What’s the problem with the monk? Me and my friends are level 10 in Rise of Tiamat right now. We have a wizard, a Valor bard, a fighter, a swashbuckler, and me. (The monk). I’m an open hand. I consistently out damage everyone by a landslide. The fighter averages 10-20 DPR (he’s a tank, not a DPR fighter). Valor ~ 10. Swash ~ 30, Wizard ~ 10-20 (also some amazing buffs and debuffs though). And my monk does about 40-50 DPR. I can also be everywhere at once and people most of the time won’t be making opportunity attacks on me. What’s the deal? Utility + best DPR in game without resources. We have our choice of 2x uncommon magic items, a +2 weapon or our choice, and a 1x rare magic item of our choice if that makes a difference. (I got +2 wraps). Monks aren’t really huge on battlefield controlling, although they do that. I think monks are A tier DPR mid and late. Early monks are probably the worst class.
Nothing is wrong with monks. I admit that mid-game should be higher probably B but. I'm probably not going to update this post anymore though (it's already very outdated, still really appreciate the feed back though). If you're filling the damage role within your party that is fine and you sound like you're doing a great job and having fun. My point (of this post is anyway) if you wanted to be a DPR machine, there are classes with higher potential for that specific thing.
Your swashbuckler, for example, which is not the rogue subclass which does the most DPR is the second-highest average damage in your party and could easily be doing more if that was what he/she wanted to do given the resources your DM gave you, off the top of my head
Lvl 10, so 20 Dex, maybe an elf (shadow mark) +2 rapier, gauntlets of haste (rare), a cloak of resistance, headband of intellect
would give him 2 attacks at +11 of 1d8+7 with a 5d6 sneak attack (between 22 and 63 damage) likely with advantage from being hidden, not able to be opportunity attacked while possibly imposing disadvantage, have a + 9 to initiative, skills checks ranging from +4 to +13 in pretty much everything, an AC of 21, on top of dodge and pretty much immune to anything with a dex save.
Again not saying he should be playing like that or anything just looking at the potential in the class. Your fighter is a tank for example IF they wanted to DPR they have high potential to do so as well (more than a swashbucker). Everyone CAN do everything some classes just accel at certain things.
ps - why is your valor bard doing 10 damage a round though?
I would like to contribute but I must stay realistic, I have limited knowledge of all possible builds and I have little actual experience outside of the 5e Barbarian.
Thanks for the offer and feedback. Honestly, I hadn't realized just how many subclasses there were until I put them all together it is indeed daunting, if I do indeed do this I will need to revamp the entire rating system to be much broarder, still thinking.
The Monk's deflect missiles ability is quite useful for tanking. Then at level 7 they get Evasion. That combination makes them pretty hard to damage from range.
I think this ranking improperly favors the traditional heavy armor tank over the high dexterity tanks like Rogue, Ranger, and Monk. Rogue and Monk are both extremely mobile, which is quite important when tanking, and the high dexterity tanks have a better initiative bonus, too. A tank isn't any good if he's not in the right place either due to slow foot speed or slow initiative.
Swashbucklers don’t really do more damage than monks. I do 4d6 + 28. He does 5d6 +7. +1d8. I agree with the fighter. IF the fighter wanted to, he could do a little. It more damage. Monks are just purely DPR + utility. Of course there’s higher DPR but it’s a little harder to achieve besides vanilla monk.
the case on my Valor bard: They’re a somewhat new player who doesn’t like to think (not a bad thing). Instead they enjoy just hanging out and they’re fun to play with. They never cast spells for some reason besides a greater invisibility here and there in our swash, and instead sit in the back with a +1 bow and a staff of healing just barely doing anyone. I suggested playing an arcane archer but they refused.
PS: I’m actually really interested in the gloves of haste because our campaign just fought an adult white dragon and survived so our DM is giving us a rare magic item of our choice. I chose the shield guardian as long as I expend 1,000 of my gold, though we already have a tank and I would like to add to my damage. (I already have Cloak of Protection, Winged Boots, and +2 monk wraps. )
Not gonna lie, I do agree with a lot of the points made. Solid stuff all around!
I disagree on two classes overall effectiveness though. I think both Warlocks and Barbarians should be a little higher.
Barbarians are solid DPS and pretty much the best tank in the game depending on what subclass you go. I totally agree they lack a lot in versatility, but having a good Barbarian in a fight is always nice. Especially when combat can be very important in a lot of campaigns. Basically, when 80% of the problems are nails, the hammer is the king of all tools. And the Barbarian is the hammer. Because of that, I have a hard time ranking them at a D tier. C maybe. But D seems really low for a such a powerful combat class.
Warlocks I think can do almost as well, if not equally well, in the social/stealth category as Bard's and Rogues. Bards are OP of course, but Warlocks are really powerful if played right. They're kind of weird as far as classes go, but they have so much potential. Shaping change at will for no spell slot, spell slots recharging on short rests, spells always being casted at the maximum level, etc. There's a lot of potential there even if there spell list is shorter. I'd push them towards a B ranking because while they are specialized, they are still just so good at their intended purpose. Being a spooky damage/social magic user.
I guess my two cents are that the Warlock and Barbarian both are, while very specialized, just too good at what they do to be ranked as low as they are. Those are just my thoughts! I'm definitely a Warlock fangirl and I've played a few in different types of campaigns and I've never not felt powerful and useful.
Not gonna lie, I do agree with a lot of the points made. Solid stuff all around!
I disagree on two classes overall effectiveness though. I think both Warlocks and Barbarians should be a little higher.
Barbarians are solid DPS and pretty much the best tank in the game depending on what subclass you go. I totally agree they lack a lot in versatility, but having a good Barbarian in a fight is always nice. Especially when combat can be very important in a lot of campaigns. Basically, when 80% of the problems are nails, the hammer is the king of all tools. And the Barbarian is the hammer. Because of that, I have a hard time ranking them at a D tier. C maybe. But D seems really low for a such a powerful combat class.
Warlocks I think can do almost as well, if not equally well, in the social/stealth category as Bard's and Rogues. Bards are OP of course, but Warlocks are really powerful if played right. They're kind of weird as far as classes go, but they have so much potential. Shaping change at will for no spell slot, spell slots recharging on short rests, spells always being casted at the maximum level, etc. There's a lot of potential there even if there spell list is shorter. I'd push them towards a B ranking because while they are specialized, they are still just so good at their intended purpose. Being a spooky damage/social magic user.
I guess my two cents are that the Warlock and Barbarian both are, while very specialized, just too good at what they do to be ranked as low as they are. Those are just my thoughts! I'm definitely a Warlock fangirl and I've played a few in different types of campaigns and I've never not felt powerful and useful.
Beards and rogues have expertise. That’s what separates them. Anyone can be good at it if played right though
Maybe it's because time has past and more expansions may have been released, but I just have a different opinion:
Tier A - Wizard, Sorc, Cleric, Paladin
Nobody will argue wizard I think. Sorc brings heavy firepower and nearly identical spell list, sacrificing a little versatility for a better primary stat and more raw power. Cleric gets a grat spell list with some really good sub-classes and Paladin, if spec'd right, brings a ton of DPS, with many strengths (top tier DPS, AC, saves, rounded out with some healing and utility), and few weaknesses. Multi-class with Warlock to be even stronger.
Tier B - Warlock, Druid, Bard, very specific fighter builds
These 3 casters all suffer lacking the best spells of the above 3. Bard can make up for that with secrets, but at the cost of poor sub-classes or magical augmentations (meta-magic, some of the bonuses the wiz sub-classes offer), which is not entirely made up for with skills. Druid gets wild shape, but it has nearly as many downsides as upsides (namely that you are are poor excuse for a martial build in forms and can't cast). Warlocks lack the full versatility of the others, but nearly made A tier due to invocations and Eldritch blast. You can min-max very specific fighter builds to shell out top tier DPR, but at the cost of well... everything else.
Tier C - Ranger, Rogue (and most fighter builds)
To be fair, they are tier A at low levels, but after 5th they quickly flat-line, and drop to one of the weakest overall classes. Playing variant ranger and using Xanathar's sub-classes might boost them to B tier (and definitely A tier low levels and A tier splash).
Rogue only makes it here due to exceptional non-combat utility. In combat, they are garbage past 4th level.
Tier D - Barbarian and Monk
I agree these are weak, but disagree with the reasoning. Monks are actually fairly strong at low levels, making 2, possibly 3 attacks while most classes are stuck at 1. But they fade quickly, only regaining strength late. Barb, like Ranger and rogue, really flat-lines early. Their unarmored defense is next to useless, but rage, reckless attack, high HP, all serve them well at early levels.
Summary: As usual, once you get to 7th level and above the caster classes generally outshine the martial classes, all the more true for classes that cap at 1 or even 2 attacks (except paladin, which were done right)
gmascenik, maybe worth making this a new thread rather than adding to this old one (which I think while well-intentioned basically all of the replies disagree with).
I would argue that warlock is overall better then fighter since fighter really only has BM as a reliable option. Champion is not really good at all and it's other subclasses aren't nearly as good as BM. Also warlock doesn't really need subclasses to be good at their roll as much as a fighter needs that specific subclasses to be good. I would also agrue that moon druid is s tier easy.
I would argue that warlock is overall better then fighter since fighter really only has BM as a reliable option. Champion is not really good at all and it's other subclasses aren't nearly as good as BM. Also warlock doesn't really need subclasses to be good at their roll as much as a fighter needs that specific subclasses to be good. I would also agrue that moon druid is s tier easy.
Well, now, that's a rather loaded opinion there, no? Battlemaster might be the strongest of the Fighter subclass, but then, every class has "best" subclasses. I'm not really down with that. That's like saying, "Rogue is worse than other classes, because Thief is the only good subclass; Assassin is not really good at all and the others aren't nearly as good as Thief." And, yes, that's an actual argument someone else made about Rogue, I didn't just make that up. Each of the subclasses has a different role and archetype they hit; they're not meant to play alike
Every subclass has a reason, and a dedicated playstyle, for people to engage with. Champion exists for a very simple reason - people wanted a simple Fighter without any moving parts. Run up and hit. It does that job for people who don't want to think or use resources. Love it or hate it, but it does its job well enough that people do use it regularly. Its good enough for the playstyle people want. Its not optimal, but it works. Eldritch Knight, while lackluster with the Evocations, is great with spells to bolster your AC, something that Battlemaster Manuevers lack. Likewise, Arcane Archer shots have some magical abilities that are rather potent - blinding, banishing, etc, that aren't replicated by Manuevers. Samurai abilities are meant to synergize with making the most out of Action Surge and Second Wind, plus they have social ability, something often in high demand for Fighters. Cavaliers are better at being enemy roadblocks than Battlemaster. Purple Dragon Knight.... a second attempt at doing a 5e warlord, which is better than the Battlemaster maneuvers trying to do the same, though could use a bit of a buff.
Each subclass has a different focus that Battlemaster really doesn't touch on. Trying to say that others aren't nearly as good completely misses the point. Battlemaster is the best for that particular playstyle. Other playstyles have different "best" subclasses.
I would argue that warlock is overall better then fighter since fighter really only has BM as a reliable option. Champion is not really good at all and it's other subclasses aren't nearly as good as BM. Also warlock doesn't really need subclasses to be good at their roll as much as a fighter needs that specific subclasses to be good. I would also agrue that moon druid is s tier easy.
I would argue that warlock is overall better then fighter since fighter really only has BM as a reliable option. Champion is not really good at all and it's other subclasses aren't nearly as good as BM. Also warlock doesn't really need subclasses to be good at their roll as much as a fighter needs that specific subclasses to be good. I would also agrue that moon druid is s tier easy.
Well, now, that's a rather loaded opinion there, no? Battlemaster might be the strongest of the Fighter subclass, but then, every class has "best" subclasses. I'm not really down with that. That's like saying, "Rogue is worse than other classes, because Thief is the only good subclass; Assassin is not really good at all and the others aren't nearly as good as Thief." And, yes, that's an actual argument someone else made about Rogue, I didn't just make that up. Each of the subclasses has a different role and archetype they hit; they're not meant to play alike
Every subclass has a reason, and a dedicated playstyle, for people to engage with. Champion exists for a very simple reason - people wanted a simple Fighter without any moving parts. Run up and hit. It does that job for people who don't want to think or use resources. Love it or hate it, but it does its job well enough that people do use it regularly. Its good enough for the playstyle people want. Its not optimal, but it works. Eldritch Knight, while lackluster with the Evocations, is great with spells to bolster your AC, something that Battlemaster Manuevers lack. Likewise, Arcane Archer shots have some magical abilities that are rather potent - blinding, banishing, etc, that aren't replicated by Manuevers. Samurai abilities are meant to synergize with making the most out of Action Surge and Second Wind, plus they have social ability, something often in high demand for Fighters. Cavaliers are better at being enemy roadblocks than Battlemaster. Purple Dragon Knight.... a second attempt at doing a 5e warlord, which is better than the Battlemaster maneuvers trying to do the same, though could use a bit of a buff.
Each subclass has a different focus that Battlemaster really doesn't touch on. Trying to say that others aren't nearly as good completely misses the point. Battlemaster is the best for that particular playstyle. Other playstyles have different "best" subclasses.
This is the site i use for all my character optimization. i was also considering the time when this came out as a guide line so other subclasses might not have existed yet. im talking about out of all the player's handbook subclasses and BM was just the best all around option for playershandbook material. this post is about putting them into tiers and champion just doesnt stack up to BM mechanics wise.
I would argue that warlock is overall better then fighter since fighter really only has BM as a reliable option. Champion is not really good at all and it's other subclasses aren't nearly as good as BM. Also warlock doesn't really need subclasses to be good at their roll as much as a fighter needs that specific subclasses to be good. I would also agrue that moon druid is s tier easy.
What's wrong with Eldritch Knight?
Nothing it's a great option. it just doesn't stack up to BM again, imo. EK works good but you start to focus on spellcasting and as it is good to have but you only have a spell list of up to level 4 and your dividing your focus up between magic and melee. a BM on the other hand focuses on maneuvers to aid you in melee combat and only really focuses on melee over dividing up your focus on two things. i'm pretty sure a lot of others more experienced then i on the youtube seen have even said that BM is the highest tier on the list but people do have mixed reviews on it. i prefer rogue duelist multiclassed with fighter BM with the martial adept feat to be able to maneuver a lot as it can give you advantage a lot making sneak attack more reliable. pretty powerful melee and i wanted a sword master anyways.
I would argue that warlock is overall better then fighter since fighter really only has BM as a reliable option. Champion is not really good at all and it's other subclasses aren't nearly as good as BM. Also warlock doesn't really need subclasses to be good at their roll as much as a fighter needs that specific subclasses to be good. I would also agrue that moon druid is s tier easy.
What's wrong with Eldritch Knight?
Nothing it's a great option. it just doesn't stack up to BM again, imo. EK works good but you start to focus on spellcasting and as it is good to have but you only have a spell list of up to level 4 and your dividing your focus up between magic and melee. a BM on the other hand focuses on maneuvers to aid you in melee combat and only really focuses on melee over dividing up your focus on two things. i'm pretty sure a lot of others more experienced then i on the youtube seen have even said that BM is the highest tier on the list but people do have mixed reviews on it. i prefer rogue duelist multiclassed with fighter BM with the martial adept feat to be able to maneuver a lot as it can give you advantage a lot making sneak attack more reliable. pretty powerful melee and i wanted a sword master anyways.
Are there any maneuvers that give you +5 AC for an entire round?
The Eldritch Knight gets access to spells that are just as powerful, if not more powerful than the maneuvers the Battle Master gets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What’s the problem with the monk? Me and my friends are level 10 in Rise of Tiamat right now. We have a wizard, a Valor bard, a fighter, a swashbuckler, and me. (The monk). I’m an open hand. I consistently out damage everyone by a landslide. The fighter averages 10-20 DPR (he’s a tank, not a DPR fighter). Valor ~ 10. Swash ~ 30, Wizard ~ 10-20 (also some amazing buffs and debuffs though). And my monk does about 40-50 DPR. I can also be everywhere at once and people most of the time won’t be making opportunity attacks on me. What’s the deal? Utility + best DPR in game without resources. We have our choice of 2x uncommon magic items, a +2 weapon or our choice, and a 1x rare magic item of our choice if that makes a difference. (I got +2 wraps). Monks aren’t really huge on battlefield controlling, although they do that. I think monks are A tier DPR mid and late. Early monks are probably the worst class.
Nothing is wrong with monks. I admit that mid-game should be higher probably B but. I'm probably not going to update this post anymore though (it's already very outdated, still really appreciate the feed back though). If you're filling the damage role within your party that is fine and you sound like you're doing a great job and having fun. My point (of this post is anyway) if you wanted to be a DPR machine, there are classes with higher potential for that specific thing.
Your swashbuckler, for example, which is not the rogue subclass which does the most DPR is the second-highest average damage in your party and could easily be doing more if that was what he/she wanted to do given the resources your DM gave you, off the top of my head
Lvl 10, so 20 Dex, maybe an elf (shadow mark) +2 rapier, gauntlets of haste (rare), a cloak of resistance, headband of intellect
would give him 2 attacks at +11 of 1d8+7 with a 5d6 sneak attack (between 22 and 63 damage) likely with advantage from being hidden, not able to be opportunity attacked while possibly imposing disadvantage, have a + 9 to initiative, skills checks ranging from +4 to +13 in pretty much everything, an AC of 21, on top of dodge and pretty much immune to anything with a dex save.
Again not saying he should be playing like that or anything just looking at the potential in the class. Your fighter is a tank for example IF they wanted to DPR they have high potential to do so as well (more than a swashbucker). Everyone CAN do everything some classes just accel at certain things.
ps - why is your valor bard doing 10 damage a round though?
Berserk Sig by The Hollow
Thanks for the offer and feedback. Honestly, I hadn't realized just how many subclasses there were until I put them all together it is indeed daunting, if I do indeed do this I will need to revamp the entire rating system to be much broarder, still thinking.
Berserk Sig by The Hollow
The Monk's deflect missiles ability is quite useful for tanking. Then at level 7 they get Evasion. That combination makes them pretty hard to damage from range.
I think this ranking improperly favors the traditional heavy armor tank over the high dexterity tanks like Rogue, Ranger, and Monk. Rogue and Monk are both extremely mobile, which is quite important when tanking, and the high dexterity tanks have a better initiative bonus, too. A tank isn't any good if he's not in the right place either due to slow foot speed or slow initiative.
My tier list would be as follows:
Tier 1: Bard, Eldritch Knight, Paladin
Tier 2: Arcane Trickster, Cleric, Fighter (all subclasses except Eldritch Knight), Wizard
Tier 3: Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer, Rogue (all subclasses except Arcane Trickster)
Tier 4: Monk, Ranger, Warlock
Tier Absolute Shit: Artificer, Blood Hunter
Swashbucklers don’t really do more damage than monks. I do 4d6 + 28. He does 5d6 +7. +1d8. I agree with the fighter. IF the fighter wanted to, he could do a little. It more damage. Monks are just purely DPR + utility. Of course there’s higher DPR but it’s a little harder to achieve besides vanilla monk.
the case on my Valor bard: They’re a somewhat new player who doesn’t like to think (not a bad thing). Instead they enjoy just hanging out and they’re fun to play with. They never cast spells for some reason besides a greater invisibility here and there in our swash, and instead sit in the back with a +1 bow and a staff of healing just barely doing anyone. I suggested playing an arcane archer but they refused.
PS: I’m actually really interested in the gloves of haste because our campaign just fought an adult white dragon and survived so our DM is giving us a rare magic item of our choice. I chose the shield guardian as long as I expend 1,000 of my gold, though we already have a tank and I would like to add to my damage. (I already have Cloak of Protection, Winged Boots, and +2 monk wraps. )
I can’t find them. Could you link it to me?
WTF are +2 Monk Wraps??
If you want sugar coating, go buy a dessert....
Not gonna lie, I do agree with a lot of the points made. Solid stuff all around!
I disagree on two classes overall effectiveness though. I think both Warlocks and Barbarians should be a little higher.
Barbarians are solid DPS and pretty much the best tank in the game depending on what subclass you go. I totally agree they lack a lot in versatility, but having a good Barbarian in a fight is always nice. Especially when combat can be very important in a lot of campaigns. Basically, when 80% of the problems are nails, the hammer is the king of all tools. And the Barbarian is the hammer. Because of that, I have a hard time ranking them at a D tier. C maybe. But D seems really low for a such a powerful combat class.
Warlocks I think can do almost as well, if not equally well, in the social/stealth category as Bard's and Rogues. Bards are OP of course, but Warlocks are really powerful if played right. They're kind of weird as far as classes go, but they have so much potential. Shaping change at will for no spell slot, spell slots recharging on short rests, spells always being casted at the maximum level, etc. There's a lot of potential there even if there spell list is shorter. I'd push them towards a B ranking because while they are specialized, they are still just so good at their intended purpose. Being a spooky damage/social magic user.
I guess my two cents are that the Warlock and Barbarian both are, while very specialized, just too good at what they do to be ranked as low as they are. Those are just my thoughts! I'm definitely a Warlock fangirl and I've played a few in different types of campaigns and I've never not felt powerful and useful.
Beards and rogues have expertise. That’s what separates them. Anyone can be good at it if played right though
Maybe it's because time has past and more expansions may have been released, but I just have a different opinion:
Tier A - Wizard, Sorc, Cleric, Paladin
Nobody will argue wizard I think. Sorc brings heavy firepower and nearly identical spell list, sacrificing a little versatility for a better primary stat and more raw power. Cleric gets a grat spell list with some really good sub-classes and Paladin, if spec'd right, brings a ton of DPS, with many strengths (top tier DPS, AC, saves, rounded out with some healing and utility), and few weaknesses. Multi-class with Warlock to be even stronger.
Tier B - Warlock, Druid, Bard, very specific fighter builds
These 3 casters all suffer lacking the best spells of the above 3. Bard can make up for that with secrets, but at the cost of poor sub-classes or magical augmentations (meta-magic, some of the bonuses the wiz sub-classes offer), which is not entirely made up for with skills. Druid gets wild shape, but it has nearly as many downsides as upsides (namely that you are are poor excuse for a martial build in forms and can't cast). Warlocks lack the full versatility of the others, but nearly made A tier due to invocations and Eldritch blast. You can min-max very specific fighter builds to shell out top tier DPR, but at the cost of well... everything else.
Tier C - Ranger, Rogue (and most fighter builds)
To be fair, they are tier A at low levels, but after 5th they quickly flat-line, and drop to one of the weakest overall classes. Playing variant ranger and using Xanathar's sub-classes might boost them to B tier (and definitely A tier low levels and A tier splash).
Rogue only makes it here due to exceptional non-combat utility. In combat, they are garbage past 4th level.
Tier D - Barbarian and Monk
I agree these are weak, but disagree with the reasoning. Monks are actually fairly strong at low levels, making 2, possibly 3 attacks while most classes are stuck at 1. But they fade quickly, only regaining strength late. Barb, like Ranger and rogue, really flat-lines early. Their unarmored defense is next to useless, but rage, reckless attack, high HP, all serve them well at early levels.
Summary: As usual, once you get to 7th level and above the caster classes generally outshine the martial classes, all the more true for classes that cap at 1 or even 2 attacks (except paladin, which were done right)
gmascenik, maybe worth making this a new thread rather than adding to this old one (which I think while well-intentioned basically all of the replies disagree with).
can you put artificer and blood hunter up here so we can get those too
I am working on an updated version of this with a different formatting style
I quickly realized that won't be able to asses each subclass as the list will become dated quickly and be a huge undertaking
I also realize people don't read the disclaimers
but ill make mention of artificer (not sure if I should do blood hunter since it is homebrew and I have never played it)
Berserk Sig by The Hollow
I wouldn’t do blood hunter as it’s just a fighter and is completely hombrew, but I guess it would be a cool addition. Artificer would be nice.
I would argue that warlock is overall better then fighter since fighter really only has BM as a reliable option. Champion is not really good at all and it's other subclasses aren't nearly as good as BM. Also warlock doesn't really need subclasses to be good at their roll as much as a fighter needs that specific subclasses to be good. I would also agrue that moon druid is s tier easy.
Well, now, that's a rather loaded opinion there, no? Battlemaster might be the strongest of the Fighter subclass, but then, every class has "best" subclasses. I'm not really down with that. That's like saying, "Rogue is worse than other classes, because Thief is the only good subclass; Assassin is not really good at all and the others aren't nearly as good as Thief." And, yes, that's an actual argument someone else made about Rogue, I didn't just make that up. Each of the subclasses has a different role and archetype they hit; they're not meant to play alike
Every subclass has a reason, and a dedicated playstyle, for people to engage with. Champion exists for a very simple reason - people wanted a simple Fighter without any moving parts. Run up and hit. It does that job for people who don't want to think or use resources. Love it or hate it, but it does its job well enough that people do use it regularly. Its good enough for the playstyle people want. Its not optimal, but it works. Eldritch Knight, while lackluster with the Evocations, is great with spells to bolster your AC, something that Battlemaster Manuevers lack. Likewise, Arcane Archer shots have some magical abilities that are rather potent - blinding, banishing, etc, that aren't replicated by Manuevers. Samurai abilities are meant to synergize with making the most out of Action Surge and Second Wind, plus they have social ability, something often in high demand for Fighters. Cavaliers are better at being enemy roadblocks than Battlemaster. Purple Dragon Knight.... a second attempt at doing a 5e warlord, which is better than the Battlemaster maneuvers trying to do the same, though could use a bit of a buff.
Each subclass has a different focus that Battlemaster really doesn't touch on. Trying to say that others aren't nearly as good completely misses the point. Battlemaster is the best for that particular playstyle. Other playstyles have different "best" subclasses.
What's wrong with Eldritch Knight?
https://rpgbot.net/dnd5/characters/classes/
This is the site i use for all my character optimization. i was also considering the time when this came out as a guide line so other subclasses might not have existed yet. im talking about out of all the player's handbook subclasses and BM was just the best all around option for playershandbook material. this post is about putting them into tiers and champion just doesnt stack up to BM mechanics wise.
Nothing it's a great option. it just doesn't stack up to BM again, imo. EK works good but you start to focus on spellcasting and as it is good to have but you only have a spell list of up to level 4 and your dividing your focus up between magic and melee. a BM on the other hand focuses on maneuvers to aid you in melee combat and only really focuses on melee over dividing up your focus on two things. i'm pretty sure a lot of others more experienced then i on the youtube seen have even said that BM is the highest tier on the list but people do have mixed reviews on it. i prefer rogue duelist multiclassed with fighter BM with the martial adept feat to be able to maneuver a lot as it can give you advantage a lot making sneak attack more reliable. pretty powerful melee and i wanted a sword master anyways.
Are there any maneuvers that give you +5 AC for an entire round?
The Eldritch Knight gets access to spells that are just as powerful, if not more powerful than the maneuvers the Battle Master gets.