D&D 5E Classes Rated By Tier

[famousringo]

Mage armor gives you an alternative method of calculating your AC. You pick one (the ranger companion method of base AC + Proff) or the other (mage armor 13 + dex).

Its like putting plate barding on your beast. It gets either the worn armor, or the ranger bonus not both.

Incidentally, how is the critter getting mage armor?

There's no indication that the ranger bonus is part of a base AC calculation. It's a proficiency bonus added after natural armor and Dex, so I don't see why it wouldn't be added after barding and Dex or Mage Armor plus Dex, just as a shield bonus or Armor of Faith would be. I've seen no ruling or errata to suggest otherwise.

As for where, the range of Mage Armor is touch. If you don't have a wizard buddy to cast it, it's a worthy dip for a beastmaster. Brings back some of old school feel from when Rangers had a few wizard spells.

 

[Flamestrike]

There's no indication that the ranger bonus is part of a base AC calculation. It's a proficiency bonus added after natural armor and Dex, so I don't see why it wouldn't be added after barding and Dex or Mage Armor plus Dex, just as a shield bonus or Armor of Faith would be. I've seen no ruling or errata to suggest otherwise.

Because mage armor expressly replaces your AC with a fixed value provided by the spell.

So if you cast it on your critter with its AC of (natural armor + dex + ranger bonus) it becomes (13+Dex).

Same deal if you cast barkskin on it.

 

[famousringo]

Because mage armor expressly replaces your AC with a fixed value provided by the spell.

So if you cast it on your critter with its AC of (natural armor + dex + ranger bonus) it becomes (13+Dex).

Same deal if you cast barkskin on it.

You have an odd interpretation to equate Barkskin and Mage Armor. Most interpret Mage Armor to allow other AC bonuses like shield bonus and Armor of Faith. The recent Sage Advice made no suggestion that Mage Armor behaves the same as Barkskin.

 

[Giant2005]

All armor calculations stack with AC bonuses. The beast's bonus stacks with Mage Armor's calculation in the exact same manner that the Shield spell's bonus stacks with Mage Armor's calculation.

 

[Giant2005]

As for the class ratings way back on page 1, they seem really, really misjudged to me. That lack of judgment is exasperated by the fact that the supposed intention was to rate the classes at the more relevant lower levels, but as you can tell from all of the caster classes making the top ranks, it was obviously evaluated from the perspective of the higher levels.

At lower levels, only two full caster classes could be considered competent: The Bard for being a skill monkey and inspiration and the Warlock for having decent damage while still having a spell slot or two for utility purposes. The rest of the casters will do sucky cantrip damage and have too few spell slots to do much of anything other than sucky cantrip damage. That is the opinion of someone who plays a lot of casters but does so quite knowingly that he sucks in the early game but is willing to take that hit for the late game potential.

As for everything else, the Beastmaster is easily tier 1 at low levels. A fair case can even be made for it being the best class bar none at that point - at high levels the BM has damage comparable to the highest dpr classes but that is only after the other classes have been able to make up the difference by taking feats. At low levels feats are incredibly rare and the other martial classes simply haven't been able to close the gap yet. The companion's survivability is comparatively greater at that moment too as although it gets fairly squishy in the late game, the difference is negligeable in the early game.

Rating the Oathbreaker to be lower than the other Paladins and declaring that was because of a lack of offense is incredibly strange considering that the Oathbreaker has the greatest offensive powers of all of the Paladin subclasses.

The final piece of strangeness is how the Wizard subclasses were rated between one another. The Abjurer and Transmuter are absolutely terrible at low levels and the Enchanter is amazing. The Enchanter solves the issue of not having enough spell slots to do anything of consequence other than spamming crappy cantrip damage by having an amazing low level ability to use. Hypnotic Gaze is spammable just like a cantrip, but unlike a cantrip, it is immensely powerful - easily powerful enough to turn a losing battle into a winning one.

 

[Noctem]

You have an odd interpretation to equate Barkskin and Mage Armor. Most interpret Mage Armor to allow other AC bonuses like shield bonus and Armor of Faith. The recent Sage Advice made no suggestion that Mage Armor behaves the same as Barkskin.

He's saying both would make a basic change to how AC is calculated. He's correct. The AC bonus from the ranger specifies that it is granted on top of the natural armor + DEX of the beast. If you use Mage Armor, you are no longer using natural armor, you are using Mage Armor which changes your AC calculation to base 13 + DEX. These are not compatible and so don't stack.

 

[Noctem]

As for class ratings I think it's for the most part incorrect in the OP. But frankly the discussion is so subjective it's doubtful anyone would agree.

 

[famousringo]

He's saying both would make a basic change to how AC is calculated. He's correct. The AC bonus from the ranger specifies that it is granted on top of the natural armor + DEX of the beast. If you use Mage Armor, you are no longer using natural armor, you are using Mage Armor which changes your AC calculation to base 13 + DEX. These are not compatible and so don't stack.

My PHB makes no mention of Natural Armor and neither does the errata. It merely says, "Add your proficiency bonus to the beast's AC..."

It doesn't specify a new AC formula for the beast, nor does it specify which base AC formula the beast should be using in order to get the bonus. But it does use the magic word "bonus" which tends to denote a number which can be added to almost any base AC formula, except Barkskin which is a special snowflake and monk's unarmored defense which specifically excludes only the shield bonus.

 

[Noctem]

It's a proficiency bonus added after natural armor and Dex

You said this earlier which lead me to what I posted. If that's not the case then nevermind

 

[leonardoraele]

PHB says "Add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC", so this is a BONUS and it stacks with whatever base formula you uses for your AC, may it be natural armor, barding or mage armor.
Please check Jeremy Crawford at January Sage Advice, at http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-january-2016

The problem is survivability. The snake above with Mage Armor has a respectable 21 AC, but crap saves and hit points like a wizard with 10 CON. One solid AoE can wipe out half the beastmaster's class features. There are build options that can help, but building your character around keeping your pet alive is somewhat less inspiring than building the ultimate warrior, a master beguiler, etc.

An easy fix would be ranger spells that specifically buff pet defense. But instead Beast Bond buffs offense. *shrug*

Well, you have Protection from Energy and Stoneskin. What I really miss is a way to add the ranger's proficiency bonus to the beast's DC. Higher CR creatures won't fall prone for wolves' bites or panthers' pounces.