Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Zardnaar Mar 06, 2015 2:53:03	Back in the 3E CoDzilla days people rated the classes on a tiering system with the Cleric, Druid and wizard at tier 1 and the monk down at tier 5 or so. They may have had a tier 6 for the truly awul dreck like the Samurai and Healer.    5E has around 40 sub classes though and some are better than the others let alone comparing classes to each other. There is not to much that is  game warping as even some of the theory craft builds are not that pratical and part composition and combos are more powerful than the individual classes IMHO. Soanyway I thought we could create a list of the power classes and subclasses. THe classes are being ranked with each other so tier 1 is the best 8 subclass, tier 2 is the next 8 etc.   Tier 1. The best of the best. You can build a party around this. Tier 2. Very good classes, powerfuol all by themselves. Tier 3. These classes are all good they just lack the raw power of the tier 1 and 2 classes or are out classed by their own subclasses. Tie4 These classes are leaning towards one trick pony if they are lucky. Tier 5. These classes tend to be bad not in a completly useless way just outclassed by most of the other 40 odd subclasses.   A few ideas ATM. Note this could be wrong.   Tier 1. Lore bard, Light Cleric, Life Cleric, Diviner Wizard, Evoker Wizard, Abjurer Wizard Tier 2 Moon Druid, Battlemaster Fighter, Green Knight Paladin, Avenging Paladin, Tempest Cleric, War Cleric,  Tier 3.Champion FIghter, Eldritch Knight, Rogues:Thief, Ranger: Hunter,  Tier 4 Barbarians (both of them), , Rogues Arcane Trickster, Rogues Assassin,   Tier 5   Beastmaster Ranger
#2 Vahnyu Mar 06, 2015 3:51:21	Tier 2: Open Palm Monk Tier 3: Shadow Monk, Four Elements Monk
#3 mellored Mar 06, 2015 6:28:46	I don't see lore bard or life cleric as tier 1.  Probably teir 3.   And war clerics are likely teir 4.
#4 Istbor Mar 06, 2015 7:58:27	Frankly I was glad to see the end of the teir ranking when 4e came out, and I would actually like it to stay that way. Not only that, but I feel your attempt at it is completely bias, which you did in fairness state was possible. While we share like views in terms of Monks I still feel they should be reprecented and some of the Monk subclasses are decent.   Note: This thread should be a Tier 6 as far as ranking threads on this forum.
#5 Storyteller-Zero Mar 06, 2015 8:57:11	In a group-oriented game, ranking by individual subclass is a false way to determine their worth.   Ranking best combos in a party, with specific rules like no doubling of classes, would be far more useful.
#6 The_Jester Mar 06, 2015 9:58:28	5e is a much flatter system. There really only needs to be two tiers.    Other than being Tier 1-2 in 3e, there's less to support wizards being so high in 5e, and not at all levels.  The moon druid really seems to be setting the bar for overpowered.
#7 Coredump00 Mar 06, 2015 10:15:39	Yeah, I just don't see enough difference to warrant 5 tiers, even the Beastmaster isn't *that* much worse than the best classes.
#8 ChrisCarlson Mar 06, 2015 11:40:04	Coredump00 wrote:
#9 Zardnaar Mar 06, 2015 11:54:37	The_Jester wrote:
#10 mellored Mar 06, 2015 12:01:21	Moon druids are tanks, not DPR.
#11 The_Jester Mar 06, 2015 12:19:33	Zardnaar wrote:
#12 SterlingRat Mar 06, 2015 12:45:47	Well... I suppose a tier system is possible, but not the same as the 3.5 tiers. Back in those days, if half a group played tier 1 and half the group played tier 4, then the game would be unbalanced - the tier 4 player needs to just get out of the way and let the Big Boys handle every situation. To balance the game, try to pick classes in the same (or close) tier.   That problem is, as far as I can tell, non-existent in 5th edition. I don't think there can be any argument that a Beastmaster is less powerful and less versatile than every other class and a wizard that has 9-th level spells can handle nearly anything, but the imbalance is nowhere near the degree it was in 3-3.5.
#13 Mommy_was_an_Orc Mar 06, 2015 13:37:36	I don't really think there's tiers. There are some 'do you do this and therefore is life good/bad for you based on the game?' i.e. DM doesn't use short rest guidelines in DMG(2 per day) - Monks, Warlocks, and Fighters get under/overpowered. DM hands out magic bonuses to hit - Rogues get underpowered. DM doesn't use the magic item guidelines in DMG(PCs end up with about 5-6 permanent magic items of consequence over a typical campaign which are not necessarily any specific one item) - weapon users tend to get beaned upside the head. A Wish is a wish. A PC without a magic weapon fighting a creature with resist non-magic weapons is going to get quite angry after a while of that. DM targets Animal Companions - Beastmaster Rangers get sad. DM gets tactical with hard to hurt PCs that don't actually do a whole lot when they're hard to hurt. i.e. DM goes after anyone but the hard to hurt PC - Moon Druids lose a lot, casters who spend actions casting defensive spells. But if you're playing the 'typical' campaign, most of it is really dependent on party makeup and level of optimization. Beastmaster Rangers with a Wolf can do solid damage, proning targets and getting 3 attacks at 11th, but not in a game where the DM treats the Beastmaster companion as a favored target.
#14 DaveDash Mar 06, 2015 13:44:14	Depends on level too. For example, Lore Bards are much better at higher levels when cutting words becomes one of the best abilities in the game and all their magical secrets kick in. I think Bear Totem Barbarians make probably better tanks than Moon Druids as well from the mid to higher levels, and they can still hit reasonably hard with GWM. ​ ​ ​
#15 Zardnaar Mar 06, 2015 18:56:25	DaveDash wrote:
#16 ChrisCarlson Mar 06, 2015 18:59:11	When people have different opinions on which classes (or subclasses) are the best, that means the devs did it right.
(Reply to #15) CCS	Zardnaar wrote:
#18 Vahnyu Mar 06, 2015 21:03:10	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#19 UngeheuerLich Mar 07, 2015 1:58:33	And still, the Devs did a quite good job, if it is not oviously unbalanced and classes are more or less in the same tier of effectiveness and no class stands out so much that everyone believes it is overpowered.
#20 Bluenose Mar 07, 2015 2:45:37	There are people willing to claim that there wasn't an obvious imbalance in the classes in 3e; expecting everyone to accept that there's an imbalance in 5e (which is certainly a flatter system) is expecting something that won't happen.
#21 Uchawi Mar 07, 2015 4:02:34	WIth a simple system it may be easier to define the tiers and maybe limit it to three with each tier based on availability of spells, skills and unique class ability. With bounded accuracy items like weapons and armor have less value. I believe 5E made things like DPR and hitting/saves easier for all classes. So the big gain in 5E is versatility, because the game is simple. Where 3E is may have been ultra-specialization to break the game on a couple specific mechanics.
#22 Mommy_was_an_Orc Mar 07, 2015 6:10:57	Vahnyu wrote:
#23 Mommy_was_an_Orc Mar 07, 2015 6:38:45	Uchawi wrote:
#24 ChrisCarlson Mar 07, 2015 9:21:41	Vahnyu wrote:
(Reply to #4) Tony_Vargas	Istbor wrote:
#26 Tony_Vargas Mar 10, 2015 21:00:09	Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote: