Anyone can tell me how they would class DND 5E classes by tier?
>>43903640
If you use the 3.5 Tier system, everything is Tier 3, with the exceptions of Ranger being Tier 4, Wizard and Bard being Tier 2 thanks to a few specific spells, and Druids being Tier 2 thanks to Wildshape
>>43904568
>wrong things the post.
Ranger is fine, their spells are great and lore bards should pick their spells over a paladin's
The top tier would be wizards and bards based 100% on utility.
The middle tier would be almost everything.
The bottom tier would be the elemental monk, berserker, champion (though champion might not deserve it), and blade pact warlocks. These are narrow in focus and their class abilities either don't add much or don't work well by RAW.
Beastmaster would still probably be middle tier because they are effective with spells and class abilities alone, and no one is better as a guide or tracker than a ranger still.
top tier: wizards
middle tier: everything else
bottom tier: fighters
>>43903640
Haven't experimented much. Most of this is based off of my party's experience during two campaigns.
High Tier:
Monk
Sorcerer
Good Tier:
Wizard
Ranger
Cleric
Rogue
Only Good If You Metagame Tier:
Druid
Warlock
Barbarian
Bard
Functional Tier:
Fighter
Paladin
>>43904748
But hey, at least it ain't 4th Ed!
Fuck those guys, amirite?! Wizards forever!
>>43904719
>wrong things the post 2 electric boogaloo
Tier 1: Bards for utility, Fighters for sheer, outlandish ass-whomping, Wizards for top-cheese
Tier 2: Mostly everything else
Tier 3: Beastmaster Ranger for shit flavor and poor execution, unfixed Elemental Monk for actually questionable abilities
You can deduct from the nearly total disagreement in these sorts of thread that the only standout classes are lore bard and a couple wizard schools for being unusually good, and beast master ranger and elemental monk for underperforming. The classes are more or less balanced, and the most important part of selection is something that fits your mechanical and thematic tastes.
>>43904719
Ranger is the only class that as a whole I would say doesn't bring much to the table. In martial skill they're outclassed, and only really catch up by using their spells. Tracking is somewhat useful, but a Rogue with Survival Expertise could arguably do similar things.
That said, the differences between classes in 5e is really rather minor compared to 3.5. It's only a few things that are a bit better or a bit worse than other options.
I think the biggest issue is Bards pinching spells from other classes, particularly the Ranger and Wizard. Ranger for robbing them of the little uniqueness they can boast, and Wizard for having Animate Dead, Simulacrum, Wish, and the other game-breaking spells.
>>43903640
They wouldn't. Tiers aren't about raw power, they're about who can perform their class's primary role and more to what extent. Casters in 3.pf can effectively play any party role they want, hence the high tier; 5e doesn't have that sort of crazy versatility, and they don't have classes so shitty as to not be able to hold their weight, so the tiers are pretty worthless.
At worst, you see some of the Wizard and Druid at a slightly higher tier, but none of the 5e classes have the completely insane gaps in power that 3.pf necessitated.
Pretty much all of the classes would bounce between 3rd and 4th tier in 5e, even the wizard and cleric and druid, compared to 3.pf. The Druid might make 2nd with some of their Onion-Druid builds, but it's unlikely because they don't have a significantly better ability to affect the game world more than other classes.
>>43903640
that little tree-creature is just so adorable. A li'l animated shrubbery.
>>43904856
This. This guy knows what he's talking about.
>>43904719
>>43904767
Completely wrong.
>>43904856
Mostly right, but drop fighters down a tier unless you're doing a pure combat campaign such as fighting in a war or something. A class that can only kill things doesn't deserve a top spot if that's all they can do, no matter how good they are at it.
>>43904767
Lol this has to be bait
>>43905216
Not bait, just an embarassingly small sample size that was probably taken by someone who has no idea how the game works. Seeing Monk at the top of the list makes me highly suspicious that weeaboo anime stuff was happening during these games.
>>43905276
I almost buy this but paladin at the lowest rank?
>>43905448
Eh, Paladins deserve the bottom slot, if only because nobody manages to play them right and the people who do generally aren't fun for anyone else to be around.
>>43904767
>Monks top tier
>Sorc. higher then Wizard, which is higher then bad
>Ranger higher then Druid, Fighter, and Paladin.
Your tier list may be accurate to your experiences, but it's objectively wrong.
>>43905276
>>43905448
Monk Damage kicks ass for the first 5 levels are so. If you do rolling or point buy then they can have pretty good stats in what they need. On top of that they have good utility for a martial. Also, Open Hand Monk is really flashy with his basic attacks, which can be impressive to see.
Paladin is probably rated low because the person playing it was bad and chose bad spells.
>>43905483
>Nobody plays Paladins right
You have an oath. You can adjust the oath at the start of the game to match what you want. How can one not play this right?
>>43905530
Players don't consider the implications of their oath, and use it as an excuse to be an uncompromising asshole any time the campaign requires cooperation from the party of the consideration of some sort of alternate viewpoint (even if it's one that has a perfectly valid to exist and may actually be better for everyone than the current status quo).
>>43905520
I agree with you. I'm the guy who said it must be bait. I wrote a longer post with my thoughts on it, but ultimately just kept circling back to actually how balanced everything is.
Paladins kick ass at low levels. That guy said Paladins are bottom because of people playing them wrong is crazy. Ultimately a class that can smite at level 2 for 2d8 radiant at will and heal like a badass essentially at will also is just crazy. I'm playing one in my groups alt campaign and my DM keeps asking if I'm sure all that shit works how I'm saying it does because I keep trivializing so many things. (I'm also multiclasses cleric so I keep guidancing and blessing everyone too).
IMO paladin is like tier 2.5 because of all the buffing and healing as well as being so good at melee combat. Not real true tier 2 IMO but it's so powerful.
Anyway bottom line fuck everything I just said regarding tiers coz every class in this edition is great at low levels (Paladins and Rangers to a lesser extent get like so much shit every level... Level 5 they get level 2 spells AND extra attack, what. Level 2 Paladins get spellcasting and smite and a fighting style and twice as much lay on hands and probably some other stuff I'm forgetting. Jesus.) but uh, yeah. Tiers. Whatever man.
>>43905652
At level 2 you can smite twice per long rest, not at will. Also you have 10 HP worth of lay on hands per long rest, not at will.
Either you have misunderstood something, you have very poor ability to relay information by typing or are blowing your abilities way out of proportion with your wording.
Good at way too many things tier: Lore Bards
Pretty good at whatever the Bard doesn't have covered tier: Fighters and Barbarians I guess?
Nah you can have that all to yourself tier: Blaster Casters
What about an Abjuration Specialist Wizard? Prismatic Wall is my favorite spell ever (to this day, I'm not sure why, but it is) and I like the idea of being a Wizard who focuses on trying to be slightly less squishy.
Tier 2 (Good at everything but still limited)
Wizards
Druids
Bards
Possibly Clerics
Tier 3 (Good at one thing, okay with everything)
Possibly Clerics
Warlocks
Sorcerers
Paladins
Possibly Rogues
Tier 4 (Good at one thing, struggles with anything else)
Possibly Rogues
Barbarians
Fighters
Tier 5 (Struggles with what it's supposed to do)
Rangers
Monks
>>43907462
For the record, in 3.5 tierlist land, t2 is supposed to be "can be good with everything, and also has at least 1 gamebreaking trick".
Which those classes still fit into, just saying.
>>43907462
>Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues
>Tier 4
Have you even played 5E?
>>43907462
>43907462
How do Monks struggle with what they're supposed to do?
They're one of the most self-reliant classes in the game - fighters have them beat out in combat self-sufficiency but in every other aspect of play the monk does better. They're not even bad in combat either; I'd say they're better than bladelocks in combat.
They're not even MAD; Dex and Wis is all they need. Any other stats are gravy.
Honestly, it looks like you took a 3.5 tier list, put Bard at the top, and called it a day. The fact that you don't comment on archetype variance doesn't help; Four ways monk and Beastmaster ranger MIGHT belong in tier 4 but they're still completely functional and don't "Struggle" with what they're supposed to do.
>>43904568
Being okay at a lot of thing isn't worth much in 5E, because of the power curve and advantage. Specialization is better. I think 5E needs it own tiering system.
Also, Wildshape gets wrecked by sleep, a very common spell, it's funny that sleep can kill them.
One True Tier List
1- Lol nothing
2- Lol nothing
3- Everything
4- Lol nothing
5- Lol nothing
Within Tier 3 this is largely how it goes:
High- Wizard, Some Clerics, Onion Druid, Battlemaster, Bearbarian, Some Bards
basically everything in High can shine in at least 50% of combat and exploration encounters and tend to be okay in social settings (Bard is generally awesome in social settings)
Medium- Barbarian, Paladin, Hunter Ranger, Most Monks, Rogue
Medium tend to be solid in combat and exploration but will rarely dominate either, can be decent in social with a decent Charisma
Low- 4elements, Warlock, Sorcerer, Healbot Clerics, Champion
Low tend to be highly one dimensional (only DPR for instance) and struggle outside of that niche
Lol messed up rules - Beastmaster
Beastmaster is really the only broken class mainly because their defining feature is completely poorly designed. You can get decent utility out of it for 1-2 fights but it simply doesn't have the durability necessary
