About 2 years ago, the (sub)classes in 5E's PHB were rated by various groups. Since then, I suspect some of the views have shifted, but more importantly, the total number of archetypes has almost exactly doubled thanks to DMG, SCAG, and now XGE. Time for everyone to take another look.
It's a long list, over 80 items. Pace yourself, and rate any that you know well, but feel free to skip ones you don't.
The first question is intended to be as objective as possible. Try to keep your emotions away from your perception of class effectiveness. Base your ratings on "crunch" (game mechanics & numbers), not lore, fluff, house rules, or setting-specific restrictions. Remember: BALANCED IS GOOD! Your total ratings above & below the middle should be roughly equal.
There's also a second question (optional) to express personal favoritism. It might be interesting to see where the two answers differ most.
p.s. Yes, yes, I know the older edition concept of "tier" no longer applies, because 5E's class balance is vastly better than 0123E. Nevertheless, differences exist, and people want to compare them.
1 week along, I think the bulk of the responses are already in. The data looks pretty clean. The averages so far are similar to the 2015 community tier survey, with some notable shifts. I think most people will find the results worth reading.
Voting will close next weekend, with results posted shortly after.
Going to ban Hexblade Warlock, Divination Wizard, Lore Bard, and Moon Druid from play. Less is More!
PDK, Beastmaster, and Four Elements are perhaps well-deserved and probably do deserve ribbons. I was surprised to see the best classes (Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Warlock) with so many subclasses in rank C. I don't think they deserve ribbons. If someone played a Monk, Ranger, Rogue, or Sorcerer in my campaign, I would use Inspiration as ribbons -- especially when or if they chose a bottom-ranked subclass. They'd just end up getting more Inspiration points or other boons compared to other players.
Why were there so few in the B- rank? Who out of C almost made it into B-? Who out of B almost made it into B-?
Bear at level 3 is stupid-good and it's a subclass feature that lasts but that doesn''t mean I want to take it away. Ride the Wind is too-high level for Four Elements, but that doesn't mean I'm going to lower it.
The Battlerager does the most mid-level (L5-11) damage (earlier it's the Berserker), only later outclassed by certain Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard spells and the Tempest Cleric.
If the Berserker can use magic items, spells, or game effects to manage exhaustion and the Monk can use similar to manage Ki Points, then the game is changed. There are a lot of magic items that aid classic/full spellcasters such as Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerer, and Wizards -- leaving two-thirds, half, and one-third spellcasters in the dust. Warlocks can use most Robes and Staves which are classically set aside for Sorcerers and Wizards -- while Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, and Four Elements Monks cannot. If only there was a Pearl of Power for Rages or Ki Points!
Does someone care to remind me why the Bladesinger is a good build or fun to play? Especially with the War Magic Wizard subclass now available, I want to love the Bladesinger subclass, but I would be more likely to create an Elf or High-Elf Samurai, give her Elven Accuracy at Level 4, and then multicass to Wizard (taking no more than 10 levels of Samurai but probably sticking with Wizard as much as possible -- especially in the mid levels).
Something to bear in mind, the difference in power between tiers in 5e is far smaller compared to previous editions (i.e., 3.5). There is no equivalent of a Cleric vs a Fighter from 3.5 I don't think there is really any subclass that is straight garbage. There may be a 10-15 DPR difference, but nothing game breaking. A DM who takes advantage of each character's strengths and weaknesses can easily set up encounters where one player isn't constantly outshining the rest. Some combinations look crazy on paper, but in practice they don't hold up because they either require very specific situations to be truly effective or sacrifice significantly in a pillar of gameplay to excel at another.
"The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchett
Do you mean you wouldn't allow a player to choose those subclasses? If so, I'm curious what your reasoning behind this is.
Same as not allowing players to create characters that are Duergar, Deep Gnomes, Ghostwise Halfings, Half-Elf Variants, Tiefling Variants (especially not Feral or Winged!), Eladrin, and Aarakocra. Same as not allowing players to create or control characters that are Death Domain Clerics and Oathbreaker Paladins. Same as not allowing Lycanthrope and Vampire players. Or Lycanthrope Vampire Feral Winged Tiefling Moon Druids that start out with a dip to Hexblade.
I don't do munchkin/powergamer. No cheesing. Table ground rules. Well-established norms.
Going to ban Hexblade Warlock, Divination Wizard, Lore Bard, and Moon Druid from play. Less is More!
PDK, Beastmaster, and Four Elements are perhaps well-deserved and probably do deserve ribbons.
None of the subclasses have abilities that break the game or obsolete other subclasses. Banning any of them is just doing players a disservice.
Four Elements is actually OK. And while Purple Dragon Knight is a bit underwhelming it still has some useful party buff abilities. In contrast, the Champion is the most useless subclass in the game. The extra crits don't do enough to matter, and neither does a second Fighting Style since it's a level 1 class feature and most of them are mutually exclusive. Despite that, more than half of the votes gave it a B rating.
This is why I don't like these kinds of popularity polls. They just reinforce whatever the popular perception is, whether it's right or wrong. And I find that it's usually wrong, because most people aren't going to stop and analyze every little detail of every class feature or even play the subclass before forming an opinion.
Do you mean you wouldn't allow a player to choose those subclasses? If so, I'm curious what your reasoning behind this is.
Same as not allowing players to create characters that are Duergar, Deep Gnomes, Ghostwise Halfings, Half-Elf Variants, Tiefling Variants (especially not Feral or Winged!), Eladrin, and Aarakocra. Same as not allowing players to create or control characters that are Death Domain Clerics and Oathbreaker Paladins. Same as not allowing Lycanthrope and Vampire players. Or Lycanthrope Vampire Feral Winged Tiefling Moon Druids that start out with a dip to Hexblade.
I don't do munchkin/powergamer. No cheesing. Table ground rules. Well-established norms.
Your reasoning is just flawed. Picking up a race like those mentioned (excluding things like lycantrophes or vampires as they aren't player templates) doesn't mean your player is a powergamer. The issue rather seems to be that you aren't able to handle specific races and abilities or create challenging and interesting scenarios based on the players choices.
But lucky for you it is your game as the DM and the players to pick their poison and decide if they are fine with your rules or not. I personally have no issues with those in given games, though i have no understanding for such a reasoning. Pretty sure a powergamer/Munchkin can do so just fine with only the PHB at hand and following your well-established norms. Sorry, but that just makes me cringe. :D
Hmm... a bit surprised that Fighter stuff was rated so lowly compared to some other classes. From the way some people talk about Fighter, you think it'd be one of the top tier classes, but instead, its one of the lowest rated series of sub-classes; only barbarian matches for such consistently low rated sub-classes. Which, I suppose, tells you something about the biases and views of the survey as a whole - those two classes are well known for being hyper combat focused to the point no one else is. Alternatively, Totem being so good could be casting shadows over everything.
Kinda surprised at the Moon Druid and Hexblade being rated so high - those are both good at low levels, but quickly become less relevant as the game goes on. I guess initial impressions stick? Or, in the case of Moon Druid, hype overshadowing actual play experience. And Hexblade is probably getting a "shiny and new" bump as well.
No surprise that Four Elements and Beastmaster are the lowest rated - both of those sub-classes have serious issues.
For the most part, everything seems to hover an average of B. There's a few A-ranks out there, a few "meh" options, and only two terrible picks out of everything.
From the way some people talk about Fighter, you think it'd be one of the top tier classes, but instead, its one of the lowest rated series of sub-classes
You have to consider overlap, or lack there of, in groups of people. For example, if there are a lot of people that like the fighter class (there are, WotC surveys always show it to be popular), but a lot of those people have no interest in or use for tier rankings of which class/sub-class is "better" than others, then the responses to a survey trying to rank classes/sub-classes into tiers aren't likely to reflect the thoughts of the people that make fighters popular on WotC surveys because they aren't likely to take that survey in the first place.
That's why this tier survey has results that don't quite line up to the general opinions of the D&D player base at large - because it has a selection bias of only being responded to by people that have a particular sort of view of the game (that being that the difference between the "best" and "worst" option is even worth paying any notice in the 5th edition rules during the normal course of playing the game).
You have to consider overlap, or lack there of, in groups of people. For example, if there are a lot of people that like the fighter class (there are, WotC surveys always show it to be popular), but a lot of those people have no interest in or use for tier rankings of which class/sub-class is "better" than others, then the responses to a survey trying to rank classes/sub-classes into tiers aren't likely to reflect the thoughts of the people that make fighters popular on WotC surveys because they aren't likely to take that survey in the first place.
That's why this tier survey has results that don't quite line up to the general opinions of the D&D player base at large - because it has a selection bias of only being responded to by people that have a particular sort of view of the game (that being that the difference between the "best" and "worst" option is even worth paying any notice in the 5th edition rules during the normal course of playing the game).
This is the point I hope other coming into this thread takeaway - tier ranking are a hold over from previous editions where disparities between classes were stark. Magic users used to outrank mundane classes by on overwhelming amount in previous editions. That is simply not the case in 5e. If anything, you have to purposely focus on building a completely ineffective character in order to build something that is mechanically bad.
If you're a DM and you're looking at these results and thinking "Man, I really better ban X subclass from the table because it's going to break the game.", then I would encourage you to ask yourself what parts of the game it's going to break. Write them down and reflect on it. Are there ways you can build encounters that let those strengths shine? Are there ways you can build encounters that let other strengths shine? If you answer no, then take some time and look into designing encounters for that part of the game.
Well, this poll isn't really showing us anything we didn't already know. Beastmaster needs fixing. 4 elements was too expensive, so we had a stealth fix sun soul. People overestimate moon druid, looking only at early levels or the level 20 archdruid is cap. Hexblade is super front-loaded to fix the flaws of Blade and Chain pacts. Magic Secrets is a popular ability, as are dice manipulation powers (bard and diviner).
Hmm... a bit surprised that Fighter stuff was rated so lowly compared to some other classes. From the way some people talk about Fighter, you think it'd be one of the top tier classes, but instead, its one of the lowest rated series of sub-classes; only barbarian matches for such consistently low rated sub-classes.
When people say "Fighter is great" they mean "Battlemaster is great". Yes, multiple of the other subclasses deserve some help for parity.
Kinda surprised at the Moon Druid and Hexblade being rated so high - those are both good at low levels, but quickly become less relevant as the game goes on.
I agree that Moon Druid is only excessive at levels 2 and 20. The starting features and the capstone are the parts of a class that get the most attention, hence the result.
Likewise, Hexblade is a problem because it's an overly front-loaded 1 level dip that turns melee classes with Cha-based casting into single-attribute. At my table, that feature is dropped from Hexblade and attached to Blade Pact instead. If you're willing to wait 3 levels to get it, that's more fair.
1 week along, I think the bulk of the responses are already in. The data looks pretty clean. The averages so far are similar to the 2015 community tier survey, with some notable shifts. I think most people will find the results worth reading.
Voting will close next weekend, with results posted shortly after.
Results are in: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQK9WoCYz5l0IWv6a9kDJmy4X5-zQYd631t1CFxGA_68OKeKxKyM3prgvHqx1k7acRdTKO0ZR6XXLOp/pubhtml
Going to ban Hexblade Warlock, Divination Wizard, Lore Bard, and Moon Druid from play. Less is More!
PDK, Beastmaster, and Four Elements are perhaps well-deserved and probably do deserve ribbons. I was surprised to see the best classes (Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Warlock) with so many subclasses in rank C. I don't think they deserve ribbons. If someone played a Monk, Ranger, Rogue, or Sorcerer in my campaign, I would use Inspiration as ribbons -- especially when or if they chose a bottom-ranked subclass. They'd just end up getting more Inspiration points or other boons compared to other players.
Why were there so few in the B- rank? Who out of C almost made it into B-? Who out of B almost made it into B-?
Bear at level 3 is stupid-good and it's a subclass feature that lasts but that doesn''t mean I want to take it away. Ride the Wind is too-high level for Four Elements, but that doesn't mean I'm going to lower it.
The Battlerager does the most mid-level (L5-11) damage (earlier it's the Berserker), only later outclassed by certain Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard spells and the Tempest Cleric.
If the Berserker can use magic items, spells, or game effects to manage exhaustion and the Monk can use similar to manage Ki Points, then the game is changed. There are a lot of magic items that aid classic/full spellcasters such as Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerer, and Wizards -- leaving two-thirds, half, and one-third spellcasters in the dust. Warlocks can use most Robes and Staves which are classically set aside for Sorcerers and Wizards -- while Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, and Four Elements Monks cannot. If only there was a Pearl of Power for Rages or Ki Points!
Does someone care to remind me why the Bladesinger is a good build or fun to play? Especially with the War Magic Wizard subclass now available, I want to love the Bladesinger subclass, but I would be more likely to create an Elf or High-Elf Samurai, give her Elven Accuracy at Level 4, and then multicass to Wizard (taking no more than 10 levels of Samurai but probably sticking with Wizard as much as possible -- especially in the mid levels).
Yeah, I was also surprised how much variation there is within each class.
I'm curious what your population size was and if you controlled for that when doing the final scores.
Tooltips | Snippet Code | How to Homebrew on D&D Beyond | Subclass Guide | Feature Roadmap
Astromancer's Homebrew Assembly
"The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchett
The Forum Infestation (TM)
But lucky for you it is your game as the DM and the players to pick their poison and decide if they are fine with your rules or not. I personally have no issues with those in given games, though i have no understanding for such a reasoning. Pretty sure a powergamer/Munchkin can do so just fine with only the PHB at hand and following your well-established norms. Sorry, but that just makes me cringe. :D
Hmm... a bit surprised that Fighter stuff was rated so lowly compared to some other classes. From the way some people talk about Fighter, you think it'd be one of the top tier classes, but instead, its one of the lowest rated series of sub-classes; only barbarian matches for such consistently low rated sub-classes. Which, I suppose, tells you something about the biases and views of the survey as a whole - those two classes are well known for being hyper combat focused to the point no one else is. Alternatively, Totem being so good could be casting shadows over everything.
Kinda surprised at the Moon Druid and Hexblade being rated so high - those are both good at low levels, but quickly become less relevant as the game goes on. I guess initial impressions stick? Or, in the case of Moon Druid, hype overshadowing actual play experience. And Hexblade is probably getting a "shiny and new" bump as well.
No surprise that Four Elements and Beastmaster are the lowest rated - both of those sub-classes have serious issues.
For the most part, everything seems to hover an average of B. There's a few A-ranks out there, a few "meh" options, and only two terrible picks out of everything.
You have to consider overlap, or lack there of, in groups of people. For example, if there are a lot of people that like the fighter class (there are, WotC surveys always show it to be popular), but a lot of those people have no interest in or use for tier rankings of which class/sub-class is "better" than others, then the responses to a survey trying to rank classes/sub-classes into tiers aren't likely to reflect the thoughts of the people that make fighters popular on WotC surveys because they aren't likely to take that survey in the first place.
That's why this tier survey has results that don't quite line up to the general opinions of the D&D player base at large - because it has a selection bias of only being responded to by people that have a particular sort of view of the game (that being that the difference between the "best" and "worst" option is even worth paying any notice in the 5th edition rules during the normal course of playing the game).
Well, this poll isn't really showing us anything we didn't already know. Beastmaster needs fixing. 4 elements was too expensive, so we had a stealth fix sun soul. People overestimate moon druid, looking only at early levels or the level 20 archdruid is cap. Hexblade is super front-loaded to fix the flaws of Blade and Chain pacts. Magic Secrets is a popular ability, as are dice manipulation powers (bard and diviner).
That's all there really is to it.
When people say "Fighter is great" they mean "Battlemaster is great". Yes, multiple of the other subclasses deserve some help for parity.
I agree that Moon Druid is only excessive at levels 2 and 20. The starting features and the capstone are the parts of a class that get the most attention, hence the result.
Likewise, Hexblade is a problem because it's an overly front-loaded 1 level dip that turns melee classes with Cha-based casting into single-attribute. At my table, that feature is dropped from Hexblade and attached to Blade Pact instead. If you're willing to wait 3 levels to get it, that's more fair.
Yeah, no. Plenty of people mean exactly "Fighter is great" when they say "Fighter is great."
Will there be a new survey 2019?