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

[Horwath]

This. I see tons of complaints about Fireball online, but when I actually cast it in game, it rarely has that kind of impact. We were up against some kind of CR 4 flying spirit wolves in a Kobold Press adventure, and my party kept screaming at me to use Fireball. I finally got three of them in a good spot where I could cast the spell and not flash fry my allies. Upcast to level 4, 9d6, great rolls to deal 40-ish damage, two even failed their (+4) Dex save.

Still up, still a problem. We later found out these things have 119 hit points! Yeah, Fireball is so overpowered, lol.

Sure, I'll grant, most CR 4's don't have that many hit points. Most seem to be in the 50-80ish range, and if they have more, it's because they have lousy defenses (the Elder Black Pudding may have 130 hit points but it has an AC of 2!). Then again, the Babau has 84 hit points and is resistant to fire, so it's difficult to tell what an outlier really is. All I know is, if the spell can fail to kill a CR 1 Bugbear, how overpowered can it really be?

damage spells are more or less all C-tier.

every DM that has a players that decided to play a blaster-caster has a brand new smile on the face.

blaster-caster is just a variation of a fighter in delivering damage, that is, nothing special to think about.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

this immediately popped into my head after reading this...

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I completely disagree then. The people who want powerful non-magic classes specifically do want them to remain non-magical. It's the people who want powerful magical classes that resist any attempt to allow non-magical classes to rise in power. I've seen this pattern numerous times both on ENWorld and elsewhere. Every time you give something to non-magic classes, magic classes have to get at least as much, if not more. Every time you take something from magic classes, non-magic classes must lose at least as much, if not more, or (more commonly) magic classes must be given something else to compensate their losses.

I mean, you can disagree but that’s just not my observation, having been knee deep in some of these debates. Maybe what you notice is different from what I notice. shrug

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

When I play a wizard, I take no damage spells other than a couple useful cantrips in case I need to help mop up at the end.

All my spells are utility or crowd control designed to help with situations out of combat(divinations)or to facilitate the non magic characters in a way that they can meed out more damage. (Buffs, crowd control)

My thought is always, “why bother taking damage spells? There’s lots of people in the party who can do that”. I see people take magic missile and just wonder what the point is.

Spell casters are generally more useful out of combat and that’s where they outshine other characters. So if they are rating based on utility, casters are going to rank higher. Charisma based spell casters are going to rank higher because they have the flexibility to shine in the social pillar as well.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

I mean, you can disagree but that’s just not my observation, having been knee deep in some of these debates. Maybe what you notice is different from what I notice. shrug

having also been in a few of those discussions myself i feel like it's more just a persistent vocal minority who claim of it being unrealistic, that martials can't be powerful without justifying it with some form of magic.

i feel martials can be strong if we embrace the larger than life nature of the setting-system and stop restricting them with the 'just a guy at the gym' mentality,

 

[TheSword]

The list is very superficial. It seems to ignore the fact that the barbarian is one of the best classes at taking physical damage. Amazingly so.

The other thing that gets ignored is a class’ ability to utilize the full range of action economy. Bonus and reactions. Rogues, monks, fighters can do a lot of meaningful stuff that really adds up to an interesting and substantial turn. Again often ignored by this kind of list.

 

[Zardnaar]

The list is very superficial. It seems to ignore the fact that the barbarian is one of the best classes at taking physical damage. Amazingly so.

The other thing that gets ignored is a class’ ability to utilize the full range of action economy. Bonus and reactions. Rogues, monks, fighters can do a lot of meaningful stuff that really adds up to an interesting and substantial turn. Again often ignored by this kind of list.

The list is also level 20. I'm sure tgey haven't actually played at those levels.

Also they have multiple subclasses at the same tier rating when most classes have s few that are just better than others from the same class

So this tree list isn't particularly good even for those of us who pay attention to such things. These things are subjective of course.


Subjectively though this list isn't even good. One glaring thing for example is invoker in the top tier.

 

[ECMO3]

I was reading opinions on this site and they seem to differ from what some of the people here post so I thought I would bring it up for discussion. That site includes subclasses prior to 2024 rules updates but I think a person can go there to follow up. I'm more interested in the new rules info.

This is a quick run down on their idea of class ranking:

1. Wizard
2. Bard
3. Sorcerer
4. Paladin
5. Warlock
6. Druid
7. Cleric
8. Monk
9. Fighter
10. Ranger
11. Rogue
12. Barbarian

Here is a quick breakdown of the 2024 subclass rankings. There were no 2024 subclasses considered S-Tier or F-Tier.

A-Tier

• bard, lore
• sorcerer, wild magic
• wizard, abjuration
• wizard, divination
• wizard, evocation
• wizard, illusion

B-Tier

• bard, dance
• bard, glamour
• bard, valor
• cleric, light
• cleric, trickery
• druid, land
• druid, stars
• fighter, eldritch knight
• monk, mercy
• monk, shadow
• paladin, devotion
• paladin, vengeance
• sorcerer, aberrant
• sorcerer, clockwork
• sorcerer, draconic
• warlock, archfey
• warlock, celestial
• warlock, fiend

C-Tier

• barbarian, wild heart
• barbarian, world tree
• cleric, life
• cleric, war
• druid, moon
• druid, sea
• fighter, battle master
• fighter, champion
• fighter, psi warrior
• monk, elements
• monk, open hand
• paladin, ancients
• paladin, glory
• ranger, beast master
• ranger, fey wanderer
• ranger, gloom stalker
• rogue, arcane trickster
• warlock, great old one

D-Tier

• barbarian, berserker
• barbarian, zealot
• ranger, hunter
• rogue, assassin
• rogue, soul knife
• rogue, thief

Most of those classifications ended up as B- or C-Tiers, and there's an obvious opinion on spellcasting as better. DPR seems like a lower priority over versatility.

I still believe in a one-tier system where everyone contributes and found this interesting.

What exactly are they ranking (combat power, fun, all three phases) and how are they addressing levels (the best classes at level 5 are usually not the best at level 15). Is it a 1-20 ranking or are they focused on a specific tier?

What I can say is if you are looking across levels 1-20 and making each level of equal importance, the most fun classes to play in my opinion are (in order):

Glamor Bard
Fey Warlock
Fey Wanderer Ranger
Valor Bard
Arcane Trickster
Eldritch Knight

It is more difficult to say if you are rating on combat power. The big problem for me is if you are optimizing for combat across all 20 levels a single class character will not do as well as an optimized multiclass.

If you are looking at all three phases of the game, I think Arcane Trickster or Great Old One Warlock have this locked up.

 

[ECMO3]

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

Rangers are casters.

 

[ECMO3]

I mean, only if the buffing is done by transforming them into magic classes. And even then, it's less a riot and more a "I specifically asked for NON-magic buffs???"

This is not true. 2024 gave all non-magic classes a bunch of buffs.

Personally, I do not generally like the buffs given to Fighters and Monks in specific in 2024. I prefer the weaker 2014 versions and am non a fan of the non-magic buffs they gave them. I would rather have a greater imbalance and greater "divide" for those classes to be more aligned with my version of what I think they should be.

It is not a big, I just won't play those classes any more (as my main class).