D&D 5E Classes Rated By Tier

[Ashrym]

One drawback that was somewhat turning me off to the class was the lack of magic attack capability. A lot of high level creatures have resistance to physical damage. That puts a huge damper on Beastmaster Damage. If they had added a means for the companion to bypass this type of resistance at higher level, the archetype would be better balanced.

You have 2 options when that happens. The damage is still 2d4+2+proficiency bonus when it's been cut in half from 2 attacks and the free prone attacks still apply to provide the party with advantage from melee attacks and possibly a net gain from situational accuracy bonuses plus wolf damage. The other option, when that isn't workable, is to keep the attack for yourself and use the bonus action for the wolf to use the help action to give advantage on an attack.

Either way, I think the wolf proficiencies that add your proficency bonus as a ranger plus the bonus action help option are worth the choice. The +5 passive perception the wolf ends up getting for advantage related to sound and smell gives a passive perception of 22 at the top end and respectable to avoid ambush. It's up there with rogues and bards using expertise unless they also invest in WIS. With proficiency in stealth and pass without trace and a group check (if your DM goes for it but it is applicable RAW) in your group of 2 helping each other it only takes one to make the check for both to succeed so the duo masters stealth and detection.

Hunters have some combat benefit but the help and skill choices are a reasonable tradeoff.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Eh... honestly the tier definitions here are incredibly subjective, moreso than the old 3.x tiers. And realistically we're talking about differences in power level that are easily within one or two tiers from the 3.x tier system.

Except the old tier system was more about versatility than power.

Look at the first three 3.x tiers. The first can basically own virtually anything with relatively short notice. Tier 2 can do the same - but needs a much longer lead time, at least a level-up, if not chargen. Tier 3 is closer to 'balanced,' and simply can't pwn everything, but can contribute most of the time. It goes down from there.

In 3.x, that (very roughly) broke down to Tier-1 being prepped full casters, Tier 2 being spontaneous full casters, and Tier 3 and lower being everyone else.

There's still quite the range of versatility in 5e. You have neo-Vancian casters who combine the versatility of 3.x prepped & spontaneous casting as Tier-1 candidates, other full casters as candidates for Tier 2, and then how the few non-casters shake out is debateable, if not terribly important (whether DPR, alone, can claw you up to Tier 3, for instance). The range of versatility still goes from Wizard/Cleric/Druid at one end, down to Champion Fighter at the other, though the distribution is probably clustered more towards the top, since there are only 5 'mundane' character options out of 38....

Simply put, there isn't enough diversity of crunch to make a diversity of class power.

Put that way, I can agree. The Tiers are held up as an example of how whacked-crazy-broken 3.x was, but it was really the bloat and the crazy optimized builds that made it so broken. The Tiers, though, were valid even PH1-only, since they were about each class as a whole, not individual builds.

Pretty much everything else, though, boils down to play style, campaign style, and thinking on your feet.

The 5e community has so far avoided the RAW and build-obsessions of 3.x, so sure, variations from table to table are potentially great. That still doesn't invalidate the concept of Tiers, though, as higher Tier classes will give you more to work with in dealing with that range of variation - not as much as being able to read/game your DM, of course, but more than a lower Tier class.

 

[AldarinWindcaster]

This is actually a surprisingly accurate tier list. I might place Hunter just a bit higher on Tier 1--unless your tier is organizational, and places within tiers don't matter. My reason for this--uncanny dodge, steel will, closes slayer. Just saying.

 

[liriana]

All of the classes are good enough to make this a pointless, or at least overly subjective exercise.

Well with the Ranger Beastmaster as an exception, that class is just bad. Better I think if you make it a bonus action to have the animal companion attack. but that might might be too much

 

[leonardoraele]

I use a one-tier system instead. I currently have placed all 5e classes into it. ;-)

This

 

[Flamestrike]

Barbarians tier 3? Not a chance in hell. Those puppies rock!

Also, the OP should be clear that his ratings dont reflect a 6-8 encounter/ 2 short rest adventuring day. The classes balance at this point.

 

[famousringo]

Well with the Ranger Beastmaster as an exception, that class is just bad. Better I think if you make it a bonus action to have the animal companion attack. but that might might be too much

Beastmaster damage is fine. It doesn't scale as effectively with feats and buffs as other classes, but a giant venomous snake at level 11 can has two attacks at +8 to hit that deal average 10.5 piercing plus 5.25 poison damage (more on a failed save), plus a ranger attack. Compare that to a greatsword fighter that does 13 average damage with +9 attack, excluding feats, superiority, etc.

Not bad, eh? Other pets do less damage, but offer nice battlefield control like prone and auto-grapples.

The problem is survivability. The snake above with Mage Armor has a respectable 21 AC, but crap saves and hit points like a wizard with 10 CON. One solid AoE can wipe out half the beastmaster's class features. There are build options that can help, but building your character around keeping your pet alive is somewhat less inspiring than building the ultimate warrior, a master beguiler, etc.

An easy fix would be ranger spells that specifically buff pet defense. But instead Beast Bond buffs offense. *shrug*

 

[Flamestrike]

The problem is survivability. The snake above with Mage Armor has a respectable 21 AC

No, it doesnt.

 

[famousringo]

No, it doesnt.

13 Mage Armor, +4 DEX, +4 proficiency. Tell me where I'm wrong.

 

[Flamestrike]

13 Mage Armor, +4 DEX, +4 proficiency. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Mage armor gives you an alternative method of calculating your AC. You pick one (the ranger companion method of base AC + Proff) or the other (mage armor 13 + dex).

Its like putting plate barding on your beast. It gets either the worn armor, or the ranger bonus not both.

Incidentally, how is the critter getting mage armor?