5E The New Tiers Ranked

Yaarel

Adventurer
I like listing by the 4-level advancements: 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20.

This corresponds to the proficiency bonus. But it also is a meaningful gauge of the feel of power. If designing an adventure that could handle characters that were levels 9 to 12, the adventure would work well. For example.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
Stopped reading when I read where rogues are.

Absurd.
It's because they don't compete very well in damage or social pillar and other skill based classes come close enough to rogues (Bards, some clerics using guidance) even their skill use niche gas been watered down. Backgrounds as well.

In the traditional 4 person party you can replace them with say a high Dex fighter with the right background and that fight can blow the extra feat on more skills.

So the Rogue ended up with expertise in a few skills. Monk us also similar niche better at combat though.

Even clerics looking for traps with guidance often beat rogues as well. With DCs being generally low skill expertise isn't such a relevent niche anymore IMHO.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
It's because they don't compete very well in damage or social pillar and other skill based classes come close enough to rogues (Bards, some clerics using guidance) even their skill use niche gas been watered down. Backgrounds as well.

In the traditional 4 person party you can replace them with say a high Dex fighter with the right background and that fight can blow the extra feat on more skills.

So the Rogue ended up with expertise in a few skills. Monk us also similar niche better at combat though.

Even clerics looking for traps with guidance often beat rogues as well. With DCs being generally low skill expertise isn't such a relevent niche anymore IMHO.
Lol no feat can make the fighter as good in exploration and interaction as the rogue. Expertise. At higher level it can hardly ever fail at trained skill checks. Fighter literally cannot ever get to that level of skill competence.

And the rogue is right up next to any other hitter for damage, feats or no feats.

Lastly, the rogue can take skilled too.
 

Yaarel

Adventurer
This is also an other reason to give each pillar its own ranking.

It is somewhat more objective, in the sense, that everyone can more easily agree about what is being measured.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
This is also an other reason to give each pillar its own ranking.

It is somewhat more objective, in the sense, that everyone can more easily agree about what is being measured.
Won't help IMO. We would then have someone inevitably clamoring to split up each pillar into sub categories as well. Say in combat single target damage, area damage, control, support etc.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
Lol no feat can make the fighter as good in exploration and interaction as the rogue. Expertise. At higher level it can hardly ever fail at trained skill checks. Fighter literally cannot ever get to that level of skill competence.

And the rogue is right up next to any other hitter for damage, feats or no feats.

Lastly, the rogue can take skilled too.
The Rogue can but the fighter has more feats so at reasonably low levels a high Dex based fighter has more skills than the rogue if they want to go down that path.

Rogues are often better off MCing after level 8 recommended hunter ranger or fighter levels.

Most if the time in 5E you can retry skills as well.

Rogues don't deal that much damage although they are better in featless games.

Being good in one pillar doesn't make them a powerful class relative to say wizard with combat and exploration or sorcerer with combat and social.

They're not a bad class I rated them as average but they score bonus points for fun they're one of my favorite classes but I'm looking at pure power.
 

Yaarel

Adventurer
Won't help IMO. We would then have someone inevitably clamoring to split up each pillar into sub categories as well. Say in combat single target damage, area damage, control, support etc.
At least there is less moving parts, if each pillar is separate.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
The Rogue can but the fighter has more feats so at reasonably low levels a high Dex based fighter has more skills than the rogue if they want to go down that path.

Rogues are often better off MCing after level 8 recommended hunter ranger or fighter levels.

Most if the time in 5E you can retry skills as well.

Rogues don't deal that much damage although they are better in featless games.

Being good in one pillar doesn't make them a powerful class relative to say wizard with combat and exploration or sorcerer with combat and social.

They're not a bad class I rated them as average but they score bonus points for fun they're one of my favorite classes but I'm looking at pure power.
You also brought up another important point - feats vs non-feats. If a fighter wants to be really really good at combat they basically sacrifice every other pillar. I dislike arguments where you the claim is a dual impossibility. Either the fighter is kinda compotent at skills in which case he doesn't majorally surpass the rogue in damage, or he is relatively bad at skills and vastly surpasses the rogue in damage.
 

Yaarel

Adventurer
Which is the same thing that the person wanting each pillar broken into sub categories would also say...
When I play in a more social campaign, it would be nice to have a list at who is good at it.

Especially because I like urban settings, where nonlethal resolution is often better, the social assessment would be great.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
When I play in a more social campaign, it would be nice to have a list at who is good at it.

Especially because I like urban settings, where nonlethal resolution is often better, the social assessment would be great.
Then I'd counter that it's very easy to rate the classes that are good in social settings and so cluttering this up with that shouldn't be done.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Won't help IMO. We would then have someone inevitably clamoring to split up each pillar into sub categories as well. Say in combat single target damage, area damage, control, support etc.
That would make more sense than an overall ranking, which is nearly guaranteed to be flat out incorrect from the perspective of several different general play-styles.

The Rogue can but the fighter has more feats so at reasonably low levels a high Dex based fighter has more skills than the rogue if they want to go down that path.
The Fighter will have more skills for, at most, a few levels, and will not have Expertise.
In combat, the rogue will have several features to keep it from getting killed, that make up for not having easy access to heavy armor, that a Dex Fighter simply wont have any equivalent to. Fighter has Second Wind, and that’s it.

Rogues are often better off MCing after level 8 recommended hunter ranger or fighter levels.
LOL what!? 😂

You’re joking, right?

Most if the time in 5E you can retry skills as well.
Oh dear. No. That is not part of the 5e system at all. That is just something that your group allows for some reason.

Rogues don't deal that much damage although they are better in featless games.
Featless games are by far more common, for one thing. For another, your analysis of rogues and feats in other threads is, respectfully, terrible.

Being good in one pillar doesn't make them a powerful class relative to say wizard with combat and exploration or sorcerer with combat and social.
Rogues are good in all three. They are tier 1 or 2, easily. They excel beyond anyone but Bards in interaction, and beyond anyone but a specialized ranger in their favored terrain in exploration. (And even then, the ranger mostly has advantage on some checks, so being in favored terrain brings them temporarily on par with rogues)

In combat, they are toe to toe with anyone but high level full casters specialized in damage output and large scale control.

They're not a bad class I rated them as average but they score bonus points for fun they're one of my favorite classes but I'm looking at pure power.
And on the basis of pure power, you’re wrong.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
That would make more sense than an overall ranking, which is nearly guaranteed to be flat out incorrect from the perspective of several different general play-styles.

The Fighter will have more skills for, at most, a few levels, and will not have Expertise.
In combat, the rogue will have several features to keep it from getting killed, that make up for not having easy access to heavy armor, that a Dex Fighter simply wont have any equivalent to. Fighter has Second Wind, and that’s it.

LOL what!? 😂

You’re joking, right?

Oh dear. No. That is not part of the 5e system at all. That is just something that your group allows for some reason.

Featless games are by far more common, for one thing. For another, your analysis of rogues and feats in other threads is, respectfully, terrible.


Rogues are good in all three. They are tier 1 or 2, easily. They excel beyond anyone but Bards in interaction, and beyond anyone but a specialized ranger in their favored terrain in exploration. (And even then, the ranger mostly has advantage on some checks, so being in favored terrain brings them temporarily on par with rogues)

In combat, they are toe to toe with anyone but high level full casters specialized in damage output and large scale control.


And on the basis of pure power, you’re wrong.
We can objectly put up examples of rogues not being the best in the combat pillar.

That leaves social and exploration. They're not charisma based and charisma is at best a tertiary attribute. Sure you could build a social butterfly roguevi suppose but still would be outclassed by the Bard.

That leaves the exploration pillar which they are good at.

The classes I rated highly are usually good at two of the 3 pillars, with combat being a tie breaker.

The criteria I used wasn't best class at skills and there's other ways to be good at skills from spells to bard dice to the guidance cantrip. Bards also get expertise in skills plus spells plus good at social and combat via magic. Often they're not bad at exploration either.

And that's why the Rogue is average, the Excel at skills thatd about it they're purely average at damage (relative to sorlocks, warlocks, +5/+10 abusing classes).
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
We can objectly put up examples of rogues not being the best in the combat pillar.

That leaves social and exploration. They're not charisma based and charisma is at best a tertiary attribute. Sure you could build a social butterfly roguevi suppose but still would be outclassed by the Bard.

That leaves the exploration pillar which they are good at.

The classes I rated highly are usually good at two of the 3 pillars, with combat being a tie breaker.

The criteria I used wasn't best class at skills and there's other ways to be good at skills from spells to bard dice to the guidance cantrip. Bards also get expertise in skills plus spells plus good at social and combat via magic. Often they're not bad at exploration either.

And that's why the Rogue is average, the Excel at skills thatd about it they're purely average at damage (relative to sorlocks, warlocks, +5/+10 abusing classes).
That’s mostly bad reasoning, or just misreading the classes.

They’re only average at damage if you compare unoptimized rogues to the DPR darling builds. Even if an optimized Rogue was “average” in comparison to those builds you list, which it isn’t, that would still make it better than average compared to the whole field of classes.

Even the social tier comparison you make relies on false logic. The Bard and Rogue are in an entire league above every other class in the interaction pillar. That makes rogue top tier in interaction.

Beyond that, the Bard is only ahead of a social rogue like the Swashbuckler at some levels. Rogue gets Expertise sooner, and doesn’t have to give up combat prowess at all in order to excel at interaction, while the Bards reliance on spells means they very much do.


Meanwhile, from level 11 on, the Rogue is guaranteed success on the vast majority of checks in anything their trained in. No one else ever comes close to that.

Rogue subclasses like Scout, Swashbuckler, and Arcane Trickster (it’s hilarious that you think AT is the weakest subclass for rogue. Assassin, Inquisitive, Thief, at least, are all weaker than AT). Can exploit feats, playstyles, and class abilities like Hiding as a Bonus Action to get SA on basically every attack, very very rarely miss, rarely be meaningfully targetable past level 7 or so, and if feats are turned on they can double their damage output in most rounds, using tactics that don’t sacrifice accuracy at all, and so actually work as well in real table play as they do in theory crafting.

And a Reaction Attack doesn’t mean as much for any other class as it does for the rogue, so the fact other classes can take Sentinel and mage slayer doesn’t really mean much.

And if we are comparing MC builds, we can compare Swashbuckler/Vengeance Paladin and/or Hexblade, because crits mean a lot on a rogue.

If you’re gonna assume frequent Advantage on a -5/+10 build, you have to also assume it for a Rogue, and in fact the rogue should have it more frequently than most, since they can Hide as a bonus action, and can more easily move in and out of melee, get away from pursuers, etc.

A rogue can also make catch 22 tactics work more often, as with Booming Blade. It’s easy when you can move away and then hide, after BB smacking someone that isn’t close to anyone else. They can either move and take an extra hit of damage, or stay and do nothing/use a subpar attack. So, the idea posited here and elsewhere that BB is unreliable is laughable to me.

But the rogue is decidedly above average with or without it.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
That’s mostly bad reasoning, or just misreading the classes.

They’re only average at damage if you compare unoptimized rogues to the DPR darling builds. Even if an optimized Rogue was “average” in comparison to those builds you list, which it isn’t, that would still make it better than average compared to the whole field of classes.

Even the social tier comparison you make relies on false logic. The Bard and Rogue are in an entire league above every other class in the interaction pillar. That makes rogue top tier in interaction.

Beyond that, the Bard is only ahead of a social rogue like the Swashbuckler at some levels. Rogue gets Expertise sooner, and doesn’t have to give up combat prowess at all in order to excel at interaction, while the Bards reliance on spells means they very much do.


Meanwhile, from level 11 on, the Rogue is guaranteed success on the vast majority of checks in anything their trained in. No one else ever comes close to that.

Rogue subclasses like Scout, Swashbuckler, and Arcane Trickster (it’s hilarious that you think AT is the weakest subclass for rogue. Assassin, Inquisitive, Thief, at least, are all weaker than AT). Can exploit feats, playstyles, and class abilities like Hiding as a Bonus Action to get SA on basically every attack, very very rarely miss, rarely be meaningfully targetable past level 7 or so, and if feats are turned on they can double their damage output in most rounds, using tactics that don’t sacrifice accuracy at all, and so actually work as well in real table play as they do in theory crafting.

And a Reaction Attack doesn’t mean as much for any other class as it does for the rogue, so the fact other classes can take Sentinel and mage slayer doesn’t really mean much.

And if we are comparing MC builds, we can compare Swashbuckler/Vengeance Paladin and/or Hexblade, because crits mean a lot on a rogue.

If you’re gonna assume frequent Advantage on a -5/+10 build, you have to also assume it for a Rogue, and in fact the rogue should have it more frequently than most, since they can Hide as a bonus action, and can more easily move in and out of melee, get away from pursuers, etc.

A rogue can also make catch 22 tactics work more often, as with Booming Blade. It’s easy when you can move away and then hide, after BB smacking someone that isn’t close to anyone else. They can either move and take an extra hit of damage, or stay and do nothing/use a subpar attack. So, the idea posited here and elsewhere that BB is unreliable is laughable to me.

But the rogue is decidedly above average with or without it.
I also rate classes more level 1-10 not 11+ as a lot of games don't go that high.

Screwing around with cantrips us also fairly sub optimal as if you are in melee dual wield. Doubling your chance to land a sneak attack is better than an extra dice or two that you gave to wait until higher level to deal much more damage than just the extra dice if dual wielding. And it's situational as well.

I assume you like running in casting booming blade, bonus action get outta dodge?

What if you miss went not just take the extra swing? Or tank the hit and use your half damage thing to reduce it and have someone heal you later?

If the fighter takes the hit it's more damage that someone had to heal.

The rogue mobility is good but often it's used incorrectly or one poor sod takes all of it as the rogue is running around achieving sod all instead of dealing more damage asap and splitting damage.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top