D&D 5E Classes Rated By Tier

[Zardnaar]

Always interested to see someone else's thoughts. The experience at my table would suggest a different ranking for a few, though.

I'd consider lifting the war cleric to tier 1. I've seen a war cleric played through 1st-9th level, and they were extremely potent. The channel divinity and domain powers can really swing a combat, especially tied to potent one-shot attacks. Good AC, plenty of HP, healing support where needed. Throw up a guardian spirits and go tank the enemy. Ouch.

If the rogue (thief) is tier 2, then my experience would suggest the rogue (assassin) is also tier 2. I've seen assassins scouting ahead of the party and single-handedly taking out encounters without bothering to wait for back-up. I don't think they're tier 1, but they're not worse than the thief in my games.

I'm personally disappointed to see the warlock at tier 3, because it's the only class I've played so far (I'm usually the DM). Having said that, I don't feel tier 3. Sure, I took my first level as fighter (and I pity the warlock who doesn't). But I have the highest AC in the party, the most damage, utility spells, familiar, area effects, temp HP gainers... Heck, on a pure numbers basis, there aren't many single-class builds I'd take over my current Fighter 1 / Warlock 4. Sure, if the DM doesn't give me short rests, I don't get my spells back. But who cares? I'm rocking AC 20, with 2d10+2d6+6 force damage (+20' push) per round at massive range. For 1 hour. With proficiency bonus on my Con saves to avoid losing concentration on hex when hit. My invisible imp servant acts on its own initiative count, performing the Help action in combat... or feeding me healing potions... or meat-shielding in extreme cases. I've got misty step to get me out of a tight bind. If I hadn't taken that level of fighter, I'd have worse AC... but I'd have the same fireballs the wizard is rocking. So, yeah... not feeling the tier 3.

Finally, I can't conceive of a world in which the bear totem barbarian is tier 3. I'm DM'ing one at 9th level. Half damage from everything (except the incredibly-rare psychic), for basically the entire adventure. Effective 180+ HP, and any healing applied to the barbarian in combat is basically doubled in value (because he has resist-all-except-psychic). Highest AC in the party. Can't be surprised. Polearm Expert for battlefield control and 4 attacks-per-round (Extra Attack, + Bonus Attack, + Reaction Attack). Climbs / swims / lifts / breaks anything. Virtually unkillable. Tier 2 at a minimum; probably tier 1.

...

But, you know, horses-for-courses. That's just my experience.

I'm assuming single classed and yes adding a fighter level to the warlock fixes a lot of the classes problems and I would kick it up to tier 1 in that even depending on the build.

If I was a little harsh to the assassin and barbarians it is because I do not rate damage as that good along with the barbarians tank ability which may even be more useful. Its not something I would want to ignore but there are more broken things one can do in 5E hence the higher rating on various classes.

Idid also say the difference between a the tiers can be marginal depending on the build a heavily optimised class can probably be bumped up a tier just like a badly built one can go down a tier.

Finally its also just my opinion feel free to disagree with me.

 

[DaveDash]

[D][/D]

Always interested to see someone else's thoughts. The experience at my table would suggest a different ranking for a few, though.

I'd consider lifting the war cleric to tier 1. I've seen a war cleric played through 1st-9th level, and they were extremely potent. The channel divinity and domain powers can really swing a combat, especially tied to potent one-shot attacks. Good AC, plenty of HP, healing support where needed. Throw up a guardian spirits and go tank the enemy. Ouch.

If the rogue (thief) is tier 2, then my experience would suggest the rogue (assassin) is also tier 2. I've seen assassins scouting ahead of the party and single-handedly taking out encounters without bothering to wait for back-up. I don't think they're tier 1, but they're not worse than the thief in my games.

I'm personally disappointed to see the warlock at tier 3, because it's the only class I've played so far (I'm usually the DM). Having said that, I don't feel tier 3. Sure, I took my first level as fighter (and I pity the warlock who doesn't). But I have the highest AC in the party, the most damage, utility spells, familiar, area effects, temp HP gainers... Heck, on a pure numbers basis, there aren't many single-class builds I'd take over my current Fighter 1 / Warlock 4. Sure, if the DM doesn't give me short rests, I don't get my spells back. But who cares? I'm rocking AC 20, with 2d10+2d6+6 force damage (+20' push) per round at massive range. For 1 hour. With proficiency bonus on my Con saves to avoid losing concentration on hex when hit. My invisible imp servant acts on its own initiative count, performing the Help action in combat... or feeding me healing potions... or meat-shielding in extreme cases. I've got misty step to get me out of a tight bind. If I hadn't taken that level of fighter, I'd have worse AC... but I'd have the same fireballs the wizard is rocking. So, yeah... not feeling the tier 3.

Finally, I can't conceive of a world in which the bear totem barbarian is tier 3. I'm DM'ing one at 9th level. Half damage from everything (except the incredibly-rare psychic), for basically the entire adventure. Effective 180+ HP, and any healing applied to the barbarian in combat is basically doubled in value (because he has resist-all-except-psychic). Highest AC in the party. Can't be surprised. Polearm Expert for battlefield control and 4 attacks-per-round (Extra Attack, + Bonus Attack, + Reaction Attack). Climbs / swims / lifts / breaks anything. Virtually unkillable. Tier 2 at a minimum; probably tier 1.

...

But, you know, horses-for-courses. That's just my experience.

I'm playing a War Cleric now, I'm playing a Light Cleric, and I've played a Paladin.

In the tanky role the Paladin is better, and so is the Life Cleric.
In the support role the Paladin is better and so is the Life Cleric.
In the damage role, both the Tempest and Life Cleric see way better. And what's even worse sacred flame outdamages the War Clerics melee attacks for a lot of their lifetime, making them an iffy class to begin with.

You also need to pump Str, Wis, and Con, making you a bit MAD.

If my War Cleric ever dies, I'd probably just come back as a Paladin. In combat healing is pretty rare anyway with most healing being done with healing hit dice. Some of the Cleric debuffs/buffs are nice sure, but being able to smash things for ridiculous damage and grant the entire party bonus to saves are much better.

Edit: Posting from my phone and it drives me nuts. Damage role LIGHT Cleric is better - not life.

 

[Ashrym]

[D][/D]

I'm playing a War Cleric now, I'm playing a Light Cleric, and I've played a Paladin.

In the tanky role the Paladin is better, and so is the Life Cleric.
In the support role the Paladin is better and so is the Life Cleric.
In the damage role, both the Tempest and Life Cleric see way better. And what's even worse sacred flame outdamages the War Clerics melee attacks for a lot of their lifetime, making them an iffy class to begin with.

You also need to pump Str, Wis, and Con, making you a bit MAD.

If my War Cleric ever dies, I'd probably just come back as a Paladin. In combat healing is pretty rare anyway with most healing being done with healing hit dice. Some of the Cleric debuffs/buffs are nice sure, but being able to smash things for ridiculous damage and grant the entire party bonus to saves are much better.

Edit: Posting from my phone and it drives me nuts. Damage role LIGHT Cleric is better - not life.

You can pick up shillelagh by feat or druid MC to help MAD. The channel divinity and avatar of battle abilities are good. It's also easy enough to select a race that helps the listed ability scores like dwarf or half-orc.

 

[DaveDash]

You can pick up shillelagh by feat or druid MC to help MAD. The channel divinity and avatar of battle abilities are good. It's also easy enough to select a race that helps the listed ability scores like dwarf or half-orc.

I'm playing Dwarf.

You really need your feat slot for resilient CON.

War Clerics are not terrible, but the Light Cleric I've played felt way more awesome and synergised better. Better damage, better bonus action economy (Clerics have a very busy bonus action), better channel divinity, better wisdom based ability, less MAD.

If I wanted a divine frontline fighter I'd take the Paladin, Tempest or even Life Cleric over the war cleric, and that's why they're all tier 1, and the War Cleric is not.

My ideal party would actually look something like this:

Fighter/Warlock.
Lore Bard/Life Cleric 1.
Wizard (Abjurer or transmuter probably).
Paladin.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You under estimate the value of the Monk of the Shadow Way, at will teleportation, at will invisblity, as well as all kind of Monk movement/stealth moves make the Shadow Monk THE BEST scout in the game bar none, not even the rogue can compare. Best Assassin too.

See an enemy, hopefully you cast darkness on your skrinken/dart before hand and you throw it at your enemy, he's now in Darkness even if you missed, teleport right behind him using your bonus action, use you second attack with advantage and stunning strike and now you've stunned your target and can kill him at your leisure. Alternately if there's already a shadow behind him approach invisibly, cast Silence on him, teleport, strike him and nail him with stunning strike.

I love Shadow Monks and agree that they're crazy fun and excellent scouts--but if you've got Darkness pre-cast on your dart, how are you seeing an enemy?

I've found that Shadow Monk scout + Necromancer-provided artillery squad (ten or so skeleton archers) is very dangerous in the dark. The shadow monk locates the enemy and then "paints" the target with a torch, which gives all the skeletons in range advantage to hit the target. With luck you can arrange to get a surprise round too, if the monk can alert the Necromancer somehow (e.g. Message cantrip) that there's bad guys incoming/ahead. You still need a ranged option and a tank to fill the party out, but the Shadow Monk and Necromancer between them pretty well cover fighting in the dark. The Shadow Monk also gets to do cool things like fight inside of a Stinking Cloud with no penalty at level 10, as do the skeletons. (And don't forget to up-armor your skeletons with scale mail and crossbows/longbows!)

It's interesting to me that I thoroughly disagree with most of the arguments in the OP of this thread. It shows that 5E is a well-designed game which effectively appeals to different sorts of people in very different ways, depending on what type of game is being run.

 

[Pickles III]

Point is, I don't think there's really any point assigning tiers to classes. No matter what you do, they're not going to make sense. My girlfriend is about to play a wild mage. She's super excited. At no point would I look at her and say "meh, that's a tier three build you've got there". What's the point? I'd much rather say "Hey, that sounds like fun! Can't wait to see her in play!"

You are pretty much doing that now. The OP is playing his game of fitting classes into tiers & you are telling him it is a waste of time.

I don't really have a handle on class power levels except that they are pretty close at the low levels I have played at.

I also think OP seriously miss understands Barbarians - they do not do very much damage (well the same as a fighter) but they are extremely hard to take down.

 

[Celtavian]

I've played an Arcane Trickster Rogue. I don't see why it is rated lower than the Thief. Rogue seems a solid tier 2 class, especially the Arcane Trickster. I'll explain why from my experience:

1. Minor Illusion is amazing for scouting. With an extremely high Stealth skill and minor illusion, you can hide almost anywhere.

2. Rogue is a great switch hitter. Being Dex-based means you are equally adept at ranged and melee combat.

3. Shield spell with Uncanny Dodge allows you to melee tank a little bit. You can get your AC to 17 base with a shield spell 22. If some big, heavy damage creature does hit you, you can halve the damage with your reaction no matter what type of attack or attack roll.

4. You automatically take half-damage from AoE dex attacks (the vast majority of AoE Attacks). If you save you take none. This has been great when fighting casters and breath weapon creatures.

5. Once you reach 13th level, you get haste. I use the extra action from haste to ready for an attack giving me the ability to deliver two Sneak Attacks per round.

5. I was amazing in the exploration pillar. Very little can detect a rogue before the rogue detects them. He can advance scout better than any class in the game except a bard using Stealth. He can do a better job removing sentries than the bard.

6. Cunning Action makes rogues amazing at moving in and out of battle, chasing down enemies, or hide kiting while invisible. Once you get greater invisibility, you can kill a room full of fairly strong creatures quickly and with minimal danger to you Hiding and moving every round requiring they figure out where you are. You can do this with ranged or melee attacks (much easier with ranged obviously).

7. You can protect yourself quite effectively with Cunning Action moving in and out of combat giving another martial an extra attack if the enemy chooses to follow you. You can also move in and out areas sealed off with a flaming sphere or similar magic that does damage at the end of your turn without provoking AoOs allowing you to continue to do damage regardless of how the flaming sphere is positioned.

I feel like the Arcane Trickster Rogue brings a lot to the table and is at least the equal of the Thief. I found it to be a very powerful class with versatile capabilities. I can't quite claim Tier 1 due to a lack of party buffing capabilities. Arcane Trickster is definitely Tier 2. You'll have fun playing the class and won't feel overshadowed at all by the other party members. It's one of the few classes I've found that can operate solo against fairly powerful creatures that don't have Truesight killing them without needing much party involvement.

I can't disagree with the ranking for a trickery cleric at the moment. I do think the trickery spell list is one of the best of all the domains, if not the best. Invoke Duplicity is a pretty cool ability.

 

[Kobold Stew]

For the most part I agree with you, but:

* The rogue is SO not low tier. She's the only one who gets expertise as an ability, which means her skills are hugely high for low levels (+8 at first level!).

Bards also get Expertise (a bit later, admittedly), and can add half their proficiency to untried skill rolls; knowledge clerics get double proficiency for two knowledge skills and can channel divinity for when it's needed. Rogues do not hold the skill-monkey niche the way they did in 3.x: The bard is better for this. (I agree with you on the rogue's damage, though).

The only skill-based ability rogues get is the ability to apply expertise to Thieves' tools. Everything else, by level 3, is a wash.

 

[Mephista]

You are pretty much doing that now. The OP is playing his game of fitting classes into tiers & you are telling him it is a waste of time.

That's because it IS a waste of time. In some cases there's a clear issue, but other times? I find that Arcane Trickster is far and away better than the Thief as a subclass. Its laughable that we can try and claim one thing or another when so much depends on how the GM runs things now. Skills are more important than spells in a lot of games, while other games tend to let spellcasters get away with a lot.

I think that there is an issue with some of the spell-and-sword sub/classes that never got ironed out right, other than the Paladin and Arcane Trickster, making it better to be either a full martial character, or a full spellcaster instead of hybrid*. The Help action mostly replaces the need for buffing spells with skill checks in a lot of cases, with only a handful of spells that do better.

The tier system was originally developed when we had some classes that were clearly superior to others. Cleric could AoE and utility as well as the wizard and the druid. The rogue and fighters, meanwhile, were left in the dust with their meager, non-magic skills not keeping up with their magical counterparts, where low level spells replaced the need for skill checks, and spells made swords redundant.

In 5e, great pains were taken so that you couldn't replace a skill with a spell. There was need for STR and DEX checks that a wizard couldn't literally hand wave away. A Land Druid, Diviner Wizard, Life Cleric, and Red Dragon Sorcerer party simply can't cover the same situations that a Fighter or Barbarian fill in. One class isn't superior to the other, because all of them have different niches they cover that's necessary. So, the tier system flat out doesn't work that way.

There are some builds that are better than others, yes. But ranking classes is doomed to failure because the needs of the game are so different.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I think it can be agreed that the only outright bad subclass is the Beast Master Ranger. Frankly, I'd give it its own Tier 4, garbage tier.

Other classes or subclasses thought of as a bit on the low-powered side can still do at least one or two things very well and can make themselves useful. And Bladelocks have their issues but, unlike the Beast Master, can still be effective if built right.