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

[clearstream]

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.

 

[clearstream]

Maths (not mine) DPR of Classes

 

[Parmandur]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.