D&D 5E Might&Magic: the linear fighter and the exponential wizard

[Garthanos]

Its not Fighters that are shortchanged by Wizards it's Rogues. Rogues are suppose to be the skill monkeys but why bother when a magic user can pull out a spell to do the same thing.

Originally people complained when the thief came out it deprived the fighting man

 

[ccs]

None of those modules have that much encounters per day. I have run Curse of Strahd multiple times for instance, and outside the castle, you're hardly at risk of running more than three or four encounters in a day.

Oh, so now there's some minimum (greater than 1) of how many 6-8 encounter adventuring days a module covers?
Look, you're the one that said x doesn't exist (that you knew of). I gave you 3 examples where x does exist. You should've feigned ignorance rather than shift your goalposts.

 

[Parmandur]

Oh, so now there's some minimum (greater than 1) of how many 6-8 encounter adventuring days a module covers?
Look, you're the one that said x doesn't exist (that you knew of). I gave you 3 examples where x does exist. You should've feigned ignorance rather than shift your goalposts.

Sky Kings Thunder has, what, maybe seven or eight 6-8 encounter day dungeons, and the end of Tomb of Annhilation is a major resource stretch, as well.

 

[Shiroiken]

... what do you mean by tier then? I am not sure you are using the term how it was defined in the 3.x/PF era...

Just because less people are playing the wizard in your group(s) doesn't mean that the sorcerer is better.

Common =/= high tier.

IME, common usually equals high tier. Occasionally someone will play something odd, but most players tend towards the better classes. Wizards just aren't one of the better classes, while Paladin, Barbarian, and Sorcerer are. I could make an argument about Bard, but I don't think it's as good as many in my group feel. Ranger is an oddity, because occasionally someone will try to make it work, despite being the worst class in the game. Monk and Warlock don't see much play in my group either, but that is mostly due to our play style (we generally use max 1 short rest per day, due to the time constraints).

IMO:
Tier 1 (best): Paladin, Barbarian, Sorcerer
Tier 2: Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Warlock
Tier 3: Druid, Monk, Rogue, Wizard
Tier 4 (worst): Ranger

If I was forced to slide things down to even the ranks out, I'd drop Barbarian, Warlock, and Monk. That would remove the only non-caster from Tier 1, but Paladin isn't much of a caster anyway (since spell slots are almost always reserved for smiting).

 

[DreamsAndPixies]

Oh, so now there's some minimum (greater than 1) of how many 6-8 encounter adventuring days a module covers?
Look, you're the one that said x doesn't exist (that you knew of). I gave you 3 examples where x does exist. You should've feigned ignorance rather than shift your goalposts.

There is no need for being so aggressive, we can hold a civil conversation I hope.

When people talk about THE 6-8 encounter adventuring day, they're not talking about having a 6-8 encounter adventuring day once in 10 or 20 adventuring day.
But (almost) every adventuring day.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Wizards. Fighters. What about dem paladins!

 

[Bitbrain]

Reply to OP.
Maybe Spellcasters are more versatile than martial characters, but I would argue that the more versatile Spellcasting classes work best, and more importantly, are remembered, as support characters.

The favorite memory that my old group had of my old Sorcerer was not the innumerable fireballs or wall of fires I dropped.
No. It was when A) I counterspelled a death knight's destructive wave, and the DM was reduced to hysterical laughter, and B) when I quickened polymorphed myself into a giant ape and then threw the barbarian like a baseball at the Balor demon we were fighting.

My favorite memory of me and my dad's homegame is not when his wizard finally dropped his first fireball, but rather when his wizard levitated the barbarian, Druid, and rogue up to the second story of a serpent temple so as to pursue the evil priestess.

My favorite memory of playing with our new group came just last night, when our new group was fighting an Ettin and a "Hell-Bear". My Half-Orc War Cleric cast a humble bless on the Dwarf Fighter, who promptly wrenched the maul out of the Ettin's left hand and fearlessly soloed the Hell-Bear like a total badass, knowing that if he went down I would simply heal him back up.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

D&D has long had a problem with making mundane 10+ level characters superhuman, which is what they should be. Trained skills at this level should be bordering on the implausible: melding ninja-like into the tiniest of shadows or disappearing in the blink of an eye; climbing sheer, almost featureless, surfaces; or having a swordfight while standing on the back of a galloping horse. At the same time, spellcasters are getting truly impressive magic--teleport, polymorph, etc. It's not much of a contest.

The 5e divide is much improved over 3.5/PF as others have said. Concentration, requiring higher slots for greater spell effects, and limited high level slots are all very helpful. Is it enough? That probably depends on table and style of play. For us it was alright, I think mainly because we used the above conceptualization of skills to help share the wealth. The casters had potent spells, but didn't need to resort to them as much.

I would also like to point out the tier system rating for classes is, while a useful perspective, incomplete overall. The tier system looks at versatility in the sense of how much can a class contribute to the party's efforts in total. The more impact a potential character in a class has in more situations, the higher the tier. What it doesn't look at is durability and/or vulnerability. The lower hit points, AC and other defenses of the wizard does mitigate their versatility and firepower somewhat. A wizard has few innate protections and needs to use their expendable resource--spells--to defend themselves (weakening their bag of tricks in other areas) or remove themselves from the line of fire (either through teamwork, cautious play or cleverness). Failing to do this puts the wizard in a world of danger.

I don't want to say that monsters should focus fire on the wizard but, honestly, why shouldn't they? Especially at high-level with even moderately intelligent enemies. Go after the casters first. Their spells are the most dangerous and they have the weakest defenses. Any gameplan designed by high-level foes should have plans for dealing with casters. Line of sight, darkness, silence, counterspell, dispel magic can all be used as well. In short, there's no reason to go easy on a PC that brings a wish spell to a swordfight.

 

[Ancalagon]

IME, common usually equals high tier. Occasionally someone will play something odd, but most players tend towards the better classes. Wizards just aren't one of the better classes, while Paladin, Barbarian, and Sorcerer are. I could make an argument about Bard, but I don't think it's as good as many in my group feel. Ranger is an oddity, because occasionally someone will try to make it work, despite being the worst class in the game. Monk and Warlock don't see much play in my group either, but that is mostly due to our play style (we generally use max 1 short rest per day, due to the time constraints).

IMO:
Tier 1 (best): Paladin, Barbarian, Sorcerer
Tier 2: Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Warlock
Tier 3: Druid, Monk, Rogue, Wizard
Tier 4 (worst): Ranger

If I was forced to slide things down to even the ranks out, I'd drop Barbarian, Warlock, and Monk. That would remove the only non-caster from Tier 1, but Paladin isn't much of a caster anyway (since spell slots are almost always reserved for smiting).

Now, one of the good things about 5e is how it "flattened" the tiers - the differences are far less than say, pathfinder. So we are arguing over smaller differences. But even with that in mind, I think your tier list is ... completely wrong. The wizard is clearly better than the sorcerer or warlock because of versatility. And versatility is great because it means that she can solve more problems than the sorcerer can. This is because she can memorize more spells than his entire spell known list, *and* the wizard's class spell list is clearly better since it's longer than the sorcerers.

Now I say this, you say the other, perhaps just a difference of opinion right?

But I will offer two rebuttal that go beyond just "my opinion"

First, if we accept that your "popular = more powerful" argument (which I don't), then surveys, which have been discussed here, indicates that the wizard is more popular than the sorcerer.

Second, if you look at the number of threads to "fix" the sorcerer... clearly a lot of people seem to think it's underwhelming.

 

[FrogReaver]

IME, common usually equals high tier. Occasionally someone will play something odd, but most players tend towards the better classes. Wizards just aren't one of the better classes, while Paladin, Barbarian, and Sorcerer are. I could make an argument about Bard, but I don't think it's as good as many in my group feel. Ranger is an oddity, because occasionally someone will try to make it work, despite being the worst class in the game. Monk and Warlock don't see much play in my group either, but that is mostly due to our play style (we generally use max 1 short rest per day, due to the time constraints).

IMO:
Tier 1 (best): Paladin, Barbarian, Sorcerer
Tier 2: Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Warlock
Tier 3: Druid, Monk, Rogue, Wizard
Tier 4 (worst): Ranger

If I was forced to slide things down to even the ranks out, I'd drop Barbarian, Warlock, and Monk. That would remove the only non-caster from Tier 1, but Paladin isn't much of a caster anyway (since spell slots are almost always reserved for smiting).

Your chart is wack.