D&D 5E (2024) Class Tier List 1 Year Later.

[Zardnaar]

I generally agree with the list but the spread for 2024 base class power ought to be more like S-Tier at best to B-Tier at worst. The range is so much more narrow than 2014 classes, or even the 2024 subclasses.

For example I agree with Ranger and Rogue being last, but if Rogue as a base class is D-Tier then what is Scion of the Three? Or 2014 Monk? F-minus-minus-minus-infinity-tier?

Scion of Dead 3 would be C tier compared to other rogues imho.

Best rogue would be thief on right campaign (right magic items basically).
You could probably fold D into C tier. I could also do a by tier list Rogues and Rangers and good tier 1. I woukd rate them a lot higher.

 

[FrogReaver]

5.24 classes I've played:

Sorcerer: definitely deserves S tier. So far have played to fifth level and innate sorcery is just a MASSIVE buff. Innate sorcery + chromatic orb, even at low levels started getting me the stink eye from the DM.

Paladin: also deserves S tier. convinced the DM (different from above) to let me try an oath of the Noble Genies Paladin. And it's REALLY really good. AC is good (5th level AC is 18 but 21 when it counts with Parry from defensive duelist) and damage output is very good, especially when it counts.

Have DMd for:

Fighter: agree on A tier. The buffs have really improved it. And it's kind of hilarious to watch the fighter now getting some of the best out of combat rolls too.

Barbarian: one trick pony, but it's a GOOD trick. The Berserker barbarian is a true beast now, and no more worry about exhaustion! Not as well rounded as most of the other classes but I'd go B- or C+. Not too much disagreement. I'd love to see a world Tree Barbarian in action, I think it would be fun and different

Warlock: the warlock in my group is certainly effective,but doesn't stand out. B is about right.

Wizard: maybe not buffed like the other classes, but still has a massive and diverse amount of levers they can pull when necessary. Certainly not C! I would still go A tier, especially when played effectively.

No new insight on the other classes yet.

I love Barbarians and find them incredibly fun to play but they lack quite a bit of versatility. I will add that due to thrown weapons working with reckless attack rage damage increase and beserker/zealot damage increases that they actually can throw javelins fairly far without disadvantage and do decent ranged damage with them. Compared to melee focused Fighters and Paladins I think Barbarians actually outperform them at range, especially the Fighters, since paladins may can use a control spell till they close the gap (or at worst provide allies their aura bonus).

I agree on wizards. Even if they are one of the worst full casters for combat, they are still a full caster with access to all the best control spells, extra spell slots, good defensive and utility options as well as some expertise and rituals. I might suggest splitting the difference and having them at B. They can certainly feel a bit behind the other full casters in tier 1, especially if their better rituals like find familiar rarely come up.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sonething had to go in last place overall.

How's it not rangers?

 

[Zardnaar]

How's it not rangers?

They're hanging out with the rogues in D.

Rangers are very front loaded tier 1 theyre great. They also get Fae Wanderer which is decent.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They're hanging out with the rogues in D.

Rangers are very front loaded tier 1 theyre great. They also get Fae Wanderer which is decent.

It the role of rangers in D&D to prop up any ranking table. You are removing their only function by not putting them last!

 

[Zardnaar]

It the role of rangers in D&D to prop up any ranking table. You are removing their only function by not putting them last!

They are last.

Here's a question. Ranger 5/rogue4 better than rogue 9 or ranger 9?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They are last.

Here's a question. Ranger 5/rogue4 better than rogue 9 or ranger 9?

Don’t know, don’t care. Rangers being last is a moral imperative, it has nothing to do with actual numbers.

 

[Zardnaar]

Don’t know, don’t care. Rangers being last is a moral imperative, it has nothing to do with actual numbers.

Lol.

Rangers a fairly solid foundation at least.

 

[FrogReaver]

My Rankings

A Tier - The best of the best at many different things, very minimal major weaknesses
Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric - all very efficient, have answers for most scenarios, and starts and finishes strong in the level 1-12 range.

B Tier - very good in multiple areas, generally less efficient than the A tier classes, most have at least 1 weakness
Bard, Wizard, Paladin

C Tier - typical characters in this tier will have major weaknesses (often multiple) and limited options to deal with them. Can still be very strong characters. Some specific builds might even rise up to B tier. Characters of this tier often excel at a single area or maybe 2.
Fighter, Rogue, Warlock, Monk, Barbarian, Ranger

I really cannot justify saying ranger and barbarian are substantially worse than fighter in primarily tier 1 and 2 play. I think there's some potential scaling issues in tier 3 and 4 with them.

I really don't think there's enough separation between classes to have more than 3-4 categories. Depending on how you factor in out of combat vs combat ability and versatility vs power in best category I think you might could tease out more Tiers, but those assumptions would need to be explicit IMO.

 

[FrogReaver]

Lol.

Rangers a fairly solid foundation at least.

They are just weird. They get nothing special. For Paladin they fine tuned all the mechanics to work with him attacking while still leaving open the option of casting normal spells while layering on actual good class abilities. Ranger they gave half casting and basically nothing else.

I find it pretty sad when a 2024 Paladin can make as good of an archer as a ranger for most of the game. Maybe better. Devotion Paladin using a bow, divine favor and sacred weapon. Better accuracy, still get lay on hands and your aura.