other classes, making this of situational benefit only. Gaining +1 to +3 proficiency bonus on untrained skill checks is of minor (but not insignificant) value.
A bard multiclasses very well, esp. with CHA classes
- As a class which prides itself on versatility - and is known for its multiclassing and jack-of-all-classes focus throughout the editions, this is the class working as intended.
A Bard is one of the best Controllers in the Game
- This is their primary shtick (alongside their versatility). They better be good at their combat role, else they are underpowered.
Overall the bard does what it was designed to do very well. Is it a good class... Yes. Without a doubt it is one of the more interesting, versatile, and well-built classes. Is it OP.....Not by any yard stick I am aware of.
A bard is not a striker. Its damage (and nova potential) is far less than other classes - even most other spellcasters. Even with poached spells, the bard has fewer spell slots than most other classes, and fewer known spells - reducing its spellcasting versatility considerably. A Lore Bard gains at most 24 spells. This compared with a Wizards 25, a Druids 33, and a Clerics 35. Wizards have arcane recovery, Sorcerers have Spell Points and spell conversion, etc... Bards have no similar mechanics increasing their spell slots.
I have run more than 3 sessions with the bard and closer to 15 sessions over 4 games with 30 . The party with the bard has had the easiest time of them all mostly due to the bards spellls and buff abilites.
I claimed they are a powerful class maybe even the most powerful class. I never claimed they are game warping broken and I have pointed out that I think synergy in this game is more impotant than any one class. Its just the bard compliments the other spellcasters well and wwhen you have 4 or 5 spellcaster they start overshadowing everything else and the bard has some of the most powerful spells in the game in one package with great utility as well. Its not like my group gave up on having a wizard or cleric they ahve that in addition to the bard. They did give up a Rogue though in 2/4 groups and we have not really missed it.
One player also commented outright that the other group with the heavy amount of spellcasters was more powerful than their next group which had a cleric and warlock/sorcerer compared to the 1st group which had a Bard/Wizard/Cleric at lvl 1.
Faerie Fire is one of the best level 1 spells along with sleep and the Bard is more or less the only class that gets both of them. Bless is another good level 1 spell she doesn't get that though.
As to liking her I ikind of have to as she is my other half but that has sod all to do with it. She is the groups powergamer and spends time looking at forums and char op forums when we played 4th ed. She was also the one who put togather the Bard in 3.5 that gave everyone +16 to hit and damage. She almost always plays high skill characters focused on tricks although she did have a critical hit Paladin build in Pathfinder and the Dwarf Fighter in 4E. She is fully capabale to powergame any system she plays without help fro me and often spots stuff before I do as I had no input in what spells she chose, what class she chose to play etc. She thought the bard looked like fun and chose faerie fire and sleep as her level 1 spells. She is not even the best equipped in the party as the Wizard has the staff of defense from LMoP and the fighter has a intelligent polearm with a lot of abilites. She has a +1 short sword of speed that grants advantage on intiative rolls and maybe a ring of fire resistance.
Zardnaar wrote:
5stars - Any class I am playing when the dice are hot
1star - Any class I am playing when the dice are not.
Kalani wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
The best classes are the one's the players bring to life through roleplay.
The worst classes are the ones that aren't brought to life through roleplay.
Worst still, are those so mechanially tuned and tweaked so that there is never any doubt as to any of their actions, as they never do anything that isn't optimal for that character. Where the character of the role is not played, but the numbers on the sheet are the most important aspects to the game.
I like the fat cleric with an inferiority complex and penchant for pastries.
I like the half-orc monk of the Yellow Rose who discovers a maul with a ancient barbaric lineage, and faces the first threat to his monastic traditions... the path of the Mountain Bear Barbarian.
I like the stuttering wizard, whos has a real tough time with verbal spells, and his name - but thinks himself a ladies man.
I like the bipolar sorcerer, who discovers on the eve of the last session, he's actually inhabitated by the spirit of a fire elemental.
thorbardin wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Here's how I categorize them:
Fun: barbarian, bard, cleric, Druid, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, warlock, wizard.
Not Fun: 5e hating forum troll.
Elfcrusher wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote: