D&D 5E The New Tiers Ranked

[Zardnaar]

Very worthwhile thread! Thanks for the effort.


1. Did you forget to rate the rogue?

2. Don't see the barbarian either?

Forums ate the Barbarian I missed the Rogue. Updated.

 

[Zardnaar]

How the heck does the level 1-4 battlemaster fighter end up tier 2 when all he does is combat and he gets no exploration or social benefits?

Because I vauled the combat tier higher (40% vs 30% for the others) and the BM is very out of whack in it relative to the other warriors. The other thing is its versatility, doesn't matter if you are building an archer, sword and board, strength or dex based.

You can build a BM fighter that is OK in the other pillars, dex based archer and still have a decent tertiary charisma score for example.

Its an overall rating, somewhat subjective. Generally I consider most classes at low level tier 3 or 4, fighters are tier 4, the champion is a bit better tier 3, the Battlemaster is better than the Champion hence tier 2. I have seen high dex BM with back ground do fine in the other pillars as well since the fighter is a lot less MAD than most classes.

Also at low tiers a lot of classes are underwhelming, the Battlemaster not so much so I thought I would be generous. Its probably tier 2.5, a bit better than most tier 3 stuff a bit worse than tier 2. The Battlemaster will be going down a tier next thing don't worry to much.

 

[Zardnaar]

Good on ya!



Let me also ask, though, if you have the time (or if other posters do), would you consider indicating the degree of difference between your tiers?

How much damage, social, or exploration ability does a class need to transition from one tier to another?

Maybe a low-med-high indicator for each pillar would help.

And, since it's the most quantifiable, what would constitute low-med-high damage for each tier?

Thanks!

Its mostly a gut thing, the more things you are good at and the more resources you have the higher you will get. Exceptions would be if some things are just so good at something they might go up a tier. Generally I rated them as follows. Mostly its how good anything is in a real game and not a white room scenario.

40% combat
30% social (charisma+ class abilities)
30% exploration (dex especially+ other attributes) and class abilities.

I'll add a damage tier for you in the 1st post.

 

[squibbles]

I'll add a damage tier for you in the 1st post.

Thanks!

 

[FrogReaver]

Because I vauled the combat tier higher (40% vs 30% for the others) and the BM is very out of whack in it relative to the other warriors. The other thing is its versatility, doesn't matter if you are building an archer, sword and board, strength or dex based.

You can build a BM fighter that is OK in the other pillars, dex based archer and still have a decent tertiary charisma score for example.

Its an overall rating, somewhat subjective. Generally I consider most classes at low level tier 3 or 4, fighters are tier 4, the champion is a bit better tier 3, the Battlemaster is better than the Champion hence tier 2. I have seen high dex BM with back ground do fine in the other pillars as well since the fighter is a lot less MAD than most classes.

Also at low tiers a lot of classes are underwhelming, the Battlemaster not so much so I thought I would be generous. Its probably tier 2.5, a bit better than most tier 3 stuff a bit worse than tier 2. The Battlemaster will be going down a tier next thing don't worry to much.

I still don't get it. 60% of the rating is non combat. Unless you are both 1) rating virtually every other class as nearly non-existent in combat 2) rating nearly all tier 1 exploration and social abilities very low then it's hard to imagine how a class like the rogue whose pretty good at combat and very good at skills manages to be eclipsed by a class that's only extremely good at 40% of the game.

I mean you rate the champion fighter in the same tier as the rogue??? Speaking of champions you also somehow manage to rate them a whole tier higher than eldritch knights???

But it's your ratings so have at it.

 

[Zardnaar]

I still don't get it. 60% of the rating is non combat. Unless you are both 1) rating virtually every other class as nearly non-existent in combat 2) rating nearly all tier 1 exploration and social abilities very low then it's hard to imagine how a class like the rogue whose pretty good at combat and very good at skills manages to be eclipsed by a class that's only extremely good at 40% of the game.

I mean you rate the champion fighter in the same tier as the rogue??? Speaking of champions you also somehow manage to rate them a whole tier higher than eldritch knights???

But it's your ratings so have at it.

EK lacks the spells and may not be able to cast them RAW. Casting shield for example 2 or 3 times a day is not that great compared with the champions always on ability. Fighters a bit front loaded at low levels champions swapping places next tier up.

BM is punching alot harder in the combat pillar than everything else and is so front loaded level 1 to 3. I made an exception to my guidelines due to how out of whack it is.

 

[Autumn Bask]

That is my criteria. I will also rate the classes tier 1 (good) to 5 (weak). If an archetype is better than the others even if those others are good they will be down a tier while the best archetype will be a tier higher. For example say you have one of the most powerful archetypes in the game, if there are better archetypes however that archetype will be tier 2 while the better one will be tier 1. The gaps in 5E are smaller but there are still gaps.

I initially really liked this method, in theory, when I first read it. But in practice, it makes reading the Tier list a bit confusing and deceptive at first glance. Since you're going with a more wide tier spread instead of trying to remain relative to 3.5 tiering, you might want to include .5 tiers in-between for the subclasses that aren't as good as their higher tier counterparts. The .5 tiers can represent classes that are still technically in that higher tier, but is "out-performed" by one of their own subclasses already in it (out-performed in quotations, cause, eh; that's often too strong of a word for it).

 

[Zardnaar]

I initially really liked this method, in theory, when I first read it. But in practice, it makes reading the Tier list a bit confusing and deceptive at first glance. Since you're going with a more wide tier spread instead of trying to remain relative to 3.5 tiering, you might want to include .5 tiers in-between for the subclasses that aren't as good as their higher tier counterparts. The .5 tiers can represent classes that are still technically in that higher tier, but is "out-performed" by one of their own subclasses already in it (out-performed in quotations, cause, eh; that's often too strong of a word for it).

THat will blow it out to around 10 tiers lol. I have done the next tier up and specified in some cases that some archetypes are a bit better than the others in the same tier but the difference is either marginal or personal preference.

 

[FrogReaver]

EK lacks the spells and may not be able to cast them RAW. Casting shield for example 2 or 3 times a day is not that great compared with the champions always on ability. Fighters a bit front loaded at low levels champions swapping places next tier up.

BM is punching alot harder in the combat pillar than everything else and is so front loaded level 1 to 3. I made an exception to my guidelines due to how out of whack it is.

Then I can go with the BM exception. I still don't get EK vs champion. Even if the EK just took 1 spell for out of combat use he isn't a tier behind the champion who gets about 1 extra crit per day in tier 1. Am I missing something?

 

[Krachek]

Tier 2 is incomplete.
Where are the SorLock, Sorcadin?
Theses terms are so common that they are classes by themselves.