D&D 5E Classes Rated By Tier

[Ashrym]

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.

Light clerics don't have the AC without further investment and adding the light cantrip for free isn't really a winner. The domain spells could be worse but direct damage spells don't keep up with hit points. The domain ability doesn't do a lot of damage either. The big draw there is flare and it's a defensive ability.

The +10 to war domain abilities are also on a reaction and offensive so a high damage hit doesn't miss, but admittedly it's a key moment ability more than big damage. The weapon options do more damage than the cantrips for the light cleric so better blasting doesn't seem like much.

War domain spends a feat on magic initiate, 2 on WIS, one on CON resilience, and one on heavy armor master, and runs a high AC build with staff'n'shield plus avatar of battle for defense over offense while relying largely on spirit guardians and spiritual hammer for solid damage. It's similar to other clerics but more survivability and less likely to lose concentration because of the avatar ability. The alternative is to skip Heavy armor master and the magic initiate feat for STR at a defensive cost and run higher at-will damage than the light cleric.

 

[Ashrym]

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.

I completely disagree.

The skill options available among the beasts is an improvement that brings them closer to other skill classes, hunter's mark isn't necessarily maintainable or better than using the same slot on another spell, total hit points between the ranger and the companion is significantly more than just a hunter and would need to be dealt with, and some appropriate beasts have decent combat in exchange for the lost ranger attack.

It's just like the blade pact warlock in that it needs to be built appropriately.

 

[DaveDash]

Light clerics don't have the AC without further investment and adding the light cantrip for free isn't really a winner. The domain spells could be worse but direct damage spells don't keep up with hit points. The domain ability doesn't do a lot of damage either. The big draw there is flare and it's a defensive ability.

The +10 to war domain abilities are also on a reaction and offensive so a high damage hit doesn't miss, but admittedly it's a key moment ability more than big damage. The weapon options do more damage than the cantrips for the light cleric so better blasting doesn't seem like much.

War domain spends a feat on magic initiate, 2 on WIS, one on CON resilience, and one on heavy armor master, and runs a high AC build with staff'n'shield plus avatar of battle for defense over offense while relying largely on spirit guardians and spiritual hammer for solid damage. It's similar to other clerics but more survivability and less likely to lose concentration because of the avatar ability. The alternative is to skip Heavy armor master and the magic initiate feat for STR at a defensive cost and run higher at-will damage than the light cleric.

That's all well on good... on paper. But it doesn't match up with my experience playing both classes.

As a damage dealing Cleric, I can tell you with certainty that the Light Cleric is a vastly superior option.

As a support Cleric, Life is better.

As a tank, Paladin is better.

Tempest can fill all those rolls better.

The inherent flaws I've noticed with the War Cleric still stand. You still are more MAD, and taking fests to get around that is NOT a solution, because you're down a very valuable feat slot already.

Your sacred flame ends up doing as much damage (more for many levels) as your melee attack, mskong the whole premise of the class shakey. And you have to consume your bonus action to maximise your potential, which is very bad for a Cleric, since it conflicts with spells like Spiritual Weapon.

 

[vandaexpress]

Yeah. Tier system doesn't really make sense anymore. You can do it, but it's not as meaningful as it once was. Exception being Beastmaster, which I agree is bottom tier or whatever you want to call it, unless I'm missing something.

Whenever I see these lists, I'm always like "Hm. Interesting. Okay, yeah. I agree with that... and that... and... wait, WTF? Why did he rank this class this way? That class is awesome? What kind of game is this bozo playing anyhow? If he ranks this class that badly, then why should I grant credibility to his other rankings!? This guy must not know what he's doing!"

Anyway, as others have mentioned, I think its a testament to the game design that everyone has such varied opinions on this. Speaking of opinions... here are my thoughts on the list:


Barbarians are tier 2, easily. It used to be that the only decent chance I had of taking the party barb out was if I surprised him before he raged, now I can't even do that. He still goes down in many fights, but that's because he's absorbing an inordinate amount of damage. Eagle sight or whatever makes him the best daylight scout in the game for the group. Dodges spells, advantage on initiative, faster move speed, high strength allows him to jump like a crazy person, with the bear thing you literally cannot put this guy down without dealing a ton of damage, advantage on grapple type checks when raging... I've never considered the barbarian as being a one-trick moar damage pony. In the group I run, that's not his role at all. He plays an instrumental role in the combat pillar by taking all of the damages. All of them. He doesn't need a paladin aura to take half damage from most spells... because he's already taking half damage when raging. Then he helps in the exploration pillar by breaking stuff and using athletics to do stuff, plus his eagle eye 1-mile vision thing, and in social well, I admit he's not too useful in the social pillar except for intimidation checks when I allow strength as the core ability and he rages. Still, I cannot fathom him as a tier 3 class... at all. Like, I disagree with many of these rankings, but this was the entry for me that made me go ballistic on this list.

And for reasons Celtavian already mentioned, I have an incredibly hard time putting Arcane Trickster at tier 3. No way. A rogue with illusions is so incredibly versatile, mix in cunning action and sneak attack, I don't know man. I have a really hard time imagining, say... a champion being more useful in more pillars of the game more of the time than an Arcane trickster. It doesn't even take a genius to see the potential here. I mean... invisibility spells on a rogue that can hide as a bonus action and sneak attack... it's not rocket science. Social pillar? Dude... you're a ROGUE with all the skills and illusions. Exploration pillar? Dude... You're a ROGUE with all the skills, stealth, and illusions. I just don't see how this guy isn't at least tier 2, tier 1 in the hands of a skilled player. Skills plus spells plus burst damage does not equal tier 3 in my book.

 

[Mephista]

I agree that Beast Master Ranger, Blade'locks, and Elemental Monk should be considered the "low tier" in terms of power. There is something fundamentally wrong with the mechanics of those subclasses. I haven't played clerics yet (doesn't interest me), so I can't comment about them being MAD or poor in melee. I do feel that something is off with Ranger class as a whole, and the Chain Warlock as well (plays too much like Book, but with less goodies), but there are good builds with them.

I think that the Eld. Knight and Skald are boring and should be revisited for more interesting mechanics, even if they are mechanically balanced with other classes. I think the Sorcerer has spell list problems and too few power points to play with over the course of the day. Nothing about these classes make them really weaker or less flexible than other classes, but I just don't feel they're thematically appropriate.

All in all, the balance is pretty close for everything. I have only three subclasses I really think need to be addressed, and a few things I think I would like to see tweaked, but are currently not objectively worse than any one else.

Even in 3e, when we had these tiers, the wizard, cleric, and druid were all top tier, even if druid or cleric were considered "better" than the wizard. So, each level has minor variations in it. With that in mind, I think we can say we have only two tiers - Beastmaster, Blade'locks, and Elemental monks on the bottom, and everything else on the top.

 

[DaveDash]

The thing is in 5e there are classes which are better than others, but the difference is small. No ones going to kick you out of the party for being a beast master ranger, for example. You're still useful - I've seen beast master rangers in play and they're not dragging the party down, that's for sure.

I think the War Cleric sucks compared to other Clerics, but the different really is fairly marginal.

There are a few I'd rank at the top of the pile (Paladin, Bard) and a few I'd rank at the bottom of the pile (Sorcerer), but the pile is still pretty thin.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Surprised to see a half-caster and sorcerer in Tier 1 if the Druid and any Wizard is excluded from it.

You must be valuing DPR pretty highly as a component of 'overall' effectiveness if the non-EK fighters are anywhere but the bottom of the ranking.

I also can't imagine how you can think the barbarian is a re-hash of 3e/4e Barbarian - mainly because I can't see how you could lump the two together to make the comparison in the first place.

 

[Grakarg]

Interesting list. I don't agree on all counts but I do on some for sure.

I notice that you included Favored Soul and Storm Sorc on the list from the Unearthed Arcana.

If you're doing that you might as well go whole hog and include the other options like the spell-less ranger and artificer.

While I have no opinion on the spell-less ranger, I'd definately rate the artificer as Tier 3, and well below all the other wizard options.

The defining traits of the subclass (item creation) are all outgrown by treasure acquisition. It seems utterly pointless to me to give the class an ability (temporarily create a +1 magic weapon for example) at a level where most, if not all, of the artificer's party members will likely have access to magic weapons.

 

[Ashrym]

That's all well on good... on paper. But it doesn't match up with my experience playing both classes.

As a damage dealing Cleric, I can tell you with certainty that the Light Cleric is a vastly superior option.

As a support Cleric, Life is better.

As a tank, Paladin is better.

Tempest can fill all those rolls better.

The inherent flaws I've noticed with the War Cleric still stand. You still are more MAD, and taking fests to get around that is NOT a solution, because you're down a very valuable feat slot already.

Your sacred flame ends up doing as much damage (more for many levels) as your melee attack, mskong the whole premise of the class shakey. And you have to consume your bonus action to maximise your potential, which is very bad for a Cleric, since it conflicts with spells like Spiritual Weapon.

Sacred flame does 4d8+5 on a light cleric. A great sword does 2d6+2d8+5 with various bonuses available to weapons that don't apply to sacred flame.

You telling me with certainty that a light cleric is a vastly superior option doesn't make you correct.

 

[DaveDash]

Sacred flame does 4d8+5 on a light cleric. A great sword does 2d6+2d8+5 with various bonuses available to weapons that don't apply to sacred flame.

You telling me with certainty that a light cleric is a vastly superior option doesn't make you correct.

Again you're looking at maths and not actual play experience. You're simply theory crafting, which is what I suspected all along.

1. AC scales with CR, Dex doesn't. And in fact, dex is generally the most inferior saving throw most monsters have in the book. Sacred Flame ends up hitting far more often.
2. The damage from sacred flame is resisted by basically nothing the players will ever fight. Can't say the same for a Greatsword.
3. If you want to use a Greatsword, you're sacrificing AC. It's also arguably by RAW you're going to have issues casting spells due to VSM constraints, no such worries with Sacred Flame. If you want to use a shield, your damage is inferior through-out half of your career, I've mapped this all out in a spreadsheet.
4. You're also assuming 20 strength, what has the War Cleric given up to get that 20 strength? He needs STR, DEX, and CON. My light cleric gives up nothing to get 20 wisdom. The synergy here is MUCH better.
5. As a Light Cleric, I can attack every round because I am a ranged spell caster. I can then hide behind full cover. As a melee combatant, the War Cleric has to run up and engage enemies, and is more subject to damage and losing spells due to concentration mechanic. As a consequence of this, as a Light Cleric I don't need to worry about Resilient (CON) as much and can easily take something like Elemental Adept to complement my damage powers more (which in fact what my Light Cleric did).
6. I have a much freeer bonus action economy, meaning I'm much more flexible to use Spiritual Weapon when and how I want. Also, my Spiritual Weapon is likely +5, whereas if you're a 20 Str War Cleric, you will have made big sacrifices somewhere to get +5 wisdom.

Dude, I'm playing both classes right now in campaigns. I've tinkered with builds for both classes for hours. I've tested these builds in combat.