Rangers got a lot of good upgrades and a few side-grades, no longer any doubts about combat potency at least
Wizards solidify their domain as the kings of versatillity by yoinking augury, enhance abillity, divination and speak with dead from the cleric spell list, all of whom making the divination wizard a more fun subclass. Enhance abillity was also one of the few sorcerer spells not on the wizard spell list, plus for some reason they alone get true cantrip versatillity, getting to swap cantrips each long rest, again kings (and queens and monarchs) of versatillity
Rogues get a fun new way to never miss and deal a bunch of damage, bards become the unmatched kings of buffs with aid, enlarge reduce and boosting spell damage, and then fighters monks, sorcerers and warlocks get new sidegrades and toys that do not really change too much overall even if they do tend towards the stronger. Like for the most part the overall power of the classes have not changed much, especially not in relation to eachother. The only bit that might be different is maybe people's oppinions about the ranger shifting toward the upper end of the pre-tasha spectrum of ranger oppinions, some thought it was meh before, now less so
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Yeah overall I would expect rangers to move up some and rogues to actually maybe move down a little as they got Steady Aim but not much else...
I would expect sorcerer to maybe move up a bit but I personally still see them as the worst full caster.
Monk did pretty well with Tasha's as they got some strong core options and two pretty great subclasses....however the ki issue is still there so I would anticipate them moving up a bit but no completely out of the bottom 5.
Barbarian would likely fall...they did not get much and they were already on the lower side. I personally see them as lower in the Martial groupings.
Yeah overall I would expect rangers to move up some and rogues to actually maybe move down a little as they got Steady Aim but not much else...
I would expect sorcerer to maybe move up a bit but I personally still see them as the worst full caster.
Monk did pretty well with Tasha's as they got some strong core options and two pretty great subclasses....however the ki issue is still there so I would anticipate them moving up a bit but no completely out of the bottom 5.
Barbarian would likely fall...they did not get much and they were already on the lower side. I personally see them as lower in the Martial groupings.
if a class would move down becuase of not actively getting anything, i would put that at druids and fighters rather than rogues. Fighters only get new options for fighting styles and manuvers that not everyone is going to choose and the abillity to change such decisions that you regret, somthing that is not going to increase your moment to moment potency in the slightest, and druids only get to regret their cantrip options as well as getting the worst way to obtain a famiiar.
Rogues by contrast get something that drastically improves their damage output at the cost of their mobillity, since they mostly deal in making a single extremely powerful attack that is very hit-or-miss getting to drastically increase the accuracy of that one attack is gonna be huge. That coupled with how some people might feel that it becomes difficult to score sneak attacks during combat and yeah, it is an pretty huge deal for your rogue. Barbarians also get at least something and that something is objectively better than getting the nothing of the fighter
Paladins should however logically rise in ranking, not that there is much room for them to rise up there
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Fighters got fighting styles so there is that as well.
Battlemaster got a pretty big boost and it's the most popular subclass so it's still an overall gain for the class
Rogue is already expected to get sneak attack each round so this is not really a huge advantage but it's fine.
Agree with druid... Base class really didn't get much but they were already pretty good and they got some stellar (huehue) subclasses so they stay up there.
Barb got some stuff but nothing too crazy or game changing.
Warlock options were ok. The new pact is straight garbage tho.... Literally never worth it
people dont like sorcerer. the make the ultimate assassin. who else can drop a subtle power word kill?
they can cast meteor swarm as a bonus action.
they get all the good cantrips.
sorcerers are amazing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This Mug immediately shared with me a transcendental tale of an Infinite Mug that anchors the Universe and keeps it from folding in on itself. I filed this report under "illogical nonsense" and asked why its sign is in Times New Roman font, when it is basic knowledge that Arial Black is a far superior font. I wondered: How did this mug even get past the assembly line with its theistic beliefs and poor font choices?
quote from Romantically Apocalyptic byVitaly S Alexius
people dont like sorcerer. the make the ultimate assassin. who else can drop a subtle power word kill?
they can cast meteor swarm as a bonus action.
they get all the good cantrips.
sorcerers are amazing.
In smaller groups, the Wizard's larger number of spells known is more useful. But in larger groups, the Sorcerer's ability to improve the small number of spells that they know is more useful. It really depends on how many full spellcasters you have in the party.
The Wizard is like a magical jack of all trades, whereas the Sorcerer is a specialist.
I've only played D&D in groups where it's 4 or 5 players plus a DM, whereas I'm sure that many other people have more often played D&D in groups where it's 2 or 3 players plus a DM (and I get the feeling that some people here have never found a D&D group). When your experience is D&D in small groups (or is only theoretical), you'l have a different impression of classes than you will when your experience is playing D&D in larger groups.
For example, some people seem to expect spellcasters to be big damage dealers, but if you play in a larger D&D group with a few martial characters, you don't feel the need to focus on being good at single target damage, because you're happy to let the martial characters do that, and you can really focus on specializing on being really good at what you do best. This is where Sorcerers are great, because they're fantastic at specializing. Wizards lose a lot of their appeal when they have to play in a party with a Cleric and a Bard. But if you're the only full spellcaster in the party, a Wizard will be much more appealing than a Sorcerer.
In one of the two campaigns my D&D group is running right now (we do two campaigns so that no one is a permanent DM, and so that if one DM is busy one week, the other DM can prepare for that week), we have two Sorcerers - a Divine Soul Sorcerer that focuses on Divine magic and twinning buffs and doing healing and radiant or fire damage (and dealing force damage now that he multiclassed into Warlock), and then we have my Shadow Sorcerer that focuses on debuffs, crowd control, and dealing psychic and necrotic damage. We're both specialists, so we're not stepping on each other's toes at all. But if you put two Wizards into a party together, it would be very different. They would totally be stepping on each other's toes.
people dont like sorcerer. the make the ultimate assassin. who else can drop a subtle power word kill?
they can cast meteor swarm as a bonus action.
Yeah, these are cool things but they are out of reach in literally 98% of games. Every class is strong at 17+. Sorcerer needs more in early levels to make it a more popular choice.
Fighters got fighting styles so there is that as well.
Battlemaster got a pretty big boost and it's the most popular subclass so it's still an overall gain for the class
Rogue is already expected to get sneak attack each round so this is not really a huge advantage but it's fine.
Agree with druid... Base class really didn't get much but they were already pretty good and they got some stellar (huehue) subclasses so they stay up there.
Barb got some stuff but nothing too crazy or game changing.
Warlock options were ok. The new pact is straight garbage tho.... Literally never worth it
yes rogues are expected to deal sneak attack damage every turn, but they are defenetly not expected to hit every attack they make, having advantage vs not having advantage is pretty huge damage wise. Plus it makes sneak attack a bit more flexible in the contexts where it is usable (attacking flying enemies becomes a lot easier for instance). It tangibly makes every single rogue who gets the feature more powerful
by contrast having more options for fighting styles only really affects you if you specifically choose one of those fighting styles, having options you don't choose does not make you stronger. And those fighting styles are not really better or worse compared to what we already had in the player's handbook (with the exception of Interception, something that is clearly just a buffed version of Protection).
Same with these Manuvers, they only really apply to you if you happen to pick one specific subclass, and only then if you choose those particular manuvers who again, are neither better nor worse than what was already present (Brace and Quick Toss to however have action economy advantages that cannot be ignored, and the abillity check ones could let you have manuvers that overlap less in terms of game pillars and effects to more efficiently use up your sweet dice)
if you are to argue that the fighter is more resistant to shifts due to already having competence, it'd say you could make the exact same points about the rogue. The rogue gets an upgrade, the fighter gets a handful of fun side-grades that do not affect the class.
people dont like sorcerer. the make the ultimate assassin. who else can drop a subtle power word kill?
they can cast meteor swarm as a bonus action.
they get all the good cantrips.
sorcerers are amazing.
with the advent of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, any spellcaster with acess to power word killl could technically use the subtle spell metamagic option thanks to Metamagic Adept feat, yes technically both the feats rule and every option from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything is optional but many if not most groups will use both. That's not to say the sorcerer is bad or anything, certainly it will be good at doing exactly what you build your character to accomplish (also due to certain spellcasting rules you would only be able to cast a cantrip or use an non-spell action after using your bonus action to cast meteor swarm)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Fair points....I actually think rogue is already one of the better classes IMO as they are very well designed. I think the fighting styles are more than a side grade but I think we might need to agree to disagree on that one and thats fine.
Overall I do think that the landscape of the poll would be different now for sure though.
Same with these Manuvers, they only really apply to you if you happen to pick one specific subclass, and only then if you choose those particular manuvers who again, are neither better nor worse than what was already present (Brace and Quick Toss to however have action economy advantages that cannot be ignored, and the abillity check ones could let you have manuvers that overlap less in terms of game pillars and effects to more efficiently use up your sweet dice)
i.e. new maneuvers don't make battle masters more powerful except when they do.
Rangers are VERY viable if your a hunter but because people only think about the boring beast master and they haven't actually played a ranger they think it is bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
These results are very similar to the opinion on classes for Pathfinder, with the exception of Barbarian and Sorcerer. Top 3 Strongest: 1. Wizard 2. Cleric 3. Paladin
Top 3 Weakest: 1. Ranger 2. Monk 3. Sorcerer
Sorcerer is incredibly strong in Pathfinder, but otherwise the same issues seem to have followed Rangers and Monks (though I got the impression from Beau in Critical Role that Monks weren't that weak at all)
These results are very similar to the opinion on classes for Pathfinder, with the exception of Barbarian and Sorcerer. Top 3 Strongest: 1. Wizard 2. Cleric 3. Paladin
Top 3 Weakest: 1. Ranger 2. Monk 3. Sorcerer
Sorcerer is incredibly strong in Pathfinder, but otherwise the same issues seem to have followed Rangers and Monks (though I got the impression from Beau in Critical Role that Monks weren't that weak at all)
I see Beau mentioned a lot but she also has godly stats, items that boost her stats, and more items that boost her attacks and damage.
Since she didn't need to use ASI for stats she could take feats which further made her better than your average monk.
Overall what I learned from her is that monks are great if you can ignore stats and just focus on feats.
Rangers are VERY viable if your a hunter but because people only think about the boring beast master and they haven't actually played a ranger they think it is bad.
in terms of raw damage and utillity beast masters are some of the most potent subclasses in the game, but they require a large amount of skill to pull of
Hunters on the other hand are more consistently potent and are good for throwing around big numbers against multiple opponents
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Some of this really depends on what method of stat generation you use. Fighters are a LOT stronger with rolled stats when you can take more feats and dip into a more MAD build.
Some of this really depends on what method of stat generation you use. Fighters are a LOT stronger with rolled stats when you can take more feats and dip into a more MAD build.
Yeah same with monk....if you can roll well and do monk you are going to be playing the class way differently than if you use point buy or standard array as you have to deal with the major issue with monk: MADness.
You will be very behind if you do not pick up DEX/WIS for your 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th, ASI to max DEX/WIS as almost every aspect of your class depends on them. You can get away without them but since you use them constantly it makes most sense to have them maxed ASAP.
This Mug immediately shared with me a transcendental tale of an Infinite Mug that anchors the Universe and keeps it from folding in on itself. I filed this report under "illogical nonsense" and asked why its sign is in Times New Roman font, when it is basic knowledge that Arial Black is a far superior font. I wondered: How did this mug even get past the assembly line with its theistic beliefs and poor font choices?
quote from Romantically Apocalyptic byVitaly S Alexius
This Mug immediately shared with me a transcendental tale of an Infinite Mug that anchors the Universe and keeps it from folding in on itself. I filed this report under "illogical nonsense" and asked why its sign is in Times New Roman font, when it is basic knowledge that Arial Black is a far superior font. I wondered: How did this mug even get past the assembly line with its theistic beliefs and poor font choices?
quote from Romantically Apocalyptic byVitaly S Alexius
Rangers are VERY viable if your a hunter but because people only think about the boring beast master and they haven't actually played a ranger they think it is bad.
I think people's opinion had less to do with damage and subclasses, and more to do with 2/3rds of its base class features being so situational as to not be reliably useful (not to mention that they were barely useful to begin with...). Tasha fixed a lot of this and brought the ranger up to par.
If we were to start the poll over, it would probably rank better than monk and sorcerer now.
Rangers are VERY viable if your a hunter but because people only think about the boring beast master and they haven't actually played a ranger they think it is bad.
I think people's opinion had less to do with damage and subclasses, and more to do with 2/3rds of its base class features being so situational as to not be reliably useful (not to mention that they were barely useful to begin with...). Tasha fixed a lot of this and brought the ranger up to par.
If we were to start the poll over, it would probably rank better than monk and sorcerer now.
I'd agree.... They are pretty solid now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Rangers got a lot of good upgrades and a few side-grades, no longer any doubts about combat potency at least
Wizards solidify their domain as the kings of versatillity by yoinking augury, enhance abillity, divination and speak with dead from the cleric spell list, all of whom making the divination wizard a more fun subclass. Enhance abillity was also one of the few sorcerer spells not on the wizard spell list, plus for some reason they alone get true cantrip versatillity, getting to swap cantrips each long rest, again kings (and queens and monarchs) of versatillity
Rogues get a fun new way to never miss and deal a bunch of damage, bards become the unmatched kings of buffs with aid, enlarge reduce and boosting spell damage, and then fighters monks, sorcerers and warlocks get new sidegrades and toys that do not really change too much overall even if they do tend towards the stronger. Like for the most part the overall power of the classes have not changed much, especially not in relation to eachother. The only bit that might be different is maybe people's oppinions about the ranger shifting toward the upper end of the pre-tasha spectrum of ranger oppinions, some thought it was meh before, now less so
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Yeah overall I would expect rangers to move up some and rogues to actually maybe move down a little as they got Steady Aim but not much else...
I would expect sorcerer to maybe move up a bit but I personally still see them as the worst full caster.
Monk did pretty well with Tasha's as they got some strong core options and two pretty great subclasses....however the ki issue is still there so I would anticipate them moving up a bit but no completely out of the bottom 5.
Barbarian would likely fall...they did not get much and they were already on the lower side. I personally see them as lower in the Martial groupings.
if a class would move down becuase of not actively getting anything, i would put that at druids and fighters rather than rogues. Fighters only get new options for fighting styles and manuvers that not everyone is going to choose and the abillity to change such decisions that you regret, somthing that is not going to increase your moment to moment potency in the slightest, and druids only get to regret their cantrip options as well as getting the worst way to obtain a famiiar.
Rogues by contrast get something that drastically improves their damage output at the cost of their mobillity, since they mostly deal in making a single extremely powerful attack that is very hit-or-miss getting to drastically increase the accuracy of that one attack is gonna be huge. That coupled with how some people might feel that it becomes difficult to score sneak attacks during combat and yeah, it is an pretty huge deal for your rogue. Barbarians also get at least something and that something is objectively better than getting the nothing of the fighter
Paladins should however logically rise in ranking, not that there is much room for them to rise up there
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Fighters got fighting styles so there is that as well.
Battlemaster got a pretty big boost and it's the most popular subclass so it's still an overall gain for the class
Rogue is already expected to get sneak attack each round so this is not really a huge advantage but it's fine.
Agree with druid... Base class really didn't get much but they were already pretty good and they got some stellar (huehue) subclasses so they stay up there.
Barb got some stuff but nothing too crazy or game changing.
Warlock options were ok. The new pact is straight garbage tho.... Literally never worth it
people dont like sorcerer. the make the ultimate assassin. who else can drop a subtle power word kill?
they can cast meteor swarm as a bonus action.
they get all the good cantrips.
sorcerers are amazing.
This Mug immediately shared with me a transcendental tale of an Infinite Mug that anchors the Universe and keeps it from folding in on itself. I filed this report under "illogical nonsense" and asked why its sign is in Times New Roman font, when it is basic knowledge that Arial Black is a far superior font. I wondered: How did this mug even get past the assembly line with its theistic beliefs and poor font choices?
quote from Romantically Apocalyptic by Vitaly S Alexius
In smaller groups, the Wizard's larger number of spells known is more useful. But in larger groups, the Sorcerer's ability to improve the small number of spells that they know is more useful. It really depends on how many full spellcasters you have in the party.
The Wizard is like a magical jack of all trades, whereas the Sorcerer is a specialist.
I've only played D&D in groups where it's 4 or 5 players plus a DM, whereas I'm sure that many other people have more often played D&D in groups where it's 2 or 3 players plus a DM (and I get the feeling that some people here have never found a D&D group). When your experience is D&D in small groups (or is only theoretical), you'l have a different impression of classes than you will when your experience is playing D&D in larger groups.
For example, some people seem to expect spellcasters to be big damage dealers, but if you play in a larger D&D group with a few martial characters, you don't feel the need to focus on being good at single target damage, because you're happy to let the martial characters do that, and you can really focus on specializing on being really good at what you do best. This is where Sorcerers are great, because they're fantastic at specializing. Wizards lose a lot of their appeal when they have to play in a party with a Cleric and a Bard. But if you're the only full spellcaster in the party, a Wizard will be much more appealing than a Sorcerer.
In one of the two campaigns my D&D group is running right now (we do two campaigns so that no one is a permanent DM, and so that if one DM is busy one week, the other DM can prepare for that week), we have two Sorcerers - a Divine Soul Sorcerer that focuses on Divine magic and twinning buffs and doing healing and radiant or fire damage (and dealing force damage now that he multiclassed into Warlock), and then we have my Shadow Sorcerer that focuses on debuffs, crowd control, and dealing psychic and necrotic damage. We're both specialists, so we're not stepping on each other's toes at all. But if you put two Wizards into a party together, it would be very different. They would totally be stepping on each other's toes.
Yeah, these are cool things but they are out of reach in literally 98% of games. Every class is strong at 17+. Sorcerer needs more in early levels to make it a more popular choice.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
yes rogues are expected to deal sneak attack damage every turn, but they are defenetly not expected to hit every attack they make, having advantage vs not having advantage is pretty huge damage wise. Plus it makes sneak attack a bit more flexible in the contexts where it is usable (attacking flying enemies becomes a lot easier for instance). It tangibly makes every single rogue who gets the feature more powerful
by contrast having more options for fighting styles only really affects you if you specifically choose one of those fighting styles, having options you don't choose does not make you stronger. And those fighting styles are not really better or worse compared to what we already had in the player's handbook (with the exception of Interception, something that is clearly just a buffed version of Protection).
Same with these Manuvers, they only really apply to you if you happen to pick one specific subclass, and only then if you choose those particular manuvers who again, are neither better nor worse than what was already present (Brace and Quick Toss to however have action economy advantages that cannot be ignored, and the abillity check ones could let you have manuvers that overlap less in terms of game pillars and effects to more efficiently use up your sweet dice)
if you are to argue that the fighter is more resistant to shifts due to already having competence, it'd say you could make the exact same points about the rogue. The rogue gets an upgrade, the fighter gets a handful of fun side-grades that do not affect the class.
with the advent of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, any spellcaster with acess to power word killl could technically use the subtle spell metamagic option thanks to Metamagic Adept feat, yes technically both the feats rule and every option from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything is optional but many if not most groups will use both. That's not to say the sorcerer is bad or anything, certainly it will be good at doing exactly what you build your character to accomplish (also due to certain spellcasting rules you would only be able to cast a cantrip or use an non-spell action after using your bonus action to cast meteor swarm)
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Fair points....I actually think rogue is already one of the better classes IMO as they are very well designed. I think the fighting styles are more than a side grade but I think we might need to agree to disagree on that one and thats fine.
Overall I do think that the landscape of the poll would be different now for sure though.
i.e. new maneuvers don't make battle masters more powerful except when they do.
Rangers are VERY viable if your a hunter but because people only think about the boring beast master and they haven't actually played a ranger they think it is bad.
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
Drummer Generated Title
After having been invited to include both here, I now combine the "PM me CHEESE 🧀 and tomato into PM me "PIZZA🍕"
These results are very similar to the opinion on classes for Pathfinder, with the exception of Barbarian and Sorcerer.
Top 3 Strongest:
1. Wizard
2. Cleric
3. Paladin
Top 3 Weakest:
1. Ranger
2. Monk
3. Sorcerer
Sorcerer is incredibly strong in Pathfinder, but otherwise the same issues seem to have followed Rangers and Monks (though I got the impression from Beau in Critical Role that Monks weren't that weak at all)
I see Beau mentioned a lot but she also has godly stats, items that boost her stats, and more items that boost her attacks and damage.
Since she didn't need to use ASI for stats she could take feats which further made her better than your average monk.
Overall what I learned from her is that monks are great if you can ignore stats and just focus on feats.
in terms of raw damage and utillity beast masters are some of the most potent subclasses in the game, but they require a large amount of skill to pull of
Hunters on the other hand are more consistently potent and are good for throwing around big numbers against multiple opponents
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Some of this really depends on what method of stat generation you use. Fighters are a LOT stronger with rolled stats when you can take more feats and dip into a more MAD build.
Yeah same with monk....if you can roll well and do monk you are going to be playing the class way differently than if you use point buy or standard array as you have to deal with the major issue with monk: MADness.
You will be very behind if you do not pick up DEX/WIS for your 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th, ASI to max DEX/WIS as almost every aspect of your class depends on them. You can get away without them but since you use them constantly it makes most sense to have them maxed ASAP.
The class that is most MAD: barbarians.
This Mug immediately shared with me a transcendental tale of an Infinite Mug that anchors the Universe and keeps it from folding in on itself. I filed this report under "illogical nonsense" and asked why its sign is in Times New Roman font, when it is basic knowledge that Arial Black is a far superior font. I wondered: How did this mug even get past the assembly line with its theistic beliefs and poor font choices?
quote from Romantically Apocalyptic by Vitaly S Alexius
Being MAD is a core feature.
This Mug immediately shared with me a transcendental tale of an Infinite Mug that anchors the Universe and keeps it from folding in on itself. I filed this report under "illogical nonsense" and asked why its sign is in Times New Roman font, when it is basic knowledge that Arial Black is a far superior font. I wondered: How did this mug even get past the assembly line with its theistic beliefs and poor font choices?
quote from Romantically Apocalyptic by Vitaly S Alexius
I think people's opinion had less to do with damage and subclasses, and more to do with 2/3rds of its base class features being so situational as to not be reliably useful (not to mention that they were barely useful to begin with...). Tasha fixed a lot of this and brought the ranger up to par.
If we were to start the poll over, it would probably rank better than monk and sorcerer now.
I'd agree.... They are pretty solid now.