D&D (2024) 2024 Class Rankings (from nat1gaming.com) for ppl who believe that stuff.

[EzekielRaiden]

It might add too much complexity, but it might be nice to have rankings for players who have deep system mastery, and rankings for players who wont. I can see that flexibility unlocks huge potential for those who mastered spells lists. But a lot of players will never and read these lists to get a leg up and then fall flat when they struggle against that requirement of system mastery to get the rated value.

I don't see the benefit of tier lists based on whether a person cares to play the whole game, or just tosses in whatever they see first without thought or review. A player like that doesn't care about tiers in the first place, so it's irrelevant to them.

People who take the time to read about class tiers are already doing the thing you say they won't do: reading to get a leg up. It's more than a little silly to argue that folks will seek out a tier list but won't take the 30 seconds necessary to look up a guide for what spells to take too.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think they really gave rogues the consideration they deserve. Part of their reasoning was bards exist so rogues skills become less relevant, but IME reliable talent is much better than other skill benefits. Uncanny dodge, evasion, cunning action, cunning strike, and even weapon mastery adds to that.

If rangers, rogues, and barbarians are what they consider the bottom but bards are among the top then the system seems pretty good overall, tbh.

I mean, so long as you don't care that casters > everyone else.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Caster fanatics will not riot. I’ve had heated debates over whether having super hero-like powers can be ‘non-magical’ (where your skill is so good that it can do nigh impossible feats) and people argued that it NEEDED to be based on magic or supernatural birth or some other “supernatural” explanation.

So while people complain that non-casters should be buffed, those same people complain that it would be “unrealistic”.

I'm sorry...what?

You said "they will not."

And then you proceeded to say they will. Because the only way such folks will allow non-magic characters to do any of that...is for them to become magic.

In other words, it's "heads we win, tails you lose." They won't allow non-magic characters who are just better at what they do than magic characters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I get the theory. I just just don’t agree with with it. The ability to deal and the ability to resist physical damage is still the king ability in D&D. Most reliable. Most used and the only thing that can actually end a PCs career. Magic is useful but mainly superfluous. It makes things easier. It is almost never essential.

That’s said, let’s not turn this into another martial/caster debate. My point is there are other things that matter more than how many spell slots you have and your caster level.

And my point is, there aren't. Because spell slots ALSO DO DAMAGE. Because spell slots ALSO HEAL. In fact, spells and other explicitly magical effects are almost always the best way to deal damage (especially to multiple targets) and definitely the best way to cause or induce healing. Non-magical healing, other than from a long rest, simply cannot keep up with the damage PCs take in typical campaigns. And yes, I'm counting potions in that because potions are magical. They had to be created by someone who could use magic.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I don't see the benefit of tier lists based on whether a person cares to play the whole game, or just tosses in whatever they see first without thought or review. A player like that doesn't care about tiers in the first place, so it's irrelevant to them.

People who take the time to read about class tiers are already doing the thing you say they won't do: reading to get a leg up. It's more than a little silly to argue that folks will seek out a tier list but won't take the 30 seconds necessary to look up a guide for what spells to take too.

That’s an uncharitable bad faith misreading what I wrote.

 

[Zardnaar]

One question is how they are weighting levels 1-20. When I rate I typically grant low level abilities more weight.

Alot of people just look at level 20 comparisons.

This. I think that list is rubbish unless it's highest levels.

Wizards nothing special vs until higher levels.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I'm sorry...what?

You said "they will not."

And then you proceeded to say they will. Because the only way such folks will allow non-magic characters to do any of that...is for them to become magic.

In other words, it's "heads we win, tails you lose." They won't allow non-magic characters who are just better at what they do than magic characters.

My point was the very people who want powerful non magic classes are the ones who riot because it’s “unrealistic” to make them that powerful because ‘it must be magic’.

I’m just making an observation based on past arguments on this forum. I wasn’t disagreeing with your post.

 

[Ashrym]

I mean, so long as you don't care that casters > everyone else.

I don't care about something I don't actually believe, lol.

It's been mentioned multiple times now: casters are not good until high levels. Even then it's mostly access to high level wizard spells that leads to the caster biases.

Limited spell slots whiffing on low DC's is more restricting than some people seem to realize.

When spell casters have a lot of spell slots and have many spells prepared and have a higher DC and access to higher level spells they can do quite a bit, but that isn't all the time through all the levels or with all the disadvantages.

Something as simple as weapon masteries is per attack instead of per action opens up quite a bit with multiple attacks. I think casters and martials are different from instead of better or worse than.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That’s an uncharitable bad faith misreading what I wrote.

Okay. I apologize for misrepresenting your position. Unfortunately, I don't really know how to respond otherwise. Would you be willing to clarify?

 

[Zardnaar]

OK it's level 1-20.

Still some glaringing inconsistent stand outs.