Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9063679" data-attributes="member: 7035894">Rating those four classes in combat sort of depends on the tier of play (levels 1-4, 5-10, 11-16, 17-20)Offence:Tier 1: Fighter B, Ranger A, Paladin A, Barbarian ATier 2: Fighter A, Ranger B, Paladin A, Barbarian ATier 3: Fighter S, Ranger B, Paladin A, Barbarian ATier 4: Fighter S, Ranger B, Paladin A, Barbarian A*you could make a case for Rangers staying at A, especially since Tasha's.Once they get that third attack, I think fighters are in a league of their own when it comes to sustained DPR. At level 20, with double action surge and four attacks, fighters can lay the hurt far beyond what any other class can do, both in terms of nova or sustained damage. An echo knight can get 20 (!!!!) attacks in the first two rounds of combat which...is a lot (let's say they have a flame tongue great sword with GWM, for example...that's 660 base damage in two rounds...Jeebus).Defence: This one is simpler for me: fighters and paladins are consistently an A, Rangers a B (at best - maybe a C), and barbarians an S.So fighters always have a place in combat and are welcome in any party - we all know this to be true. But, especially depending on sub-class, that place is kind of boring. You roll a bunch of attacks and you soak a bunch of hits. Barbarians are in a similar spot, IMO. Paladins are frequently considered an S tier class because they are just as capable of doing the basic combat stuff (hitting and soaking) but gain the flexibility that magic offers, including some pretty clutch healing, and can be the party face outside of combat. Rangers I think are widely considered the weakest in combat but get to do that exploration role outside of it, which is fun. They are often seen as kind of interchangeable with rogue (and to a lesser extent monk, which is the last place finisher out of all these classes, with no clear niche in or out of combat).I agree that fighter and barbarian design feels like the bare minimum but...even though the rage mechanic is super basic, it just feels really fun, you know? Like, when I start a combat by saying, "first, as a bonus action, I would like TO RAGE!!!" it feels like everyone wants to cheer. So even though I think that barbarians are technically in a similar spot to fighters, and have fewer and less interesting sub-classes, it feels less like they need something. Rage may be basic, but it's unique and really good. Fighters need that thing that gives them flavour and I think leadership should be it, with abilities that benefit the party both on and off the battlefield.That's what I mean when I state that fighters are good but boring. They lack a core identity, IMO.</blockquote>

Verification