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

[Ashrym]

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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Seems pretty accurate to me. Kinda surprised to see Moon Druid as C-tier, but I suppose this is for 5.5e where Moon isn't quite as strong as it used to be.

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 mean, spellcasting is better. Objectively so. The more spellcasting you have, the better the class is, almost universally. Paladin is probably the one exception; notice how it is the only non-full-caster to be counted among the upper half. Notice how EK is the only B tier Fighter subclass, and AT is the only C-tier Rogue subclass.

In military contexts, there's an important lesson. It's known that, in general, quality is better than quantity. But there's a saying, "Quantity has a quality all its own", meaning that if you bring enough quantity, utterly ludicrous Pyrric-victory levels of quantity, then that may in fact make up for a difference in quality sometimes. Not always, but sometimes: quantity still isn't as good as quality in general, but there is a tipping point where quantity outweighs quality.

There's a similar thing going on here. Versatility IS what makes something strong. Pure DPR potential is inferior to having more tools for dealing with more problems. And spellcasting is THE most versatile toolkit any character can have, period, end of discussion. Nothing can approach the versatility of spellcasting. That said, if you bring just a sheer ungodly amount of DPR, absolutely stupid levels of it, then that can be a "quantity has a quality all its own" element, just because a lot of the problems PCs face can be solved with judicious application of violence.

That doesn't mean that versatility has suddenly been trumped by DPR. It hasn't. Versatility is still king. But sheer stupidly-high amounts of DPR can bump a class up (hence why Fighter is just generically better than Rogue in this tier list.)

I don't necessarily agree with all of the conclusions that went into making this list. But the loose overall shape of it? It's more right than wrong.

 

[Selas]

I think this is the first time I've seen someone put the new GOOlock as the lowest Warlock subclass for 2024 when every other analysis it's been a toss-up with the Archfey for the best subclass for Warlocks

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

 

[sevenbastard]

I mean, spellcasting is better. Objectively so. The more spellcasting you have, the better the class is, almost universally.

Yeah, sigh.

I want to belive someday we will find a balance and move back to a D&D that is less relient on magic. But when the strongest fighter option is Eldritch Knight and the strongest rouge is Arcane Trickster we are going to keep seeing parties where every single charachter cast spells.

 

[Mistwell]

Zealot and Beserker out-damage every other class fairly consistently for single-target damage, which is more of a focus of needed damage for the 2024 MM, but they rank them lowest tier because they're not versatile enough? Meanwhile a class like Rogue (Thief) is about as versatile as they come and it ranks lowest tier too? Meh.

 

[TheSword]

The problem is when a ranking basically says magic is everything, the classes with the most magic will be at the top. Unfortunately if you don’t think that magic is the only thing that matters there isn’t really anywhere to go with the discussion.

There’s no other nuance to it really. The explanations read like they were written for someone who’s never played the game before.

Resilience, single target damage, group target damage, mobility, synergy. None of these things matter because its all boiled down to ‘It’s Magic Stupid!’

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I’m not surprised that top 4 of 5 classes are charisma based. Too many classes use charisma which makes for powerful spellcasting, multi classing, and social pillar dominance.

Which makes me wonder why everyone wanted the new Purple dragon knight to be based on charisma.

Warlock should be an Int class, imo, so there’s less synergy with the paladin

 

[mellored]

Zealot and Beserker out-damage every other class fairly consistently for single-target damage,

Only till level 10.

Also, spell casters suck from 1-4.

As classes are closer than before, "Best" varies by level a lot more in 2024.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The problem is when a ranking basically says magic is everything, the classes with the most magic will be at the top. Unfortunately if you don’t think that magic is the only thing that matters there isn’t really anywhere to go with the discussion.

There’s no other nuance to it really. The explanations read like they were written for someone who’s never played the game before.

Resilience, single target damage, group target damage, mobility, synergy. None of these things matter because its all boiled down to ‘It’s Magic Stupid!’

If WotC decides to resume designing games where magic isn't ludicrously better than nonmagic at solving any given problem, then I'll believe the conversation can become much more nuanced and intricate (and, thus, much more interesting).

But either magic needs to be nerfed, which will never happen because the caster fanatics will riot, or non-magic needs to be buffed, which will never happen because the caster fanatics will riot. Unless and until at least one of those two things is true, we're going to be sucked right back into this quicksand trap every time.

In 5e, revised or not, there are enough always-excellent spells such that any given spellcaster can have at least a very good response to nearly any problem the party might face, with some room left over for more tricksy choices at higher levels. Doubly so if the caster picks up some of the better rituals, since those can be cast without a slot, this freeing slots for more damage without losing utility. Classes with zero access to magic simply cannot replicate anything like that.

If you need to be a blaster all day and have no need for utility (whether exploration, investigation, or socialization), every spellcaster can do that quite well with only 2-4 spells, plus a good cantrip. If you need to be pure utility, many spellcasters can pull that off with just 3-5 spells, many of which have multiple uses (e.g. fly is also a good combat buff). If you need a mix...by level 5 or 6, that's not hard to do.

So...yeah. Versatility is king, because "I'm very good at a couple skills" just can't compete with the breadth that even a Sorcerer or Warlock can bring, to say nothing of the Wizard.

Particularly because 5.5e has now actually made Batman Wizard real. Wizards can now change out one prepared spell per short rest, meaning every spell a Wizard knows is accessible with just an hour's nap.