D&D 5E The New Class Tiers

[Zardnaar]

Versatility is power.

One thing that's worth considering is the apparent versatility of a class vs the versatility possible for a single instance of that class.

For instance, the fighter class gets all six fighting styles, while the Paladin class gets 4 and the Ranger only 3. It'd seem that the fighter's greater choice in fighting style makes up for some of the added versatility of those other classes...

...except you don't ever get to change your Fighting Style once you pick it. For a given character, that's no versatility, at all.

There's many other comparisons analogous to that in ranking classes into tiers. That's why, for instance, the 3.x Wizard was ranked above the Sorcerer, because being able to choose your spells each day was more versatile than choosing them at chargen/level up, even given that the Sorcerer got to cast spontaneously, meaning more versatility was retained after slots were expended. (The 5e wizard, BTW, not only retains the 'prepped' advantage in versatility, but combines it with the 3.x sorcerer's spontaneous casting.)

3.5 the wizard knw a lot mnore spells, the spells were more powerful and it was easier to aquire new spells and consumables. That is all different in 5E.

As I said the wizard if I do tier lists will move up to tier 1 eventually but its not such a slam dunk as 3.5. The wizard also has a lot more competition as well now from Bards, Clerics etc who get more features outside of spellcasting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

3.5 the wizard knw a lot mnore spells, the spells were more powerful and it was easier to aquire new spells and consumables. That is all different in 5E.

There were a lot more spells in 3.5, so the 3.5 wizard needed a lot more spells known to have a reasonable variety of them. Yet, really, there were a few really significant spells and a lot of chaff. So, sure, there's a distinction there, but is it a terribly important difference? Haste, Polymorph, et all aren't so broken, Fighter can't WWA, Spring Attack, or even charge. Fireball does more damage, so do most things. 'Power' is relative from one edition to the next what matters is how powerful in context, but versatility is comparable across editions. 3.5 spells are really broken, and 3.5 casters very versatile, but with a trade-off between spontaneous vs prepped. 4e spells were comparatively well-balanced, prepped casting was /very/ limited in it's versatility, and spontaneous didn't exist, but you got at-will cantrips. 5e spells aren't /as/ broken as 3.5, and casters are more versatile, particularly the Cleric, Druid & Wizard who /combine/ the advantages of 3.5 prep & spontaneous with the advantages of 4e at-will cantrips & slotless rituals.

It's like the 5e wizard got every toy from every prior wizard's toy box …
… except for magic item creation, of course.

As I said the wizard if I do tier lists will move up to tier 1 eventually

Tier was never about a given level, but overall. At low level, a 3.5 wizard was plenty versatile prepping a few spells (and a few cantrips), scribing the odd scroll if he had money, and resorting to a crossbow when he had nothing better to do. 5e, no crossbow, cantrips with unlimited use including effective attacks, and spells prepped but cast spontaneously.

There are difference, of course. But the 5e wizard's casting is innately more versatile, and it's /easier/, as well (see the thread about readying to interrupt a spell for one example).

The wizard also has a lot more competition as well now from Bards, Clerics etc who get more features outside of spellcasting.

The Cleric was Tier 1, too, and there's no reason to think it isn't, still. A case could be made for the Bard joining them, but remember the point I made, above: while, for instance, the Lore Bard's Magical Secrets makes the class appear very versatile, any given bard has to choose those spells and stick with them.

 

[Autumn Bask]

These my votes for Tier 1. However, after that, I think it's very difficult to judge.

Tier 1: Life Cleric, Any Bard, Moon and Shepherd Druid
My reasoning: These classes are all incredibly effective in their own right, while also being able to provide vital utility, and boosts to the party's overall combat effectiveness.
Life Cleric: Guidance and Bless will make your party love you, and your insane healing output will only cement that further. And with proficiency in Heavy Armor, your survivability ain't half bad, which is important, because smart enemies will undoubtedly try to focus you. And once Spiritual Weapon comes online, your individual damage becomes pretty good, too.
Any Bard: Bardic Inspiration to make everyone better at things (or enemies worse, depending on the bard). You have access to some healing spells and Faerie Fire. Expertise + Jack of All Trades gives you a Rogue's utility, and you're still a Full Spellcaster.
Moon Druid: Barbarians are great. Druids are great. You're basically both. Really, the benefit of Moon Druid is that you're a full caster with two huge pools of HP in reserve. Although levels 1-4 are about as broken as people say they are. Level 10, also great. Elemental forms are awesome. You also get Entangle, Faerie Fire, Moonbeam, and Healing Spirit, which are all amazing spells almost on par with many of the Cleric's.
Shepherd Druid: Same spells and out of combat versatility as a Moon Druid, with less personal tankiness, but a very nice assortment of auras and amazing summoning potential. And this is assuming the DM chooses what you summon, which isn't necessarily the case.

Notes: Of these, Bard is the most unreliable, Moon Druid is the tankiest, Life Cleric is the most game-defining, and Shepherd Druid is the most potentially broken.

If I had to do a Tier 1.5, I would probably say:
Non-Life Clerics, Diviner and Evoker Wizards, Battlemaster Fighter, Ancestral Guardian and Totem Barbarians, Gloom Stalker Ranger, Hexblade Warlock, and Swashbuckler Rogue

But those are just off the top of my head.

 

[S'mon]

If I had to do a Tier 1.5, I would probably say:
Non-Life Clerics, Diviner and Evoker Wizards, Battlemaster Fighter, Ancestral Guardian and Totem Barbarians, Gloom Stalker Ranger, Hexblade Warlock, and Swashbuckler Rogue

Without a good feat selection I find totem barbarian very weak on damage output at higher level. I'd put Zealot ahead. Totem + Polearm Master + Greatweapon Fighter is good though.

 

[Autumn Bask]

Without a good feat selection I find totem barbarian very weak on damage output at higher level. I'd put Zealot ahead. Totem + Polearm Master + Greatweapon Fighter is good though.

I 100% agree, but when thinking about Tier 1.5, I went with the subclasses that best accentuate the unique strengths of their parent class, not necessarily the ones that produce the best DPR. For a Barbarian, this is their survivability, which Totem Barbarian greatly enhances and Ancestral Guardian takes advantage of to protect their allies.

Zealot Barb is really fun, though, and I'm actually playing one in a current campaign, and he does do ridiculous damage. I can definitely see an argument for that damage output + Barb survivability placing Zealot in Tier 1.5.

 

[S'mon]

I 100% agree, but when thinking about Tier 1.5, I went with the subclasses that best accentuate the unique strengths of their parent class, not necessarily the ones that produce the best DPR. For a Barbarian, this is their survivability, which Totem Barbarian greatly enhances and Ancestral Guardian takes advantage of to protect their allies.

I find the issue with Totem Barb is that it takes so long to kill enemies the foes get a lot more attacks, which they can use on squishies. My current high level (17-20) group has three Totem Barbarians, an Arcane Trickster Rogue and a Moon Druid - the poor Rogue often feels very put-upon.

 

[FrogReaver]

3.5 the wizard knw a lot mnore spells, the spells were more powerful and it was easier to aquire new spells and consumables. That is all different in 5E.

As I said the wizard if I do tier lists will move up to tier 1 eventually but its not such a slam dunk as 3.5. The wizard also has a lot more competition as well now from Bards, Clerics etc who get more features outside of spellcasting.

The wizard offers just as much as the bard and cleric in tier 1 5e.

The 5e wizard isn’t as strong as the 3.5e wizard. That doesn’t mean wizard isn’t tier 1 in 5e.

Compared to a bard a wizard has more spells known, a better spell list, more casts per day and a very strong tier 1 subclass ability.

They are in the same tier, just useful in different ways

 

[Autumn Bask]

I find the issue with Totem Barb is that it takes so long to kill enemies the foes get a lot more attacks, which they can use on squishies. My current high level (17-20) group has three Totem Barbarians, an Arcane Trickster Rogue and a Moon Druid - the poor Rogue often feels very put-upon.

That's not a D&D party. That's a natural selection simulator.

 

[FrogReaver]

I find the issue with Totem Barb is that it takes so long to kill enemies the foes get a lot more attacks, which they can use on squishies. My current high level (17-20) group has three Totem Barbarians, an Arcane Trickster Rogue and a Moon Druid - the poor Rogue often feels very put-upon.

Totem barb without feats does low damage in tier 4.

 

[Ancalagon]

One thing I'll note is that in 5e, the spread of the tiers seems less. Some classes are a little OP (Paladin, I'm looking at you) and some class/subclass combos are underperforming (monk way of the element is a prime example), but there is not a massive difference as there could be in Pathfinder.

In that system, character built was its own "mini" game (I use "" because it could take a week!), and the difference between a fully optimized character and an indifferent, 10 min cobbled together PC built by someone with basic system mastery was massive.

To me, this is one of the great strength of 5e. More options are actually valid.