D&D 5E The New Class Tiers

[Zardnaar]

Every now and then various tier lists turn up and its common a few people just recycle opinions from the old 3.5 tier lists.

I do not think spell casters are that uber for example except maybe at the highest levels using certain exploits like simulacrum.

I have always (even in 3.5) rated classes more at level 1-10, rather than 11-20. Level 15+ for most intents and purposes basically doesn't exist except for NPC or for the lets create higher level PC's. Playing from the low levels the game more or less maxes out around level 12-14 and probably earlier. This is why 3.5/Pathfinder endured and 4E died IMHO as they fixed things most people either didn't notice, experience or care about. 5E sweet spot is still mostly level 4-7 or so +/- a level.

Even the old 3.5 lists were often assuming high level lay with powergamers, a lot of them were not realistic with maybe the Druid (+natural spell) being an exception. Clerics could also be broken but required a lot more effort requiring multiple splat books and outside of one build we had in 2002 or early 2003 I never saw a broken cleric in 3.5.

Yes I am sure there are anecdotes around on these boards, but these boards by default tend to skew more towards the hard core players who have been around multiple editions and are motivated enough to spend time talking about their fantasy Elf game on an online message board.

So basically I put a lot more stock in level 1-10 builds and abuses than high level builds that are basically theory crafting. A Paladin 8/Sorcerer 12 (or 6/14) is fairly nasty but almost anything is nasty at level 20. A Sorlock for example switches on a lot earlier say level 3, a Moon Druid is level 2 but falls off hard after that. Paladins are very good right through, spellcasters are often level 5+ if not+ and a lot of builds switch on around level 8 with that 2nd ASI. Some things switch on a lot faster due to rolled stats (with Rogues being a prime example), or with the bonus feat level 1 houserule which we sometimes use in a small party or its a bonus non combat feat or the best 5-6 feats are not granted as a bonus.

This also spills over into other threads, if I claim a Paladin is better than say a wizard and I get a level 15 counter example I would probably agree but in 5E the Paladin aura is just that damn good (and the hexblade key everything off charisma thing...) and comes online at level 6. Having a party of primary casters at level 1 is begging for a failparty even if you can drop 8-12 sleeps in a day (here come the zombies). Its also why I think the fighter is kind of weak as they get a lot better at level 11, and the Champion and Eldritch Knight take a lot of time to come online compared with the Battlemaster, Paladins in general and the Hunter Ranger.

And in 5E there is a lot of divergence in subclasses as well. With clerics I think you have 2 clear winners in terms of power- light and life, with some I consider as fail classes at least conceptually with the default array (war clerics). Rolled stats also make a huge difference as well if you roll above average as some classes and subclasses vary a lot due to MAD. For example with the default array lore bards>valor but if you rolled up 4 or 5 scores in the 14-16 range you can have good dex, con, charisma and strength which helps a lot for the valor bard, less so for the lore bard although anyone benefits from great scores some benefit more than others (Monks, Barbarians etc).

So thats my thoughts on evaluating classes, the main points.

1. Level 1-10 is more important than level 11+
2. There is a big divergence in subclasses.
3. What rules official and otherwise are you using (rolled stats, feats, multiclassing, bonus feat etc)

 

[FrogReaver]

Are you wanting us to rate based on power or versatility?

 

[Zardnaar]

Are you wanting us to rate based on power or versatility?

I rate overall generally.

Offensive
Defensive
Utility

Maybe with a slight focus on offensive, if you kill stuff faster you take less damage. But if the defensive ability is powerful I will rate it over some offensive abilities. Or in the 3 pillars I would probably go with 40/30/30 something like that with the 40% being combat.

For example I don't think most of the fighters are that good because they are not even that good comparatively in the combat pillar relative to say Hunter Rangers who are arguably better level 1-10, but also have more exploration and out of combat stuff. The base fighter class is still decent though but the BM is better than the other 2.

 

[FrogReaver]

I rate overall generally.

Offensive
Defensive
Utility

Maybe with a slight focus on offensive, if you kill stuff faster you take less damage. But if the defensive ability is powerful I will rate it over some offensive abilities. Or in the 3 pillars I would probably go with 40/30/30 something like that with the 40% being combat.

For example I don't think most of the fighters are that good because they are not even that good comparatively in the combat pillar relative to say Hunter Rangers who are arguably better level 1-10, but also have more exploration and out of combat stuff. The base fighter class is still decent though but the BM is better than the other 2.

I take issue with the 1-10 level range. Shouldn't it be more like level 3-10? Everyone always tells me that levels 1 and 2 go by so fast they don't matter.

In the level range provided,

1) All fighters except eldritch knights suck at 60% of the pillars. At most they can rate a 40/100 and as you meniotned not even that because they aren't hands down the best at the combat pillar. I'd say outside of specialized damage builds (like CE + SS + precision) that fighters should be rated 6/10 on the combat pillar. Good but not great. Overall that would put their effectiveness across all 3 pillars at maybe 25% overall.

2) Hunter Rangers are worse than battlemaster fighters at combat due to lackluster nova capabilities, but are considerably better exploration and utility. Id rate them at 50% combat pillar and 50% exploration pillar. That bumps them up to 35% overall.

 

[FrogReaver]

I guess that brings up the next big question, how much optimization are we factoring into these ratings?

 

[Zardnaar]

I guess that brings up the next big question, how much optimization are we factoring into these ratings?

A reasonable level- a feat or 2, PCs bump their primary stat or pick a feat that matters (sharpshooter for archers, great weapon for two handed weapons).

Assuming feats are used, overall you are only going to have a guideline IMHO.

BTW Hunter ranger gets the class boost to damage at 3 and hunters quarry, might actually be the best combatant level 1-10. At least with a bow.

 

[Dausuul]

The only class I feel is really in a separate tier is paladin. Paladins do it all; they take hits, dish out damage, heal, cast spells, passively buff the entire party, and look good doing it. Even so, the difference is not overwhelming, maybe half a tier by 3E standards. Moreover, a chunk of the paladin's strength lies in their ability to heal and buff the other PCs, which makes their power less objectionable.

The other classes are all pretty well balanced--although some of the subclasses kinda suck. Beastmaster ranger and Four Elements monk come to mind. And certain archetypes have serious issues, such as dual-wielding warriors.

 

[Ebony Dragon]

I wonder if the tier lists could be examined at different level ranges. Say level 5, 10, 15, and 20. Or maybe 3, 9, and 17, or whatever seems to be milestone character levels for most classes. It would be nice for people to know what they are getting into for campaigns of different lengths.

If your game is going to end at level 9 you don't have to care about the level 15 or 20 tier rank, but for people who will be playing to that level they might care a lot. They might also like to know just how long it will be before their characters power really starts to shine, so the lower level tier rankings are still important even for games that go 1-20.

 

[Merudo]

The only class I feel is really in a separate tier is paladin. Paladins do it all; they take hits, dish out damage, heal, cast spells, passively buff the entire party, and look good doing it. Even so, the difference is not overwhelming, maybe half a tier by 3E standards. Moreover, a chunk of the paladin's strength lies in their ability to heal and buff the other PCs, which makes their power less objectionable.

At tier 1 Paladins are nothing special. They have too few spellslots and not enough abilities to really stand out - the Battlemaster & Gloom Stalker are likely to perform better.

Paladin level 5, 6 & 7 (for some oaths) are incredible boosts, though.

I think its important for ratings to have two categories: tier 1, and tier 2.

 

[FrogReaver]

A reasonable level- a feat or 2, PCs bump their primary stat or pick a feat that matters (sharpshooter for archers, great weapon for two handed weapons).

Assuming feats are used, overall you are only going to have a guideline IMHO.

BTW Hunter ranger gets the class boost to damage at 3 and hunters quarry, might actually be the best combatant level 1-10. At least with a bow.

Action surge + precision attack + Sharpshooter feat makes fighter better at ranged combat.

Without feats the ranger is better though.