Tiers - The Other Kind of Tiers

First off, I don't mean tiers in the 5th Edition sense of "break points where your proficiency bonus increases by one whole point".

I just got into Fifth Edition and I really want to know what the relative power of the classes is; they can't be as perfectly balanced as they seem on a casual surface skim, can they?

Between 2000 and I dunno, 2010?, various internets forums (Giant In The Playground and dozens of others) basically ranked all of the D&D 3.5 classes into a list of tiers, like characters in a fighting videogame. So (and now I'm speaking from a very leaky memory) Cleric/Druid/Wizard were Tier 1, Sorcerer/Necromancer were Tier 2, Monks were Tier 4, Rogues were Tier 5, and so on. There was even a playtesting tool they used for it called the "same game test".

(I learned most of what I know about charop in D&D from a tiny, nasty, brilliant little message board called the Gaming Den, where if you're not already familiar with it, you should probably never go because they are mean...they have loads of interesting ideas, they're just seemingly incapable of sharing them without vicious ad-hominem attacks and they vehemently hate almost literally every RPG ever made. I find them entertaining and occasionally informative anyway, and I digress...)

Now, I know that asking 5E players for a rough consensus on this kind of thing is going to get me a VERY ROUGH consensus at best, but what are generally considered the best and worst classes in 5th, and how would you rank them from best to worst? If one build of a class (idk say the Way of Shadow monk) is markedly better or worse than another build of the same class (idk, say the Way of the Four Elements monk), list them separately. You don't have to organize the list into tiers if you don't want to. Everyone's list will be understood to be their own opinion with the consensus being formed (if any) once lots of opinions are on the table.

In 5e it isn't nearly as stratified and clear cut. There's no classes that are outside the standard distribution for all subclasses and all tiers. There are some over average and below average, again depending on tier and subclass. but they all can adventure together. And multiclassing can cover a multitude of sins, but also you need to be careful not to shoot yourself accidentially in the foot and is not the Ultimate Path to Power(tm) like it was back in 3.5.

One of the big differences is Concentration, which means that a caster can't self-buff to be better than someone who is specialized at something.

Off the top of my head, here's a ranking. I'm sure some will disagree - and that's health and correct - so much depends on your party synergy, and the classes really are grouped closer in terms of balance.

Often front side of the power curve:
Pure casters above tier 1.
Paladin.
Barbarian, though petering out some at the highest tiers. (Combat)
Fighter.
Rogue & Ranger (out of combat)

All over the place depending on build:
Warlock

Often on the back side of the power curve:
Rogue (combat)
Ranger (combat)
Monk
Barbarian, Fighter (out-of-combat)

But all of those shift back and forth into each other's territory. A list is really subjective.

Actually behind the curve:
Monk (Way of the Four Elements)
Ranger (Beastmaster) after tier 1.

All of that said, there is a non-class division that I can give you some pretty hard power tiers on. It's DM variation on combats per day. If they give 1-4 regularly, then classes primarily with long-rest recharge mechanics will be more powerful. If they give 5+ a day, it's well balanced. (I don't know a single DM who regularly goes far enough beyond that primary at-will becomes the strongest tier just from this.) Short rest primary like the warlock are a bit orthogonal to it.

The first 5E character I ever played was a 12th level four elements monk. He felt kind of weak sauce. Glad it wasn't just me

Anyway, thanks Blue! That's incredibly helpful. Things like "the Paladin outclasses the Ranger in a fight" and "the Fighter is generally better at fighting than the Monk" is exactly what I'm working for.

" It's DM variation on combats per day. If they give 1-4 regularly, then classes primarily with long-rest recharge mechanics will be more powerful. If they give 5+ a day, it's well balanced. "

At the FLGS I go to, it seems like generally speaking most DMs can only fit one combat into a game session, meaning a short rest is the same as a long rest and there's very little reason not to alpha strike with all your most powerful/spells and abilities because you can safely expect to be getting just the one combat. If and when I get my own table there, I intend to run things differently.

ParanoydStyle said:

First off, I don't mean tiers in the 5th Edition sense of "break points where your proficiency bonus increases by one whole point".

I just got into Fifth Edition and I really want to know what the relative power of the classes is; they can't be as perfectly balanced as they seem on a casual surface skim, can they?

Click to expand...

If they seem that way on even a casual skim, maybe.

Between 2000 and I dunno, 2010?, various internets forums (Giant In The Playground and dozens of others) basically ranked all of the D&D 3.5 classes into a list of tiers...how would you rank them from best to worst?

Click to expand...

5e is very much a backwards-looking edition, it seeks to fundamentally evoke the classic game. The classic game wasn't "balanced" unless the DM wanted to put some work into making it balanced, whether re-writing the mechanics, or directly intervening in play. 5e leaves the DM the same leeway.

You can sort through the classes, judge their relative 'RAW' versatility/power by the criteria of the 3.5 Tiers, and they don't shake out all that differently.
If there were a 3.5 class that cast the way 5e neo-Vancian casters do (prepping from many known spells, then casting spontaneously), it'd've been "Tier 0" for sure. If more 3.5-levels-of-broken spells had remained in 5e, likewise. So, though even more flexible in system of casting, the usual Tier 1 suspects stay Tier 1.
That third-sting full caster of 3.5, the Bard, has risen dramatically in stature.
There are no purely non-casting classes, so there's a handful of sub-classes that fall to a lower tier, if you break them out.

[sblock="Here's where the 5e PH classes were in 3.5"]
Tier 1: Wizard, Cleric, Druid

Tier 2: Sorcerer

Tier 3: Bard, Ranger (Wildshape variant),

Tier 4: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Ranger, Fighter (Zhentarium variant)

Tier 5: Fighter, Monk, Paladin

Tier 6:
[/sblock]

[sblock="Here's how they might be ranked in 5e"]
Tier 1: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard

Tier 2: Sorcerer, Warlock

Tier 3: Fighter (EK), Monk (Shadow), Paladin, Ranger, Rogue (AT)

Tier 4: Fighter (BM), Monk (OH/4E), Ranger (Beastmaster), Rogue (Assassin/Thief)

Tier 5: Barbarian, Fighter (Champion)

Tier 6:

(no, there's no ranking w/in each Tier, that's just alphabetical.)
[/sblock]

But, it's not like the Player empowering Entitlement of sytemically balanced 4e AEDU or 3.x Iron Rule of RaW.
5e it's really up to the DM: how he rules, what challenges he throws, what items he drops, where he applies pressure. RAW & System Mastery are largely moot. If you want to build a character that dominates play, build whatever you want - and game the DM.

Nearly all of 5e's classes/subclasses fall into what would've been Tier 3 in 3.5. Moon Druid may be 3.5's Tier 2 at levels 1-4 and again at 18-20. Four Elements Monk and Beast Master Ranger probably would be Tier 4, but they're the only ones who would dip that low. In any case, the gap between the classes is definitely far less than it was.

If you consider tiers to be about what problems characters of similar optimization levels for a particular class can solve then:

Tier 1:
Wizard
Druid
Bard
Cleric

Tier 2:
Sorcerer

Tier 3:
Paladin
Ranger (Non BeastMaster)
Warlock

Tier 4:
Fighter (Eldritch Knight)
Rogue (Arcane Trickster)

Tier 5:
Barbarian
Fighter (All other)
Rogue (All other)
Monk (Non Elementalist)

Tier 6
Ranger (Beastmaster)
Monk (Elementalist)


That said the gaps between tiers aren't nearly as wide as in 3.5e. More limited spell slots, legendary resistance, concentration etc all play a part here. Also, classes of the lower tiers typically are good at combinations of things that full casters typically can't replicate. It's the feel that you are better at your particular set of abilities than the full casters get to be that really makes all classes feel on nearly equal footing. This is not to say that full casters can't sometimes take one of your particular abilities and excel at it more than you, but even then they aren't exceling at everything you can do better than you can do it.

There is really only 3 tiers IMHO. Bottom tier are the elements monk and beastmaster ranger, top tier are lore bards, 2 of the Paladins, light and life clerics. Most wizards are a bit underwhelming except at the highest levels and 1-3 subclasses. Spellcasters get a lot better if feats are used.

Even something as simple as fighters vary. At low levels the battlemaster is a tier ahead of the other 2, mid levels (8-12) champion is a bit better, high levels the EK is better.

Wizards are traditionally weak at low levels that hasn't changed, clerics vary a lot on subclass, only two of them are really tier 1. Moon Druid is OP at level two, falls off hard after that. Alot of spellcasters don't get that good until around level 7 or 8.

Fighters are fairly underwhelming level 1-10 except for the Battlemaster, if you want to be a warrior type look at Hunter Ranger (ranged) and Paladins (melee). Rogues are underwhelming damage wise unless you know what you're doing with them but the class is good overall.

One of the Barbarians (totem) is decent the frenzy one is a bit meh RAW. One of the monks is good, one is bad the others are mostly in the middle.

Sorcerers are good, varies by subclass and build, Valor Bard is underwhelming relative to the lore bard.

Warlocks vary by how you build them, semi OP multiclassed.

Level 1-5 most things are a bit meh takes a while to switch on. Battlemaster Fighters, some clerics, warlocks, and Moon Druids excel at low levels.

5 tier system only 2 on the bottom, a handful on top most are tier 3 and 4 and would move around by level and subclass. Fighters for example would be tier 4, Battlemasters tier 3, Paladins tier 1 and 2 (avenger and green) once they hit level 6. Rogues would be tier 3 and 4, Moon Druids tier 1 and 2, land Druids tier 2 and 3.

The best battlemaster for example is better than a few spellcasters at low levels. Paladin auras are insanely good in 5E due to bounded accuracy. Basically makes everyone nearby proficient in all saves. Best wizards are tier 1 at high level the worst ones are tier 2-4 varys by level and subclass. Best wizard is Abjurer and Diviner from the PHB. Invoker is outclassed at their niche by other classes like Sorcerer, Warlock and light clerics.

Sorcerers are really good if you know what you're doing and come out the gate a bit better than say wizards but are weaker late game.

The sweet spot is around level 5-8. Most classes are decent around there and won't drastically outshine anything else except for a few powergamer builds.

[MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION]

3.5e tiers weren’t as much about raw power as versatility. As such, while I feel the battlemaster is stronger than the champion I fail to see a justification for assigning them different tiers. They solve the same kinds of problems. Battlemaster can solve slightly more in combat problems but it’s nit enough to justify a full tier bump IMO.

If you were assigning tier by power instead of versatility then the tier list would be a lot different And much more subjective IMO.

FrogReaver said:

[MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION]

3.5e tiers weren’t as much about raw power as versatility. As such, while I feel the battlemaster is stronger than the champion I fail to see a justification for assigning them different tiers. They solve the same kinds of problems. Battlemaster can solve slightly more in combat problems but it’s nit enough to justify a full tier bump IMO.

If you were assigning tier by power instead of versatility then the tier list would be a lot different And much more subjective IMO.

Click to expand...

BM is front loaded compared with the other 2 fighters.

Zardnaar said:

BM is front loaded compared with the other 2 fighters.

Click to expand...

So?