Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zardnaar" data-source="post: 7572076" data-attributes="member: 6716779">Every now and then various tier lists turn up and its common a few people just recycle opinions from the old 3.5 tier lists. I do not think spell casters are that uber for example except maybe at the highest levels using certain exploits like simulacrum.  I have always (even in 3.5) rated classes more at level 1-10, rather than 11-20. Level 15+ for most intents and purposes basically doesn't exist except for NPC or for the lets create higher level PC's. Playing from the low levels the game more or less maxes out around level 12-14 and probably earlier. This is why 3.5/Pathfinder endured and 4E died IMHO as they fixed things most people either didn't notice, experience or care about. 5E sweet spot is still mostly level 4-7 or so +/- a level. Even the old 3.5 lists were often assuming high level lay with powergamers, a lot of them were not realistic with maybe the Druid (+natural spell) being an exception. Clerics could also be broken but required a lot more effort requiring multiple splat books and outside of one build we had in 2002 or early 2003 I never saw a broken cleric in 3.5. Yes I am sure there are anecdotes around on these boards, but these boards by default tend to skew more towards the hard core players who have been around multiple editions and are motivated enough to spend time talking about their fantasy Elf game on an online message board.  So basically I put a lot more stock in level 1-10 builds and abuses than high level builds that are basically theory crafting. A Paladin 8/Sorcerer 12 (or 6/14) is fairly nasty but almost anything is nasty at level 20. A Sorlock for example switches on a lot earlier say level 3, a Moon Druid is level 2 but falls off hard after that. Paladins are very good right through, spellcasters are often level 5+ if not+ and a lot of builds switch on around level 8 with that 2nd ASI. Some things switch on a lot faster due to rolled stats (with Rogues being a prime example), or with the bonus feat level 1 houserule which we sometimes use in a small party or its a bonus non combat feat or the best 5-6 feats are not granted as a bonus. This also spills over into other threads, if I claim a Paladin is better than say a wizard and I get a level 15 counter example I would probably agree but in 5E the Paladin aura is just that damn good (and the hexblade key everything off charisma thing...) and comes online at level 6. Having a party of primary casters at level 1 is begging for a failparty even if you can drop 8-12 sleeps in a day (here come the zombies). Its also why I think the fighter is kind of weak as they get a lot better at level 11, and the Champion and Eldritch Knight take a lot of time to come online compared with the Battlemaster, Paladins in general and the Hunter Ranger. And in 5E there is a lot of divergence in subclasses as well. With clerics I think you have 2 clear winners in terms of power- light and life, with some I consider as fail classes at least conceptually with the default array (war clerics). Rolled stats also make a huge difference as well if you roll above average as some classes and subclasses vary a lot due to MAD. For example with the default array lore bards>valor but if you rolled up 4 or 5 scores in the 14-16 range you can have good dex, con, charisma and strength which helps a lot for the valor bard, less so for the lore bard although anyone benefits from great scores some benefit more than others (Monks, Barbarians etc).  So thats my thoughts on evaluating classes, the main points.1. Level 1-10 is more important than level 11+2. There is a big divergence in subclasses.3. What rules official and otherwise are you using (rolled stats, feats, multiclassing, bonus feat etc)</blockquote>

Verification