D&D 5E Rate the 5e player character classes

[Sadrik]

Thought I would start a rating for classes based on theme and mechanics. I am only going to do 3 ratings Strong, Average, and Weak. Theme I chose the base four as strong themes and then the additional types were either average or weak dependent upon how close or different they were from the base four (some subjectivity here). For mechanics (also subjective) I looked at everything outside of theme can this character contribute to the party are they too reliant on asking for short rests (warlock), do they have lots of versatility (Cleric) etc.

Barbarian

Theme: Weak​

Mechanics: Average​

Bard

Theme:Weak​

Mechanics: Strong​

Cleric

Theme: Strong​

Mechanics: Strong​

Druid

Theme: Average​

Mechanics: Strong​

Fighter

Theme: Strong​

Mechanics: Average​

Monk

Theme: Weak​

Mechanics: Weak​

Paladin

Theme: Average​

Mechanics: Average​

Ranger

Theme: Average​

Mechanics: Weak​

Rogue

Theme: Strong​

Mechanics: Average​

Sorcerer

Theme: Average​

Mechanics: Average​

Warlock

Theme: Average​

Mechanics: Weak​

Wizard

Theme: Strong​

Mechanics: Average​

 

[Kobold Stew]

Obviously, all these ratings are subjective, but it's still interesting to think about. And none of what I'm saying involves actual play above 8th level. Still, I'd suggest that good cases could be made for different views on some of these.

I've picked out 4 below.

Paladin

Theme: Average​

Mechanics: Average​

I think that the implementation for the non-LG paladins is as good as anyone could imagine. There's still a distinct niche for the LG original, but the alternatives are solid and thematically coherent.

Theme: Strong.

Rogue

Theme: Strong​

Mechanics: Average​

I'll admit that knowledge of the play test weakens this rogue for me a great deal. But whereas a year ago there were plausible charisma and strength builds for a rogue, now (to my eye) dexterity is required for the straight rogue. That's disappointing to me. And the bard is pretty much as versatile a skill-monkey as the rogue (more in some cases), and so that niche is also eroded. For me,

Mechanics: Weak.

Warlock

Theme: Average​

Mechanics: Weak​

This surprises me. There's a lot that appeals to me about the warlock class, and the implementation of the double concept (patron and boon), with the range of invocations? There's a richness in this class that is only matched by the Wizard.

Mechanics: Strong.

Wizard

Theme: Strong​

Mechanics: Average​

In a way that I would have thought impossible, there's something cool about all the specialties. I've had no interest, ever, in playing a diviner or an abjurer, but right out of the gate, I want to try them both. Sure, that's partly theme, but the mechanics are there behind it.

Mechanics: Strong.

That's my initial response. Fun game!

 

[Tormyr]

One thing I have found really interesting about 5e is that it does not matter what race, class, background, armor and weapon you pick. You will contribute and contribute well to the game. We have a human cleric, tiefling wizard, halfling rogue/monk, half-gnoll paladin, elf eldritch knight and human monk. Everyone contributes well in combat and role play. Even sub optimal builds work well. The half-gnoll paladin has a -8 charisma. Sure, it means his turn fey DC was only 9 at level 1, and at level 5 he can only prepare 1 spell, but he has made every persuasion roll and burns most of his spell slots on bless and strikes.

Certain character builds might fit a player better or resonate better than others, but any choice that you like is a good one.

 

[Andor]

Lessee.

Cleric

Theme: Strong​

Mechanics: Strong​

I'd drop theme to Average at best. Why do all Clerics turn undead? Why is there a nature cleric seperate from the druid and why do they wear heavy armour?

Ranger

Theme: Average​

Mechanics: Weak​

I don't think the Ranger looks weak. Testimony from play seems to indicate they are one of the stronger classes.

Warlock

Theme: Average​

Mechanics: Weak​

I'm not clear where the Warlock lies mechanically since I haven't seen one in play yet, but average themantically? Whose got stronger themeing than the Warlock with his pacts and patrons?

 

[Mistwell]

Warlock

Theme: Average​

Mechanics: Weak​

Interesting. Here at ENWorld, and the WOTC boards, it seems that the Warlock mechanics are praised by a sizable majority as being excellent. What did you see that made you feel the mechanics are weak? Heck they were praised as so good, many thought it should be used as a model for the psionic classes eventually too.

 

[eryndel]

Theme I chose the base four as strong themes and then the additional types were either average or weak dependent upon how close or different they were from the base four (some subjectivity here).

That's an interesting definition of Theme, but I not sure how well it will resonate with folks. This strikes me as a measure of how much the class deviates from the core four. For me, a better measure of theme might be how evocative the class is along a niche, and how much the mechanics support that. Also, very subjective. Seen in this light, I would rate a Bard, for example, as Average. The Bard has a strong presence and distinctiveness, however there's some debate on if the Bardic Inspiration is meaty enough to actively support that niche.

Thinking about it, as a measure of distinctiveness of class, my definition might even be the inverse of yours.

 

[Zardnaar]

You might need to break them up by subclass as well. I'm the DM and the hunter ranger for example is not weak, neither is the warlock. It is hard to find a weak class but I suspect the Druid, all Rogues, maybe the beastmaster ranger may qualify.

Some classes also need to be evaluated differently. The Warlock for example looks like a weak wizard but is more of an archer really IMHO and it seems popular for gish builds. A biot of the Ranger and Warlock power is hidden in spell form as well with Hunters Quarry and Hex spells. A warlock for example at 5th level gets 2 eldritch blast rays that each seem to deal 1d10+4 damage and each of them deal and extra 1d6 damage to a target with hex. Cantrips scale with level so if you combine that with Sorcerer Twin Spell or action surge that is 4 rays each dealing 1d10+4+1d6 damage with an at will spell and the Sorcerer levels let you cast it lots of times.

Or you can do something similar with a blade pact warlock, create a polearm and pick up the polearm master feat+warcaster. Any NPC coming within 10' of you can get hit by eldritch blast as an AoO then you blast them again with eldritch blast on your turn.

The sharpshooter feat on the ranger also gets silly with hunters quarry and colossus slayer. 1d8+14+1d6+1d8 damge and you are probably out damaging a two handed fighter.

The Bard is one of the strongest classes in the game IMHO and more or less obsoletes the Rogue I suspect.

Also you can build around party synergies.

Warlock
Fighter (battlemaster)
Cleric (War)
Cleric (light)
Bard (5th level+)

All of these classes have mechanics that refresh on short rests so every encouter can be a nova and rangers get silly fast with buffing from aid/bard/superiority dice. The short rest mechanic may be broken not sure.

 

[Sadrik]

Interesting. Here at ENWorld, and the WOTC boards, it seems that the Warlock mechanics are praised by a sizable majority as being excellent. What did you see that made you feel the mechanics are weak? Heck they were praised as so good, many thought it should be used as a model for the psionic classes eventually too.

I think the theme is very good for warlocks. Though ultimately a bit derivative of clerics (worship/patron).

For mechanics, I selected poor for three reasons.

1. Warlocks do not multi-class well with other casters.
2. Warlocks are too dependent on short rests to be effective. If the DM and other players are ok taking a short rest when possible all the time, warlocks become effective. When the group must push on (due to other players or DM) they lose a great deal of effectiveness.
3. Warlock invocations that cost a spell slot to use are almost not even on the list of options they are so bad.

For me, these above three things make the warlock the weakest class in 5e. Despite that they drip with flavor and so will still get played. It is unlike the bard who has mechanically sucked (in 3e) and the flavor was very niche (weak) so saw little play.

That's an interesting definition of Theme, but I not sure how well it will resonate with folks. This strikes me as a measure of how much the class deviates from the core four. For me, a better measure of theme might be how evocative the class is along a niche, and how much the mechanics support that. Also, very subjective. Seen in this light, I would rate a Bard, for example, as Average. The Bard has a strong presence and distinctiveness, however there's some debate on if the Bardic Inspiration is meaty enough to actively support that niche.

Thinking about it, as a measure of distinctiveness of class, my definition might even be the inverse of yours.

I agree with you but I was trying to be less subjective. This was a way to define the parameters so that a consensus could be formed or at least nearly so. The assumption is the core four classes are the core of the D&D experience and the other classes are derivatives of those core four in some way or another. Yes it makes an assumption that the core four are in some way the best, but I think most people would agree that they should be at least in theme and concept.

So if one class feels very close to another one thematically it would be weak. If it feels unique and or drips flavor it should be average (because it is a derivative of the core class). I know that likely flies differently than some would think. However there is a proponent for every class and someone would say strong theme for each class. This at least tries to break that down a bit and perhaps make it only slightly less subjective.

 

[Sadrik]

All of these classes have mechanics that refresh on short rests so every encouter can be a nova and rangers get silly fast with buffing from aid/bard/superiority dice. The short rest mechanic may be broken not sure.

Well thought out post.

Yes I am uncertain how I feel about the blending of the short and long rest mechanics. I think an optional rule in the DMG that would see a lot of consideration would be the idea of moving everything to a short rest and how to do that and how to move everything to a long rest and how to do that.

 

[Kobold Stew]

For mechanics, I selected poor for three reasons.

1. Warlocks do not multi-class well with other casters.
2. Warlocks are too dependent on short rests to be effective. If the DM and other players are ok taking a short rest when possible all the time, warlocks become effective. When the group must push on (due to other players or DM) they lose a great deal of effectiveness.
3. Warlock invocations that cost a spell slot to use are almost not even on the list of options they are so bad.

For me, these above three things make the warlock the weakest class in 5e. Despite that they drip with flavor and so will still get played. It is unlike the bard who has mechanically sucked (in 3e) and the flavor was very niche (weak) so saw little play.

I find this list interesting, and counter too my experience.

1. Not multi classing well with other casters isn't a flaw in design -- I'd say it's a virtue, and I think there are good multi classing opportunities still for many builds. It makes me wonder what specific warlock concepts you find you are unable to build.

2. Have you found this to be the case in play? I'm drawing on only one group and a few sessions, but for us it's the fighter that is setting the pace of short rests, not the warlock.

3. I see the invocations that use a spell-slot (like Confusion and compulsion at level 7) to be a means of expanding the spell list. Admittedly, it does feel a bit like a "tax", but given how few spells a character knows, it's a nice way t expand on the spells that are available.

Curiously, my biggest problem with the class comes at the higher levels (and this is not from play, but just from reading):

The Mystic Arcanum feature only gives you access to one spell at each of the upper levels, ever. I find that very restricting, but I still want to see it in play.