Hmmm; I think you're underestimating druids for "Buffs/Heal" and "Control/Debuffs" at least in early/mid levels. (I haven't played enough high-level 5E to really judge there.) They're full casters with a wide selections of options, including some great area-control spells no one else gets. For healing, they've got Cure Wounds, Healing Word, Lesser and Greater Restoration, etc. And don't forget the expanded list for Land druids.
Absolutely. In fact, Druids may be the best single-class healer in 5e, because they have access to Healing Spirit.
The chart was made before Xanathar's Guide to Everything came out, so its not really fair to bring that up. Granted, its hard to dismiss that the druid has gotten better at healing / buffing thanks to a number of new spells and new Circles in Xanathar's. But still, can't blame the ratings for not taking into account a book that wasn't even out yet.
The chart was made before Xanathar's Guide to Everything came out, so its not really fair to bring that up. Granted, its hard to dismiss that the druid has gotten better at healing / buffing thanks to a number of new spells and new Circles in Xanathar's. But still, can't blame the ratings for not taking into account a book that wasn't even out yet.
Regarding the buffing/healing potential of low level Druids without XGtE: Goodberry is one of the more efficient out-of-combat healing spells around (particularly because you can often cast it the night before a dungeon delve and have your spell slots back in time for the adventure... and still have the berries). Healing Word is probably the most important curative spell in the game. Guidance is an incredibly good buff at early levels, giving an at-will bonus larger than (and stacking with) proficiency to any ability check you want (including stuff like Initiative).
All of this and more, and we're told that they've got the same healing/buffing ability as the Monk or Ranger.
This is far from the only bizarre rating on the list, either. For example, we're told that Clerics are the true bottom of the barrel when it comes to skills at early levels. This is despite the fact that they have access to ritual casting, utility spells, the Guidance cantrip (the usefulness of which I already mentioned), and major in Wisdom (which is tied to some crucial skills like Perception). On top of that they can gain extra utility from their domain choices straight from level 1, such as the Knowledge domain grabbing extra languages, extra skill proficiencies, and doubling some of your existing proficiencies. All of this and more, but we're supposed to believe that contrary to all optimization wisdom they're as bad as it gets when it comes to skills and utility at low levels.
Oh, I don't disagree that the ratings are a bit wonky, even just assuming core book. I'm personally wondering about the ratings of the barbarian versus the fighter, considering the utility of Rages and anti-trap abilities that the barbarian to use in exploration (not taking subclasses into account), versus combat-only abilities. I also find that the barbarian outdamages the fighter for most games, up to level 10, plus comes with more exploration/social skills. I also find that the paladin generally is considered to be top tier alongside wizard. Speaking of Wizards, what's up with their abysmal stealth rating, when familiars and invisibility and scrying are a thing?
I just don't think its fair to bring up Xanathar's stuff.
The top two are the best in the game, combining strong output and flexibility in a wide variety of areas. The paladin can not only challenge the fighter and barbarian for most of the game in terms of taking a hit and dealing one out, but the paladin comes with buffing, healing, pet horses, a decent CHA score, some control spells, and some Detect X magics to fall back on if necessary. Wizard is rightfully known as the most versatile class in the game. The bottom three either have mechanical issues plaguing them, or resource issues that crop up often. I'm sure we've all heard issues with the Ranger's different abilities, and sorcerers often end up with sorcery point / spells known issues. Lots of people feel the sorcerer needs help, and point to a wide variety of issues compared to other casters. The monk's biggest issue is mostly just running out of ki for things.
Everyone else seems to roughly have a rough balance that shifts, depending on individual tables, so impossible to judge accurately.
Monk D ins dps? and warlock A? wtf, im playing with both classes, my warlock usa a cantrip that deals 10 damage in a turn, and my monk can use 3 attacks in one turn that deals 15 damage without the dices
DPR for a reason. Technically in levels 1-5 I rarely have had more than 1 fight per rest anyways. But compared with both ranger and fighter doing the same build its unlikely ranger can out dps fighter lvl 5. Your hunters mark is his superiority dice and if he uses the dice to hit it makes it that -5 almost nothing to hit compared to the flat 10 on dmg rolls.
Also lvl 4 take lucky feat the fighter has much easier time hitting.
What is it at level 15+ that turns Monks from D to A in DPR. If you are taking into account the Quivering Palm, I get it, but that is 1 path, and a potential 18 CON saving throw for end game monsters.
Monk D ins dps? and warlock A? wtf, im playing with both classes, my warlock usa a cantrip that deals 10 damage in a turn, and my monk can use 3 attacks in one turn that deals 15 damage without the dices
Lock has 1 attack roll, Monk has 3 attack rolls? The discrepancy is wide, but take into account the number of hits you need to get for max damage
I believe that Paladin should be A tier. They made outstanding Tanks that pack a lot of damage but also with proficient in almost every single armor and weapon type. not only that being a face of the party is huge. Paladins can be damage when you need it. An unmovable wall when you need it and even a healer when your party really needs it. There are very few situations inside and outside combat that a Paladin doesn't excel.
I know they don't deal quite as much damage as full optimized dps classes. But even on very little paladins do great damage. They aren't as tanky as barbarians but they are still nearly unkillable. and with a healing pool thats more than enough health to go around they can keep themselves and allies topped off if your healer is running out of spells. All in all Paladin is a versatile jack of all trades that excels in all with very little required to do so.
I would disagree with Cleric getting a low placing on debuffs levels 1-5. Cleric is able to use Bane, and that is a pretty respectable debuff that Cleric can consistently use as long as you have spell slots. It's not the strongest debuff, but it is still disadvantage on 3+ creatures.
OK quite a few things i have a difference in opinion in, but im very confused in how you ranked Bard & Rouge? I find Bard to be one of the most versatile and powerful classes in the game, while rouge is very niche with very narrow use depending on subclass.
but it still high if i miss like 2, and if i miss 1 eldritch i loose all that damage in the turn, the damage of 1 monk hit is: 1d4+5, avg of 7.5, and the warlock is 1d10+4, avg of 10. even missing 2 attacks it has just 2.5 points behind, and the max damage is 27 for the monk and 14 for the lock, and you need the remember that the monk has a more safe damage, beacuse is really unprobrable that you miss 3 atacks, but it is very likely that you miss one.
6f8+5 (max int) is avg of 33 damage, all those dices are really cool, but they dont really do that much damage, i had a paladin that was able to deal tha same ammount every turn without wasting lots of slots, wizard is better with utility than with damage, search for the treantmonk wizard guide, you'll see
While my personal experience is limited, I have to disagree with Monk getting a D in early game damage. Ours is carrying our party in terms of damage. Mostly because of her, we've killed a mob of 3 Hob-goblins and 6 Goblins, then a Bugbear with 2 Goblins (would have been 8 Goblins without our Bard casting Sleep), and most recently forced an NPC Drow Assassin of at least level 5 (used his racial casting of Darkness so has to be at least that high) (we're still level 2) to jump out a second floor window into death saving throws. Granted, she rolled pretty great on character creation and has high Dex, but all she's got is a Quarterstaff and her Flurry of Blows to work with.
While my personal experience is limited, I have to disagree with Monk getting a D in early game damage. Ours is carrying our party in terms of damage. Mostly because of her, we've killed a mob of 3 Hob-goblins and 6 Goblins, then a Bugbear with 2 Goblins (would have been 8 Goblins without our Bard casting Sleep), and most recently forced an NPC Drow Assassin of at least level 5 (used his racial casting of Darkness so has to be at least that high) (we're still level 2) to jump out a second floor window into death saving throws. Granted, she rolled pretty great on character creation and has high Dex, but all she's got is a Quarterstaff and her Flurry of Blows to work with.
That's the thing with Monk being heavily MAD... when you're rolling your stats, that can be a non-issue if you're able to start with 18+ in Dex and/or Wis. If your campaign is doing point-buy or standard array, it becomes a lot more difficult since the maximum a score can be at creation is 17 (15 highest base +2 from a racial bonus). Even a Variant Human using their free feat on something with a +1 to a stat can't start with more than 17.
Does this mean the Monk can't be good without hand-rolled stats? Of course not, but it does severely limit the player options compared to less MAD classes. Gotta use all those ASIs on Dex/Wis/Con to stay viable, so it's very unlikely that you'll be able to even consider taking a feat. Meanwhile, most other players will have their main (and possibly secondary) stat capped by level 8.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Warlock's combat capability is hard to gauge, because it is very dependent on the style and pace set by the DM. If your party gets short rests between fights and does lots of fights per day, warlock is excellent, firing multiple very high level spells per encounter. If you tend to fight once per day or less (I often wonder how there's a functional economy in some of the places we visit just based on how dangerous those trade routes seem to be), then lock is a little weak compared to top tier casters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The chart was made before Xanathar's Guide to Everything came out, so its not really fair to bring that up. Granted, its hard to dismiss that the druid has gotten better at healing / buffing thanks to a number of new spells and new Circles in Xanathar's. But still, can't blame the ratings for not taking into account a book that wasn't even out yet.
Regarding the buffing/healing potential of low level Druids without XGtE: Goodberry is one of the more efficient out-of-combat healing spells around (particularly because you can often cast it the night before a dungeon delve and have your spell slots back in time for the adventure... and still have the berries). Healing Word is probably the most important curative spell in the game. Guidance is an incredibly good buff at early levels, giving an at-will bonus larger than (and stacking with) proficiency to any ability check you want (including stuff like Initiative).
All of this and more, and we're told that they've got the same healing/buffing ability as the Monk or Ranger.
This is far from the only bizarre rating on the list, either. For example, we're told that Clerics are the true bottom of the barrel when it comes to skills at early levels. This is despite the fact that they have access to ritual casting, utility spells, the Guidance cantrip (the usefulness of which I already mentioned), and major in Wisdom (which is tied to some crucial skills like Perception). On top of that they can gain extra utility from their domain choices straight from level 1, such as the Knowledge domain grabbing extra languages, extra skill proficiencies, and doubling some of your existing proficiencies. All of this and more, but we're supposed to believe that contrary to all optimization wisdom they're as bad as it gets when it comes to skills and utility at low levels.
Ludic: adjective (formal). showing spontaneous and undirected playfulness.
Oh, I don't disagree that the ratings are a bit wonky, even just assuming core book. I'm personally wondering about the ratings of the barbarian versus the fighter, considering the utility of Rages and anti-trap abilities that the barbarian to use in exploration (not taking subclasses into account), versus combat-only abilities. I also find that the barbarian outdamages the fighter for most games, up to level 10, plus comes with more exploration/social skills. I also find that the paladin generally is considered to be top tier alongside wizard. Speaking of Wizards, what's up with their abysmal stealth rating, when familiars and invisibility and scrying are a thing?
I just don't think its fair to bring up Xanathar's stuff.
If I was going to do a ranking, I would do the following
Top Tier - Paladin, Wizard
2nd Tier - Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Barbarian, Warlock, Rogue
3rd Tier - Monk, Ranger, Sorcerer
The top two are the best in the game, combining strong output and flexibility in a wide variety of areas. The paladin can not only challenge the fighter and barbarian for most of the game in terms of taking a hit and dealing one out, but the paladin comes with buffing, healing, pet horses, a decent CHA score, some control spells, and some Detect X magics to fall back on if necessary. Wizard is rightfully known as the most versatile class in the game. The bottom three either have mechanical issues plaguing them, or resource issues that crop up often. I'm sure we've all heard issues with the Ranger's different abilities, and sorcerers often end up with sorcery point / spells known issues. Lots of people feel the sorcerer needs help, and point to a wide variety of issues compared to other casters. The monk's biggest issue is mostly just running out of ki for things.
Everyone else seems to roughly have a rough balance that shifts, depending on individual tables, so impossible to judge accurately.
Monk D ins dps? and warlock A? wtf, im playing with both classes, my warlock usa a cantrip that deals 10 damage in a turn, and my monk can use 3 attacks in one turn that deals 15 damage without the dices
DPR for a reason. Technically in levels 1-5 I rarely have had more than 1 fight per rest anyways. But compared with both ranger and fighter doing the same build its unlikely ranger can out dps fighter lvl 5. Your hunters mark is his superiority dice and if he uses the dice to hit it makes it that -5 almost nothing to hit compared to the flat 10 on dmg rolls.
Also lvl 4 take lucky feat the fighter has much easier time hitting.
What is it at level 15+ that turns Monks from D to A in DPR. If you are taking into account the Quivering Palm, I get it, but that is 1 path, and a potential 18 CON saving throw for end game monsters.
Lock has 1 attack roll, Monk has 3 attack rolls? The discrepancy is wide, but take into account the number of hits you need to get for max damage
I believe that Paladin should be A tier. They made outstanding Tanks that pack a lot of damage but also with proficient in almost every single armor and weapon type. not only that being a face of the party is huge. Paladins can be damage when you need it. An unmovable wall when you need it and even a healer when your party really needs it. There are very few situations inside and outside combat that a Paladin doesn't excel.
I know they don't deal quite as much damage as full optimized dps classes. But even on very little paladins do great damage. They aren't as tanky as barbarians but they are still nearly unkillable. and with a healing pool thats more than enough health to go around they can keep themselves and allies topped off if your healer is running out of spells. All in all Paladin is a versatile jack of all trades that excels in all with very little required to do so.
Tier list from personal Experience
A-Tier: Druid, Barbarian, Rouge
B-Tier: Monk, Wizard, Cleric, Paladin
C-Tier: Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock
D-Tier: Ranger, Bard
I would disagree with Cleric getting a low placing on debuffs levels 1-5. Cleric is able to use Bane, and that is a pretty respectable debuff that Cleric can consistently use as long as you have spell slots. It's not the strongest debuff, but it is still disadvantage on 3+ creatures.
OK quite a few things i have a difference in opinion in, but im very confused in how you ranked Bard & Rouge? I find Bard to be one of the most versatile and powerful classes in the game, while rouge is very niche with very narrow use depending on subclass.
Boi wtf do you mean wizard has low dpr. This boi has spells that do 6d8+int at level 6
but it still high if i miss like 2, and if i miss 1 eldritch i loose all that damage in the turn, the damage of 1 monk hit is: 1d4+5, avg of 7.5, and the warlock is 1d10+4, avg of 10. even missing 2 attacks it has just 2.5 points behind, and the max damage is 27 for the monk and 14 for the lock, and you need the remember that the monk has a more safe damage, beacuse is really unprobrable that you miss 3 atacks, but it is very likely that you miss one.
6f8+5 (max int) is avg of 33 damage, all those dices are really cool, but they dont really do that much damage, i had a paladin that was able to deal tha same ammount every turn without wasting lots of slots, wizard is better with utility than with damage, search for the treantmonk wizard guide, you'll see
How is a Monk anything other than D in buff/support? What features do they have that help anyone else?
While my personal experience is limited, I have to disagree with Monk getting a D in early game damage. Ours is carrying our party in terms of damage. Mostly because of her, we've killed a mob of 3 Hob-goblins and 6 Goblins, then a Bugbear with 2 Goblins (would have been 8 Goblins without our Bard casting Sleep), and most recently forced an NPC Drow Assassin of at least level 5 (used his racial casting of Darkness so has to be at least that high) (we're still level 2) to jump out a second floor window into death saving throws. Granted, she rolled pretty great on character creation and has high Dex, but all she's got is a Quarterstaff and her Flurry of Blows to work with.
That's the thing with Monk being heavily MAD... when you're rolling your stats, that can be a non-issue if you're able to start with 18+ in Dex and/or Wis. If your campaign is doing point-buy or standard array, it becomes a lot more difficult since the maximum a score can be at creation is 17 (15 highest base +2 from a racial bonus). Even a Variant Human using their free feat on something with a +1 to a stat can't start with more than 17.
Does this mean the Monk can't be good without hand-rolled stats? Of course not, but it does severely limit the player options compared to less MAD classes. Gotta use all those ASIs on Dex/Wis/Con to stay viable, so it's very unlikely that you'll be able to even consider taking a feat. Meanwhile, most other players will have their main (and possibly secondary) stat capped by level 8.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Warlock's combat capability is hard to gauge, because it is very dependent on the style and pace set by the DM. If your party gets short rests between fights and does lots of fights per day, warlock is excellent, firing multiple very high level spells per encounter. If you tend to fight once per day or less (I often wonder how there's a functional economy in some of the places we visit just based on how dangerous those trade routes seem to be), then lock is a little weak compared to top tier casters.