Dungeons and Dragons (5th Edition) Class Tier List – 2019

clearstream

Explorer
Well, you are wrong, in terms of math. You are welcome to your preferences, but math is objective. WotC will never design an Exta Attack Rogue, because it is out of whack with the math of the game.
I'm not sure about that. Are we counting in feats? If so, and assuming the SA limit to one per turn stays the same, then Extra Attack doubles the chance of SA applying (which can be managed in other ways, e.g. on your reaction). Kind of like having advantage. And adds in a fraction of your weapon + modifier damage dice. The power-attack feats are stronger.

I think of those feats as the envelope: the edge for sustainable one-target damage is Reckless GWM or equivalent. I'm pretty sure Rogue is within that, even with Extra Attack.
 

Parmandur

Legend
I'm not sure about that. Are we counting in feats? If so, and assuming the SA limit to one per turn stays the same, then Extra Attack doubles the chance of SA applying (which can be managed in other ways, e.g. on your reaction). Kind of like having advantage. And adds in a fraction of your weapon + modifier damage dice. The power-attack feats are stronger.

I think of those feats as the envelope: the edge for sustainable one-target damage is Reckless GWM or equivalent. I'm pretty sure Rogue is within that, even with Extra Attack.
No, Feats aren't assumed in the game: I never see them used, personally.

Over the course of an adventure day, the difference adds up.
 

Gladius Legis

Explorer
I think of those feats as the envelope: the edge for sustainable one-target damage is Reckless GWM or equivalent. I'm pretty sure Rogue is within that, even with Extra Attack.
The issue there, being, that the Fighter or Barbarian has to spend a feat (re: optional rule) to get that kind of damage. A theoretical Rogue with Extra Attack wouldn't.

Aside from that it's also out of whack with Rogue expectations. Rogues aren't supposed to be the damage kings in this edition. Fighters are.
 

Parmandur

Legend
The issue there, being, that the Fighter or Barbarian has to spend a feat (re: optional rule) to get that kind of damage. A theoretical Rogue with Extra Attack wouldn't.

Aside from that it's also out of whack with Rogue expectations. Rogues aren't supposed to be the damage kings in this edition. Fighters are.
There is also zero trade-off: it's simply a massive upgrade in DPS, with no resource limitations or losses elsewhere.

Rogues are damage kings already: that's why making one Subclass the damage King of Kings would be problematic.
 

clearstream

Explorer
No, Feats aren't assumed in the game: I never see them used, personally.
Yup, if not using feats then Rogue damage is comparably much stronger. My group always use feats so Extra Attack for Rogue might not be over the top in that context. I'm not at all saying feats should be assumed.

There is also zero trade-off: it's simply a massive upgrade in DPS, with no resource limitations or losses elsewhere.
It might make sense for Extra Attack for Rogue to come at some cost. That is a separate claim from the maths claim, which potentially depends on whether a table is/is not using feats.
 

bedir than

Explorer
Because Extra Attack would be blatantly overpowered on a Rogue.
I have a rogue homebrew that adds Extra Attack at 9th level, but we have yet to play the first character to that level. I have contemplated flipping the 13th level ability to push the power creep later in the build.

It was the first homebrew I did and now it looks OP
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
LOL all I can say is experiences differ. Bards are a pretty weak class IME and would need some changes to make them really good. First, I would remove the bardic inspiration crap... what a colossal waste IMO. It is their primary feature really, and well just about useless.
It’s one of the best class features in the game.
Thanks, giving examples of actual play is helpful. Still, nothing you've said really seems like it would make a big difference in the long run. The dragon example is perhaps the most compelling, but unless you have tons of inspiration to dole out, it seems more luck than anything that a character happens to have it at the right time.

Also, we don't tend to max out ability scores so the bards we've had are sitting on CHA of 14 or 16 at best, and once with only a 13. Since bardic inspiration is tied to CHA modifier, maybe the bigger issue is I just haven't seen it in use enough to make it seem worthwhile?
I mean, if you aren’t even going to make your Bard have a high score in their primary stat...yeah, they aren’t going to perform as well. Good luck even getting spells to stick.
 

PsyzhranV2

Explorer
LOL all I can say is experiences differ. Bards are a pretty weak class IME and would need some changes to make them really good. First, I would remove the bardic inspiration crap... what a colossal waste IMO. It is their primary feature really, and well just about useless.
Are you high? Cutting Words, Mantle of Inspiration my dude.

Sometimes I think you're tweaking when you do your questionable class analyses.
 

ad_hoc

Adventurer
One of my players has been playing a bard for going on three years, and Bardic Inspiration has saved the party's ass on many occasions. However, I will state that Valor bard is kind of suck. That's why there's the College of Swords now!
I think Valour is the strongest Bard subclass.

Swords is flashy but their inspiration uses are ultimately weaker than standard. Valour gives 1 good alternative use but more importantly has much higher AC.

Their extra attack is also good to make up for a lack of combat cantrips as Mockery is situational.
 

Parmandur

Legend
I think Valour is the strongest Bard subclass.

Swords is flashy but their inspiration uses are ultimately weaker than standard. Valour gives 1 good alternative use but more importantly has much higher AC.

Their extra attack is also good to make up for a lack of combat cantrips as Mockery is situational.
They are both solid Fishes. The Blade Bards cool thing is that their weapon is their Arcane Focus, which helps with material components in combat. With a Longsword and no shield...lots of Gishy Shennanigans to be had.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
So, every math analysis I’ve seen that compares rogues and Fighters with feats turned on, for some reason doesn’t increase the number of SA per encounter the Rogue can get by having Sentinel and/or Mage Slayer, and I find that odd.

Rogues getting new ways to trigger Reaction attacks can easily add 2-3 SA attacks per 5 rounds of combat.

Skulker can make stealth so reliable that rogues nearly always have Advantage, regardless of the rest of the party, for the ranger rogues.

Magic Initiate with Booming Blade on a Swashbuckler is extremely effective at getting that extra thunder damage from the target moving. IME, often nearly every round.

All on a character that can be built to be next to impossible to deal serious damage to, or pin down, or get away from, and is absurdly good at skill use.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
I think Valour is the strongest Bard subclass.

Swords is flashy but their inspiration uses are ultimately weaker than standard. Valour gives 1 good alternative use but more importantly has much higher AC.

Their extra attack is also good to make up for a lack of combat cantrips as Mockery is situational.
I wasn't so keen on the swords bard until I saw one played. I am playing a tanky paladin with plate and shield, but she regularly out-ACs me. But to be fair the adventures we've been running allow a lot of short rests, so she usually has all four (18 CHR) of her uses for any particular combat. If we had less short rests and it had to get spread more, it might not be as good.
 
Last edited:

Mort

Community Supporter
I wasn't so keep on the swords bard until I saw one played. I am playing a tanky paladin with plate and shield, but she regularly out-ACs me. But to be fair the adventures we've been running allow a lot of short rests, so she usually has all four (18 CHR) of her uses for any particular combat. If we had less short rests and it had to get spread more, it might not be as good.
The swords bard in my game is similar. AC 16 but doesn't get hit often (of course he also keeps close to the BM fighter with protection style).

One thing I have noticed with the swords bard. He uses inspiration for offense and defense a lot; doesn't have quite as much left for the rest of the group.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
The swords bard in my game is similar. AC 16 but doesn't get hit often (of course he also keeps close to the BM fighter with protection style).

One thing I have noticed with the swords bard. He uses inspiration for offense and defense a lot; doesn't have quite as much left for the rest of the group.
Agreed. Same thing here - our Swords Bard is a lot greedier in their Bardic Inspiration. Less support, more direct action.

Which I think is an interesting take, a bit deviant to the other bards and in a hybrid niche.

I'm currently playing a Glamour Bard in a different game. He's all support. Except for that one time at band camp, er no, that one time someone tried to feed him poisoned food. He's a halfling with a "Hospitality is sacred" trait, and we literally hit 7th level at the end of last session. So he pulled out his new Polymorph spell, turned himself into a giant ape and taught our traitorous host some manners. Other than that, he's always been support. Even that polymorph is usually used on party members with low HPs.
 
The Class Tier lists that developed around 3e and PF1 mostly involved showing the class balance impact of full casting, prepared casting, and versatility to different encounters
Different problems, combat or otherwise, yes. The first two 3.5 Tiers prettymuch were by casting method: higher day-to-day versatility of prepped casting edging out the higher round-to-round versatility of spontaneous. Third Tier was, IMHO, more where class designs should have been aimed: good versatility, but not always dominant - a party of different Tier 3 classes could potentially all participate meaningfully, most of the time, not just swing a spotlight around. Tier 4 were too-narrow(suitable for spotlight-balance), but not deficient, 5 deficient, and 6 reserved for mechanically-borked class designs - again, to simplify.

The OP's look nothing like that, rather they read like a newb's guide to picking a fun first class while they learn the game - and an over-enthusiastic one, at that.

Since 5e neo-Vancian combines The versatility of prepped & spontaneous casting, it virtually re-defines Tier 1, while leaving it to the same classic classes. Tier 2 obviously belongs to the remaining (spontaneous or 'known') full casters. Tier 3 to fractional casters. And, unless you count unfortunate non-casting sub-classes, thats about it.
Relative to 3.5 a rising tide that's floated all boats - and miraculously raised some sunken ones, too.
 
Last edited:

Sword of Spirit

Adventurer
What bothers me about Valor Bard is that Lore Bard can get green-flame blade at 6th level and deal more melee damage than Valor for the next 4 to 8 levels (depending on when Valor Bard decides to pick up green-flame blade themselves, thereby improving their life but virtually eliminating their future usage of Extra Attack), while only needing Cha and Dex. Valor Bard additionally needs Str to wield a two-hander (sacrificing a shield) to get the most out of their damage.

Before someone says the problem is with *green-flame blade"--I understand why you would say that, but I think it needs to exist as an option in the game (for Lore Bard as well as others). Maybe Valor just needs a combat style like Swords.
 
Last edited:

ad_hoc

Adventurer
Before someone says the problem is with *green-flame blade"--I understand why you would say that, but I think it needs to exist as an option in the game (for Lore Bard as well as others). Maybe Valor just needs a combat style like Swords.
I disagree. The game was just fine before it. Getting a cantrip costs less than getting the extra attack feature. Lore Bard doesn't need it. They can take a different attack cantrip at 6th if they want, like other casters.

That being said, Valour is still better. It's not the extra attack that is the highlight. It's medium armour and shield. That AC bump is huge. Combat Inspiration is also strong. Cutting Words is good, but so is the base use of inspiration and Combat Inspiration makes it better.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
I disagree. The game was just fine before it. Getting a cantrip costs less than getting the extra attack feature. Lore Bard doesn't need it. They can take a different attack cantrip at 6th if they want, like other casters.

That being said, Valour is still better. It's not the extra attack that is the highlight. It's medium armour and shield. That AC bump is huge. Combat Inspiration is also strong. Cutting Words is good, but so is the base use of inspiration and Combat Inspiration makes it better.
AC bump really only matters if you plan on being on the front lines.

Valor bard us really only good with high rolled stats something like 16,16,14,14 or higher as your best 4 stats.

It's not the only class that has that problem. Clerics are in a similar boat unless you go pure caster.

It's why the hexblade exists as well. Reduced MAD.
 

Advertisement

Top