D&D 5E The New Tiers Ranked

[Yaarel]

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Stopped reading when I read where rogues are.

Absurd.

 

[Zardnaar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

At least there is less moving parts, if each pillar is separate.

Which is the same thing that the person wanting each pillar broken into sub categories would also say...

 

[FrogReaver]

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.