As much as I love 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons, it’s not the most balanced of games. Some mechanics are numerically stronger than others. This doesn’t just hold true for items and spells, but for entire classes as well. I’ve written a lot here on Mythcreants about the various powerful builds and even top subclasses, but I’ve never codified my feelings on how each class as a whole stacks up against the others, so let’s fix that. For this list I rank each class on its own without considering any multiclass options. The addition of multiclassing changes the equation so drastically it deserves its own list.*
Let’s look at 5th Edition D&D’s classes power ranked from worst and best.
13. Artificer
Although it pains me to give the game’s newest class this dubious distinction, there wasn’t much competition in my mind. The artificer is Wizards of the Coast’s third attempt at a half caster,* and it fails even more spectacularly than the ranger did. This class feels like 10 levels of abilities spread over 20 levels of class. Its damage output is low, it’s not particularly survivable, and its spell list is average. I’ve heard people say it works well as a support, but I don’t agree. Druid, cleric, bard, sorcerer, or wizard all make significantly better support options.
The one thing artificers do well is create a selection of magic items with their Infuse Item feature. This allows them to imbue a selection of non-magic items with certain magical properties, including replicating the effect of some magical items listed in the Dungeon Master’s Guide. As part of a stronger class, this feature would be a great addition, but the artificer is simply too weak. The best use for these infused items is to give them to the effective characters. This is artificer support at its strongest, but compared to other support options that both help the party and work as strong characters in their own right, being an item dispensary isn’t enough.
12. Ranger
Saved from the bottom slot only by the existence of the artificer, we have the ranger. What puts the ranger so low on this list isn’t strictly its mechanical weaknesses. It is possible to build a competent martial ranger. The problem is everything it does is done better by another class. Fighters make better archers, and any number of martial options make superior melee combatants.
Even the ranger’s most flavorful mechanic, a beast companion, is not only reserved for one subclass, but also it’s terrible. Having a pet should have been the ranger’s core feature, something the entire class was built around to maintain a powerful core ability regardless of subclass. Wizards of the Coast did this with the paladin’s Holy Smite, and it ended up as one of the best classes in the game. Meanwhile, the ranger’s problems have been well known for years, and no significant change has yet been forthcoming. I’m very confused by the obstinate refusal to fix a class so obviously in need of help.
11. Monk
Rounding out the truly bad classes, we have the monk. Arguably, this class should have its rank switched with the ranger’s, but I award it points for at least having a core class mechanic that’s not simply done better by another class. Is it a particularly good mechanic? No, it’s awful. Monks are squishy, easy to hit, deal low damage, and have a resource pool that is drained so quickly that they soon find themselves unable to use their class or subclass features.
The monk also suffers from a lack of support from official Wizards content. I have found one item that boosts unarmed attacks with a +1 to hit and damage rolls.* Besides that, monks are left with no way to improve their unarmed combat outside of what their class gives them. I was pretty positive in my review of the Astral Self subclass in Unearthed Arcana; here’s hoping it makes its way into official material to give this class some much-needed support.
10. Rogue
Moving on to the first decent class on this list, we have the rogue. Its first problem is a one-note combat ability. The class is completely reliant on its Sneak Attack feature for dealing damage, a conditional ability that means missing a single attack results in dealing no damage for an entire round. Rogues are also fragile, pushing them even further behind other martial classes. Without dipping into a class like fighter for increased toughness and a fighting style, the rogue can’t keep up in a fight.
As for noncombat, everything the rogue does is replicated by the much stronger bard. I’d even argue that bards fulfill the skill character role better, as they get more proficiencies and have the Jack of all Trades feature, granting half their proficiency bonus to all skills they aren’t already proficient in. Rogues eventually get Reliable Talent, guaranteeing them at least a ten in anything they’re proficient in, but that doesn’t come online till level 11. This doesn’t mean the rogue is an awful class, but I definitely consider it one of the weaker options.
9. Barbarian
Continuing the run of martial characters, we have the barbarian. The class itself is fairly straightforward and so is the reason for its inclusion here: barbarians don’t hold up as a single class across all 20 levels of play. Levels 1 through 5 feel amazing for the class: they pick up Rage, Reckless Attack, Danger Sense, and Bear Totem.*
However, after gaining their extra attack, barbarians enter a realm of disappointment until Primal Champion at 20. Despite 14 levels of bad, the other 6 levels are good enough to earn our angry friend a spot at ninth place.
8. Warlock
The first full caster we see on this list, and, sadly, I doubt it is a surprise to many. The warlock is a perplexing class to me. It has so much front-loaded on its early levels* that, much like the barbarian, they feel fantastic. It’s like the class was made for multiclassing, as once you get past level 5,* its power falls off a proverbial cliff.
Eldritch Invocations are used to imitate what other arcane casters get for free, and the Mystic Arcanum feature standing in for higher level spells is needlessly restrictive. The class pales in comparison to the higher entries on this list. Eldritch Blast does its best to prop up the class, but a restrictive spell list and a severe shortage of spell slots earn the warlock its eighth place.
7. Fighter
Often considered the default class of D&D 5E, I was happy that the fighter made it to the middle of this list. A monoclassed fighter is a dependable source of damage that is also good at protecting itself. Heavy armor ensures a high armor class, and options such as Shadow Blade from the Eldritch Knight allow for even a sword-and-board fighter to output a respectable amount of damage per round. On top of this, the class’s 3rd and 4th attacks grant it a level of scaling higher than other pure martial* classes. This reliability and smooth power curve net the fighter seventh place.
6. Sorcerer
If I had made this list before Xanathar’s Guide to Everything was printed, the sorcerer would have ranked much lower. With a reduced spell list compared to the wizard and a major bottleneck created by how few spells it learns, the original sorcerer had little to recommend it outside of its brief power spikes from Twin Spelling buffs like Polymorph.
The creation of the Divine Soul changed all that. With the ability to turn failed saves into successes with Favored by the Gods at level 1, indefinite flying at 14, and a bonus action to heal half their health at 18, this subclass would already be one of the best options. However, these abilities are mere icing on the cake that is access to the entirety of the cleric spell list, in addition to what sorcerers already get. Unfortunately, a monoclassed sorcerer isn’t able to take full advantage of that second spell list, as it lacks the AC or hit points to be on the front line where spells like Spirit Guardians are at their best.
5. Cleric
Speaking of taking advantage of the cleric spell list, the cleric sneaks into my top five. With access to heavy armor and spells like Spirit Guardians, clerics deal great area damage and are difficult to hurt. Subclasses like the Life cleric also give the class the rare ability to heal efficiently, although its full effectiveness isn’t unlocked without multiclassing. Though the cleric spell list doesn’t hold up as well as some other classes at higher levels, their ability to upcast Spirit Guardians means they’ll never be without something useful to do.
Clerics are also quite flexible, with more subclasses than you can shake a scepter at. Forge and Life clerics can operate on the frontline, supporting their party while absorbing damage. If backline casting is what you want, Light and Grave clerics work reasonably well as blaster mages. While I wouldn’t rank all of these subclasses as particularly high tier,* the existence of so many options is useful in its own right.
4. Paladin
The strongest martial class in the game, paladins are the best mix of offense and defense 5E has to offer. Large hit dice, heavy armor, and the best saves available, thanks to Aura of Protection, paladins are equipped for any type of danger. Even better, paladins share these awesome features, granting their increased saves and even resistance against spell damage* to allies within 10 feet of them. Since my first 5E character smote an offending villain to my current paladin/warlock hybrid, I’m happy to see this class take fourth place.
3. Bard
From the laughingstock of early editions to one of the best classes in the game, bard has come a long way. This class can fit almost any role you want it to play. Bards come with a full spell list that they can augment with upwards of eight spells taken from any other list in the game. This by itself earns the bard a top placement.
But the class doesn’t stop there. Bards also gain access to the most skill proficiencies of any class, with Expertise and Jack of All Trades allowing the bard to both specialize and be a generalist. Bards can also support themselves and their parties with Bardic Inspiration, shoring up critical rolls or turning enemy successes into failure. If I had to name the bard’s greatest weakness, it would be how fragile the class is and the amount of planning needed when considering spells to take from other lists. When a class’s biggest problem is deciding which power spells to steal, it’s earned the number three slot.
2. Druid
More than any other class, the druid earns its high spot thanks to a single subclass: Circle of the Moon. The gulf in power between Circle of the Moon and the other subclasses is one of the widest I’ve ever seen. Moon druids take a full spell list and add on the ability to shape-shift into powerful beasts to protect themselves in combat. All druids can shape-shift, but the Moon subclass jumps the available creatures from CR 1/4 to CR 2, increasing by one every 3 levels.
Just as the first form of Moon’s Wild Shape starts to dwindle in power, it acquires Conjure Animals, or Raptor Swarm as I like to call it.* From there they upgrade their shape-shifting forms and pick up spells like Polymorph for when they want to get serious. This steady power gain is capped off with a massive spike as the number of times the druid can transform increases from 2 per short rest to…unlimited. This capstone is by far the strongest in the game and makes a druid lucky enough to reach that level an unstoppable force as they constantly reset their hit points to a mammoth 126. Any player character who can serve as a multistage boss fight for an entire party deserves its second-place rank.
1. Wizard
The more D&D changes, the more it stays the same. Despite the powerful abilities brought by every other class, from the bard’s flexibility to the druid’s infinity mammoth, no character class tops the raw power of the wizard. The wizard’s spell list cannot be beat. From level 1 with Find Familiar they receive exclusive* spells that are too good to ignore. On top of this list are subclasses like Evocation and Divination.
Evocation allows the wizard to cast their area of effect spells with no concern for friendly fire, while Divination wizards can manipulate dice rolls in a way no other class can match. The class’s capstone feature is not great, but they make up for it with an amazing 18th level feature that grants them a 1st and 2nd level spell to be cast at will. Though part of me wanted to be contrary and put the wizard in 2nd or 3rd, I would be lying. This wizard is the strongest class in 5E, bar none.
With that we wrap up the power ranking of 5th Edition D&D classes as they stand on their own. Next time, we’ll take a look at multiclassing, where things get a bit more complicated.
Treat your friends to an evening of ritual murder – in a fictional RPG scenario, of course. Uncover your lost memories and escape a supernatural menace in our one-shot adventure, The Voyage.
Did you take Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything into account when you wrote this? All of the classes received optional class features, and the Ranger in particular got an extensive overhaul.
I’m just gonna leave a comment here, for when he answers..
This was written before Tasha’s was published, however I don’t think anything it would change my rankings by much. Ranger is better but still bad, as Wizard’s refusal to fully rework the class has left it with features that don’t properly work together because they weren’t designed with each other in mind.
The one class ranking I might have changed given what was released in Tasha’s would be the cleric. Twilight and Peace are both very strong subclasses, especially Twilight. I’d need to give it more thought, but cleric might be number 2 or 3 with the buffs it received.
Artificer isn’t bad just because it doesn’t have high damage output and it’s not a full caster. People don’t have experience with it. And to put bard that high when singing its praises for versatility, but then put artificer, another extremely versatile class dead bottom after judging it for damage output, spell list, and ‘support potential’ is inconsistent.
It seems that you favor full casters and elevating a class based on the strength of one top-tier subclass it has available. Case in point: druid.
Rogues and barbarians are powerhouses. I don’t understand a lot of these judgments.
The bard is good because it backs up its versatility with power. Artificers don’t do this. The bard can top damage charts while still doing all the traditional bard support stuff, where the artificer is stuck in the roll of “give all my toys to the effective characters” if they want to be fully contributing to the party.
Full casters have always been the strongest option in 5e and 3.5 before it. I don’t like it, but that’s how it is and my rankings reflect that reality.
I ranked classes based on their strongest options because there is an almost infinite number of sub-optimal ways to build every class, so I have to use optimal builds as a baseline.
There are no unplayable classes in 5e, even the monk can outshine the wizard from time to time, that doesn’t mean the monk is a stronger class. Monoclassed barbs and rogues have a hard time staying effective compared to stronger options over the long term. Doesn’t mean they’re bad, just not as good as other options overall.
100% agree with the the artificer part. I’m currently playing one and I hate it. I feel useless. My spell list is terrible, I have all of my infusions on other ppls gear and I have a dumb dog that I have to remake after almost every battle bc it’s so weak. I’ve had to take levels in wizard to get any useful spells and abilities. Not to mention, tool proficiencies are useless. There is no crafting system, so the only tools ever used is thieves tools. “Yeah, I have expertise in all my tools, too bad I never use them.”
The artificer who’s playing in my Thursday game has some similar issues. He had the bad fortune to pick alchemist, which is the weakest subclass as far as I can tell. We’re level 14 and the barb and my homebrew ranger are dealing 70-80 per round and he’s barely cracking 30.
As soon as my party members find magic weapons and armor of their own, my buffs to their stuff is over. So, my enchanting is useless, my damage is terrible, my healing is bad, and so what if I can get my AC high? Eventually ac doesn’t matter.
Yeah pillow fisted d8 hit dice tanks aren’t the most useful unfortunately. I’d talk to the GM about getting some unique magic stuff to help let you shine. I’m currently designing stuff for my groups artificer so he can at least keep up with our stronger characters.
I agree, rogues can deal disgustingly high damage with sneak attack, barbarians can shrug off almost any hit, and artificers can have up to 26 AC with the right infusions.
Monoclassed rogues suffer from a lack of good defensive options that more powerful classes pair with the ability to deal good damage. Barbs fall off very hard post level 5 and HP tanking is weaker than High AC/Save tanking, as even the largest healthpool gets whittled down while AC/Save tanks avoid damage entirely.
Any defense brought by the artificer isn’t particularly useful as the class does very little damage. A class needs both for me to consider it good.
I disagree a bit, rogue has two of the better defensive features of the game, namely uncanny dodge and evasion. And I think they are designed to get sneak attack almost each turn putting them on the same level of damage as many other classes.
On the other hand the character I have seen dealing more damage consistently was an half orc zealot barbarian with great weapon master and a great axe. The crits are just insane and it is REALLY hard to put him unconscious without magic!
The problems mono-classed rogues have is that just doing sneak attack damage once per round isn’t enough to keep up, and if they want to achieve the twice per round activation that lets them deal good damage they open themselves up to being attacked. Evasion is a powerful yet narrow ability and Uncanny Dodge is very bad against multiple attacks, the way most monsters deal large amounts of damage. This couple with rogues generally meh AC means that they crumple under sustained attack.
As for barbs, yeah they’re not bad using Great Weapon Master, especially combined with Polearm Master. Unfortunately the class doesn’t get much past level 5. You’re right that Zealot barbs can be very difficult to take down at high levels without magic, but being weak to magic is a pretty huge weakness.
I don’t think rogues or barbs are awful, they just aren’t as good as most other options when viewed holistically.
I’m a veteran player/DM. I played the OG D&D in the 80’s in my teens. That said, it’s been a while since I had as much fun playing my bard with a friend who is playing a Human Battlemaster (6) / Assassin (4) to my Half-Elf Lore Bard (10). I make certain he gets advantage all the time, and he devastates the opposition. All of my spells are tailored to battlefield control (Wall of Force, Bigby’s Hand, Animate Objects, Hypnotic Pattern, Haste, Slow, etcetera. Our DM is having to up the difficulty of his encounters to get any challenge against us to last. We just pick it apart. So a multi-classed thief (assassin) is extremely effective. But, yeah, the Bard is a far more powerful option than most. My friend plans to go the rest of the way with Assassin. He started out as rogue for the primary class, then pushed for the six levels of fighter for the extra feat and attacks per round. With Haste and his class action economy, we’re a deadly duo. But I tend to run slow. My spell save DC is currently at 19. So I find I land it quite often. The DM always gets annoyed when I counterspell as well. For the record, Bards are the best counterspell caters in the game. My favorite part, though, is the way we role play. We have a blast, and both of us get the table laughing hard. We have a lot of fun playing off each others’ personalities.
Plz, do the multiclasse list!
It’s coming =)
Multiclass out yet???
When was this first written?? Tasha’s may not have made massive changes but it certainly should be taken into account. For example the Monk is easily the worst class now. Every other class got better while the Monk just became more irrelevant. Rhe Monk needed the most love and they basically got none. They got more uses for their Ki but running out of Ki was already a major problem. The new Unarmed Fighting style gives unarmed fighters d8 damage at level 1, the Monk can’t match that until level 11! Unarmed fighting is kinda their thing and they aren’t the best option for that. The Monk is practically a ribbon class at this point.
I agree about the monks statement. They kinda just fell behind the rest of the group, and they aren’t getting the buffs or changes they need.
This was written prior to Tasha’s. I simply don’t have the time to go back and update the articles written prior to its release. Monk, ranger, and artificer all orbit the same very low power level and I don’t think any of them gained much in the new book. I agree that the monk needs help and sadly they nerfed the astral self subclass so it has the exact same problem all the other monk subclasses have.
The deadlocked is mentioned as the first caster on the list. The author is evidently unaware that ALL the classes on the list before warlock can have spell ability through innate features or subclasses. Artificer.. Spells, ranger, spells, monk – 2 sub classes can cast with ki points, rogue, arcane stricter hello?, even the barbarian via totem warrior can cast spells.
Thus the comment that the warlock is the first spell caster on the list is at least, poorly worded.
Apologies, should have said full caster, I’ll see if I can fix the wording
Dude, even before Tasha’s, the artificer was a good class, and with Tasha’s it is excellent. Tool expertise with any tool with which you’re proficient, so you’re good at a fair number of things with little effort. Flash of genius to almost guarantee a save when you need it, yours or an ally’s. Int to attack and damage with battlesmith, and with Tasha’s armorer (so good), so you’re not suffering MAD trying to cast and be in combat. Armorer is such a good tank, especially when you haste yourself. Con as a proficient save, so your buffs tend to stick around. At level 10 I’m running a 23 AC, 25 with haste, +10 attack, 1d8+5 thunder damage (ok, not the greatest damage, but I rarely miss, not many things have thunder resistance, and I’m the tank), and imposing disadvantage on two opponents’ attack rolls against my allies (three if I’m hasted). Plus 10 temp hp as a bonus action, 4 times a day, cure spells, and mirror image. I keep my allies safe(ish) and can go toe to toe all night long, doling out consistent damage.
Sorry, +11 to attack and 1d8+7 damage.
I’m glad that build is working for you, and nothing I say here is trying to prove the artificer is unplayable, just that numerically speaking it is weaker overall than other options.
I didn’t have time to discuss it in this article, but the artificer also loses points for having benefited from years of designer experience and feedback and still come out very weak.
I feel like the artificer is more an RP class that requires you to work with your DM a lot to see what crazy things they will let you build to use in combat or for other reasons. But in terms of power level I can totally see them being at the bottom.
Editor’s note: I’ve removed a comment for breaking our rules on personal attacks. Disagreeing with our content is fine, claiming that our writers simply haven’t done their research is not.
I think this list is mostly based on having less than the recommended number of encounters per long rest. I’ve found, when wizards cannot pile all their spells at once, they become a much weaker class as a whole. All spell-casters do. Melee classes keep putting out consistent medium damage and the spell casters always eventually run out of spells but have a few big ones they can throw around. That is how the game is designed, easier fights with less of a marathon emphasis aren’t a fair comparison because the natural flaws built into a class are suddenly absent.
When dnd is about resource management, much like how the game was designed, the classes are much more overall even with each other. But if there are only a few fights between rests than of course the spellcasters are coming out ahead and the whole thing gets unbalanced.
Monks are still pretty bad though.
You’re right that casters benefit from fewer encounters. However even expanding encounters per day to 8 4-round encounters with 1 short rest casters still win. You just need to be efficient and choose spells that grant benefits over multiple rounds if 32 rounds of combat per day is the type of game your playing.
I would argue 4 rounds of combat is rarely the norm for anything but the easiest fights. But regardless, it definitely changes everything about how they are played and their utility, even the need to ration them out changes how useful they are and brings them much closer to the martial classes/half casters and warlocks.
Fewer, longer fights actually favor casters more, as some of the best spells are 1-10 minute concentration. Regardless my research has turned up almost no groups that actually conduct the recommended number of encounters, because few have the time or the want to slog through 12 hour dnd sessions. This is a major issue with 5e’s design as its assumption on session content doesn’t line up with how players are interacting with it.
If you are in a campaign that loves 32-50 rounds of combat per long rest, full casters still come out on top, you just need to understand the pace of play and build yourself accordingly. Fewer fireballs and more polymorphs will stretch a caster’s resources much further than most people think.
I mean long, and fairly common fights. I agree that many don’t play that way, but many also do and that’s why they enjoy the game. It’s for the players who desire a razor edge balance for a hard and meaty fight the rules were designed. You need a better balance when playing that way and particular concepts aren’t as necessary when players choose to make a game easier by making it more fun.
I also prefer to play video games on easy mode, but I recognize I am unbalancing the game mechanics in my favor and also understand certain character choices might benefit from the unbalancing more than others. There is not a “wrong” way to play DnD and I’ve met too many players who are all about the combat to dismiss that they need more rules and better balancing for what they desire to play than I do. I can assure you, they exist.
As far as spellcasters, you are correct, but only if you count the higher levels. Like most previous editions, Spellcasters are less effective at early levels and Melee are less effective at later levels. That’s been true of most editions where the achievement of getting a weaker character to a high level pays off better. If you are leveling in order, surviving 30 rounds of combat with 7 spells, most of them 1st level is part of the achievement of being a powerhouse later. Overall, they are fairly balanced…except the monk, which is terrible.
There are theoretical combinations of encounter type and length that more heavily favor martial builds, but I can come up with encounters that favor any type of build, regardless of its general strength. The best I can do is account for a best fit encounter spread, and casters always come out on top.
This isn’t just at early levels either. The moon druid demolishes any martial class at levels 2-4 with its bear form and early levels are where normal martial attacks are closest to d10 cantrips, meaning even when they’re out of spells casters aren’t far behind in round-to-round damage.
agree that levels 1-5 are where martial builds are most likely to contribute more to fights than casters, but that’s a small portion of the game and I can’t just rank class strengths based on that small range of levels.
Have you looked at the Zealot Barbarian subclass? I’d argue it’s worth as much consideration as the Circle of Moon subclass for Druids. Some of its abilities include being able to give the party a full round of advantage – very clutch if you’ve got a rogue in the party, extra radiant or necrotic damage that scales as it levels, it can reroll saving throws similar to the Fighter’s ability, it’s incredibly cheap to revive, making it hard to permanently kill AND on top of that, at only level 14, whilst raging it’s basically unkillable. Take one extra level as a barbarian up to 15, where your rages don’t stop, and you have 10 rounds where you can be knocked down to 0 hp, fail all 3 death saving throws, and still keep fighting until the enemy is downed, and then if there’s a healer in the party, they can just expend a spell slot to revive you and you’re back up again. Not to mention the Barbarian’s ability with Relentless Rage to bounce back from death with saves they’re proficient in, their general inability to be surprised and increased movement, allowing for more tactical maneuvering on the battlefield. All this allows them to take incredible levels of damage and protect the weaker members of the party, whilst steal dealing incredible levels of damage and becoming VERY hard to kill past level 10.
If you’re basing the Druid mostly on one sub class being strong enough to make it 2nd place, I’d argue the Zealot subclass for Barbarians does the exact same.
Zealot barbarian is a very cool subclass that is awesome if you start the game at level 14, but is pretty meh before that. If I could combine Bear Totem’s early features with Zealot’s late game abilities I think I would rank barbarian higher. Unfortunately, zealots damage is not nearly as good as bear totem’s survivability, I’d rather never need a rez than be rezzed for free.
Druid is a good caster at all levels made great by moon’s features filling in the cracks, barb just doesn’t have that.
Editor’s note: accusing someone of not actually playing D&D is against our comments policy. Any comments that do it will be removed.
Who does that?
This falls a bit out of the scope of the post, but the big weakness I see in Monks is that they absolutely CANNOT be multiclassed.
Most other classes can take a multiclass dip for covering some of their obvious weaknesses, such as armor proficiencies for more ac, a fighting style for more dpr or even some spells for variety.
The Monk, whoever, is hardwired to not be able to benefit from any of that. Their core feature (Martial Arts) NEEDS you to play according a very strict set of rules:
– You cannot wear any armor, ever
– You need to use your bonus action every turn
– You need to attack with mediocre weapons (1d8 damage die, maximum)
– A lot of things rely on your Unarmed Strikes, which are not Melee Weapons* and therefore cannot trigger abilities like Sneak Attack, smites or Dueling Fighting Style, all of which would up your dpr considerably.
(*An Unarmed Strike attack is a “melee weapon attack”, but not “an attack with a melee weapon”. This sort of wording is one more reason why playing Monk sucks)
On top of that, Monk is probably the MADdest class in the game, requiring good scores in Dex, Wis and Con to be minimally effective, has very few magical items useful for them (Insignia of Claws, as mentioned in the post, and Eldritch Claw Tattoo now in Tasha’s).
Which is not, of course, to say Monks and multiclassed Monks are a bad idea. I play a terrible Monk/Bard multiclass and I love her dearly, despite having to deal with terrible Bonus Action clutter from time to time.
You are 100% correct that monk suffers from a ton of issues that limit its options. 5e has a design issue where classes that have a unique type of weapon (martial arts) aren’t supported properly so they’re left massively behind the options everyone else is taking.
Monks also shouldn’t have 2 stat requirements for multiclassing, it’s very silly that 2 of the weakest classes (ranger/monk) have more restrictive multiclassing than the best classes in the game.
This list is so completely wrong in my opinion. Yes, wizards are very good, but putting DRUIDS at second of all classes? i would swap sorcerer with druid, move ranger to at least 5th, fighter and rouge up, and warlock down. (Warlocks can only truly cast up to 5th level spells and are not very strong with weapons) and move barbarian up now that they have come out with path of wild magic.
Druids, specifically moon druids, are great at all levels of play. Sorcerers, while still good, are too narrow in their abilities to compete with the very best classes in the game.
Ranger is still one of the worst classes in the game. It got better with Tasha’s but so did most other classes, meaning their relative strength stays similar.
Monoclass fighters are solid enough they beat out monoclassed rogue, warlock, and barbarians. Path of Wild Magic is worse than Zealot and Bear Totem so that does nothing to change the classes’ power.
Agreed. The part they’re missing is overall game play and application at all levels. Barbarian Zealot and Totem of the Bear are the best options for that class, period. They are solid choices, but the advancements of the barbarian class are limited from around 7th level to 19th level. The abilities in between are lackluster compared to other classes at those same levels (fighters get a 3rd attack, an extra feat, etcetera).
Another thing people are missing out on are what a wizard can do at each other level they gain. Take away ALL their subclass features entirely, and they still get a new, UNLIMITED spell level list. At 17th level they get 9th level spells. NO LIMIT on how many they can know, either. Things like Wish, Meteor Swarm, Weird, Foresight, Prismatic Wall and Shapechange. These spells are literally game breaking. So, as usual, Wizards win. No surprise there.
Warlocks, at first glance, are awesome. When I first started playing 5e, I was impressed. It took me a little while (about an hour or so) to figure out that they couldn’t truly cast spells above 5th level, and that they maxed out at 4 spell slots. I was like, “What the heck!” Don’t get me wrong, they’re still an awesome class. But they weren’t as cool as I thought they were going to be. That said, one of the most OP classes to play in the game right now is a Hexblade Warlock with pact of the blade. It spikes damage in outrageous fashion, and pretty much makes the class a single stat monster (Charisma).
While I can see your love of the Moon Druid (one of my friends mains a 20th level Wood Elf Moon Druid in my long campaign), I’m kind of leaning towards Bard (especially Lore) being slightly more powerful overall. They can, after all, get Wish. I mean, it really pushes them over the top, in my opinion. That, and they will be the party Face as well, making them more viable at multiple levels of game play.
I love druids having a relationship with a giant ape is funny
Warlock’s Hexblade subclass easily moves Warlock up a few notches. Medium armor proficiency, and the thirsty blade evocation combined with pact of the blade puts them on the front lines of combat. Add eldritch smite, and they are almost like a paladin with better spells.
While I agree that Hexblade’s early features are quite good, as with the warlock class in general its late game abilities are sub-par. There’s a reason warlock is so often a dip but almost never a main class pick in optimized builds.
I don’t understand your comment about the errata and raptors in your druid entry. What did they change?
Wizards has errated the conjure spells to have the GM choose what comes out when you cast them.
Rogue’s do have problems making attacks, but their skill set is unsurpassed by all but the bard. And, when they do hit, it is like instant murder. Their sneak attack is very high at high levels, and they can use it most every turn if used correctly.
Barbarians are lacking in a few traits at high levels, but so do many other classes. Also, it doesn’t matter because their attack and health is so high that they stay in the battle very long and do a ton of damage doing it.
Warlocks don’t have many spell slots, but regain ALL of them from a short rest, which means they can cast their higher spells about twice as much as other classes.
Sorcerers aren’t only good because of one subclass. Their sorcery points can be spent to give them more spell slots than any other class, or can me used in metamagic to improve their spells in different ways.
Clerics do make an amazing helper class, but their attack isn’t actually that powerful. They have less damaging spells and they only use simple weapons (unless you choose the right subclass).
Bards should not be that high on the list. Yes, they get some useful spells and features, but they’re damage output is seriously limited. Also, their healing power is worse than the cleric, making them more limited.
And last of all, the wizard. The wizard does gain an amazing amount of spells, but has about the worst survival rate of any other class, which means they’ll be put out of a fight before being able to use most of their spells.
Actually, druids (especially the ones with the circle of the moon) are pretty powerful because of their wild shape. It gives them the ability to transform to an animal, and once that animal is reduced to 0 hp, they revert back and just as strong as before, and then can turn into an animal again, making it very difficult to actually deal any real damage to them.
You said that everything the Ranger does everything else does better. But the actual main idea of the ranger is their TRACKING ABILITIES. They can track down certain creatures better, and have several benefits to traveling within their preferred enviornments. Also, just because the beast master subclass is terrible, doesn’t mean that they are. They have several other good subclasses such as the Hunter, which greatly improves their fighting abilities. Also, some in the Xanathar’s Guide even give them a better spell list, which improves their spellcasting deficiency.
D&D is a primarily combat based game, making non-combat abilities weaker overall. Situational non-combat abilities like the ranger’s tracking are even weaker.
The other ranger subclasses don’t do enough to make the class an overall strong pick in my mind.
Really confused on this ranking. Is this tier 1 play only? It is fairly common knowledge (at least among the “optimizer” circuit) that Artificers are top tier, along with bards and wizards.
The common idea would be something like:
Bard – Artificer – Wizard
Cleric – Druid – Warlock – Paladin
Sorcerer – Fighter – Rogue – Ranger – Barbarian
Monk
This list covers all levels of play.
What about artificers makes them such a highly regarded class?
Its that artificers have pretty good subclasses and scale very well in the late game as well as providing perfect MC for wizards or int based fighters.
All artificers are half casters with a prepared list and ritual casting that includes both divine and arcane spells. This lets them either fill gaps in almost any party composition. Also, given their lack of needing to concentrate on core class features (cough ranger) they can often be the one to lay out scalable battlefield control or buff spells and you are not eating the co centration of a wizard bard or cleric to do so.
They get a huge defensive buff to saving throws that acts similiar to an emergency Paladin (more paladin comparisons soon).
On top of this no one else vets to attune more than 3 items. Maybe items are stingy in your games but if items get awarded via the DMG tables this is a huge boon.
At 11th they suddenly vault far ahead of other casters thanks to the spell storing item. 10 extra 1st or 2nd level spells, that anyone in the party can use including a familiar, homonculus, or steel defender is very good. Imagine a steel defender using shield of faith on a small race artificer with mounted combat.
This is on top of the easy access to any magical items the party may need to help anyone come online. Mind sharpener alone is worth a feat or 2, and can be handed out to druids, wizards, etc without care. Heck you can make multiples. Want to do a silly grapple build? Great you never fail with strength armor and access to enlarge 10+ times a day.
Looking at the subclasses we will ignore alchemist because it is not very good.
Artillerist is alright. Getting extra scaling damage on a bonus action that can also be an aoe or have control effects is great, adding extra damage to offensive spells is ok. The real star is the temp HP. Everyone is up in arms about the twillight cleric yet its been here the whole time.
Battlesmith is one of the 2 best subclasses. Here we have an arcane oriented gish that compares with the paladin. Instead of smites we have consistant damage output via the defender and more spells. We get a psuedo ranged smite or heal at later levels and can effectively conectrate on 2 spells at once thanks to the ring. Access to shield and smite spells especially with the ring and defenders deflect attack is even sillier. The defender also incurs almost no real cost or time to keep up unlike many other pets or summons. On top of this the Battlesmith is SAD and can output damage similiar to all non fighter martials thanks to magic weapons. Grabbing a throwing fighting and or dueling fighting style and you end up throwing javelins at d6+10 2 or 3 times a round is not bad for a half caster that can trivially add smite spells.
Armorers are also SAD and end up being very disruptive tanks. Thunder gauntlets with booming blade and boots of the winding path/misty step are very obvoxious. Add another party member with sentinel or a barbarian (esp ancestral guardian) and the enemies have no good options on who to attack. Being able to switch to a ranged role is also very handy and multiclasses well (imagine a light armor wearing armorer/bladesinger). On top of this the sheer number of attuned items you can have is pure nonsense.
Thanks for taking the time to write this out, you put a lot out here and I’ll try to cover it all, apologies if I miss something.
Taking a look at the artificer’s spell list we have a few decent combat concentration spells:
Faerie Fire, Blur, Enlarge/Reduce, Heat Metal, Haste, Hypnotic Pattern, Greater Invisibility, Animate Objects, Wall of Force.
I’d say the standouts here are Haste and Hypnotic, as they are both powerful and picked up early enough that they’re not competing with very high level class features/spells. Unfortunately, Hypnotic Pattern is limited to the Armorer, and as much as I like Haste it can’t prop up an entire spell list if that’s supposed to be a big strength of the class. Ritual casting is nice, but the artificer only gets 8 ritual spells in total, limiting the feature’s usefulness. Most parties will have access to enough casting power that the artificer will be completely outclassed.
There is a huge difference between a constant aura buff to everyone’s saves and a single buff that costs a reaction and has limited uses acquired a level later. Flash of genius is to the Aura of Protection is what Defensive Duelist is to the Shield spell.
Given the huge number of magical items in the game I avoid assuming any specific item will be available when discussing the game. The artificer is actually relatively weaker the more magical items are handed out by the GM, as their ability to create their own becomes less needed. I would be most excited to have an artificer in my party in a setting where the party wouldn’t be able to get any magical items. As for an increased number of attunement slots, yes this can be quite good, but 3 slots is more than enough for the vast majority of builds, and the artificer’s overall numerical weakness means it needs to use these slots to play catchup with other classes.
I agree that the artificer can now have more total spell casts than other casters, but I question the quality of those casts. Unfortunately you cannot use Shield of Faith with this feature, as it requires a spell with a casting time of 1 action, while SoF takes 1 bonus action.
Looking at the spells available for this feature I’d say that Faerie Fire, Enlarge/Reduce, Heat Metal, or Pyrotechnics would be the best options. If this feature came around at level 7 or earlier I’d be much more excited about its power, but getting a limited selection of 1st or 2nd level spells all the way at level 11 just isn’t enough for me.
I definitely agree that the Infusions are the best part of the artificer, but as I’ve mentioned in other discussions on the class, when your strongest feature is best given away to actually strong characters it lowers my estimation of the class. Good supports should be doing strong things alongside that support, and the artificer has a hard time doing that.
Glad we can agree on that at least =P.
Artillerist is alright. Getting extra scaling damage on a bonus action that can also be an aoe or have control effects is great, adding extra damage to offensive spells is ok. The real star is the temp HP. Everyone is up in arms about the twillight cleric yet its been here the whole time.
Artillerist is the 2nd best subclass in my estimation, and I agree the temp HP is the best part of it. Unfortunately, more and more features are granting temp HP these days, and the artificer’s source caps at the fairly low value of 9.5. It’s not bad but compared to something like the Twilight cleric’s action free capped average of 23.5 there’s no comparison. It’s extra annoying to me that the Artillerist’s temp HP is the version of its cannon that doesn’t scale.
I think that the Battlesmith is the best of the artificer subclasses for many of the reasons you’ve listed here. However it doesn’t even come close to the paladin. Optimized builds are making extra attacks with their bonus action, and with two-handed weapons or something like the Oathbreaker’s Aura of Hate that extra attack is dealing way more than the Steel Defender. The paladin gets a mount that can also deal decent damage. Holy Smite is so much better than the smite spells, as it takes no action and no concentration. If you’d like to compare actual builds shoot me a Battlesmith and we can compare it to a paladin I come up with.
I think the Armorer is not resilient enough to be the tank many people want it to be. Yes it can attain a decent AC, but its low HP and relatively weak saves means that it will crumple under focused attacks from mixed sources. However if you have a specific build you’d like to send me I’d love to compare it to other tanking options.
Overall I think the artificer could be swapped around with the ranger or the monk on this list. I think all 3 classes are pretty weak compared to other options. I personally hold the artificer to a bit of a higher standard as Wizards had years of time to get better at designing classes and what they came up with was a pretty meh addition to the game.
This is probably one of the better class rankings I’ve found, at least one of the ones I think lines up with my beliefs for the better classes and worse classes. The one major oof of this is that you put the artificer last. That must have been an accident, because the artificer has the best low tier playability. Which other class will allow players to get access to plate armor at level 2? NONE. Which other has the capability to permanently give a ranged weapon the abilities of the 5th level ranger spell swift quiver at level 2? NONE. Which other class can have an ac of 34 with only a multiclass, warforged race, and magic initiate at level 11? NONE. Artificers are literally the best supports(excluding bard), and the best tanks in the game. Really sucks that you put it at last place. artificers are at least top 5 for me.
I’m glad you liked most of it at least =P.
As for the artificer, are you referring to using the Replicate Magic Item infusion to make a plate variant of a common magical armor such as Armor of Gleaming? The infusion process requires a non-magical item to work, so unless you have a non-magical set of plate I believe this is a no-go. If you’re referring to some other method please let me know.
As for emulating Swift Quiver, are you referring to the Repeating Shot infusion? If so nothing in that infusion allows for extra attacks like the Swift Quiver spell.
As for the 34 AC, how did you reach this number? I’m not saying it’s impossible just that there are so many sources of AC that I’m interested in which you used.
As for tanking, high AC is only part of being good in that role. Lots of builds can reach mid 20s to low 30s for limited amounts of time, especially with magical items. However, saves and damage output are also extremely important. For classes like the artificer with d8 hit dice damage and control spells can be a major issue, as they bypass the classes’ AC.
More importantly, a good tank should force monsters to pay attention to it. A pillow fisted character with 30 AC would simply be ignored by enemies with any level of tactics. The easiest way to do this is to be a good source of damage. I have yet to see an artificer build that accomplishes this.
I do hold the artificer to a higher standard than other weak classes like the monk or ranger because Wizards had years of learning to draw upon when they created this class and they still failed to make a powerful addition to the game.
If I were to change this list to reflect which classes I’d like to have in my party, the artificer would rank higher, but that would only be so they could use their best feature to give me magic items to make my stronger character more effective.
Every once in a while I come back and take a look at 5e and see not much has changed.
My initial impression was that, when “balancing” classes, MM &co must have expected very long days and placed a high value on grinding DPR and on relatively small differences in durrability.
I think I was off, and that balancing classes was just a very low priority, with evoking the classic game much closer to the top – and the classic game did assume very, very long dungeon-crawl scenarios in which spells would have to be reserved for only the most critical occassions and damage-grinding by fighting men, henchmen & hirelings would get the party through most combat encounters (with outright avoiding or nullifying combat encounters being a solid strategy, as well).
But the initial impression seems to hold in your ranking, too, or the Fighter wouldn’t be ahead of the Warlock, for instance, nor the Paladin rated quite so high. Or am I wrong again? (Don’t worry, I’m used to it!) How important is the ability to grind out baseline damage round after round – which incldes staying up & fighting round after round? How long a day do you assume? 6-8 medium-hard encounters with 2-3 short rests among them?
And thanks for the article!
I’m glad you liked the article, it was fun to write =).
As for balancing for encounter numbers I am 100% with you that 5e assumes way more encounter than most tables actually have. I made an entire custom system for my games to have those minor encounters without turning the game into day-long slogs.
I put fighter above the warlock simply because I think it’s a better monoclass overall. I rated the paladin so highly because it’s a fantastic well rounded class. If your table has more encounters per day you can make very efficient paladin builds that can still crank out very high damage outputs while spending very few resources.
The importance of resource efficient playstyles varies wildly between tables. I don’t state it explicitly here, but for my builds I now assume 8 4-round encounters a day with 1 short rest at some point. I personally don’t think that type of adventuring day is very likely to happen, but it’s the standard used by the optimizing community I joined so for now it’s the one I use.
Almost every class in 5e has resources that need to be managed if you want them to stay effective so my assumption of longer adventuring days didn’t play a major roll in my rankings.
Great article! I must sadly admit that I agree with every choice you made. Sadly, because I would prefer if everyone disagree: that would mean that there is some kind of balance between classes. Still, I would like to gave tour opinion on this:
I find that the concept of “long rest” and “short rests” can pretty much solve the power gap between many classes, such as monk or warlock. If you take “short rest” abilities and make them “long rest” by multiplying their amount of uses by three, it balances itself pretty much.
A monk with 15 ki points per long rest at level 5 is quite strong. Even the way of the four elements gets viable.
A warlock with 6 LVL2 spell slots per long rest at level 3 is amazing.
The Arcane Archer also gets viable with 6 arcane shots per long rest.
The DMG states that a DM should give 3 short rests per day. This mean that the balance of the classes is more based on DM decision to allow short rests.
Would you rank classes differently, if short rest abilities were managed as long rests (uses 3x)?
Sorry! I meant 2 short rests per day, so indeed number of uses times 3.
That’s a cool way to look at balancing between short and long-rest based classes. While it would make the classes affected stronger, I don’t think it would change my rankings too much. The problem for classes like the monk is not just that they don’t have enough ki, but even if they had infinite ki their abilities just aren’t strong enough. Baring super low resource subclasses like the Arcane Archer, giving more resources doesn’t solve the problem, as they weren’t running out to begin with.
The big exception is the warlock. Giving a level 2 warlock 6 spell slots at level 2 that all upgrade to 5th level would push the classes’ power immensely. I’d probably put them in 1st place.
Ok so sorcerers or druid should be at the top, not wizards. Sorcerers have almost the exact same spell list AND metamagic. Twinned spell and Quickened spell are absolutely broken at lower levels and incredible at higher levels. Druids can choose to either be a tank (using wildshape) or a spellcaster. They can also choose if they want to have spells that are better for healing, or better for damage. I agree with the artificer being near the bottom but for a different reason. Artificer can be the most powerful class in the game, but it takes a real pro to play it that way. I also feel like rangers and and monks aren’t getting enough respect. Gloomstalker rangers can be incredibly powerful if you play them right and way of the open hand is pure gold. Also barbarians have brutal critical, and If you throw that on top of great weapon master and reckless, you get massive damage. Wizards are probably a weaker class because ALL they do is cast spells. Yes they can combo but any other class can as well. Also their spell list can be as detrimental as it is helpful. Contrary to popular opinion, paladins are not that great. Yes when they crit they do massive damage, but what about every other time they hit? They do good against one big enemy, but when you are fighting three or more monstees, they aren’t as effective. Warlocks should also be a bit higher up. They essentially have 8 level 5 spell slots at level 20, and If your DM let’s you use a point system, it becomes so much more powerful. Also I think if we considered some of the multiclassing options for each class, the list would change a TON.
Sorcerers and druids are both good classes, but they are both worse than the wizard. There are 123 spells on the wizards spell list that don’t appear on the sorcerer’s. Some sorcerer subclass spell lists chip this number down but I’m also leaving out special wizard spell groups like graviturgy. These spells start with powerful low level options like Find Familiar and continues into high level entries like the game changing simulacrum.
These are not minor differences, and the wizard also gets significantly more spells than the sorcerer and their ritual casting is very good. Options like the evocation wizard bring more damage than a sorcerer can and if you include game breaking combos like the Chronurgy wizard’s instant cast Tiny Hut the gap widens even further. The sorcerer has it’s strengths for sure. Power spikes like twinned Haste or Polymorph are what earned it 6th place on my list, but it cannot compete with the wizard.
Druid is much closer, but loses for the same reason, spells are the strongest thing in 5e and the druid’s spell list is worse than the wizards.
What pro artificer builds make them the best? I’d love to try them out.
Rangers and Monks both make workable characters, but they are worse than the competition. Someone had to be on the bottom.
Gloomstalkers aren’t even the strongest ranger subclass as far as damage is concerned, hunter with colossus slayer out damages them over most fights, and even the best monks are middling at best numbers-wise.
Smites, while good, are not even the best feature paladins have. Their aura gives both them and their party incredibly high saves. They also have high HP and AC making them an incredibly good frontline character with no real weaknesses.
Warlocks fall off hard after level 5, which hurt their standing. They make a very good dip but are not great as mono class.
You’ll be happy to hear that I made a list that does include multiclassing =D
https://mythcreants.com/blog/dd-5e-classes-ranked-from-worst-to-best-with-multiclassing/
Artificer is not particularly hard to break. It is a class with a lot of moving parts, so to speak, so it’s hard to point to any single thing and say “this, this right here is what you do if you want to break the game,” but in general: a completely unrestricted artificer should have access to any magic that an ordinary caster would have, quite often at a lower level than the actual caster would get access to. Really, it depends a lot on what exactly you want your artificer to do. You can focus on party-buffing and be a solid, flexible build that can do almost anything in a mid- to high-op game without completely breaking things. While, yes bards are better supports and wizards are better spellcasters, artificer’s can do BOTH at the same time without multiclassing. Rangers don’t do as much damage per turn but rarely miss. I’d also like to point out that metamagic makes a sorcerer just as good, if not better, than a wizard. Twinned spell and quickened spell are especially good and allow a sorcerer to double its damage. With enough levels you can roll damage as if it were a crit every turn. Druid is easily at least #2 because it can decide whether it wants to be a tank or a spellcaster; if there is more than one encounter in a session, while everyone else is stuck with cantrips because they wasted their spell slots on the first encounter, a druid can start with most, if not all, of its spell slots because they used wildshape in the first encounter. Last thing, you seem to just be looking at a class’s usefulness based off of what they do in combat and not outside of it (Warlocks and Rogues being the prime examples). Looking forward to checking out your article on best multiclass builds :)
I’m a little confused how the artificer gets access to magic any other caster has, given that is a half caster with a restricted list. If you mean magic items, some of which can replicate certain spell effects, then yes, but that’s not the same as having a full spell list.
Generally being middling to bad at a bunch of things in 5E is worse than being good at a few things, and I’m not even convinced the artificer splits its roles better than something like the bard.
What ranger feature means they rarely miss? They get the archery fighting style and the gloom stalker can re-roll a miss at 11, but fighters have the option for precision strike if they want and they just get a 3rd attack at 11.
Sorcerers have powerspikes that can push them ahead of wizards at mid-level. Twinned Haste and Polymorph come to mind. However, Wizards have a much stronger list that outside of the sorcerer’s specific power spikes, propels the wizard far past the sorc.
I do heavily weight towards combat abilities because that is the biggest part of 5e. The game has a massive number of rules involving combat and most class features do so as well. It’s not impossible to minimize combat in 5e, but it’s not playing to the system’s strengths.
Hope you enjoy the multiclass ranking
The artificer does have a limited spell list but it also has spells available to it (such as polymorph) that it can get at levels lower than 7. I also think that the bard can either go better support Or better damage not both at the same time like an artificer can. But the artificer isn’t really my hill. I think that it takes someone really good at the game to break an artificer. The sorcerer is my main point. Take a level 7 sorcerer which I’ve been playing recently. I use scorching ray at 4th level then twinned spell and empowered spell. That is 10 attacks with each hit being 2d6 damage. With a crit in there you can max out at 70 damage. Wizards have an expanded spell list (referring to Players handbook and Xanathar’s) but can’t do nearly that much damage on a hit. When I say that rangers rarely miss I mean that they typically get bonuses that other players don’t have and are often given advantage on attacks due to the gloomstalker’s umbral sight ability. If you want to go more damage oriented then you go colossus slayer and do that extra d8 damage on top of hunters mark and whatever other spells you throw on top of that. My problem with rangers is that they have too many spells that require concentration. But I really think sorcerer should be higher on the list because of metamagic.
Here is the multiclass article if that’s what you’re talking about.
https://mythcreants.com/blog/dd-5e-classes-ranked-from-worst-to-best-with-multiclassing/
How does the artificer get polymorph pre 7?
If you have a split support/damage artificer build you think is good I’d love to see it.
You’re right that a sorc can do a lot of damage in a round with its meta magic, but single round damage is not the only way I look at class power. I don’t even think the sorcerer is bad, all the classes in that 6th to 1st spots are ones I’d consider very good, sorc just happens to be on the weaker end of strong options.
Rangers are not naturally any more accurate than other classes that get the archery fighting style, so I’m not sure what bonuses you’re talking about, especially for melee. Advantage is something most optimized builds should have most of the time, so umbral sight isn’t anything particularly special, and the non-scaling damage boost most rangers get is bad past the early levels. Colossus slayer is the best of these and it’s still sub-par.
Just for the record, Scorching Ray specifically cannot be Twinned, rules as written. It’s specifically one of the examples of a spell that can’t be Twinned. Now, if your DM is cool with it, then all the power to you, but that doesn’t really effect the article. From the text:
“To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level. For example, magic missile and scorching ray aren’t eligible, but ray of frost and chromatic orb are.”
Sorcerer becomes much more powerful if you don’t play it like a sorcerer. For example if you play Shadow Sorcerer like a rogue and specialize in illusion spells you have a better Arcane Trickster with way more spells and versatility. Play a divine soul like a wizard and you’ll find that the cleric spell list comes with a ton of necromancy spells that you can twin. Meaning you will have more zombies as a high level sorcerer than playing a wizard necromancer at high level. Divine soul is possibly the best necromancer in the game because of this. And with the introduction of Tasha’s Abherrant mind can easily be played like a warlock great old one pact due to the extra warlock spells you get. Even better as a tiefling for more spells you can cast once per day. Sorcerer is my favorite class for a reason and I play them any chance I get. With this in mind it should be ranked higher.
I’m a little confused what you mean by “like a sorcerer”. Rogues are a martial class that relies on their attacks + sneak attack for damage, including the Arcane Trickster. Are you saying that the Shadow Sorc tries to mimic that with a better spell list or are you just a sneaky sorcerer?
RAW twin spell does not work with Animate Dead, as it targets objects not creatures. However, even if it did work, Necromancer wizards also can target additional bones/corpses per cast and get bonuses to their undead that the sorc cannot match. As a side note, anyone with Animate dead can eventually reach the same number of undead assuming they have the same number of slots, it just takes longer if you can’t target additional bodies.
As for being better than a warlock with similar theming, I agree. I ranked the sorc higher than both the rogue and the warlock. I think the sorc is a good class, just not as good as some other classes. Something had to take the 6th slot.
Thanks for writing this piece, it’s an enjoyable read. I must, however, strenuously object to your assertion that “D&D is a primarily combat based game.” It is not. D&D is primarily a roleplaying game. It’s right there on the box. :)
While combat necessarily comprises the bulk of the hard “rules,” it is vastly outweighed in both volume and emphasis by the game’s overall pages on roleplaying and worldbuilding. There are many types of encounters, and combat is designed to be just one component of a much richer gaming experience.
Thus, I’m frequently frustrated by lists like this, as they often focus exclusively on a class’s combat potency, rather than its roleplaying potential. That kind of comparison just reinforces the misconception that D&D is all about fighting.
This list suffers from that problem (for example, the Ranger entry focuses entirely on damage dealing, with nary a word about its excellent survival and exploration opportunities), but I appreciate that you took time to compare some of the broader skill sets, particularly with Rogue and Bard.
Ultimately, there’s no good way to rank D&D classes, because they’re simply not designed to compete with each other. They’re designed to complement each other.
Objection aside, this is a well-written overview, and more thoughtful than some others I’ve seen. Cheers!
I’m glad you enjoyed the article. As for for the kind of game 5E is, I don’t think you’ll find much argument against labeling it a roleplaying game. However, the ability to contribute to roleplay and world building is equal amongst all classes, so there’s little to analyze there. Those activities are also so subjective that any kind of ranking is basically impossible.
If we’re talking about exploration or social encounters, then yes, there are rules there and certain classes are on average better at those things than others. Unfortunately, 5E’s designers spent a lot less time on those rules than they did on combat. Given that fighting is the majority of 5E’s rules it is the most widely applicable ruler to judge classes by.
As for the ranger specifically, there simply aren’t as many rules that make use of those features compared to combat abilities. Certainly a GM could make situations where those abilities are powerful and useful, but that could be said for any ability.
If the ranger received combat power alongside those exploration abilities, it wouldn’t be a problem, but instead the exploration features are the only thing rangers get. Even the designers realized this and moved to fix their mistake with the optional Tasha’s features.
5E classes may not compete directly in something like PVP, but they do compete in the sense that players generally want to feel useful, and weaker classes are more likely to feel less useful. The reason I make lists like this is to give players an idea of a classes’ power going into character creation. If someone wants to play a monk, that’s great, but they should be aware of how that monk stacks up to the hexblade/paladin someone else is bringing to the table.
As a “forever” GM any monk is a constant worry to me, they have this annoying tendency to cancel encounters sometime, especially in that 6-10 levels.
Like most shutdown builds the best answer I’ve found for that is larger groups of medium strength enemies, or fewer enemies with such high saving bonuses they can’t be locked down.
only thing i REALLY disagree with is druid. if JUST because of a single subclass the Druid ranks 2, then a lot of the subclasses give the druid a run for their money. (early hexblade, twilight cleric, a few paladin subclasses). Still probably top 5 but maybe not 2
the other thing i’m seeing is there isn’t really a defined criteria. if its damage per round, champions, paladins and wizards stand out. out of combat utility, bard would be top, and rogues and wizards next. if its are they good at what they set out to do(cast spells, smite etc.) then this list fits it well, although i still have a couple gripes (wizards get pretty much one shot if they are in melee, a pretty instinctual thing – “kill the guy with no armor doing 100 damage a second”)
There are an almost unlimited number of ways to build a bad character, there are far fewer ways to build a good one. I built this list thinking about the best each class had to offer and judging them based on that. At the time I wrote this druid had 1 very good subclass and it didn’t really matter about the other weaker options. Sure you could make a druid that’s worse than a ranger by making weak choices, but the same can be said of any class.
This was one of my earlier articles so I did a worse job at explaining the criteria than I would like. I generally make my list as a combination of how good I consider something in all realms of play, with combat weighted significantly heavier than roleplaying or exploration. If I made this list now I’d probably move a few things around, but by and large my feelings haven’t changed.
As for wizard defenses, built correctly you can be incredibly hard to hurt by anything that targets your AC, wisdom, or con saves. A level of cleric gives you heavy armor without slowing slot progression, or you could be a bladesinger. You could of course build a wizard susceptible to any of these things, but that returns to my statement that there are endless ways to build a suboptimal character.
Moon druids are only good if you can remind your DM that zoos existed in the time period in which the game is set. “…beast that you have seen before.” Means you must constantly ask your DM “what animals do I see around here?” Or else this feature is pointless. Yea there is a great beast in the MM I could turn into for this situation but my dm never gave me a chance to have seen it so I can’t wild shape into it. It is too bad that in all the time I was growing up around nature and the woods before becoming a lvl 1 druid I never saw any animals. Wild shape is such a dm-conversation-dependant ability that I must disagree with it’s placement at 2nd spot.
It’s true at low levels the feature is GM dependent, but in practice it is only marginally more susceptible to GM tampering than any other ability you could choose to houserule. The best combat animal is the brown bear which is pretty easy to justify if your world has forests. If it doesn’t then talk to the GM about creatures that fulfill that roll.
Once you hit 7th level you can simply polymorph yourself into the creature, look in a mirror, and then you can wild shape into it. I’ve never seen anyone feel so restricted they took that rout of acquiring new shapes, but it works RAW.
I must thank Chapman for pointing this out.
I broadly agree with the ranking, but I wouldn’t put druids so high, because even the Circle of the Moon is very… situational. Firstly, its true potential requieres you to be at level 20, or, at the very least, 18 (let’s be realist… how many times are you gonna play a game until that point?). And secondly, it is what this guy just said:”beast that you have seen before”, which depends on what type of campaign are you playing and the cooperation of your DM. Conjure Animals, which you mentioned above, only allows you to summon beasts with a CR of 2 maximum, and in regards to Polymorph, it STILLS depend on what your DM allows you to do. Even if the spell specifies that you can polymorph the objective into any creature… what says that YOU, specifically, can do so? Taking the example o the mammoth: will your DM allow you to polymorh someone into a mammoth if you have never seen one before? Does your character even know that mammoths exist, to begin with? Would it be enough if your character had seen a draw or a picture? What if the draw or the picture is pretty inaccurate? (think about the depictions of lions or other animals in medieval art or other kinds of very abstract and rudimentary art… sometimes they are good, and some other times they are awful and unrecognizable).
So yeah, for me, the awsome “endlessly-turn-into-a-mammoth” thing is not so easy to achieve. Depending on your DM, you maybe won’t achieve it at all.
Of course, it doesn’t mean druids are bad. In fact, you have shown me an amazingly absurd potential that I had never noticed before, and I thank you for that. I just wouldn’t put them second, but rather third of fourth, just because of the “situationalness” that I pointed out before. As you said, it works RAW, but it doesn’t mean it will happen.
If you read this, thank you for the consideration and sorry for my writting mistakes, english is not my natural language.
All of you, have a nice day and have nice games =)
Btw, I want to clarify that I’m not a pro D&D gamer. I’ve played (and I’m playing) a few games, and I’ve been DM twice, but I only have read the Player’s handbook, and I refer to rules as they are written there. If I’m wrong in something, feel free to make me know.
If we want to consider the classes in terms of how people normally play the game, I am going to say that I agree with the list 100% save swapping ranger and artificer. But this is only with we look how people tend to play their campaigns and not in some of the more slower paced ways that were semi-intended. I am not sure how much further up they go but if we for example have higher exploration settings than the ranger goes up in usefulness by a ton. Ranger honestly would probably only swap one or so with this change due to a series of other factors but still. Now the artificer on the other hand, they probably go up a decent few ranks if we are considreing slower paced campaigns, and by that I mean technically faster. Most people have their campaigns go by super fast in terms of in game time. Like in one day you beat up this big bad guy and then move on to the next. If you are to give more time between some of those encounters for downtime and info collecting and etc., then the artificer actually has time to make use of more of its tool proficiencies and artificer skills for the sake of making actual magical items and etc.
If I made this list today monk would definitely be at the bottom, followed by artificer. Rogue and ranger would probably move up as well.
I wonder if it might be worth it to re upload the list with the revisions and maybe some commentary from the comments here so people don’t just keep saying the same things over and over again. You could also talk with some other people to maybe get their opinion on it as well so if maybe you aren’t as informed about something or someone has played an artificer from 1-20 in a full campaign. outside information is never a bad thing. it does seem like you would have changed some things though.
Making an updated rankings is something I’ve considered, but its a question of making new content compared to revamping something old. My new rankings would be covering a lot of the same territory as this article, especially in the top spots.
As for getting outside opinions, I do talk with other D&D and designers I know, especially when I have two entries in close contention. I of course welcome input through the comments, but it’s hard to have a nuanced conversation through this medium.
I’m also wary of “I played this and it was good” anecdotes because D&D has so many variables. Maybe the bad build someone is talking about did well because the GM gave them magic items or the rest of the party was even worse. It’s basically impossible to get a useful body of data in TTRPGs, so most judgements rely heavily on analysis rather than played experience.
I think it’s wonderful if someone feels empowered to play what they like because it feels good, and how they all complement one another in many ways. Not to mention the creativity fostered. As an artificer I turned an Eldritch cannon and an upside down dinner table into a motorized toboggan to outrun some monsters and it was the best fun. That’s what it’s about, not which position is the best. They are all best.
The point of lists like these are to inform folks of a classes’ mechanical capabilities, not whether or not any individual would have fun with them. Enjoyment is the number 1 goal of D&D, but mechanical strength is a big part of fun for many players. If I pick up a Four Elements Monk expecting to wield the power of the Avatar I will be very disappointed that bopping someone with a sword would be more effective than my bending.
I’m glad you and your GM constructed a fun scenario, but that kind of interaction is outside the rules and therefore this list. I add all sorts of stuff to my game as GM, but I don’t use it as justification in my writing as I can’t expect others to use my house rules.
I agree with the general ‘tiers’ of this list. Like the bottom 3, middle 5, and top 5. Might move monk below artificer, and cleric maybe even above Druid or possibly wizard, but everything to me is in it’s general place. Quick question: where would you rank the blood hunter on this list? I think it would be somewhere in the upper middle, but the hit point loss is definitely a problem.
I haven’t read blood hunter in a while, but I don’t remember being super impressed by it. It’d probably be hanging out in the middle of the list below the stronger martial options
I don’t know how long, ‘in a while’ means, but it got a remaster back in 2020. just typing that out made me realize 2020 was a while ago, time is weird.
A couple of years at least. I know a remaster came out but haven’t reviewed it. I’m personally not a fan of the preferential treatment the class got on dnd beyond despite it simply being 1 of thousands unofficial classes made by fans.
Honestly, just mad props for keeping up with all these comments, I feel how hard it is.
A bit bummed out that artificer is ranked last, but I get that you have evidence to back it up. I like to play the artificer, just as a character, I don’t need to be dealing colossal damage, mainly because the campaign I plan on doing is going only from levels 3-7. I think playing the artificer is pretty fun, and adds a more interesting character to play.
For example:
The current artificer character I am going to be playing is a tiny little halfling, who always admired tanks, and got to be one because of the artificer class.
I would ask for you to make a list of the best characters, including damage strengths, playability, and funness, but that’s highly opinionated. You could take a poll to make it the people’s choice?
bards can support themselves with inspiration??
Most Bards cannot give themselves inspiration. 14th level Lore Bards are the exception.
If the Mystic and Blood Hunter classes were official and allowed in the Adventurers league, where would you rate them?
It’s been a while since I’ve read either of these classes, especially the mystic. From what I remember, the Blood Hunter did little to impress me. It’s probably a stronger option than an Artificer, Ranger, Monk, or rogue. It’s been even longer since I looked at the Mystic, but I recall it being a very open ended class. I think if you optimized it properly it could be one of the best martial options, and it also had some pretty cool spell-like options.
Between the two mystic is by far the more ambitious design, and the one I would recommend players try out if they don’t mind a fair amount of reading.