My responses common concerns: Why did I use the updated ranger? It is a revision to the hunter and beastmaster from the PHB. Still the same class, with the same progression table, just more in line with the power level of other classes. Honestly, the pre-revision ranger would only be 1 point less in mechanics. Nothing else really changes. How can I rate a class's roleplaying? Certain classes have abilities and skills that are geared toward social interaction. This of course makes the class better in this area. I'm not rating YOUR ability to breathe life or inject personality into a character. This is strictly looking at what is in the class entries themselves that lends toward social interaction in the fantasy world. Am I biased against non-spellcasters? ALL MELEE CLASSES ARE LUNKS!!! Just kidding. Of course I like melee characters and warrior types. I have plenty of them in my narrated adventures, just see for yourself. Each class is worthwhile in its own way, but when I examine what is actually offered in the class entries, those like Champion and Berserker are lacking.
I don't recall it ever being a official rules update. It is place firmly in Unearthed Arcana for the time being. I only say this because you can't use it Adventure League. Unless I missed some announcement from Wizards on the matter. Course this doesn't matter at a home table. Only AL players need to know this.
Apparently I read the revised ranger doc incorrectly. I took "Both will be legal for D&D Adventurers League play" as meaning it was already in the process of becoming official, not "If this gets approved, it WOULD BE legal ..."
This is where I have to disagree on what I feel is an objective level. When certain mechanics don't work as intended, they don't just lead to statistical disadvantages, but also harm the other judgement scores as well. Hunter, yeah, not that big of an issue, just not as strong, so only losing 1 point in mechanics is fair. But the way the PH Beast Master functions has a completely different flavor and stymies player choice, doing significant harm to all the other reference points you use. To start with, Beast Master requires you to choose between acting yourself or having your companion act, acting as its handler and making it out to functionally be no different from any other tamed pet you might be able obtain and train using animal handling checks (if your table allows/enjoys that kind of thing). On other hand, the Beast Conclave makes it all about working in tandem with your animal companion, partners on the battlefield that have each other's back, increasing versatility and style. PH's Beast Master pretty much made it to where either the animal was this lead weight you would have to drag along with you, or, if you insisted on using it, making your character stand around and never do anything for themselves, leaving all other class features effectively meaningless. Also, the revision made it far easier to rollplay your animal as an actual companion, if for no other reason than being given the option keep the same beast around much more reliably. Let's face it, the chances of both the beast and beast master making it out of any given combat alive is pretty low given the PH's mechanics, since one or the other is always forced to play setting duck, so forming a lasting bond in rollplay is fairly difficult. Additionally, regardless if you like or dislike being able to revive your existing companion easily out of the gate, including a material cost in calling/recalling the animal and having it be required up front with even first choosing the archetype makes the ritual feel like less of a formality, adding a touch of potential lore strength (though probably not enough to tip the needle on your ranking scale). And that's not all, the Conclave features let you customize with bonus skills and grow your companion with improvements to its ability score alongside your ASI/Feat selection too, which helps it feel a bit more like part of the team. Honestly, I think you outright underestimate just how bad PH Beast Master is. While its faults may just be minor oversights on paper, in practice it actively gets in the way of being able to play the game. No matter how much you care about playing a character for the flavor over the gameplay, PH Beast Master will manage to be a burden to you and your party as a whole, and likely won't fit what the player was expecting when they chose it if they weren't forewarned about the archetype (which is the only scenario I could logically see it being played nowadays), negatively impacting enjoyment all around. Sad thing is, as overly wordy as this comment is, I could probably have said even more. PH Beast Master is terrible game design.
Bro we tried pvp in dnd and it went horrible. If a class doesn’t have range attack or spell they’re screwed. Barbarian and fighter/magic vs cleric and warlock. They kept sniping and healing at one point they persuaded me to give out my teammate hiding spot.
Level 1 magic users are a real pain in the neck to keep alive tho. Level one wizard: Ahh papercut! DM rolls for damage: "The party watches in horror as the piece of parchment severs Marak's finger off."
@ Well we were investigating an old house where someone was killed and an encounter with a zombie (who didn't even have legs) left our sorcerer at 1 hp. After that we went upstairs and found that a safe was missing and only the wooden casing was left. So two of us took a closer look (the sorcerer and me, but not simultaniously). And we both rolled nat 1s. Our dm told us this would be 1 damage from a wood splinter from the damaged casing. That was fine for me, but left him at 0 hp. Then after we got him back on his feet (but not healed up, because we didn't have a healer in that party), he almost went to 0 hp again while investigating the food storage. It was really funny.
@@mariojumpman9573 Me too! Except I'm always late to watching and commenting on videos so someone else is always first most of the time. This seemed like a video that would age well so it seemed worth it to me to take the time to map out the video with timestamps.
You mean a guy that can teleport, mind control, create demi planes, shoot elemental blasts, and so on and so forth has more versatility and power than the guy whose only ability is to hit something with a metal stick? mind blown! Fighters as a player character don't make any sense. They need to have actual powers, exceptional people that channel supernatural energies through their body to do truly extraordinary things. Like demolish a building with a punch or slice through spells. actually jedi are a great example of what you would think a protagonist "fighter" type class would be like
Tal Tamir I see aware your coming from but it’s how the Dm sets the rules and the setting. Take the archer and the wizards. A basic wizard can’t do cqb (close quarters combat) ware a archer can switch from ranged combat to close, other then that the wizard has more fantasy spells and that’s it. Its spellcraft and boom. Now put the two in a scenario one is not particularly stronger than the other it’s the training they had. One could easily out do the other. Then you have the players things get way different with that. I’m not dising wizards it’s thy just they have more spells they can use. Compared to the others.
You: “champion gets a few ability score or feat gains.” Fighters literally get the highest amount. I get that feats are optional rules but the whole point of a fighter, especially the champion is that you can make it extremely customizable. If you play with variant human rules, you can end up with 8 feats. Everyone craps on the fighter for just being basic but when you think about it, fighter could be from any background. From a peasant farmer with a bone to pick to the body guard of some wizard too a town soldier too literally anything, you can justify a fighter. There is nothing that says they can’t pick magic initiate, keen mind, or linguist to just show that perhaps you are an intelligent scholar who can’t rely on his magic to save him so he resorts to a bow on his back. But then why not just play a ranger then for a better mechanical grasp? It’s because some role play backgrounds sorta start to disappear. In the terms of ice cream, I fighter is vanilla. Which makes a human fighter like French vanilla. The great thing about vanilla though, you can put just about any topping on it and still have a good dessert. There is a reason the fighter is still the most made class and sure you could argue that it’s cause you can make one in 2 minutes but I believe it’s because they are truly the only 100% customizable class. Everything else forces you into certain new and sometimes terrible abilities but then fighters can go cherry pick 7-8 times. Also there is clearly a bias in this video towards casters and hey they do get a lot of spell customization but most of that is still handed to you on a silver platter and you get so many that they all just feel the same outside of their main gimmick and typical background choices.
It’s an interesting defense of the Champion, but I’m not super convinced that eight feats makes a character as customizable as the entire wizard spell list. You could always play ten different wizards with the same archetype and they’d all have completely different spells and tactics.
@@elijahculper5522 no matter how customozable you make your wiard itll be laxking in defenses, endurance, self healing, and the blessing of the most extra attacks in game
Japanese professional wrestlers have a tradition known as "excursion." When you first start training to be a wrestler, you're known as a "young lion." Besides training, you clean, you set up the ring, you learn to respect the business. You don't have a professional name or a style of your own. After you've been a young lion long enough, you go on excursion. You leave your place of training and travel the world to learn styles of wrestling from other places. There are a lot of Japanese Luchadors because they went to Mexico on excursion and learned lucha libre. After your excursion is done, you return home with your new style, and that's when you come up with your pro wrestling name and gimmick. Why do I bring this up? Because its a perfect adventuring motivation for a Monk. You aren't exiled. You aren't on a sacred quest. You're just traveling the world to better yourself before you have to return home and share what you've learned. Your character doesn't have to be a perfect warrior, and gets to be excited to have adventures. Basically, your character gets to be fun to be around.
Silly Japanese, pretending that pro wrestling of all things is like a martial art from romanticized tales of olde... That said, a Barbarian/Monk makes for a pretty effective wrestler-like build, especially with a Half-Orc character.
Pro wrestling is an art, and the best pro wrestlers in the world are found in Japan. Even if pro wrestling isn't an effective martial art, it still takes years of dedication and experience to learn. Calling them "silly Japanese" is pretty racist all things considered.
DrLipkin There we go with the racism card... You didn't consider that many things, now did you? Seriously, if my username isn't any indication, I don't hate the people, culture or nation of Japan. In fact, I care very much about them. But that doesn't mean I agree with everything that comes from them either, especially with practices that are pointless or even self-destructive. To be truely caring also means to be critical, not simply to be unconditionally supportive.
Stripey Bag halfling Bard Pirate with a bad attitude who doesn’t like citrus fruit who’s instrument is a hurdy gurdy made from whale bone and sinew and two of his magical secrets are storm sphere and call lightning storm -short Shanty Slinging storm summoning smarmy scurvydog
Cliff Dragons are elemental lizards, not cold-blooded lizards. Dragonborn are part Dragon. If they are a White or Silver Dragonborn, they would be a Wizard Lizard Spitting Blizzards.
It's funny you mention that because that was the first version of the WLB I did was a silver Dragonborn named Frokrahdiin. Also nothing I've found in the lore says anything about Lizardfolk having anything against cold environments only dry ones like deserts cause they like to be moist. Take that last part as you will and there are swamps in cold places so yeah.
Ultimately the goal I had was get the Control Weather spell. So he could truly summon a blizzard whenever and maybe even have it be warm while it happens. P.S. I made him look like Gandolf the Grey.
A: Casts tons of Spells. B: Casts spells. C: Should cast more spells. D: Barbarian type that casts the fewest amount of spells. F: Fighter type that casts the fewest amount of spells.
He MASSIVLY underestimates how effective fighters and barbarians are in controlling combat. All those spellcasters will never be able to do anything if a fighter is not skilled enough to control the start of the combat. Spellcasters get the glory, just like people who score in sports do, but the champion teams are the ones with the best defenders. In all the games I have payed, the warrior classes have the best character types. All the other ones are pure tropes. The charismatic lecherous bards, the power hungry sorcerer/wizard, the deity specific cleric. We can think of other ways to play them, but nobody ever has.
There was a reason spellcasting got a big revamp from previous editions with the introduction of Concentration. Spellcasters, namely wizards because of their expansive spell choices and versatility were almost god-like, leaving behind their counterparts. Even with Concentration, the sheer amount of spell versatility puts spellcasters about non-spellcasters. Wizards with their annoying Shield spells + Mage Armor having been cast earlier, makes them one of the few (if not the only class if you're using stat array or point-buy) classes to have AC as high as 21 (putting 16+ on Dex, but let's not discuss why on earth you'd choose your highest score as Dex and not Int). Around 1st level, if you take, say Sleep. It'll immediately disable any other class (except any elven/half-elven character). Move 120ft away and start kiting with Fire Bolt. One or two hits will do the job. Even if your Wizard were to say move up to the Sleep-ing PC with the Quarterstaff, they'd have a good chance at having a quick win. Since the other PC is unconscious and prone, the Wizard has advantage and their hits are an automatic crit. With an average damage of 9 (2d8 because qstaffs are versatile) + Dex, most PCs would be dead, assuming the Wizard doesn't let them stabilize/Roll a nat 20.
Also the fact that nonspellcasting classes just deal more damage through feat choices in this edition. Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter are just amazingly high damage when you take multiattack into account. Actually when you take combat into account at all the caster classes just fall short unless they burn everything every encounter. The caster classes need something extra, the warlock especially, just to compete in the combat arena with anything resembling a fighter.
@@rhett3185 Well yeah, but not as magical as other classes like wizards. But I think he has a point about spellcasters. They ARE a lot more versatile and mechanically interesting.
Non-spellcasters don't get flashy reality-altering powers. Rogues and Fighters both deal with reality and simple solutions to complex problems like combat or interacting with people without making the party look like a gaggle of dumbasses that spellcasters, and particularly bards, typically succeed at. You see a door: Rogue: I stealth up and check for traps before picking the lock. Spellcaster: I cast Knock (and invariably wake up everyone in a 300 food radius) Fighter: I just go in. It's a f'king tavern you idiots. Bard: I cast charm on the passing guard and ask him to herald my arrival. (Guard passes his save). Chaos ensues as everyone is awake & has their attention drawn on the dumbasses at the door who have the guards barreling down on them.
To be fair spell casters have a lot more to work with than melee fighters. The type of spells you choose alone can create create a variety of roleplaying experiences and that's not even going into subclasses and class bonuses. Spell casters just have much more options in and out of combat than melee fighters whose only speciality comes from their consistent damage and the how good the player is at roleplaying (which is something all classes need). Yea rogues have sneak attack and barbarian are good at soaking damage but you can create a spell caster equally or a little less adept at these things AND and have the luxury of having a list of spells. I've always thought when playing a melee fight "man wish I had misty step to get on top that building" or "wish I had an aoe spell for this hoard of enemies". I've rarely felt restricted when playing spell casters or when I do can always look forward to the next level or long rest to change up my spells. Even cantrips are really good because their damage scales with your level allowing for consistent damage that's slightly less than a melee fighter.
Take a Wizard. Proficiency in Daggers, darts, staffs, and slings. Ask your DM if your spell book was a big scroll instead. Background Street Urchin for stealth and thieves tools. Dress like a ninja, call yourself a ninja.
The bias against non-spellcasters is almost in the very core of D&D. After all, one type of character can bend reality in a thousand different ways and the other can... uh... swing a sword really well.
jason jernigan I disagree in that regard. Bladesingers, Dex-Barbs and Monks get pretty ridiculous in AC from their core abilities alone. Eldrich Knights, Paladins and some Clerics can rock heavy armors and further bolster their own AC with magic. Bards would need a lot of investment to push them into the same category of AC, barring the College of Valor. Don't get me wrong, they CAN do the job. It just seems odd to me why someone would pick a Bard for that purpose.
@@Rexir2 plate armor+shield ac 20 wait till 10 bard for magic secrets and pick up shield and haste at 15 get shield of faith. Ac 29 be a sword bard use defensive flourish wich would be averaged 3 4 5 6 ac 32-35 one round set up can be up to ac 41 at lvl 14 you get infinite d6s for flourish also i dont know anything about spellsinger but i heard they can be very tanky
He said fighter champion isn’t played much which is kinda true. Pretty much no one plays champion over battle master. I know one person who’s played a champion and she was new to the game and only played it because the mechanics are easy to explain.
Dude, the best healer in the game is a Bard that's taken Aura of Vitality via Magical Secrets. 20d6 healing over 10 rounds, divided among the party as you see fit for the price of a 3rd level spell slot. For bonus lulz, take one level of Life Domain cleric.
Ya its weird Aura of Vitality was only given to Paladins and not Clerics in the original PHB. Thanks to Tasha's Cleric, Druid and Paladins get it as well as Divine Soul Sorcerers. You want crazy, take 1 lvl Life Cleric, and go the rest Divine Soul Sorcerer, use extended spell on Aura of Vitality it turns into 40d6 plus 5x20 for an average of 240 healing at level 6 (since you won't get the spell at 5th lvl due to multiclassing).
--rogue, warlock, cleric, and bard --Can do melee pick one, that laughable d8 isn't gonna survive for long and they swing those weapons like amateurs compared to a fighter or a barbarian
@Leonardo Prusseck aww how cute. But your hexblade isn't in the PHB. My 3rd level berserker though, 2 attacks, a d12 each, and lets disregard rage and modifiers! A lot more damage and a d12 hp die, not to mention resistance to slash, bludgeoning and piercing damage? Wanna bet who'll last more on the battlefield? I can protect my mates better than you and deal just as much damage. Sorry but this isn't 3.5, your caster simply can't do everything, and will never be as good as a real Martial class when it comes to melee, you'll be more useful eldritch blasting people and giving the support that the party actually needs and martial classes can't give. My berserker can't cast hold person but he can sure keep squishies safe while they do
@@GlacialScion lol, guy doesn't follow what he said and before you say "well, here is his comment saying why he used the UA beast master" I saw the comment. He still didn't go with his own limitations he put on his scale
I don`t completely get it. What is that "revised ranger"? Are you all talking about a complementary book (as xanathar`s. volo`s, etc.) that gives a "rework" to that class? Or are you talking to a new PHB that includes this new version? I need help i dont know where i can find this revised version.
I am playing a halfling hunter ranger specializing in archery in our Adventurers League. At just lvl 4 I have 18 AC and a +5 mod to Dex. I have a short bow giving me +10 to attack rolls, +7 to stealth, versatile spells that help in many situations, and as a role player, I created an extensive background. How can you rate a "role play" stat in this ranking system when it varies player to player. I have seen those "A" class characters have the dullest background with the worst people role playing them and the bottom tier having the exact opposite. The other issue I have with this ranking is that all of the melee classes are ranked low, except the rogue. Cool... you can cast spells so that makes you so much better...? I would rather play my character as is then have to constantly worry about burning spell slots and being susceptible to attacks with low AC and HP. The Rogue, Druid and Cleric are the only exception to that in the "Top tier".
@@gnashmelllow I have taken the hunter archetype with the archery subclass of a +2 bonus to ranged attacks plus a short bow +1 the GM gifted my character for completing a hard adventure. And since this post was made, we are level 6, going on 7 now. I have since acquired a cloak of displacement as well to go with an 18 AC. So pretty hard to hit atm.
Honestly, I prefer classes that don't force RP stereotypes on you... I find classes with less roleplay requirements to be more open towards creating your own character, with his own unique flaws and ideology rather than forcing you to basically play a certain way like the Paladin or even Warlock to some degree.
If you think paladins are "forced" into playing a way without any potential for unique flaws, you simply are looking too much into the class. A paladin can be a paladin without being Mr. Clean and proper. They can have extremely unique backgrounds and more. Hell, I played a paladin once who actually had flaws because, surprise, it's likely.
@@animewarrior3 It depends on what your DM will allow. I've played morally questionable paladins as well, and they work great. That being said, I've had other DMs all but require you to be lawful good.
@@TheUhhoh sorry, I meant the character is lawful good, but his reasons for doing so can be less than lawful good. Or, he can have quriks/flaws, he just does everything he can not to succumb to them.
@@animewarrior3 Yes, and those characters can be pretty good when their allowed. But I've had some DMs get very stingy with the alignments on paladins. I also think the game would benefit from having more options for paladin oaths and the likes.
@@TheUhhoh nah, maybe it's me, but I agree paladins should be severely restricted. The only two oaths I like from 5e is devotion (normal paladin) and the fey/nature one because it truly makes them a champion of the good things in the world. (Joy, happiness, hope. Etc)
A few problems I have with Druids in terms of role-play: 1- Hard to hook them in stories that don't involve "nature is being threatened". 2- They are usually Neutral, their ideals and bonds are related to nature and thus make terrible heroic characters. 3- They can conjure, summon animals and spirits diminishing the need for humanoid companionship (Party Members). They do however make amazing villains.
I have a druid that breaks most of those. While being true neutral, he is travelling to gain enough powwr to defeat the Undying Court of his homeland, and most of my spells focus on changing the body, not summoning more.
To be honest, I just scrap most of the lore for druids in dungeons and dragons and stick to Celtic Mythology and Arthurian legend. The class features, such as some of the shape shifting and more social aspects, really make more sense in the context of the view of nature that was held by ethnic groups from the regions Druids originated from. Dungeons and Dragons tends to limit druids to protectors of nature, but they could be taken in the direction of scholars, political advisors, tricksters, clergy etc.
Meh. I've had druids that do things that have little to do with nature, including one that lost her son to a dryad, thus she spends her time looking for her son while burning every forest of oak to the ground.
I have a Druid that’s a criminal. Neutral Evil. He was dying in the deep haunted Forrest after a heist went to shit. He begged any deity for help in exchange for complete devotion. But instead of becoming a warlock, cleric, or even Paladin, he became a Druid because of the fey that haunted the Forrest decided to help. So I play him like a rogue basically, with some Druid hooks.
Me and my friend when we play druid ignore the rules about neutrality. My first druid was more like a fey warlock, as in often doing favors for the Fey, was dream circle druid, and that eventually tied into the main quest. He went on the quest to break the staff before it could be used for evil and was rewarded by being brought to the dream lands. The quests were partly selfish as this is what he wanted, serving the Fey and wanting to stay inside the dreamlands vs only being able to enter it through sleep. My friends dragonborn cared greatly about stopping evil, and had a soul pet like the beastmaster yet it took a ritual to make a new one should the essence die. He was greedy and loved gold as well as well as being prone to rage should he be insulted
Today I'll start playing in a Campaign with a Fighter and I'm really looking forward to it and my Backstory is way more fleshed out than the one I had for my Rogue (which I loved playing but after a while got boring because she didn't have a real character). She is from an old Elven family that was murdered by humans and was born in exile and now is trying to get back her family's castle. Also she's a Dex Fighter with High Int (will be an Eldritch Knight) and I don't see at all why she should be boring. I don't think a Class is what makes a Character interesting, but the Character itself. The class is merely a way to implement mechanics
Yeah gotta pull them through the story otherwise what was the point of spending those hours creating content ? I don't create stories about something else on the fly , and to top it off player's will do it intentionally. Oh it's a haunted house oh let's just keep going to the next town.
@@esperthebard Dunno... i usually have my players spent at least half an hour in a brothel. Or rather they do... it's fun and most of the fun is not being had fighting after all, but roleplaying with the players.
@@antwan1357 If you cant make up stories on the fly for your players you shouldn't be DM. You arent letting them play the game as they actually would, just railroading them. Work on your writing and you wont have to force them into your content you spent so much time on because they will be interested in the mystery that you create and want to pursue it without being pushed.
I get what your saying , but I'm talking about intentional trollers trying to derail the game to seek out negative responses. A person needing a thirty second made up lore on the fly that is fine, but a guy who goes through every word you say like a lawyer trying to win a verdict is holding up the table. I say I can retcon something that is not working at any time even if I approved it in the past. The plot must move along . Like actors say , " the show must go on " .
The monk can be made more flavorful. One question I don't think enough people ask is how you ended up in a monastery to begin with. Was it by choice? Were you left there as an infant? Is it some kind of punishment? Is there even a monastery, or are you more of a hermit? How did THAT happen? For example, I made a monk who had once been a soldier. He was deployed on the front lines of a brutal war. He was captured, tortured, and eventually released after a peace treaty was signed, 3 years later. He was so broken from everything that he experienced, that he just walked away from the world and disappeared. Years later, while meditating, he had a vision. He saw a war fought under a red sky, dark legions marching across the land, burning and pillaging at will. He saw his home city under siege, with his former comrades manning the walls. He watched them fall, one by one, as the walls were breached and the city was overrun. And in the center of the city, he saw himself, sitting in silent meditation. Not even lifting a finger as the enemy hordes overwhelmed him. The next day he returned from his self imposed exile, knowing that the evil in the world would grow unchecked if capable individuals sat idly by and ignored it.
There's also what they do to achieve enlightenment. Vows of poverty/silence/moderation? Do they study ancient texts and philosophers? do they debate daily? do they attune themselves to nature and the animals? Do they train the body to beyond what is possible?
yes, i have an alt made that he had a problem with the god his clan followed because his younger sister was going to be made into a warlock of that god (they follow Raven Queen who is still a EA subclass right now, a thing the DM liked when i made the back story of the clan). so he left to go to a monastery to find peace about this matter and after leaving the monastery things happened and now he is a monklock (following an undead patron to spit the Raven Queen even more) with a sunblade and everything (yes i made a jedi). If you do it right, you can make a great back story for any class.
My monk is more of an 'aspiring/makeshift' monk since he was abandoned since infancy and was raised by wolves so his fighting style of more wild/beast-like than formal fighting
Exactly. Even at Level 5 you can Hit 3 Times with Advantage, with a greatswors and GWM. Even at Level 5, that means Up to 3*12+3*5+3*10=81 damage. Certainly an F Tier character ;)
@@leotamer5 Fighters and most other non wis classes have the exact same problem with their wis save. Does the bard have a good wis save? No, he focuses on dex, con and cha. Same for the sorcerer. Same for the wizard. Does that make these classes unplayable? Nope
@@aldoushuxley5953 "you are in a different terrain. You are fighting a flying enemy. You are frightened/poisoned/restrained. You are fighting an army of 50 enemies" Can you see some troubles for berserk here huh? I can see how any class can deal with at lest half of this, but not bers (and fighter a bit)
@@Melix0ff flying enemy: use a bow/ throw a spear/Javelin frightened: throw a javelin, you don't need to be in close combat poisoned: Doesn't affect you any differently from any other character. You just have to attack, not hit, to keep your rage going restrained: yeah, that one is bad for you. Luckily, you are likely the guy with the single highest strength chack. Not many people can actually keep you restrained. fighting 50 enemies: This is bad for you, but not any worse than it would be for any other barbarian, or even any other non spellcaster. Fireballs are made for those situations. What is the Paladin or Fighter going to do against 50 enemies?
For those who keep going on about how broken the casters are compared to the martial classes... Put any caster into an antimagic field and see how long they last. Magic is STUPIDLY useful only when it's available, whereas martial skill and raw power is almost always relevant, which is why I love playing Fighters, Monks, Barbarians and the like. Because they will never be irrelevant. Even if you put a martial class in a situation where physical combat is not exactly effective, it is almost never useless outright, and rarely is it possible to be punished for using it, as long as you do so wisely. Furthermore, the primary benefit of playing a martial class is CONSISTENCY. Whenever a caster runs out of spell slots, they're kinda f*cked unless they picked useful cantrips, whereas a martial class can just do what it's SUPPOSED to do for the entirety of a combat/encounter/dungeon. That's just my take though, feel free to prove me wrong or present a different angle.
Anti-magic fields are not a very common occurrence though. And if you play it smart like I do you'll be good. I usually make strength, dex, or con the second or third highest stat when playing a spellcaster because I know that's there I would be lacking. It all depends on how you play the class. With my 1st sorcerer I almost never took damage and I actually ended up being the only party member left standing between a rogue, cleric, and a bard in fight with skeletons and ended up saving them. I also almost never used my spell slots I used my spear mostly and my cantrips (though not as much).
You're not making things even. Here, let's do that now: A party of 2 (martial and caster) fall through a magical wormhole. On the other end both have lost any weapons and armor they had and magic doesn't work. Who is in a better position when left in a situation you have to think, reason, or talk your way out of; the class who put most of their stats into physical attributes or the class who put most of their stats into mental attributes?
A well done video as always, but I think there was a major flaw in how you graded the player classes here. In particular with regard to the role-playing and lore sections, you can't judge aspects of a player character the same way you can a monster. For example, you consistently graded the Fighter archetypes lower because their classes have less in the way of specific lore connected to their class, whereas Paladins and Druids for example have connections with higher powers that set them apart. The thing is, since player characters are built from several components - of which class is only one, and backstory is another - Fighters should have higher lore/roleplaying scores specifically *because* they're so open-ended. The ability to incorporate a fighter into almost any background in a seamless way that Druids for example might have lore-based restrictions on makes a Fighter's lack of specific lore a lore strength. At least in regard to player characters. Still valid for monsters.
I appreciate your perspective. It was quite a challenge to make this ranking, and I spent so much time and effort trying to piece it together. At two different points I had created entirely different grading attributes. TYPE A: Physical - Magic - Utility - Healing -Versatility TYPE B: Melee - Skirmish - Blasting - Utility - Control - Support - RP Hooks But both of those seemed a bit off, so in the end, I used the same attributes as with my monster rankings, and I'm pleased with the overall result.
I have seen a pattern in the content creators responses. He states that he appreciates your perspective and respects it in someways. He then proceeds to explain and defend his decision or take the discussion on a tangent. And then never fully accepts the flaw or mistake, and moves on. It is rather frustrating.
Jose Lazo Perhaps, but this particular list combines multiple factors to grade just one part of player characters, the class. The fighter class doesn't offer much in regard to options without input from the player. Yes, fighters are blank slates. Yes, this gives them arguably the best versatility in the game for the martial classes. I'm not arguing that, but this list is based on Esper's point of view. Tier lists can be disregarded. Feel free to do so.
@@joselazo9799 Notag's comment makes sense, but it also ignores the point I explained more than once in the video. This is NOT ABOUT PLAYER SKILL, IT'S ABOUT THE ACTUAL CLASSES THEMSELVES. A player can create stories and customize a character to their heart's content---with any class. What I'm analyzing with my ranking videos is the content in the books. Read the fighter class man. It's forgettable, "you are a great fighter better than a typical soldier."
Fighters get a bad rap because they don't do unexpected things: They do things that they expect to work every time, which is more out of the ordinary than you may think in a game where everyone's trying to one-up the system. Everyone else tries to build faux personas, MacGuyver/Metal Gear Solid their way into what typically is the same conversation with the same npc. Fighters knock on the door, usually politely. It's always in the (smart) fighters' best interest to NOT do crazy shit that starts fights. It's their ass on the front line, and their paycheck from the questgiver. Doing crazy shit risks life and livelihood, and any good Fighter should soundly and routinely berate party members that take unnecessary risks; including Paladins. A focus on simple, tried and true methods can make for a good experience for a fighter who should be confident in his ability to get through a fight in better shape than his 'fire ALL THE SPELLS' panic-mode friends.
The fighter has still the same problem as he had in 3(.5). His shtick, being good at fighting, as a shtick many others do carry on top of something else.
Bartoc Spellcasters get all the glory because they're always thinking they're better. They're not when it comes to a face-to-face; at best they have a gamble. Good Fighters don't gamble when they work. It isn't about the versatility the class gives you, it's the responsibility to be versatile yourself. Spellcasters ALWAYS fail there, trying to square-peg-round-hole problems with 'magic' because 'magic'. Wizard: We can teleport out of the dragon lair with all the loot stuffed in our bag of holding. DM: You already are carrying a fortress' worth of items, gear, and coin in your bag of holding. How much weight is left? Wizard: 200lbs... DM: You can only fit 200lbs more which is 2000 coins minus any other items you try to fit in there. And you have to do it all by hand. Fighter: I roll up the horse and heavy wagon I bought and left outside. The one the Wizard said I shouldn't bother with because it'll slow us down. I also brought a shovel. DM: You load up all 8,700 gold and silver coins with a shovel into the wagon, toss on the items you found, and the dragon's head for good measure that you parade through the town. They throw a huge party in your honor.
I think Battle Master at least deserves to be a little higher on the Tier list just because of how much you can do with it, you can be anything from a seasoned sword fighter to a trick shot archer. With that being said, Battle Master is pretty much the only reason to play fighter in 5e. Sure some of the other class abilities you get for other fighter types might be interesting, but they are too few and far between to make the wait worth while. Battle Master is the only pure non-magic class that feels like it actually is the top of weapon combat that no other class can exactly match with out building them specifically around it. All the extra attacks you get can be fun at least, but again they are mostly taken advantage of with Battle Master given their maneuver abilities.
Calm your rage man, I literally said all the classes are worthwhile. I suggest you check out some of my narrated adventures. Nearly all of them feature fighters or other non-spellcasters, and I really liked those characters.
madhatten00 I don’t know of many campaigns that don’t have long rests. And Leonunds tiny hut is a thing so if you have a bard or wizard they should never go without a long rest. Any spellcaster that’s running out of spellslots early on in the adventure is their fault.
You put a lot of my favorite classes in the lower tiers. I feel like a lot of the classes with strong flavor are very restrictive. As a Fighter, I can be anybody - a noble knight, a savage brute, a reserved warden, a grizzled veteran, an affable family man, a cold, calculating sniper, a smooth-talking swashbuckler... Anything! The fact that I have relatively few options in combat is good IMO, because it lets me focus more on roleplaying my character instead of managing my sheet. Fighter-types also benefit the most from cool magic items. You won't find that kind of flexibility in a Paladin, Druid, or Wizard. Definitely not in a Warlock. To do interesting things with those, you might have to diverge from the built-in flavor of the class. Cleric, however, is a great class, because there's a god for everything, and a lot of options for Cleric domains. Bard is super fun, and there's enough variation within the broad category of a performer that it's hard to go wrong, though there is a classic Bard flavor that you're going to want to break out of, I think. Overall, I personally prefer simple builds with a solid foundation and not too many things to lock me down. A strong boilerplate - like Fighter or Barbairan provides - is more valuable to me than a thousand situational tricks. I embrace limitations because those encourage me to find creative solutions to problems rather than just whipping out the appropriate spell. I admit that Champion Fighter is a little basic, but I'd take it over a wizard any day. Then again, I very likely would take an Open Hand Monk over a Champion Fighter, because I do like to have a few cool things to pull out to make things interesting.
I'm confused at how the fighter is that low. The fluidity of the class makes it at least top 5 base classes cuz it doesn't restrict the player now I'll admit everyone number 1 is up to them but on this he say it is all about what's in the book but says the class is not role playable. Haven't met a person who can't roleplay a fighter.
Yeah I just came across this while looking for inspiration. Pretty garbage video. "These are bad because they have no built in story hooks or interesting mechanics". DND is literally a narrative storytelling game that has standardized mechanics to make it a system rather than just group spitballing a novel. If you can't make a berserking barbarian interesting, that speaks more to your ability to roleplay than Wizard's design criteria.
Kinda seems like you've got the same bias issues, just against spellcasters instead of for them. The idea that wizards are a bad, inflexible class is mind-boggling to me.
After watching Overlord anime, it proved that high level magic casters are literally GOD tiers. Can a high level fighter kill 70,000 armed men in an instant by himself?
@@mewletter No, but neither can any spell casters in 5e unless they somehow all stand in a 50ft radius. Overlord is based off an MMO. There are also no other "people" on the same level (literally) as the main character. In D&D terms, its as close as possible to a level 20 Wizard decked out in, somehow, 10 atuned Wondrous, very rare or Legendary items, running around a world with the highest challenge rating people being roughly 5. At the very highest in the 1% being the 5 CR. Of course it makes casters look OP. He even said that a good warrior or ranger or Paladin would have put a stop to his actions a long time ago in a strictly 1v1 scenario. Its why he's being so cautious.
No it isn't, it's literally based off of MMO's, you don't get the sorts of abilities in 3.5 or PF that they do in overlord, lmao. You'd have to be an idiot to think it's even remotely similar to a table top RPG in terms of skill or ability.
@@rileyboy10 Name an MMO where a spellcaster gets almost unlimited power at high levels due to sheer amount of buffs on him and other powers he gets? Overlord's author is a fan of 3.5, IIRC, and very much copied what Ainz does at some points from D&D.
One of my favorite characters was a human oathbreaker paladin. His whole way of being played was being on a path of redemption while fighting his inner demons. And before anyone says anything about how it's unoriginal I don't care about that because it's impossible to have a completely unique character
big anti fighter bias and a big preference for magic. if we're talking about design the fighter is the best. you sacrifice nothing like casters do. you're never out of spell slots and stuck on cantrips. The warlock is basically a magic fighter but it has a story hook built in. this should really be called "what classes I think have cool plot hooks"
Big fan of melee, of playing without spells. But there's simply less you can do as a fighter at high level. Less options against those high level threats.
@@MeTaLISaWeSoMe95 or hell looking in the combat section of the book for all the different things you can do in a turn that a fighter with action surge would love
He even say "the fighter base class holds it back" and " theroleplaying aspect isn't there" roleplaying is player dependent tho so y is that part of the rating
The one thing that I would say in defense of the fighter character class, is that you missed their most important feature: ability score increases and feats. That's what made them so powerful in previous editions, which is that you could customize your fighter with twice as many feats as other classes. He can grab spells and cantrips, become an Aragorn-esque healer, inspire the masses through speeches, learn ritual casting, become a luchador, master archery, grab more skill proficiencies than a rogue could dream of, become a master of learning, and so much more. He can get a total of 7 feats total (others only get 5).
Always hear the same hooks, huh? Here's one for your consideration then: I'm currently playing a Way of the Open Hand Goblin Monk with an Outlander background. Vermie Mirelight has never set foot in a monastery, her clothes, spear, handaxe, etc. were found on the frozen dead body of a gnome camping in the Northern woods. The spear was fashioned by lashing a camp knife to a walking stick, and she's basically a feral woman who learned to fight by observing animals who hunt to survive through tooth and claw. Her unarmed strikes have more roots in western pugilism than eastern kung fu e.g. Stunning Strike is just a humble right straight liver blow, removing reaction on Flurry of Blows is just a gouging strike to the eyes or a painful knock to the shin, etc. She doesn't know ki as ki, but as a fire in her guts, an inner booyagh, a rush of adrenaline to tap into and push past her limits because she _needs_ to if she wants to survive. Meditation is just her trying to take a breather/nap, but disassociating so hard in processing her PTSD that she ends up contemplating the universe and her place within it/having an existential crisis that she then wants to punch in the face because she wants to live, damn it. She had a falling out with her clan, in that she killed half of them on her way out. She used to be of the gatherer caste, a "meat-chop". She being more observant and attentive than most of goblinkind eavesdropped on recollections of home by dwarven and elvish slaves, and something wasn't adding up: Some claimed to have built their grand and illustrious halls, starting the construction hundreds of years back, but the way things go in the goblin lair slaves are worked for a year or two at most, die of exhaustion, get chopped up and boiled into stew, and new slaves need to be brought in to replace them. It's an inefficient system, if they could maintain and keep the slaves they have already, they wouldn't need to send men out to capture more, which would be more time to dedicate to raiding for food and wealth, or other such pursuits. So she started doing research, found out that the foundation of strength lies in nutrition and rest: the slaves were wasting away because they were being worked too hard and fed too little and/or fed an ill-suited diet. Since she couldn't start trials on the slaves themselves because of a lot of reasons, such as potential accusations of preferential treatment and in-fighting, she started experimenting on herself in making tweaks to dietary planning based on her observations and findings, and in time it was like a fog was lifted from her mind: She had more energy, could think clearer, felt more in control of the unchecked aggression that seemed to plague her entire clan. When she brought her findings and hypothesis to her leadership, that goblins and slaves alike need to start eating better and stop practicing cannibalism because it's making their clan weak and giving them brain swelling and, in extreme cases, tunneling brain parasites, she was branded a pariah for making mockery of their traditions i.e. the spiritual symbolism of taking your enemies' strength into you by partaking their flesh. So, if they would not listen to reason, perhaps a demonstration. She proved that they were weak from their diseases and parasites by attacking the hunters, the lashers, the warriors, the boss, anyone above her caste really, but all the proof in the world didn't matter when the hobgoblin overseer rode in with his bugbears in tow. It didn't matter that she was right, she had dishonored their traditions, overstepped her caste, and was a disgrace in the eyes of Maglubiyet for turning against her brethren. If she stayed and surrendered, she would've been executed. If she fought, she would've been torn apart by the bugbears who both outnumber and outclass her in every way. So she ran. Whether through cunning, luck, or simply not being worth the effort, she escaped their pursuit. She'd heard stories about how many of the slaves were adventurers before their capture, and how it didn't matter who or what you were before, from pirate to charlatan, orc to yuan-ti, once you get in with the adventurer's guild, you can start building your life anew and thrive if you just have the strength to seize it for yourself. So, she attached herself to an adventuring party during one of their quests by jumping into the combat and helping them fight off some pack of crazy aberrations from beyond the mists to earn their trust. All that to say, she's just a punch gobbo and the party cook.
In defense of my warlocks, Invocations are fantastic for really customizing the class. It is true that within just the player's handbook they may end up favoring Eldritch Blast, I have seen very good Bladelocks in various sub classes. And if your party can do a lot of short rests then you are pretty active.
Lance Clemings Right the warlock is something of a great utility class. IF you are dedicated you can make it be whatever you really want to be. It makes it nice. You can get a story together and find your party needs something and without changing the story much you can design your warlock to fill the need.
I’ve actually dipped into pct of the blade with my arcane trickster to essentially smite with sneak attacks. My dm let me burn my trickster slots too but an archfey lock with a rogue class is a fun combo. I’ve also made an intelligence based warlock that goes with an artificer for good role play. Reskin the crossbow expert feet for your artificer gun and it works well and can have some fun role play opportunities.
Warlock is my favorite 5e class. With the addition of the hexblade I never even have to think twice about what melee class I want to play. Why pick fighter or barbarian when I can have a character that no mater the situation I will always have a powerful weapon? The basic eldritch blast spamming warlock is also a ton of fun, I don't care what some say, they are just jealous. One of the best things about warlock is they are charisma based, and that means you won't suck at social checks since you didn't dump charisma like other classes tend to.
Yeah, I can see why this would be where it is when just looking at the PHB, but it's still either my favorite or second favorite (only potentially coming in behind Conquest Paladin). Between patrons, boons, and invocations, there's just so much player choice and viable build options. Though not AL legal, my favorite character thus far is a Raven Queen Warlock with a focus on Ice and Necromantic magic, using the Book of Shadows to add a bit more variety in my cantrip options and stockpile ritual spells for strong out-of-combat utility. And, to be completely honest, poofing off as a raven when somebody turns their back for a moment is far too much fun.
I've played battle master in more than one edition. I got to say that I don't agree with your score for "role playing". I played one battle master who preferred to con or make peace to work through situations and created or manipulated scenarios to his advantage. And all of this was just a means to an end, the ends justifying the means with him ultimately caring more about the law, his land, his family, his people and stability of society than actual morality or winning or gold (although he did like and want gold too). He rarely fought. I miss that character. Also, how you could rank the eldritch knights above battle masters is beyond my ability to comprehend. The Bard needed a higher style score.
@@kaiolson8099 I mean ill never play either because I find non-casters incredibly boring. Why would I want a class with 2 choices to make when I can make 5 or 6 choices at level one just on spells? I personally just have no interest in martial classes due to the small amount of options both in combat and out of it
I feel like having mechanical complexity as a trait is the poorest part of the video. Also the fact that ALL of the full spellcasters, while none of the non-spellcasters are A tier says a lot to me about how biased this video is.
@@indrayatbhakta2943 This video is about the best designed classes. The primary reasons that martials suffer are A. Having mechanical complexity as a factor, if more complicated=better, than requiring a dozen different die rolls for one action is better. Some classes are designed to be more complicated, others are designed to be more simple, if everything was complex it would get real old real fast. B. Openendedness is considered bad. Giving people creative license is not inherently bad.
@@blakebrockhaus347 Complexity is a problem for martials because they have nothing powerful to make up for said complexity. But complexity is often needed to keep a player from getting bored. So I agree with the video, in that regard. Unless I misremembered the video's reasoning. My main problem with them is that quadratic wizards and linear warriors is no longer an even trade, as nobody dies in D&D games as often or as easily. Further, martial classes are simply less powerful and less adept at handling situations. Just my take.
It seems like most classes have no roleplaying hooks according to this review, and that the couple that do are just your preferred classes. At least from a storytelling perspective. To me all the classes have as much room for story and roleplay as any other, and it's part of their design that they're blank to some degree. The character is where most of the character comes from. Each class has a universe of hooks.
"Why do we love the Rogue so much?" I don't, most of the rogues I've played with are selfish punks in game who end up getting their fellow adventurers hurt or killed by not disarming traps, not letting the melee classes handle the stronger enemies, and awakening every unholy terror in the dungeon. Also can't role play worth anything, beyond "Imma greedy edgelord who's gonna steal yo' treasure!!"
I personally like playing Rogues, because they're really great for role playing in ways that utilize stats, as opposed to just seeming to be heavy combat focus. Which, in a way, the stats also help out with combat as well if you're crafty enough and have a DM who's willing to reward players who think up good "outside of the box" ideas, even though some of them might need to require feats to actually pull them off (IE: Knowing I have a good deal of ranks in slight of hand, can I make a slight of hand check to see if I can get in an surprise attack now that I know the guy is lying and fully intends on doing the opposite of helping? And I also want to do a bluff check to make him think I'm looking for something else on me before I make the move to pull out a sword to stab him.) Some of my best feats of skill have been with my first rogue character, who's a Drow who escaped to the surface and was captured and given the option of either hard labor in prison, or using my skills being forced to help fight in an long fought out war. My main weapon was the short bow, though I kept a short sword on me as well, and the metal dice I used gave me some of the absolute best rolls I've ever had. From infiltrating an small enemy camp out, poisoning everyone there, and then getting a one shot kill and killing another person who was at half health, to getting us out of some of the tightest spots that we were looking to face a lot of trouble from. Some of the best fun I've had while not playing some "bastardized magic-like using class" (Psychic Warrior, Dragon Shaman) type character. lol The only person we ever had issues with was this guy who played an Gnome illusionist who had a pretty bad drug problem, and was prone to erratic behavior and decision making that would cause us a ton of trouble. It was interesting at first, but it got old quick and after a few sessions, after we were higher level, of us putting a stop to him doing anything of the sort, he just eventually stopped showing up to sessions.
I'm playing a intelligence focused rogue that isn't a arcane trickster. He is a curious archeologist who bad things have happened to. And now he is running from his past.
I have played and seen that played but I have 2 that I love the most 1. A Robin hood esque roleplay more of helping in a CG way less stickyfingers 2. The depressed fiend I'm a character tired of the way something is but nothing will stop me from helping my friends or changeling what I hate
I am literally playing Arcane Trickster Rogue who does not care about being edgelord or any single type of treasure or money. He just seeks to die in battle because of burdens of his pasts and just like the magic he uses the Death tricks him and keeps him alive, for now.
I like this overview of d&d classes, but the role-playing standards discussed in the video seem arbitrary. It feels like most of this guy's comments and analysis of role-plying for any class can be applied to any other class.
Because it's actually kind of true haha. In 3E there was literally no point to playing a fighter because the only thing they were halfway competent at was (surprise) fighting, and the druid and the wizard in your party could both summon things that could probably kick a fighter PCs ass on top of doing a billion different things with their spells. D&D is a caster's game, it always has been and always will be.
J. Jonah Jameson Hmm...did you ever play AD&D (1e)? It doesn't appear so. Ever start with a 1st Level Magic User with 1d4 HP and one first level spell, no cantrips? It has not ALWAYS been a spell caster's game. Furthermore, it requires a good fighter to tank so that a spell caster can survive. The player who tanks needs a lot more brains than the spell casters, even in 5e!!!! If the tank is out of position, the spell casters die. And what about a Thief (a.k.a. Rogue in today's easier game with WOTC superhero characters), which I think is even more fun than spell casters to play. I think you don't really know what you are talking about when you say this silly comment about D&D always being a spell caster's game. It's a TEAM game.
"Furthermore, it requires a good fighter to tank so that a spell caster can survive. The player who tanks needs a lot more brains than the spell casters, even in 5e!!!!" This is exactly how I've always felt, and it's one of the main reasons I love playing non-casters. Every time I'm with a caster and a problem comes up, they look through their spell list and say either "I cast X, problem solved" or "I don't have a spell for this, looks like it's on you guys". I feel like non-casters are more often forced to think outside the box and come up with different ideas, precisely because they can't solve everything with a snap of their fingers. And knowing how to handle things in combat so the squishy guys don't immediately get pulverised takes a lot of thought and planning, and tends to be a lot more interesting than "Hang at the back and throw fireballs everywhere". No matter what the campaign or character is, I always end up as the party tank, and that suits me just fine.
D&D 5E has a bias towards spellcasting classes. Therefore, any accurate evaluation of the classes needs to take that into account. The main tools a Martial gets are high hit points, high armour class, and high at-will damage (i.e. using no limited resources). Unfortunately, casters have tools that not only outclass those advantages, but can easily replace them. Any caster with access to healing exceeds a martial's durability. Any caster with Mage Armour or medium armour proficiency matches their AC. Every caster gets cantrips that scale and thus they have at-will damage comparable to martial characters, in addition to all their spells. Yes, 5E classes are more balanced than 3E, but that's like saying a 12-year old would have a better chance at beating Mike Tyson in a boxing match than a 2-year old. 5E is the poster child for "Better does not mean good."
@@ObsidianKnight90 My level 2 lizardman berserker barb has 19 ac and 29 hp. Healing doesnt matter if you can be killed in one hit considering on even grounds max hp for a wizard is 20 and I dont see many mages with 5 con and a crit will nearly kill vs max damage a mages does being like 24 isnt doing shit but pissing me off. healing doesnt matter if you fall before you can heal. Magics hit or miss, and ive seen spells do 5 damage reduced to half from a save. now druids are bs and I'll admit they give tanks quite a run for their money with loads of self sufficiency.
I had a guy that I DM for write a spoof of “friendship is rare” on session two recapping session one. He performed it to stop an execution. It didn’t work. But, it was fucking epic. He is the only person I DM for now, he was the only person that put in the effort.
I played in the 80's. I played every weekend and during the summers through high school. Went to level 10 as a fighter and then switched to monk, made it to level 17. I went fighter for the hit points. By the end of the four years we were into the upper tiers of the nine hells. We played on Greyhawk.
I love Sorcerers but I would argue that the Draconic has the edge on the Wild Magic. Wild magic surge can be fun, but the bonus to hit points, AC, and damage resistance the Draconic gives you is invaluable, especially since your spell casters are gonna be low in that regard.
Very little bonus compared to fircing advantage on every spellhit you desire which you can then twin spell Plus most wild magic shrges are outright beneficial to you. Ive had a player roll 00 twice and became a free flying, high temp health, free lightning blasting surgence if magic on tbe battle field rolling two extra wild magic surges a turn.
The revised ranger is not in the PHB. Considering you tried to rank these based on what's in the book and nothing else -- no house rules, no feats -- that's a pretty big flaw in this video. Vanilla ranger is almost universally considered the worst class and for good reason.
Vanilla ranger has about 3 garbage class features (or 4 I don't remember). That is enough to make it the worst class. Is only OK in combat after like level 10 or so, but it is pretty good at the exploration aspect of the game and role-playing wise it's neat. The main problem is that it reads like a bad multiclass of druid, Fighter, and rogue, OK at all great at none. Hunter has some pretty decent mechanics but o believe all are combat oriented. Beast master really depends on the DM's mercy as even a high level pet is very killable and the pet is pretty much where the beast master begins and ends.
And when I said that the ranger is "pretty good" at exploration, I say it grudgingly as it is do dependant. Forgot to mention that the whole favored enemy/terrain is cool, but there isn't enough there to make the class. All that stuff drops off after a while.
I agree that spellcasters have a lot more options in character building. But non spellcasters are a ton of fun to play. It gives you the ability to work you way trough puzzles and dungeon like the DM wants you to play and not just cheeze your way trough it with magic. A mage can have a great backstory but a warior can have a great personality, and in my opinion a great personality makes the game beter and more fun.
Those who say that martial classes have no "role-play hooks", likely couldn't think outside the box to save their lives. I once played a Berserker who was a serial killer associated with a guild of hired killers (think Dark Brotherhood), but he had a highly protective side towards a young orphaned Tiefling girl who saved his life on a contract gone bad. Now, he does everything in his power to protect her from an evil man hunting her for some twisted purpose! He was a LOT of fun to role play, and I never felt like I was missing out by not playing as a magic user.
@@schwann145 why does it NEED to come from the class? I can play a priest whos a fighter, rogue, or barbarian without needing the chosen class having to be religious.
@@elgatochurro Who said it needed to? Every character needs at least a few roleplaying hooks they can rely on, and martial classes tend to offer fewer than caster classes. That's all that is being stated, and it's not always an issue of good or bad for gameplay either. An Ancestral Guardian Barb has a much better class-related RP hook than a core-school Wizard, and they're both worse than any Cleric or Warlock. Druids and Monks tend to have great hooks that are horrible for group play (based on "traditional" lore - protecting sacred groves or temples or whatnot). The only concern is, "if I drop this class into the world with nothing else going for it, does it have a connection to the world?" The answer is more likely to be "no" for martial classes. Not always. Just more likely. It would simply be better design if the answer to that question was never "no."
Roleplay & Mechanics options for "Warrior" type characters who don't have lots of active abilities: As both melee or ranged fighters, you have HUGE tactical aspects such as holding areas/passages, taking advantage of the Longbow's MASSIVE range. Fighters have greater natural HP regeneration than other classes (from using second wind between short rests, yes you can use it out of combat), Barbarians can make amazing brute force/tank plays that are great in both roleplay and mechanics terms. Yes, all classes can do these things, but "Warrior" type classes usually have more AC, HP, and reliable damage that really enables some amazing plays.
gonna be honest i think Lore shouldnt be a factor, since any backstory is up to players to create if your an RP heavy game, and if you arent an RP game, then lore doesn't matter. just look at Critical Role, they make their own backstory. Other then that its fine.
This video feels arbitrary and bad (usually a big fan of your vids). Battlemaster is a fun martial class with plenty of options and decisions to make due to it's limited combat dice. Much more interesting than say, life cleric or hunter ranger IMO. Edit: Four element Monk is not well designed as well as not being powerful. It's not at all versatile because it gets so few spell-like abilities to play with (and so few of *those* are really playable).
I have not seen this yet, but I very much agree that the Battlemaster is superiour over most paladins, rangers and clerics in terms of versitility, mechanics and style. It is so much more open
This video really does feel bad. Using revised BM when it is in UA seems disingenuous. The other issue is calling the power level of a rogue as equal to the power level of a bard. This list makes no sense, and just puts 60% of the classes in the top tier and puts arbitrary negatives on some classes but not others.
Bartoc Here's what I don't quite get about this Tier List though: it sounds more like a "how much do I enjoy this class" list than a ranking of mechanical power. Champion Fighters are strong mechanically at almost any level; build a DEX-fighter Longbow-Archer and use the Fighter's extra ASIs to dabble in a couple Feats. Suddenly you have a guy who can effectively shoot 600 feet four times a round and crits on 18+, while ignoring anything less than total cover. Thanks to high-DEX and the Archery fighting style his hit chance is through the roof as Archery's extra +2 goes above and beyond most other sources of +hit. It's ripe for abuse if your DM runs a campaign anywhere outdoors as it should be easy with all that DEX to sneak to within 400' or so and just start lighting everything up with hails of arrows. Kind of dull from a mechanics sense but he's not "F-tier" in power; it's just plain "this class isn't my favourite to play".
Esper... why di you gi´ve the monk a low rating for roleplaying because it's all based on asian archetypes, and the at the same time rank the paladin relaly high in roleplay, when that class entire concept is pretty much just holy knight smiting evil
I loved when you said that Monks all usually have the same roleplaying hooks and that that is kinda boring. My most recent Monk has the background of being born and raised within the civilization of the Lizardfolk, but he is a human. I will not go into too much detail because I don't want this to become too long, but basically, he got bullied a lot throughout his childhood, and not just bullied, his female side of the family got more or less used by the Lizardfolk. He never wanted to accept it, but basically they were slaves. He developed such an incredible hate against them but could never defend himself in the slightest, whenever he tried to defend himself, he would just hurt himself punching their scales and of course, get punished in return. At some point he escaped from this situation and decided to travel to one of those Monk monasteries he once heard about because he heard those men are able to punch through stone and steel with only their fists. My character did not become a monk because of enlightenment or anything like that. He became a monk out of pure hatred and drive for revenge. He did not want to learn typical fighting, he wanted to show them that he needs nothing but his bear hands to crush their scales and kill them. While he did his very best to learn everything he can and paid attention to every lesson in his monastery, he did not adopt the philosophy of them. He was there for the practical applications. For learning how to strenghten his body and mind so that noone may ever get the better of him again. I am personally rather happy with that background because it puts a spin on the typical Monk and makes for an awfully fun to play character. He is incredibly care free and strange to most since he does things like sleep outside on the grass instead of joining his companions in the inn. He values his independence so he prefers to get his own food instead of paying for it, he prefers to sleep in nature instead of having to rely on a protective building. It makes him feel strong and independent. And he is a rather nice guy that has next to no prejudice to the goals of others so he likes to take a ride along for a lot of adventures. But then he suddenly flips completely when he sees Lizards or Dragons. While he is pretty perceptive and wise, he is not the most educated in biology, in his mind, Dragons are just the biggest of the Lizardfolk and so he projects his hatred on them too. Funnily enough, that character managed to kill a dragon at level 2 because in that dungeon, there was an unstable relic that was able to produce the True Polymorph spell, so we used it once to transform the Dragon into a tiny Lizard and I stepped on that Lizard to kill him. The relic broke after we used it and the Dragon was rather easily defeated, which we were thankful for since we were running low on HP from the previous encounter. Anyways, this guy is impossible in a party with a Lizard PC and he will basically commit suicide if a dragon is sighted since, let's be honest, he will take that fight, but how in the hell will he beat a dragon? At least right now he is not strong enough to 1 vs 1 any Dragon.
@@akrielparlaq9436 No I actually did not. I went through the entire concept. But the entire story would include details like a lot of NPCs or whatever. And I felt that was irrelevant to my comment so I left those out.
Only about 4 minutes in, and I agree with your placements. I just wanna say that my favorite character I ever played was a Berserker/Champion multiclass. I felt bad critting as often as I was, and being a half-orc didn't really help. Being a monster was a lot of fun.
Making a dwarf fighter battle master with a friend. We screwed up my dice rolls as in the numbers are from 5d6’s instead of just three. 22 strength and 22 constitution is a bit overkill isn’t it? Might multiclass barbarian for rage
New subscriber. I'm an old school 2nd edition player but I've been watching love your videos lately and you're really inspiring me to pick up those 5th edition books. Thanks for all your hard work. I barely have time to prepare dming notes, I don't know how in the world you pull off is but I'm really loving it.
i did catch the end of first edition, I started playing at 14 and I am 44 now, but I have played and continue to DM a 2nd edition campaign for 12 players, to this day. We played last night in fact.
Disclaimer for anyone new to D&D watching this for advice. This man has literally no Idea what he's talking about when refering to melee based characters, Ignore everything he has said about them, especially the fighter. They're nowhere near as bad as he makes out, and a well built fighter will always deal more consistant damage than any caster.
@@animewarrior3 I agree, and for a sorcerer or wizard, or even a bard or light cleric that's an awesome feeling. Throwing out a fireball and killing a group of enemies in a single turn that otherwise would've taken multiple rounds to kill otherwise is amazing. But once your spell slots are gone they're gone, if you blow all your fireballs on one encounter only to come into another, then you'll be cheering the fighter and other front line PC's on from the side lines and hiding behind them. Each class has their ups and downs, I just really dislike this fool notion of "Wizards(Spell casters) are the best class because magic" It was true in earlier editions to a degree of melee based characters reaching a brick celling when it came to damage output much earlier and thus becoming more useless later into the game, however in fifth edition it really isn't the case.
@@rileyboy10 the issue comes once you hit level 9-11, where full casters get so many spell slots they always have something useful to throw out before they get a long rest. And those higher level spells get more powerful. I admit however, I've not played a lot of 5E though. At least not alot of anything past level 10.
I think the fighter shines if you allow feats (even though feats need to be balanced). I'm pretty sure this class was made purposely without a lot of options to let you instead choose feats to complement your playstyle
To be fair, he isn't talking just about how they fair in a fight, but also what they have in lore and story. A Sorcerer has built in some crazy bloodline or supernatural event that is the source of their powers- by default. A fighter is just some dood with a pointy stick by default. A good player can make a fighter much more interesting, but without anything to work with, it is just a guy with a sword.
Since we have very few friends, my brothers and I have a system where they use two characters each. The Champion fighter is perfect for that, and making him a Batista style Drax the destroyer Goliath does a lot for role playing.
Listen to that part again. I listed beloved characters that are scoundrels. The rogue classes embodies the scoundrel or the trickster more than any other.
I have two monk characters. The first was a evil neutral character who high potential and drive to be better caused him to be the top of his class even past the masters. Because of this he killed everyone and with his master's dying breath and last actions he sealed away my character's potential and now he's out with a party and slowly breaking the curse and getting stronger every passing day. My other is a musclegut having strongman who self-taught and somehow became a pretty good monk though he doesn't believe the inner peace stuff. A chaotic good he goes around showing that, with enough determination, someone can be great and fight. I made them like this because fuck the traveling monk cliche.
The clear bias in this video is silly. I am disregarding your 'built in rp' crap as that is garbage. RP is about the player and your class can tie into it or not, player choice. In regards to actual power (which you mostly disregard), the ranger is at the bottom of the list with fighter at the top. I agree that the Bard in 5e is amazing, especially Lore Bards. Wizard master class is nothing without a cleric to heal them and a fighter or barbarian meat shielding them. The lack of love for the indispensable fighter is appalling; just because YOU don't know how to RP a fighter does not mean the class is any less viable than any other. Really what it sounds like you are bad at RP, but as that I have never played at the same table, I will never know for sure. But if I did, I would roll a Champ fighter cross classed with Berserker Barbarian!
Gotta call bullshit on the wizard having to rely upon other classes for support. If you need to rely upon other classes then you aren't playing the wizard right. They can 100% hold their own if they need too. It's not about tanking the damage and healing, instead the wizard should be avoiding damage. I recently took part in a level 20 battle royal with 7 other players. They all brought varied combinations of different classes, Barbarian/rogue, Paladin/champion, cleric/fighter etc and I brought a pure illusion wizard. Not even the most combat focused wizard. I kicked ass. They all died one by one to me and I took next to no damage. Just because you don't know how to play a wizard properly doesn't mean they're weak or have to rely upon others.
@@MrEakieran I have gone in many tournaments, you could have a level 10 wizard, I have a level 5 barbarian, and easily destroy you 1 on 1 based of the sheer ability to take hits deal damage and look unscaved doing it.
@@k1_shark384 I call bullshit. Why? Fly. 1 level 3 casting. This puts me permenantly out of your reach for the entire fight leaving you unable to damage me. Again, people use wizards wrong. I don't give a damn how much damage you can tank compared to me, if you can't lay a finger on me I win.
@@MrEakieran congrats you fly up into the sky I deal enough dmg for you to roll the concentration check, you fail and take 6d10 force, I hit you once and your dead
Best class to play is the one you can figure out within 15 minutes, preferably before you encounter a monster that wants you dead. Of course, when your spells don't work, you can always grab a weapon, preferably one you can use with either Strength or Dexterity (whichever is higher in case you lack proficiency with the weapon,) and just get Medieval on the opposition. Of course, if strong, throwing a javelin from the back is good, just as is using a light crossbow if you're quick, in the chance you can't be in the front.
My personal opinion; Hunter is better than beast master in both roleplay and mechanics As well I have been playing a cleric for almost 2 years now and, I can say for myself that playing with a damage focused party as the only cleric is hard. Also paladins are usually picked for their overpowered abilities like oath of the ancients resistance to all spells, not for the roleplay. Just a little rant on classes if you have different experiences please comment so that I and many others can learn from each other.
I think Beast Master is better in terms of Roleplaying since especially if your GM is good with roleplaying animals, like for example Trinket from the Original Critical Role had some of the best funny moments in the entire series.
I essentially took Fighter BM with a single level in Wizard to make a Witcher character and its super fun. Plus with only a single level in wizard you have to choose wisely and truly plan how youre going to go into combat cause you will only ever have 2 1st level spells. I always have Shield and then I might use ER if I know im going up against a mobile creature or maybe Charm Person if I need to take a more tactful approach. Maybe I need to use Gust to push a creature away from me. I have defeninlty found the mechanics of this mixed class to be super fun and rather flexible, ecspecially when you add the manuevers into it.
While I agree with all the points you made here, I do find myself a bit miffed at your low placement of the more martial classes. I may be biased as I tend to play more of these than the spellcasting focused classes, my most picked class being the fighter. I notice a clear favor for anything that can cast spells and use magic, but I personally find that the real fun of Fighters and Barbarians and their ilk to come from working with their limited tools and finding the ways to enhance your party as such and working around what they lack in comparison to spellcasters. I always find character tier lists to be very misleading, be it for power or flavor. An opinion like this shines a boring and undeserved light on fighters in general, while they are actually just as versatile as wizards if you put the time and effort into it. But again, that's likely my love for the martial classes speaking.
E1Alpha This a nice sentiment but it’s wrong. Full casters are the strongest and most versatile classes in 5e just like they were in 3.5. It’s not a good thing but it is a true thing.
@@animewarrior3 Oh man damage I'm so impressed. You don't have the system mastery to engage in this conversation so save us both a little time and don't, casters are far more flexible and powerful than any martial and just like everyone else who's deluded themselves into thinking this is somehow untrue you've fixated on the Wizard rather than the even more potent Druid, Cleric and Bard. You're entirely wrong about how this particular altercation would go by the by but PVP really isn't too relevant to a primarily cooperative game. No the true value of the caster is in being able to solve almost any problem with their massive list of cheat codes to the universe, to be able to end fights with singular save-of-lose spells and to annex the role of any of the lesser classes using their flexibility and power.
@@gma5607 oh yeah, the save or suck spells.. that have to get through legendary resistances and high saves. I've not alot of experience with 5e, that's true. I've much more with 3.5 and pathfinder. The latter of which I still feel is a much better system than 5e ever could be mind. And it's true, in some cases a eally high level caster can do something a martial character couldn't. Such as teleport the party, or control the weather. Or, at the highest levels, bend reality via wish or miracle. I never said omegalul casters or worse than martials. But in many scenarios involving combat, (especially so by my few experiences in 5e) their combat options are limited to buffing the martial characters, or creating space on the battlefield. What I attempted to do, albeit in a poor way, was state that martials can do things a caster can't, such as provide high consistent damage. Which, has been and always will be the most reliable way to remove something trying to kill your party. A fighter will never go "well guys, I don't have a spell for this scenario, so I'm mostly out of usefulness" And it's a trade off, as a full caster(especially arcane casters) you wont start feeling really grood until level 5. Even then, you wont be making martial characters look silly on your best of days. You won't truly "surpass" most martial characters until around level 11. In other words, casters are truly only superior for less than 50% of the game.
@@animewarrior3 Ah yes the legendary resistances (which only exist because casters are broken) which you'll only find on about ten things in the Monster Manual and only at very high level where you even admit the casters are even more out of control... "I've not a lot of experience with 5e" Thanks I can tell! Please just stop, please spare me going though this conversation for the third time this week. Please don't make me have to spell out the existence of caster supremacy yet again. And most of all please don't make me have to do it with someone who thinks Pathfinder is a good design. There is nothing martials can do that casters can't, that's the point. A Druid, Cleric or Bard can be easily built as a better fighter than the fighter. I'm really excited to hear your fun little anecdote about the casters who had no idea what they were capable of but it's just not relevant. The fact you even think damage per turn is relevant is just further evidence that you don't know what your talking about so show us both a little mercy and stop typing. "A fighter will never go "well guys, I don't have a spell for this scenario, so I'm mostly out of usefulness" " He'll never say he has a spell either! That's the point, he can do damage and nothing else. The class is not flexible or useful in any unique way, at every turn it is outclassed and I really don't get what stake people have in perpetuating the myth that this is somehow untrue. And how foolish of me to forget the weak low-level abilities of the caster like Invisibility, Fly, Sleep, Protection for Good and Evil, Disguise Self and Knock if you really want to make any rogues feel irrelevant, Fear, Hex, Darkness, Hold Person, Healing Word, Command, Cure Wounds, Spirit Guardians, Hypnotic Pattern. All these WEAK abilities!
That moment when he says you can reflavor any class to make it fit yourself and your style better, but bashes on classes for not having enough style, despite the fact that you can reflavor them to fit your needs.
I'm running my group through Saltmarsh currently. They are a Druid (Moon), Wizard (abjuration), Sorcerer (Storm), and Rogue. Every single major battle the party gets absolutely wrecked. In the very beginning when they were level 1 I had to remove some monsters because they definitely would have died. But having the 'tank' and the 'healer' be basically the same character is not doing them any favors. They have been sometimes saved by the fact that the Rogue and Sorcerer are half-orcs so they can get an extra round instead of going straight unconscious. The wizard is the one who actually tanks things well because of Mage Armor, bracers of defense and Shield. She uses dragon's breath to do consistent damage every round but she burns through spell slots fast to keep standing. Of course The moon druid very frequently goes into beast form but it doesn't last very long. Low AC and just taking straight damage pops her out quick. They were only half-way through a dungeon when she ran out of beast shapes and they decided to just explore ahead and stumbled into the next encounter with no beast shapes available. They came so close to dying. So to me should casters be ranked the best? Hell no. The 3 of this lists top 5 are in the group. I shudder to think what they are going to do against something that has legendary resistances and magic resistance, plus likely some special damage resistance. I love having magic classes in my group as a player or DM but not an entire party of them. It is too easy to TPK the party without even really trying.
I love how you just disregard the fighter classes because of your bais for magic . That is like saying I like sandwiches but not bread . They are needed especially if you start at lvl 1 . Mages will always die if no tank to stop damage . SMH all classes are needed , sorry you think it's boring
Many thanks for posting Esper, I loved this work & it was well done IMHO. I'm pushing 60 & was so dorky I can remember the very 1st D & D book that came out. An adventure called "The Keep." I think you had 4 char classes. Ftr, MU, Cler, Thief, Then AD&D w/ the 3 tomes Dungeon Master's Guide, Player Handbook, & Monster Manual and we were allowed to be Rangers, Paladins, Bards, Monks, & Illusionists + the original 4. And Multiclass Characters too. It was fascinating how many new classes they have created. I still prefer the Elven MU, Elven Ranger, Elven Thief, Human Paladin, & 2 Dwarven Clerics for my party of 6. Spells, Healers, Fighters, Ranged weapons & Multi attacks seem to keep the party alive and active. You also have a good blend of Language skills. But I guess these days that party would seem quite lame. What's your favorite party spread? And, do they have new dice, or is it still d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, & d20 ?? I'd like to see the creation of a 3 sided die. There's a puzzle for you. Keep up the good work & thanks for keeping the adventure spirit alive. These days I love the movies, though I'd love to build a character and play some more AD & D.
Him: berserker will have you doing the same basic weapon attack over and over Me: **who in our last session joined our Monk in head butting everything to death**
I like how roleplaying is on this list, like that isn't largely up to the player; group; DM. P.S. I see the Champion as an entry level character concept for players new to D&D, that as well as the Berserker.
Yes, but the problem isn't just that they're simple, they're trash. Berserker can work, but it's abilities are still limited and bland. Champion's only good feature is the 19 for crits, rarkable athlete is just a mess, extra fighting style is ok, superior critical isn't as much of a gain as the first, and survivor comes online way to late.
@@malmasterson3890 berserker abilties are great, you just dont know how to use them Champions crits are for the class that gets the most hits in. Every attack you gain is now a chance to crit, opportunity attacks too, and increasing the crit range also boosts your critical chance per attack. Its very powerful if you actually did the math for it and compared to others
@@elgatochurro First of all, I said that they can work. Saying that I "Don't know how to use them, " isn't an argument for it actually being a good subclass, and honestly makes no sense; it's not hard at all to understand these abilities. It has it's moments/positives, but if you're doing a dungeon crawl or if you're entering a lot of combats per day it takes a major toll. Not to mention the 10th level ability adds so much madness to it, since as Barbarian you're already splitting your ASI's between the martial abilitity scores, and now you gotta have good charisma to even use IP. I literally stated that the 19-20 crit IS A GOOD ABILITY. My problem is that the rest of the subclass just isn't worth it. Champion is great as a martial dip for many classes, but going full champion is terrible due to the lackluster abilities that follow.
@@elgatochurro I also love that little bit you added at the end there:"It's very powerful if you actually did the math for it and compared it to others". Not only does that show how much of an *sshole you are, but it also makes no sense. In comparison to what, other subclasses that don't get 19-20 crits? No sh*t 10% is going to be a lot better than 5% chance to crit. Anyone with a basic elementary education can figure that out. In conclusion, your arguments lack any depth, and try to use this false idea that I must be misinformed to back them. When in reality the information is clear as day for anyone to see, and you're just trying to act like you know better than the majority that says they're bad subclasses.
@@malmasterson3890 heh i didnt even insult you and you act like a rabid dog "If you do a lot of combats per day it takes a major toll" what? Its a resourceless buff... plys fighters get to heal for almost free as a bonus action every short rest, saving hit dice for later in the day and smollet all fights base abilities are on a short rest cooldown... How does this "take its toll"? Plus youre bad at math... i tried hinting at it but you just look at it as a 10% crit chance instead of what it actually is... 10% crit chance every hit on a class that gets up to 4 hits. The crit chance fir a regular nondual wielder per turn is about: 10% lvl 3 20% lvl 5 30% lvl 11 45% lvl 15 60% lvl 20 All based on the crit chance PLUS amount of attacks a turn. GWM and dwf and opportunity attacks and more all increase your chances as well. Why is the 5e community so bad at simple math?
I worked in a comic and gaming store in high school and college (during the 90s so it quickly became more gaming as the comic industry collapsed), and we ran a *_ton_* of tabletop games (the 15’x6’ table helped) from the miniature games like Warhammer to the RPGs, mostly *AD&D 2nd Ed.* I had years of great nights that hundreds of stories come from... of course life happened and I spent the last 20 years on tour with a band as the lighting director, spending 300-340 days each year on tour. Now that I’m back in society, videos like these have made me want to find a game again, so thanks for that. One thing I enjoy, before I left a friend (a GM) asked if he could have the characters I’d made... he apparently enjoyed some of them so much they’ve been fixture NPCs in my decades of monastic living.
Honestly, lorewise and roleplay wise i'd say race is more defining than the class. Other than backstory about how you gained your expertise, class is mostly about combat.
I do not know about that. People will treat a wizard differently than a fighter. A fighter should more easy get along with soldiers. Depending on how common magic is. A wizard, or worse a sorcerer may be looked at in a bad light. Your backstory will probably also define your personality and actions a fair bit. :3 It is also in general going to be shaping what your dude is good and bad at. For example, a fighter. What stats will they most likely take. What is the stats that would be... the standard. That the class itself would recommend? And how useful are these stats outside of just combat. A fighter, strength, dex and constitution will be high on the shopping list. With charisma probably coming soon after. Chance is that this character will not be a super smart or wise person. Sure you can build the character differently. But then you are probably sacrificing what the class is designed for. Making the character weaker for it. A warlock who wants to manipulate people, be smart or wise. If you do not build the character for close combat, you do not need strength, and even dexterity will not be that important. You still want it. But you will have more room to play around with without hurting the dude. Naturally race do have a large bit to say on your character. You may be right that the race will take a bigger bite. But I would think that depends a bit on the setting and race. The relations they have within the world. Worth while point indeed. The class is ultimately just 1 piece that makes up a character.
Love it my fav class and sub class is in F tier, i understand why but I always love simple mechanics that i can add personal flare over so prefer this over BM and EK.
Role-playing is based entirely on the creativity of the player. I have a friend who played a monk, see. But his whole thing was that he was brought to a monetary as a baby, raised as a monk til he was like 8, then he got captured by the cult of the dragon queen, and developed a loose, childlike sense of ethics well into his adulthood, needing constant guidance from his friends to not get himself killed or put in prison
One very versatile aspect of the Path of the Totem Barbarian is that you can choose a different spirit at each Path Feature. So Bear at 3rd level (for the resistances), then potentially eagle, wolf, tiger, elk, or bear for any of the other 2 path features. Makes the character build a touch more custom.
I've revamped some classes. I've made the Rogue base class out of the Theif. The Champion is the base Fighter class. The Arcane Archer is the base Ranger, although the Theif has access still as a subclass. I've changed the Sorcerer as well. They have access to all spells they've seen cast, when they are of sufficient level. Seeing it cast is a knowledge trigger of sorts. They don't use material components, they use Mana (hit points). After a long rest, they roll a d20, the result is the amount of mana they have to draw from, if they go above that amount, they start draining hit points The mana cost is 2 times the spell level. At 3rd level, they get Mana drain ability, it only costs 3 Mana to cast but they roll 2d6 to see if it was worth the cost. It's a last ditch effort ability. It either restores actual Mana or hit points, or worst case scenario, they lose 1. I'm still fleshing this out. I am thinking about doing something with a voluntary drain from party members.
My responses common concerns:
Why did I use the updated ranger? It is a revision to the hunter and beastmaster from the PHB. Still the same class, with the same progression table, just more in line with the power level of other classes. Honestly, the pre-revision ranger would only be 1 point less in mechanics. Nothing else really changes.
How can I rate a class's roleplaying? Certain classes have abilities and skills that are geared toward social interaction. This of course makes the class better in this area. I'm not rating YOUR ability to breathe life or inject personality into a character. This is strictly looking at what is in the class entries themselves that lends toward social interaction in the fantasy world.
Am I biased against non-spellcasters? ALL MELEE CLASSES ARE LUNKS!!! Just kidding. Of course I like melee characters and warrior types. I have plenty of them in my narrated adventures, just see for yourself. Each class is worthwhile in its own way, but when I examine what is actually offered in the class entries, those like Champion and Berserker are lacking.
I don't recall it ever being a official rules update. It is place firmly in Unearthed Arcana for the time being. I only say this because you can't use it Adventure League. Unless I missed some announcement from Wizards on the matter.
Course this doesn't matter at a home table. Only AL players need to know this.
Apparently I read the revised ranger doc incorrectly. I took "Both will be legal for D&D Adventurers League play" as meaning it was already in the process of becoming official, not "If this gets approved, it WOULD BE legal ..."
This is where I have to disagree on what I feel is an objective level. When certain mechanics don't work as intended, they don't just lead to statistical disadvantages, but also harm the other judgement scores as well. Hunter, yeah, not that big of an issue, just not as strong, so only losing 1 point in mechanics is fair. But the way the PH Beast Master functions has a completely different flavor and stymies player choice, doing significant harm to all the other reference points you use.
To start with, Beast Master requires you to choose between acting yourself or having your companion act, acting as its handler and making it out to functionally be no different from any other tamed pet you might be able obtain and train using animal handling checks (if your table allows/enjoys that kind of thing). On other hand, the Beast Conclave makes it all about working in tandem with your animal companion, partners on the battlefield that have each other's back, increasing versatility and style. PH's Beast Master pretty much made it to where either the animal was this lead weight you would have to drag along with you, or, if you insisted on using it, making your character stand around and never do anything for themselves, leaving all other class features effectively meaningless.
Also, the revision made it far easier to rollplay your animal as an actual companion, if for no other reason than being given the option keep the same beast around much more reliably. Let's face it, the chances of both the beast and beast master making it out of any given combat alive is pretty low given the PH's mechanics, since one or the other is always forced to play setting duck, so forming a lasting bond in rollplay is fairly difficult. Additionally, regardless if you like or dislike being able to revive your existing companion easily out of the gate, including a material cost in calling/recalling the animal and having it be required up front with even first choosing the archetype makes the ritual feel like less of a formality, adding a touch of potential lore strength (though probably not enough to tip the needle on your ranking scale). And that's not all, the Conclave features let you customize with bonus skills and grow your companion with improvements to its ability score alongside your ASI/Feat selection too, which helps it feel a bit more like part of the team.
Honestly, I think you outright underestimate just how bad PH Beast Master is. While its faults may just be minor oversights on paper, in practice it actively gets in the way of being able to play the game. No matter how much you care about playing a character for the flavor over the gameplay, PH Beast Master will manage to be a burden to you and your party as a whole, and likely won't fit what the player was expecting when they chose it if they weren't forewarned about the archetype (which is the only scenario I could logically see it being played nowadays), negatively impacting enjoyment all around.
Sad thing is, as overly wordy as this comment is, I could probably have said even more. PH Beast Master is terrible game design.
Bro we tried pvp in dnd and it went horrible. If a class doesn’t have range attack or spell they’re screwed. Barbarian and fighter/magic vs cleric and warlock. They kept sniping and healing at one point they persuaded me to give out my teammate hiding spot.
How would you sum up the revised changes in short to a new player?
Level 1 magic users are a real pain in the neck to keep alive tho.
Level one wizard: Ahh papercut!
DM rolls for damage: "The party watches in horror as the piece of parchment severs Marak's finger off."
head*
Roll a new character
Our sorcerer was literally almost killed by a wood splinter while investigating lol
@ Well we were investigating an old house where someone was killed and an encounter with a zombie (who didn't even have legs) left our sorcerer at 1 hp. After that we went upstairs and found that a safe was missing and only the wooden casing was left. So two of us took a closer look (the sorcerer and me, but not simultaniously). And we both rolled nat 1s. Our dm told us this would be 1 damage from a wood splinter from the damaged casing. That was fine for me, but left him at 0 hp. Then after we got him back on his feet (but not healed up, because we didn't have a healer in that party), he almost went to 0 hp again while investigating the food storage. It was really funny.
Not bards, we just talk our way out of everything
@@nickbarber3315 well it helps that they're using mental manipulation spells.
Timestamps
1:22 Fighter (Champion)
3:13 Barbarian (Berserker)
5:08 Fighter (Battlemaster)
6:09 Barbarian (Totem Warrior)
7:08 Fighter (Eldritch Knight)
8:01 Ranger (Hunter)
9:28 Monk
13:24 Ranger (Beastmaster)
14:08 Paladin
15:59 Rogue (Assasin, Thief)
18:33 Rogue (Arcane Trickster)
19:38 Warlock
21:05 Druid
22:47 Wizard
24:33 Sorcerer
26:29 Cleric
28:25 Bard
Always like these comments.
@@mariojumpman9573 Me too! Except I'm always late to watching and commenting on videos so someone else is always first most of the time. This seemed like a video that would age well so it seemed worth it to me to take the time to map out the video with timestamps.
Bard is the top tier?
Huzah, a man of quality
Thanks
Gracias
Calling it now: all physical classes will be lower tier, magic users will be higher tier.
Update: called it
that is pretty standard for DnD stuff. Wizards make demi-planes. Fighters get stuck in them.
This right here is why I miss 4e... wizards be damned!
Then what about ranged users I normally do a commander combat to ranged combat? It’s how you play them, this is more about there combat power.
You mean a guy that can teleport, mind control, create demi planes, shoot elemental blasts, and so on and so forth has more versatility and power than the guy whose only ability is to hit something with a metal stick? mind blown!
Fighters as a player character don't make any sense. They need to have actual powers, exceptional people that channel supernatural energies through their body to do truly extraordinary things. Like demolish a building with a punch or slice through spells. actually jedi are a great example of what you would think a protagonist "fighter" type class would be like
Tal Tamir I see aware your coming from but it’s how the Dm sets the rules and the setting. Take the archer and the wizards. A basic wizard can’t do cqb (close quarters combat) ware a archer can switch from ranged combat to close, other then that the wizard has more fantasy spells and that’s it. Its spellcraft and boom. Now put the two in a scenario one is not particularly stronger than the other it’s the training they had. One could easily out do the other. Then you have the players things get way different with that.
I’m not dising wizards it’s thy just they have more spells they can use. Compared to the others.
You: “champion gets a few ability score or feat gains.”
Fighters literally get the highest amount. I get that feats are optional rules but the whole point of a fighter, especially the champion is that you can make it extremely customizable. If you play with variant human rules, you can end up with 8 feats. Everyone craps on the fighter for just being basic but when you think about it, fighter could be from any background. From a peasant farmer with a bone to pick to the body guard of some wizard too a town soldier too literally anything, you can justify a fighter. There is nothing that says they can’t pick magic initiate, keen mind, or linguist to just show that perhaps you are an intelligent scholar who can’t rely on his magic to save him so he resorts to a bow on his back. But then why not just play a ranger then for a better mechanical grasp? It’s because some role play backgrounds sorta start to disappear. In the terms of ice cream, I fighter is vanilla. Which makes a human fighter like French vanilla. The great thing about vanilla though, you can put just about any topping on it and still have a good dessert. There is a reason the fighter is still the most made class and sure you could argue that it’s cause you can make one in 2 minutes but I believe it’s because they are truly the only 100% customizable class. Everything else forces you into certain new and sometimes terrible abilities but then fighters can go cherry pick 7-8 times. Also there is clearly a bias in this video towards casters and hey they do get a lot of spell customization but most of that is still handed to you on a silver platter and you get so many that they all just feel the same outside of their main gimmick and typical background choices.
I second this
I like to play human fighter. Idc that I cant see in the dark. Its just what I like as well as hearing the dice make cling clang noises when I roll
Fighters are my favorite ngl
It’s an interesting defense of the Champion, but I’m not super convinced that eight feats makes a character as customizable as the entire wizard spell list. You could always play ten different wizards with the same archetype and they’d all have completely different spells and tactics.
@@elijahculper5522 no matter how customozable you make your wiard itll be laxking in defenses, endurance, self healing, and the blessing of the most extra attacks in game
* Looks at name of the account *
* Looks at 'Bard' having the #1 Spot *
''Mmmmmmmh ? I see...''
Japanese professional wrestlers have a tradition known as "excursion." When you first start training to be a wrestler, you're known as a "young lion." Besides training, you clean, you set up the ring, you learn to respect the business. You don't have a professional name or a style of your own. After you've been a young lion long enough, you go on excursion. You leave your place of training and travel the world to learn styles of wrestling from other places. There are a lot of Japanese Luchadors because they went to Mexico on excursion and learned lucha libre. After your excursion is done, you return home with your new style, and that's when you come up with your pro wrestling name and gimmick.
Why do I bring this up? Because its a perfect adventuring motivation for a Monk. You aren't exiled. You aren't on a sacred quest. You're just traveling the world to better yourself before you have to return home and share what you've learned. Your character doesn't have to be a perfect warrior, and gets to be excited to have adventures. Basically, your character gets to be fun to be around.
Don’t mind me, just stealing this for my next campaign...
With my blessings.
Silly Japanese, pretending that pro wrestling of all things is like a martial art from romanticized tales of olde...
That said, a Barbarian/Monk makes for a pretty effective wrestler-like build, especially with a Half-Orc character.
Pro wrestling is an art, and the best pro wrestlers in the world are found in Japan. Even if pro wrestling isn't an effective martial art, it still takes years of dedication and experience to learn. Calling them "silly Japanese" is pretty racist all things considered.
DrLipkin There we go with the racism card... You didn't consider that many things, now did you?
Seriously, if my username isn't any indication, I don't hate the people, culture or nation of Japan. In fact, I care very much about them. But that doesn't mean I agree with everything that comes from them either, especially with practices that are pointless or even self-destructive. To be truely caring also means to be critical, not simply to be unconditionally supportive.
Take a Lizardfolk,make them a wizard,and have them specialize into frost and wind based spells. Wizard Lizard in a Blizzard yo.
Stripey Bag halfling Bard Pirate with a bad attitude who doesn’t like citrus fruit who’s instrument is a hurdy gurdy made from whale bone and sinew and two of his magical secrets are storm sphere and call lightning storm -short Shanty Slinging storm summoning smarmy scurvydog
Then it dies instantly. Frozen winds seem like a bad idea for a cold-blooded creature
Cliff Dragons are elemental lizards, not cold-blooded lizards. Dragonborn are part Dragon. If they are a White or Silver Dragonborn, they would be a Wizard Lizard Spitting Blizzards.
It's funny you mention that because that was the first version of the WLB I did was a silver Dragonborn named Frokrahdiin. Also nothing I've found in the lore says anything about Lizardfolk having anything against cold environments only dry ones like deserts cause they like to be moist. Take that last part as you will and there are swamps in cold places so yeah.
Ultimately the goal I had was get the Control Weather spell. So he could truly summon a blizzard whenever and maybe even have it be warm while it happens. P.S. I made him look like Gandolf the Grey.
A: Casts tons of Spells. B: Casts spells. C: Should cast more spells. D: Barbarian type that casts the fewest amount of spells. F: Fighter type that casts the fewest amount of spells.
Superb breakdown. This guy clearly has a type.
I agree. I was noticing the theme of 'no spellcasting' at the bottom, and 'all the spellcasting' at the top
He MASSIVLY underestimates how effective fighters and barbarians are in controlling combat. All those spellcasters will never be able to do anything if a fighter is not skilled enough to control the start of the combat. Spellcasters get the glory, just like people who score in sports do, but the champion teams are the ones with the best defenders.
In all the games I have payed, the warrior classes have the best character types. All the other ones are pure tropes. The charismatic lecherous bards, the power hungry sorcerer/wizard, the deity specific cleric. We can think of other ways to play them, but nobody ever has.
There was a reason spellcasting got a big revamp from previous editions with the introduction of Concentration. Spellcasters, namely wizards because of their expansive spell choices and versatility were almost god-like, leaving behind their counterparts. Even with Concentration, the sheer amount of spell versatility puts spellcasters about non-spellcasters. Wizards with their annoying Shield spells + Mage Armor having been cast earlier, makes them one of the few (if not the only class if you're using stat array or point-buy) classes to have AC as high as 21 (putting 16+ on Dex, but let's not discuss why on earth you'd choose your highest score as Dex and not Int). Around 1st level, if you take, say Sleep. It'll immediately disable any other class (except any elven/half-elven character). Move 120ft away and start kiting with Fire Bolt. One or two hits will do the job. Even if your Wizard were to say move up to the Sleep-ing PC with the Quarterstaff, they'd have a good chance at having a quick win. Since the other PC is unconscious and prone, the Wizard has advantage and their hits are an automatic crit. With an average damage of 9 (2d8 because qstaffs are versatile) + Dex, most PCs would be dead, assuming the Wizard doesn't let them stabilize/Roll a nat 20.
Also the fact that nonspellcasting classes just deal more damage through feat choices in this edition. Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter are just amazingly high damage when you take multiattack into account. Actually when you take combat into account at all the caster classes just fall short unless they burn everything every encounter. The caster classes need something extra, the warlock especially, just to compete in the combat arena with anything resembling a fighter.
If you renamed this list to "Listing D&D classes from least to most magical", almost nothing would change
Except the bard.
Leche de caballo Bards are still magical. But I think it’s more his bias.
@@rhett3185 Well yeah, but not as magical as other classes like wizards. But I think he has a point about spellcasters. They ARE a lot more versatile and mechanically interesting.
Because char which can bend time and space are stronger that the guy hitting things with a stick
@@jackbrian7083 Which is why we see the gap between wizards and fighters when you're at level 20.
So you lump all the monk ways and paladin oaths together, but not the other subclasses? Weird choice, but okay
I feel a large bias against non-spellcasters in this
Non-spellcasters don't get flashy reality-altering powers. Rogues and Fighters both deal with reality and simple solutions to complex problems like combat or interacting with people without making the party look like a gaggle of dumbasses that spellcasters, and particularly bards, typically succeed at.
You see a door:
Rogue: I stealth up and check for traps before picking the lock.
Spellcaster: I cast Knock (and invariably wake up everyone in a 300 food radius)
Fighter: I just go in. It's a f'king tavern you idiots.
Bard: I cast charm on the passing guard and ask him to herald my arrival. (Guard passes his save).
Chaos ensues as everyone is awake & has their attention drawn on the dumbasses at the door who have the guards barreling down on them.
Zourin that doesn’t have any thing to do with a classes ability to be creative or interesting. That’s just what makes spell casters interesting.
To be fair spell casters have a lot more to work with than melee fighters. The type of spells you choose alone can create create a variety of roleplaying experiences and that's not even going into subclasses and class bonuses. Spell casters just have much more options in and out of combat than melee fighters whose only speciality comes from their consistent damage and the how good the player is at roleplaying (which is something all classes need). Yea rogues have sneak attack and barbarian are good at soaking damage but you can create a spell caster equally or a little less adept at these things AND and have the luxury of having a list of spells. I've always thought when playing a melee fight "man wish I had misty step to get on top that building" or "wish I had an aoe spell for this hoard of enemies". I've rarely felt restricted when playing spell casters or when I do can always look forward to the next level or long rest to change up my spells. Even cantrips are really good because their damage scales with your level allowing for consistent damage that's slightly less than a melee fighter.
Take a Wizard. Proficiency in Daggers, darts, staffs, and slings. Ask your DM if your spell book was a big scroll instead. Background Street Urchin for stealth and thieves tools. Dress like a ninja, call yourself a ninja.
The bias against non-spellcasters is almost in the very core of D&D. After all, one type of character can bend reality in a thousand different ways and the other can... uh... swing a sword really well.
Esper the Bard huh? I wonder what the highest class is...
Should've been cleric.....
@@ATFPredator No it really shouldn't have. Clerics are awesome, don't get me wrong, but Bards are always gonna be on top.
Are you sure you aren't biased about the Bard's placement Esper?
*grin*
Even with bias bard bois are best bois
Little known fact bards are also the best armor class tanks
jason jernigan I disagree in that regard. Bladesingers, Dex-Barbs and Monks get pretty ridiculous in AC from their core abilities alone. Eldrich Knights, Paladins and some Clerics can rock heavy armors and further bolster their own AC with magic.
Bards would need a lot of investment to push them into the same category of AC, barring the College of Valor. Don't get me wrong, they CAN do the job. It just seems odd to me why someone would pick a Bard for that purpose.
@@Rexir2 plate armor+shield ac 20 wait till 10 bard for magic secrets and pick up shield and haste at 15 get shield of faith. Ac 29 be a sword bard use defensive flourish wich would be averaged 3 4 5 6 ac 32-35 one round set up can be up to ac 41 at lvl 14 you get infinite d6s for flourish also i dont know anything about spellsinger but i heard they can be very tanky
"Fighter isnt played much" its statistically the highest played but ok
Probably speaking from personal experience.
For beginners
My favorite class since 2e and has never been replaced
Also bards are lame
He said fighter champion isn’t played much which is kinda true. Pretty much no one plays champion over battle master. I know one person who’s played a champion and she was new to the game and only played it because the mechanics are easy to explain.
Dude, the best healer in the game is a Bard that's taken Aura of Vitality via Magical Secrets. 20d6 healing over 10 rounds, divided among the party as you see fit for the price of a 3rd level spell slot. For bonus lulz, take one level of Life Domain cleric.
....hot damn
I don't think Bard's make the best healer. Clerics, Druids, and Divine Soul Sorcerers are better IMO.
Clerics are much better
Ya its weird Aura of Vitality was only given to Paladins and not Clerics in the original PHB. Thanks to Tasha's Cleric, Druid and Paladins get it as well as Divine Soul Sorcerers.
You want crazy, take 1 lvl Life Cleric, and go the rest Divine Soul Sorcerer, use extended spell on Aura of Vitality it turns into 40d6 plus 5x20 for an average of 240 healing at level 6 (since you won't get the spell at 5th lvl due to multiclassing).
Champion, Berzerker, Battlemaster, totem barb, eldritch knight, i get A real anti melee vibe here.
Melee is for chumps and tools!
Just kidding, the rogue, warlock, druid, cleric, and bard all can do melee.
"can do melee"
Laughs at d8 hit dice per level.
--rogue, warlock, cleric, and bard
--Can do melee
pick one, that laughable d8 isn't gonna survive for long and they swing those weapons like amateurs compared to a fighter or a barbarian
@@1OtherMr hexblade warlock, my 3rd level is doing 3d6+4 with hex and greatsword :)
@Leonardo Prusseck aww how cute. But your hexblade isn't in the PHB. My 3rd level berserker though, 2 attacks, a d12 each, and lets disregard rage and modifiers! A lot more damage and a d12 hp die, not to mention resistance to slash, bludgeoning and piercing damage? Wanna bet who'll last more on the battlefield? I can protect my mates better than you and deal just as much damage.
Sorry but this isn't 3.5, your caster simply can't do everything, and will never be as good as a real Martial class when it comes to melee, you'll be more useful eldritch blasting people and giving the support that the party actually needs and martial classes can't give. My berserker can't cast hold person but he can sure keep squishies safe while they do
How many dead bards did it take to get to the top of this list?
cadmas
All of them in 3.5.
The sacrifices of the old so that the young may prosper.
47
Was this a Gamers: Dorkness Rising reference?
@@BarefootBry yes
John Roberts yeeeeesssss
At first I was thinking “Why isn’t Beast Master F- tier”. Then I realized you were using the revised Ranger.
So his rankings are already wrong since the Revised Ranger is a UA change not directly in the PHB
@@mohawkninja19
*Sees subjective ranking video*
"WRONG!"
@@GlacialScion lol, guy doesn't follow what he said and before you say "well, here is his comment saying why he used the UA beast master" I saw the comment. He still didn't go with his own limitations he put on his scale
Conner Kline mEdc
I don`t completely get it.
What is that "revised ranger"? Are you all talking about a complementary book (as xanathar`s. volo`s, etc.) that gives a "rework" to that class? Or are you talking to a new PHB that includes this new version?
I need help i dont know where i can find this revised version.
"I've always liked the Ranger class, and 5e really does it justice."
Thank God I don't have a drink to spit all over my phone.
Haha really...especially when he said that as he was rating the hunter as being below the beastmaster.
I am playing a halfling hunter ranger specializing in archery in our Adventurers League. At just lvl 4 I have 18 AC and a +5 mod to Dex. I have a short bow giving me +10 to attack rolls, +7 to stealth, versatile spells that help in many situations, and as a role player, I created an extensive background. How can you rate a "role play" stat in this ranking system when it varies player to player. I have seen those "A" class characters have the dullest background with the worst people role playing them and the bottom tier having the exact opposite. The other issue I have with this ranking is that all of the melee classes are ranked low, except the rogue. Cool... you can cast spells so that makes you so much better...? I would rather play my character as is then have to constantly worry about burning spell slots and being susceptible to attacks with low AC and HP. The Rogue, Druid and Cleric are the only exception to that in the "Top tier".
@@Baachus2012 How do you have a +10 at level 4? Dex +5 Proficiency +2 = +7.
@@gnashmelllow I have taken the hunter archetype with the archery subclass of a +2 bonus to ranged attacks plus a short bow +1 the GM gifted my character for completing a hard adventure. And since this post was made, we are level 6, going on 7 now. I have since acquired a cloak of displacement as well to go with an 18 AC. So pretty hard to hit atm.
Jerry Hodge right, forgot archery grants a plus 2.
Honestly, I prefer classes that don't force RP stereotypes on you... I find classes with less roleplay requirements to be more open towards creating your own character, with his own unique flaws and ideology rather than forcing you to basically play a certain way like the Paladin or even Warlock to some degree.
If you think paladins are "forced" into playing a way without any potential for unique flaws, you simply are looking too much into the class. A paladin can be a paladin without being Mr. Clean and proper. They can have extremely unique backgrounds and more. Hell, I played a paladin once who actually had flaws because, surprise, it's likely.
@@animewarrior3
It depends on what your DM will allow. I've played morally questionable paladins as well, and they work great.
That being said, I've had other DMs all but require you to be lawful good.
@@TheUhhoh sorry, I meant the character is lawful good, but his reasons for doing so can be less than lawful good. Or, he can have quriks/flaws, he just does everything he can not to succumb to them.
@@animewarrior3
Yes, and those characters can be pretty good when their allowed. But I've had some DMs get very stingy with the alignments on paladins. I also think the game would benefit from having more options for paladin oaths and the likes.
@@TheUhhoh nah, maybe it's me, but I agree paladins should be severely restricted. The only two oaths I like from 5e is devotion (normal paladin) and the fey/nature one because it truly makes them a champion of the good things in the world. (Joy, happiness, hope. Etc)
"I'll only be looking at classes presented in the Player's Handbook"
*proceeds to ignore the PHB Ranger and goes off the UA*
Well I mean, nobody in their right mind even THINKS about the PHB ranger. The UA ranger is such a marked improvement.
+Damian Freeman (TheExceeder) I don’t let anyone use UA in my games. It has to be in a book to be used. Tough tits.
@@stewartlee5532 you must be fun at parties
Unpopular opinion here but I like the ranger in the PHB
@@bolrath6984 i agree - there's a ranger in my two games (one as DM) and they're fine. Too many people just like to whinge.
Comes across incredibly biased to the first two classes....then* admits to never having played them
Or the fact that bard is number one, i wonder how Esper the Bard came up with that....
True dat. Beserker is a fantastic barbarian class, despite everyone whining about only being able to frenzy once a day.
Did you really have to spend 30 minutes just to say "the more spells, the better?"
A few problems I have with Druids in terms of role-play:
1- Hard to hook them in stories that don't involve "nature is being threatened".
2- They are usually Neutral, their ideals and bonds are related to nature and thus make terrible heroic characters.
3- They can conjure, summon animals and spirits diminishing the need for humanoid companionship (Party Members).
They do however make amazing villains.
I have a druid that breaks most of those. While being true neutral, he is travelling to gain enough powwr to defeat the Undying Court of his homeland, and most of my spells focus on changing the body, not summoning more.
To be honest, I just scrap most of the lore for druids in dungeons and dragons and stick to Celtic Mythology and Arthurian legend. The class features, such as some of the shape shifting and more social aspects, really make more sense in the context of the view of nature that was held by ethnic groups from the regions Druids originated from.
Dungeons and Dragons tends to limit druids to protectors of nature, but they could be taken in the direction of scholars, political advisors, tricksters, clergy etc.
Meh. I've had druids that do things that have little to do with nature, including one that lost her son to a dryad, thus she spends her time looking for her son while burning every forest of oak to the ground.
I have a Druid that’s a criminal. Neutral Evil. He was dying in the deep haunted Forrest after a heist went to shit. He begged any deity for help in exchange for complete devotion. But instead of becoming a warlock, cleric, or even Paladin, he became a Druid because of the fey that haunted the Forrest decided to help. So I play him like a rogue basically, with some Druid hooks.
Me and my friend when we play druid ignore the rules about neutrality. My first druid was more like a fey warlock, as in often doing favors for the Fey, was dream circle druid, and that eventually tied into the main quest. He went on the quest to break the staff before it could be used for evil and was rewarded by being brought to the dream lands. The quests were partly selfish as this is what he wanted, serving the Fey and wanting to stay inside the dreamlands vs only being able to enter it through sleep.
My friends dragonborn cared greatly about stopping evil, and had a soul pet like the beastmaster yet it took a ritual to make a new one should the essence die. He was greedy and loved gold as well as well as being prone to rage should he be insulted
Today I'll start playing in a Campaign with a Fighter and I'm really looking forward to it and my Backstory is way more fleshed out than the one I had for my Rogue (which I loved playing but after a while got boring because she didn't have a real character). She is from an old Elven family that was murdered by humans and was born in exile and now is trying to get back her family's castle. Also she's a Dex Fighter with High Int (will be an Eldritch Knight) and I don't see at all why she should be boring. I don't think a Class is what makes a Character interesting, but the Character itself. The class is merely a way to implement mechanics
I love how every class tier list is biased in favor of casters, despite how many great heroes of the fantasy genre never cast a single spell.
.... your definition of roleplaying hooks seems to be forced player actions than chance of roleplaying...
Yeah gotta pull them through the story otherwise what was the point of spending those hours creating content ? I don't create stories about something else on the fly , and to top it off player's will do it intentionally. Oh it's a haunted house oh let's just keep going to the next town.
@@esperthebard Dunno... i usually have my players spent at least half an hour in a brothel. Or rather they do... it's fun and most of the fun is not being had fighting after all, but roleplaying with the players.
@@antwan1357 If you cant make up stories on the fly for your players you shouldn't be DM. You arent letting them play the game as they actually would, just railroading them. Work on your writing and you wont have to force them into your content you spent so much time on because they will be interested in the mystery that you create and want to pursue it without being pushed.
I get what your saying , but I'm talking about intentional trollers trying to derail the game to seek out negative responses. A person needing a thirty second made up lore on the fly that is fine, but a guy who goes through every word you say like a lawyer trying to win a verdict is holding up the table. I say I can retcon something that is not working at any time even if I approved it in the past. The plot must move along . Like actors say , " the show must go on " .
@@antwan1357 yeah, sometimes it's just not worth the effort.
The monk can be made more flavorful. One question I don't think enough people ask is how you ended up in a monastery to begin with. Was it by choice? Were you left there as an infant? Is it some kind of punishment? Is there even a monastery, or are you more of a hermit? How did THAT happen?
For example, I made a monk who had once been a soldier. He was deployed on the front lines of a brutal war. He was captured, tortured, and eventually released after a peace treaty was signed, 3 years later. He was so broken from everything that he experienced, that he just walked away from the world and disappeared. Years later, while meditating, he had a vision.
He saw a war fought under a red sky, dark legions marching across the land, burning and pillaging at will. He saw his home city under siege, with his former comrades manning the walls. He watched them fall, one by one, as the walls were breached and the city was overrun. And in the center of the city, he saw himself, sitting in silent meditation. Not even lifting a finger as the enemy hordes overwhelmed him.
The next day he returned from his self imposed exile, knowing that the evil in the world would grow unchecked if capable individuals sat idly by and ignored it.
There's also what they do to achieve enlightenment. Vows of poverty/silence/moderation? Do they study ancient texts and philosophers? do they debate daily? do they attune themselves to nature and the animals? Do they train the body to beyond what is possible?
Dude...... that's a monk well done right there...
yes, i have an alt made that he had a problem with the god his clan followed because his younger sister was going to be made into a warlock of that god (they follow Raven Queen who is still a EA subclass right now, a thing the DM liked when i made the back story of the clan). so he left to go to a monastery to find peace about this matter and after leaving the monastery things happened and now he is a monklock (following an undead patron to spit the Raven Queen even more) with a sunblade and everything (yes i made a jedi).
If you do it right, you can make a great back story for any class.
My monk is more of an 'aspiring/makeshift' monk since he was abandoned since infancy and was raised by wolves so his fighting style of more wild/beast-like than formal fighting
Sees Berserker near bottom of the list.
*Laughs in D12ish.*
Exactly. Even at Level 5 you can Hit 3 Times with Advantage, with a greatswors and GWM.
Even at Level 5, that means Up to 3*12+3*5+3*10=81 damage.
Certainly an F Tier character ;)
"Roll a wisdom save."
@@leotamer5 Fighters and most other non wis classes have the exact same problem with their wis save.
Does the bard have a good wis save? No, he focuses on dex, con and cha.
Same for the sorcerer. Same for the wizard.
Does that make these classes unplayable?
Nope
@@aldoushuxley5953 "you are in a different terrain. You are fighting a flying enemy. You are frightened/poisoned/restrained. You are fighting an army of 50 enemies" Can you see some troubles for berserk here huh? I can see how any class can deal with at lest half of this, but not bers (and fighter a bit)
@@Melix0ff flying enemy:
use a bow/ throw a spear/Javelin
frightened: throw a javelin, you don't need to be in close combat
poisoned: Doesn't affect you any differently from any other character. You just have to attack, not hit, to keep your rage going
restrained: yeah, that one is bad for you. Luckily, you are likely the guy with the single highest strength chack. Not many people can actually keep you restrained.
fighting 50 enemies:
This is bad for you, but not any worse than it would be for any other barbarian, or even any other non spellcaster.
Fireballs are made for those situations.
What is the Paladin or Fighter going to do against 50 enemies?
For those who keep going on about how broken the casters are compared to the martial classes...
Put any caster into an antimagic field and see how long they last.
Magic is STUPIDLY useful only when it's available, whereas martial skill and raw power is almost always relevant, which is why I love playing Fighters, Monks, Barbarians and the like. Because they will never be irrelevant.
Even if you put a martial class in a situation where physical combat is not exactly effective, it is almost never useless outright, and rarely is it possible to be punished for using it, as long as you do so wisely.
Furthermore, the primary benefit of playing a martial class is CONSISTENCY.
Whenever a caster runs out of spell slots, they're kinda f*cked unless they picked useful cantrips, whereas a martial class can just do what it's SUPPOSED to do for the entirety of a combat/encounter/dungeon.
That's just my take though, feel free to prove me wrong or present a different angle.
So what you are telling me is play battle bard because battle bard
Anti-magic fields are not a very common occurrence though. And if you play it smart like I do you'll be good. I usually make strength, dex, or con the second or third highest stat when playing a spellcaster because I know that's there I would be lacking. It all depends on how you play the class. With my 1st sorcerer I almost never took damage and I actually ended up being the only party member left standing between a rogue, cleric, and a bard in fight with skeletons and ended up saving them. I also almost never used my spell slots I used my spear mostly and my cantrips (though not as much).
You're not making things even. Here, let's do that now:
A party of 2 (martial and caster) fall through a magical wormhole. On the other end both have lost any weapons and armor they had and magic doesn't work.
Who is in a better position when left in a situation you have to think, reason, or talk your way out of; the class who put most of their stats into physical attributes or the class who put most of their stats into mental attributes?
In the way of presenting a different angle, i offer you one word: Druid
When I played a high level fighter it reached the point where I was getting charmed or incapacitated at the start of every combat (thanks low wis...)
A well done video as always, but I think there was a major flaw in how you graded the player classes here. In particular with regard to the role-playing and lore sections, you can't judge aspects of a player character the same way you can a monster. For example, you consistently graded the Fighter archetypes lower because their classes have less in the way of specific lore connected to their class, whereas Paladins and Druids for example have connections with higher powers that set them apart. The thing is, since player characters are built from several components - of which class is only one, and backstory is another - Fighters should have higher lore/roleplaying scores specifically *because* they're so open-ended. The ability to incorporate a fighter into almost any background in a seamless way that Druids for example might have lore-based restrictions on makes a Fighter's lack of specific lore a lore strength. At least in regard to player characters. Still valid for monsters.
I appreciate your perspective. It was quite a challenge to make this ranking, and I spent so much time and effort trying to piece it together. At two different points I had created entirely different grading attributes.
TYPE A: Physical - Magic - Utility - Healing -Versatility
TYPE B: Melee - Skirmish - Blasting - Utility - Control - Support - RP Hooks
But both of those seemed a bit off, so in the end, I used the same attributes as with my monster rankings, and I'm pleased with the overall result.
I have seen a pattern in the content creators responses.
He states that he appreciates your perspective and respects it in someways.
He then proceeds to explain and defend his decision or take the discussion on a tangent.
And then never fully accepts the flaw or mistake, and moves on.
It is rather frustrating.
Jose Lazo Perhaps, but this particular list combines multiple factors to grade just one part of player characters, the class. The fighter class doesn't offer much in regard to options without input from the player.
Yes, fighters are blank slates. Yes, this gives them arguably the best versatility in the game for the martial classes. I'm not arguing that, but this list is based on Esper's point of view. Tier lists can be disregarded. Feel free to do so.
I shall.
@@joselazo9799 Notag's comment makes sense, but it also ignores the point I explained more than once in the video. This is NOT ABOUT PLAYER SKILL, IT'S ABOUT THE ACTUAL CLASSES THEMSELVES. A player can create stories and customize a character to their heart's content---with any class. What I'm analyzing with my ranking videos is the content in the books. Read the fighter class man. It's forgettable, "you are a great fighter better than a typical soldier."
I claim conflict of interest Mr ...the Bard
Fighters get a bad rap because they don't do unexpected things: They do things that they expect to work every time, which is more out of the ordinary than you may think in a game where everyone's trying to one-up the system. Everyone else tries to build faux personas, MacGuyver/Metal Gear Solid their way into what typically is the same conversation with the same npc. Fighters knock on the door, usually politely.
It's always in the (smart) fighters' best interest to NOT do crazy shit that starts fights. It's their ass on the front line, and their paycheck from the questgiver. Doing crazy shit risks life and livelihood, and any good Fighter should soundly and routinely berate party members that take unnecessary risks; including Paladins. A focus on simple, tried and true methods can make for a good experience for a fighter who should be confident in his ability to get through a fight in better shape than his 'fire ALL THE SPELLS' panic-mode friends.
My brother in arms I have found you!
The fighter has still the same problem as he had in 3(.5). His shtick, being good at fighting, as a shtick many others do carry on top of something else.
Bartoc Spellcasters get all the glory because they're always thinking they're better. They're not when it comes to a face-to-face; at best they have a gamble. Good Fighters don't gamble when they work. It isn't about the versatility the class gives you, it's the responsibility to be versatile yourself. Spellcasters ALWAYS fail there, trying to square-peg-round-hole problems with 'magic' because 'magic'.
Wizard: We can teleport out of the dragon lair with all the loot stuffed in our bag of holding.
DM: You already are carrying a fortress' worth of items, gear, and coin in your bag of holding. How much weight is left?
Wizard: 200lbs...
DM: You can only fit 200lbs more which is 2000 coins minus any other items you try to fit in there. And you have to do it all by hand.
Fighter: I roll up the horse and heavy wagon I bought and left outside. The one the Wizard said I shouldn't bother with because it'll slow us down. I also brought a shovel.
DM: You load up all 8,700 gold and silver coins with a shovel into the wagon, toss on the items you found, and the dragon's head for good measure that you parade through the town. They throw a huge party in your honor.
I planned to play a battle-master fighter a few campaigns of one-shots down the line and will definitely save your comment for reference.
I think Battle Master at least deserves to be a little higher on the Tier list just because of how much you can do with it, you can be anything from a seasoned sword fighter to a trick shot archer.
With that being said, Battle Master is pretty much the only reason to play fighter in 5e. Sure some of the other class abilities you get for other fighter types might be interesting, but they are too few and far between to make the wait worth while. Battle Master is the only pure non-magic class that feels like it actually is the top of weapon combat that no other class can exactly match with out building them specifically around it.
All the extra attacks you get can be fun at least, but again they are mostly taken advantage of with Battle Master given their maneuver abilities.
"Fighters are dumb because I don't understand combat control"
The bias is real.
Calm your rage man, I literally said all the classes are worthwhile. I suggest you check out some of my narrated adventures. Nearly all of them feature fighters or other non-spellcasters, and I really liked those characters.
madhatten00 I don’t know of many campaigns that don’t have long rests. And Leonunds tiny hut is a thing so if you have a bard or wizard they should never go without a long rest. Any spellcaster that’s running out of spellslots early on in the adventure is their fault.
@@madhatten00 thats biased as frontline fighters have to worry about health which means that unfortuently for you, it evens out
@@Sten43211 still gotta get a ling rest eventually
@@madhatten00 Cantrips: Am I a joke to you?
While I respect the effort you've gone through I don't feel like this is a particularly good ranking
You put a lot of my favorite classes in the lower tiers. I feel like a lot of the classes with strong flavor are very restrictive. As a Fighter, I can be anybody - a noble knight, a savage brute, a reserved warden, a grizzled veteran, an affable family man, a cold, calculating sniper, a smooth-talking swashbuckler... Anything! The fact that I have relatively few options in combat is good IMO, because it lets me focus more on roleplaying my character instead of managing my sheet. Fighter-types also benefit the most from cool magic items. You won't find that kind of flexibility in a Paladin, Druid, or Wizard. Definitely not in a Warlock. To do interesting things with those, you might have to diverge from the built-in flavor of the class.
Cleric, however, is a great class, because there's a god for everything, and a lot of options for Cleric domains. Bard is super fun, and there's enough variation within the broad category of a performer that it's hard to go wrong, though there is a classic Bard flavor that you're going to want to break out of, I think.
Overall, I personally prefer simple builds with a solid foundation and not too many things to lock me down. A strong boilerplate - like Fighter or Barbairan provides - is more valuable to me than a thousand situational tricks. I embrace limitations because those encourage me to find creative solutions to problems rather than just whipping out the appropriate spell. I admit that Champion Fighter is a little basic, but I'd take it over a wizard any day. Then again, I very likely would take an Open Hand Monk over a Champion Fighter, because I do like to have a few cool things to pull out to make things interesting.
I'm confused at how the fighter is that low. The fluidity of the class makes it at least top 5 base classes cuz it doesn't restrict the player now I'll admit everyone number 1 is up to them but on this he say it is all about what's in the book but says the class is not role playable. Haven't met a person who can't roleplay a fighter.
Yeah I just came across this while looking for inspiration. Pretty garbage video. "These are bad because they have no built in story hooks or interesting mechanics". DND is literally a narrative storytelling game that has standardized mechanics to make it a system rather than just group spitballing a novel. If you can't make a berserking barbarian interesting, that speaks more to your ability to roleplay than Wizard's design criteria.
Kinda seems like you've got the same bias issues, just against spellcasters instead of for them. The idea that wizards are a bad, inflexible class is mind-boggling to me.
Everything you listed you can be as a fighter, you can also be as a wizard. Title for title, word for word.
If the Champion Fighter is F, Beastmaster Ranger should be G.
until the EA updates
@@sirachxi3918 then it became $$ tier
Ah yes. All Magic Caster classes must be A tier.
After watching Overlord anime, it proved that high level magic casters are literally GOD tiers. Can a high level fighter kill 70,000 armed men in an instant by himself?
@@mewletter
No, but neither can any spell casters in 5e unless they somehow all stand in a 50ft radius.
Overlord is based off an MMO. There are also no other "people" on the same level (literally) as the main character.
In D&D terms, its as close as possible to a level 20 Wizard decked out in, somehow, 10 atuned Wondrous, very rare or Legendary items, running around a world with the highest challenge rating people being roughly 5. At the very highest in the 1% being the 5 CR. Of course it makes casters look OP. He even said that a good warrior or ranger or Paladin would have put a stop to his actions a long time ago in a strictly 1v1 scenario. Its why he's being so cautious.
Overlord is about 3.5/PF, not 5e. Ainz is basically an epic-level Wizard.
No it isn't, it's literally based off of MMO's, you don't get the sorts of abilities in 3.5 or PF that they do in overlord, lmao. You'd have to be an idiot to think it's even remotely similar to a table top RPG in terms of skill or ability.
@@rileyboy10 Name an MMO where a spellcaster gets almost unlimited power at high levels due to sheer amount of buffs on him and other powers he gets? Overlord's author is a fan of 3.5, IIRC, and very much copied what Ainz does at some points from D&D.
"Are you a Cleric or something?
They're all the same, those rotten clerics.
Take your higher cause and stuff it, you lousy charlatan!"
Silver Paladin damn it patches the fuck are you doing here?
@@abandonmentissues1887 just kick his ass to Owlbears or something worst
One of my favorite characters was a human oathbreaker paladin. His whole way of being played was being on a path of redemption while fighting his inner demons. And before anyone says anything about how it's unoriginal I don't care about that because it's impossible to have a completely unique character
big anti fighter bias and a big preference for magic. if we're talking about design the fighter is the best. you sacrifice nothing like casters do. you're never out of spell slots and stuck on cantrips. The warlock is basically a magic fighter but it has a story hook built in. this should really be called "what classes I think have cool plot hooks"
Big fan of melee, of playing without spells.
But there's simply less you can do as a fighter at high level. Less options against those high level threats.
Definite 5th edition bias, 5th edition gutted the wizard which should have dropped it a tier.
@@derrickbonsell I mean, you can always provide for a fighter some cool magic items to give them more options.
@@MeTaLISaWeSoMe95 or hell looking in the combat section of the book for all the different things you can do in a turn that a fighter with action surge would love
He even say "the fighter base class holds it back" and " theroleplaying aspect isn't there" roleplaying is player dependent tho so y is that part of the rating
The one thing that I would say in defense of the fighter character class, is that you missed their most important feature: ability score increases and feats. That's what made them so powerful in previous editions, which is that you could customize your fighter with twice as many feats as other classes. He can grab spells and cantrips, become an Aragorn-esque healer, inspire the masses through speeches, learn ritual casting, become a luchador, master archery, grab more skill proficiencies than a rogue could dream of, become a master of learning, and so much more. He can get a total of 7 feats total (others only get 5).
The fighter gets 2 more feats than other classes (levels 6 and 14)
@@esperthebard, yeah, now that I think about it, it's not that big of a difference. Fantastic video, by the way.
8 if you play variant human
Wizards do have healing spell, it's called Polymorph, transform the heavily injured party member to a trex, you just gave them 136 more hitpoints.
You just really hate pure melees don’t you
Always hear the same hooks, huh? Here's one for your consideration then: I'm currently playing a Way of the Open Hand Goblin Monk with an Outlander background. Vermie Mirelight has never set foot in a monastery, her clothes, spear, handaxe, etc. were found on the frozen dead body of a gnome camping in the Northern woods. The spear was fashioned by lashing a camp knife to a walking stick, and she's basically a feral woman who learned to fight by observing animals who hunt to survive through tooth and claw. Her unarmed strikes have more roots in western pugilism than eastern kung fu e.g. Stunning Strike is just a humble right straight liver blow, removing reaction on Flurry of Blows is just a gouging strike to the eyes or a painful knock to the shin, etc. She doesn't know ki as ki, but as a fire in her guts, an inner booyagh, a rush of adrenaline to tap into and push past her limits because she _needs_ to if she wants to survive. Meditation is just her trying to take a breather/nap, but disassociating so hard in processing her PTSD that she ends up contemplating the universe and her place within it/having an existential crisis that she then wants to punch in the face because she wants to live, damn it.
She had a falling out with her clan, in that she killed half of them on her way out. She used to be of the gatherer caste, a "meat-chop". She being more observant and attentive than most of goblinkind eavesdropped on recollections of home by dwarven and elvish slaves, and something wasn't adding up: Some claimed to have built their grand and illustrious halls, starting the construction hundreds of years back, but the way things go in the goblin lair slaves are worked for a year or two at most, die of exhaustion, get chopped up and boiled into stew, and new slaves need to be brought in to replace them. It's an inefficient system, if they could maintain and keep the slaves they have already, they wouldn't need to send men out to capture more, which would be more time to dedicate to raiding for food and wealth, or other such pursuits.
So she started doing research, found out that the foundation of strength lies in nutrition and rest: the slaves were wasting away because they were being worked too hard and fed too little and/or fed an ill-suited diet. Since she couldn't start trials on the slaves themselves because of a lot of reasons, such as potential accusations of preferential treatment and in-fighting, she started experimenting on herself in making tweaks to dietary planning based on her observations and findings, and in time it was like a fog was lifted from her mind: She had more energy, could think clearer, felt more in control of the unchecked aggression that seemed to plague her entire clan. When she brought her findings and hypothesis to her leadership, that goblins and slaves alike need to start eating better and stop practicing cannibalism because it's making their clan weak and giving them brain swelling and, in extreme cases, tunneling brain parasites, she was branded a pariah for making mockery of their traditions i.e. the spiritual symbolism of taking your enemies' strength into you by partaking their flesh.
So, if they would not listen to reason, perhaps a demonstration. She proved that they were weak from their diseases and parasites by attacking the hunters, the lashers, the warriors, the boss, anyone above her caste really, but all the proof in the world didn't matter when the hobgoblin overseer rode in with his bugbears in tow. It didn't matter that she was right, she had dishonored their traditions, overstepped her caste, and was a disgrace in the eyes of Maglubiyet for turning against her brethren. If she stayed and surrendered, she would've been executed. If she fought, she would've been torn apart by the bugbears who both outnumber and outclass her in every way.
So she ran.
Whether through cunning, luck, or simply not being worth the effort, she escaped their pursuit. She'd heard stories about how many of the slaves were adventurers before their capture, and how it didn't matter who or what you were before, from pirate to charlatan, orc to yuan-ti, once you get in with the adventurer's guild, you can start building your life anew and thrive if you just have the strength to seize it for yourself. So, she attached herself to an adventuring party during one of their quests by jumping into the combat and helping them fight off some pack of crazy aberrations from beyond the mists to earn their trust.
All that to say, she's just a punch gobbo and the party cook.
I got a kick outta reading that
Hot dang! That story is brilliant! I love it!
In defense of my warlocks, Invocations are fantastic for really customizing the class. It is true that within just the player's handbook they may end up favoring Eldritch Blast, I have seen very good Bladelocks in various sub classes. And if your party can do a lot of short rests then you are pretty active.
Lance Clemings Right the warlock is something of a great utility class. IF you are dedicated you can make it be whatever you really want to be. It makes it nice. You can get a story together and find your party needs something and without changing the story much you can design your warlock to fill the need.
I’ve actually dipped into pct of the blade with my arcane trickster to essentially smite with sneak attacks. My dm let me burn my trickster slots too but an archfey lock with a rogue class is a fun combo.
I’ve also made an intelligence based warlock that goes with an artificer for good role play. Reskin the crossbow expert feet for your artificer gun and it works well and can have some fun role play opportunities.
Warlock is my favorite 5e class. With the addition of the hexblade I never even have to think twice about what melee class I want to play. Why pick fighter or barbarian when I can have a character that no mater the situation I will always have a powerful weapon? The basic eldritch blast spamming warlock is also a ton of fun, I don't care what some say, they are just jealous. One of the best things about warlock is they are charisma based, and that means you won't suck at social checks since you didn't dump charisma like other classes tend to.
Yeah, I can see why this would be where it is when just looking at the PHB, but it's still either my favorite or second favorite (only potentially coming in behind Conquest Paladin).
Between patrons, boons, and invocations, there's just so much player choice and viable build options.
Though not AL legal, my favorite character thus far is a Raven Queen Warlock with a focus on Ice and Necromantic magic, using the Book of Shadows to add a bit more variety in my cantrip options and stockpile ritual spells for strong out-of-combat utility. And, to be completely honest, poofing off as a raven when somebody turns their back for a moment is far too much fun.
I prefer raven queen hexblade pact of blade TBH it just makes sense
I've played battle master in more than one edition. I got to say that I don't agree with your score for "role playing". I played one battle master who preferred to con or make peace to work through situations and created or manipulated scenarios to his advantage. And all of this was just a means to an end, the ends justifying the means with him ultimately caring more about the law, his land, his family, his people and stability of society than actual morality or winning or gold (although he did like and want gold too). He rarely fought. I miss that character.
Also, how you could rank the eldritch knights above battle masters is beyond my ability to comprehend.
The Bard needed a higher style score.
The main problem with this list is something he said at the start. Hes never played a fighter or barbarian. How so you rank it without playing it
@@kaiolson8099 I mean ill never play either because I find non-casters incredibly boring. Why would I want a class with 2 choices to make when I can make 5 or 6 choices at level one just on spells? I personally just have no interest in martial classes due to the small amount of options both in combat and out of it
Seems like there's a clear bias toward spellcasting here. No wonder you like monsters that can cast spells so much
I feel like having mechanical complexity as a trait is the poorest part of the video.
Also the fact that ALL of the full spellcasters, while none of the non-spellcasters are A tier says a lot to me about how biased this video is.
@@indrayatbhakta2943 This video is about the best designed classes. The primary reasons that martials suffer are
A. Having mechanical complexity as a factor, if more complicated=better, than requiring a dozen different die rolls for one action is better. Some classes are designed to be more complicated, others are designed to be more simple, if everything was complex it would get real old real fast.
B. Openendedness is considered bad. Giving people creative license is not inherently bad.
@@blakebrockhaus347
Complexity is a problem for martials because they have nothing powerful to make up for said complexity. But complexity is often needed to keep a player from getting bored. So I agree with the video, in that regard. Unless I misremembered the video's reasoning.
My main problem with them is that quadratic wizards and linear warriors is no longer an even trade, as nobody dies in D&D games as often or as easily.
Further, martial classes are simply less powerful and less adept at handling situations.
Just my take.
I mean. You should see the 3.5 tier list.
@@basedeltazero714
The one on 1d4chan?
It seems like most classes have no roleplaying hooks according to this review, and that the couple that do are just your preferred classes. At least from a storytelling perspective. To me all the classes have as much room for story and roleplay as any other, and it's part of their design that they're blank to some degree. The character is where most of the character comes from. Each class has a universe of hooks.
"Why do we love the Rogue so much?"
I don't, most of the rogues I've played with are selfish punks in game who end up getting their fellow adventurers hurt or killed by not disarming traps, not letting the melee classes handle the stronger enemies, and awakening every unholy terror in the dungeon.
Also can't role play worth anything, beyond "Imma greedy edgelord who's gonna steal yo' treasure!!"
Yep, ive been with that same Rouge dissgused as a paladin, as a knight and lateley as a DM...
I personally like playing Rogues, because they're really great for role playing in ways that utilize stats, as opposed to just seeming to be heavy combat focus. Which, in a way, the stats also help out with combat as well if you're crafty enough and have a DM who's willing to reward players who think up good "outside of the box" ideas, even though some of them might need to require feats to actually pull them off (IE: Knowing I have a good deal of ranks in slight of hand, can I make a slight of hand check to see if I can get in an surprise attack now that I know the guy is lying and fully intends on doing the opposite of helping? And I also want to do a bluff check to make him think I'm looking for something else on me before I make the move to pull out a sword to stab him.)
Some of my best feats of skill have been with my first rogue character, who's a Drow who escaped to the surface and was captured and given the option of either hard labor in prison, or using my skills being forced to help fight in an long fought out war. My main weapon was the short bow, though I kept a short sword on me as well, and the metal dice I used gave me some of the absolute best rolls I've ever had. From infiltrating an small enemy camp out, poisoning everyone there, and then getting a one shot kill and killing another person who was at half health, to getting us out of some of the tightest spots that we were looking to face a lot of trouble from. Some of the best fun I've had while not playing some "bastardized magic-like using class" (Psychic Warrior, Dragon Shaman) type character. lol
The only person we ever had issues with was this guy who played an Gnome illusionist who had a pretty bad drug problem, and was prone to erratic behavior and decision making that would cause us a ton of trouble. It was interesting at first, but it got old quick and after a few sessions, after we were higher level, of us putting a stop to him doing anything of the sort, he just eventually stopped showing up to sessions.
I'm playing a intelligence focused rogue that isn't a arcane trickster. He is a curious archeologist who bad things have happened to. And now he is running from his past.
I have played and seen that played but I have 2 that I love the most
1. A Robin hood esque roleplay more of helping in a CG way less stickyfingers
2. The depressed fiend I'm a character tired of the way something is but nothing will stop me from helping my friends or changeling what I hate
I am literally playing Arcane Trickster Rogue who does not care about being edgelord or any single type of treasure or money. He just seeks to die in battle because of burdens of his pasts and just like the magic he uses the Death tricks him and keeps him alive, for now.
I like this overview of d&d classes, but the role-playing standards discussed in the video seem arbitrary. It feels like most of this guy's comments and analysis of role-plying for any class can be applied to any other class.
Yeah, you definetly don't have a bias towards spellcasting classes lol.
Because it's actually kind of true haha. In 3E there was literally no point to playing a fighter because the only thing they were halfway competent at was (surprise) fighting, and the druid and the wizard in your party could both summon things that could probably kick a fighter PCs ass on top of doing a billion different things with their spells. D&D is a caster's game, it always has been and always will be.
J. Jonah Jameson Hmm...did you ever play AD&D (1e)? It doesn't appear so. Ever start with a 1st Level Magic User with 1d4 HP and one first level spell, no cantrips? It has not ALWAYS been a spell caster's game. Furthermore, it requires a good fighter to tank so that a spell caster can survive. The player who tanks needs a lot more brains than the spell casters, even in 5e!!!! If the tank is out of position, the spell casters die. And what about a Thief (a.k.a. Rogue in today's easier game with WOTC superhero characters), which I think is even more fun than spell casters to play. I think you don't really know what you are talking about when you say this silly comment about D&D always being a spell caster's game. It's a TEAM game.
"Furthermore, it requires a good fighter to tank so that a spell caster
can survive. The player who tanks needs a lot more brains than the spell casters, even in 5e!!!!"
This is exactly how I've always felt, and it's one of the main reasons I love playing non-casters. Every time I'm with a caster and a problem comes up, they look through their spell list and say either "I cast X, problem solved" or "I don't have a spell for this, looks like it's on you guys". I feel like non-casters are more often forced to think outside the box and come up with different ideas, precisely because they can't solve everything with a snap of their fingers. And knowing how to handle things in combat so the squishy guys don't immediately get pulverised takes a lot of thought and planning, and tends to be a lot more interesting than "Hang at the back and throw fireballs everywhere".
No matter what the campaign or character is, I always end up as the party tank, and that suits me just fine.
D&D 5E has a bias towards spellcasting classes. Therefore, any accurate evaluation of the classes needs to take that into account. The main tools a Martial gets are high hit points, high armour class, and high at-will damage (i.e. using no limited resources). Unfortunately, casters have tools that not only outclass those advantages, but can easily replace them. Any caster with access to healing exceeds a martial's durability. Any caster with Mage Armour or medium armour proficiency matches their AC. Every caster gets cantrips that scale and thus they have at-will damage comparable to martial characters, in addition to all their spells. Yes, 5E classes are more balanced than 3E, but that's like saying a 12-year old would have a better chance at beating Mike Tyson in a boxing match than a 2-year old. 5E is the poster child for "Better does not mean good."
@@ObsidianKnight90 My level 2 lizardman berserker barb has 19 ac and 29 hp. Healing doesnt matter if you can be killed in one hit considering on even grounds max hp for a wizard is 20 and I dont see many mages with 5 con and a crit will nearly kill vs max damage a mages does being like 24 isnt doing shit but pissing me off. healing doesnt matter if you fall before you can heal. Magics hit or miss, and ive seen spells do 5 damage reduced to half from a save.
now druids are bs and I'll admit they give tanks quite a run for their money with loads of self sufficiency.
Eldritch Knight has some of the most RP and lore potential. You can basically be the guy from Fable
I'd freaking love an updated list of this.
Alright Mr guitar man, let's see you solo fight literally anything bigger than a kobold
the Temple Monk is the most common, yes, but the tavern brawler who discover magic in his fists or Princess Fionna are 2 amazing ideas for a Monk!
I'm surprised that Bard doesn't have max style since that's what I mainly think of when I think Bard.
I meant to put a note about that in the video. The bard's style is quite high, but I find that many players have a difficult time expressing it.
I see. That's a good point.
I had a guy that I DM for write a spoof of “friendship is rare” on session two recapping session one. He performed it to stop an execution. It didn’t work. But, it was fucking epic. He is the only person I DM for now, he was the only person that put in the effort.
I played in the 80's. I played every weekend and during the summers through high school. Went to level 10 as a fighter and then switched to monk, made it to level 17. I went fighter for the hit points. By the end of the four years we were into the upper tiers of the nine hells. We played on Greyhawk.
I feel you’ve downplayed how strong action surge is and also fighters get more than one action surge and second wind in later levels
I love Sorcerers but I would argue that the Draconic has the edge on the Wild Magic. Wild magic surge can be fun, but the bonus to hit points, AC, and damage resistance the Draconic gives you is invaluable, especially since your spell casters are gonna be low in that regard.
Very little bonus compared to fircing advantage on every spellhit you desire which you can then twin spell
Plus most wild magic shrges are outright beneficial to you. Ive had a player roll 00 twice and became a free flying, high temp health, free lightning blasting surgence if magic on tbe battle field rolling two extra wild magic surges a turn.
Something tell me that you're a fan of Guns N Roses .
The revised ranger is not in the PHB. Considering you tried to rank these based on what's in the book and nothing else -- no house rules, no feats -- that's a pretty big flaw in this video. Vanilla ranger is almost universally considered the worst class and for good reason.
Attercop where is the revised ranger stats?
@@adamhuntington2686 just look up revised ranger, it's one of the UA booklets.
I think this is why, as then the ranger would be below f tier
Vanilla ranger has about 3 garbage class features (or 4 I don't remember). That is enough to make it the worst class. Is only OK in combat after like level 10 or so, but it is pretty good at the exploration aspect of the game and role-playing wise it's neat. The main problem is that it reads like a bad multiclass of druid, Fighter, and rogue, OK at all great at none. Hunter has some pretty decent mechanics but o believe all are combat oriented. Beast master really depends on the DM's mercy as even a high level pet is very killable and the pet is pretty much where the beast master begins and ends.
And when I said that the ranger is "pretty good" at exploration, I say it grudgingly as it is do dependant. Forgot to mention that the whole favored enemy/terrain is cool, but there isn't enough there to make the class. All that stuff drops off after a while.
I agree that spellcasters have a lot more options in character building. But non spellcasters are a ton of fun to play. It gives you the ability to work you way trough puzzles and dungeon like the DM wants you to play and not just cheeze your way trough it with magic. A mage can have a great backstory but a warior can have a great personality, and in my opinion a great personality makes the game beter and more fun.
Those who say that martial classes have no "role-play hooks", likely couldn't think outside the box to save their lives.
I once played a Berserker who was a serial killer associated with a guild of hired killers (think Dark Brotherhood), but he had a highly protective side towards a young orphaned Tiefling girl who saved his life on a contract gone bad. Now, he does everything in his power to protect her from an evil man hunting her for some twisted purpose!
He was a LOT of fun to role play, and I never felt like I was missing out by not playing as a magic user.
Huh I know another serial killer that took a soft spot to a person who saved their life
Hitler
None of that roleplay potential came from the class itself, which is the point.
That sounds fun to watch
@@schwann145 why does it NEED to come from the class? I can play a priest whos a fighter, rogue, or barbarian without needing the chosen class having to be religious.
@@elgatochurro Who said it needed to?
Every character needs at least a few roleplaying hooks they can rely on, and martial classes tend to offer fewer than caster classes.
That's all that is being stated, and it's not always an issue of good or bad for gameplay either.
An Ancestral Guardian Barb has a much better class-related RP hook than a core-school Wizard, and they're both worse than any Cleric or Warlock.
Druids and Monks tend to have great hooks that are horrible for group play (based on "traditional" lore - protecting sacred groves or temples or whatnot).
The only concern is, "if I drop this class into the world with nothing else going for it, does it have a connection to the world?"
The answer is more likely to be "no" for martial classes. Not always. Just more likely. It would simply be better design if the answer to that question was never "no."
Roleplay & Mechanics options for "Warrior" type characters who don't have lots of active abilities: As both melee or ranged fighters, you have HUGE tactical aspects such as holding areas/passages, taking advantage of the Longbow's MASSIVE range. Fighters have greater natural HP regeneration than other classes (from using second wind between short rests, yes you can use it out of combat), Barbarians can make amazing brute force/tank plays that are great in both roleplay and mechanics terms.
Yes, all classes can do these things, but "Warrior" type classes usually have more AC, HP, and reliable damage that really enables some amazing plays.
Or a caster could summon something that does that, and not worry about HP as it goes away anyway.
:p
gonna be honest i think Lore shouldnt be a factor, since any backstory is up to players to create if your an RP heavy game, and if you arent an RP game, then lore doesn't matter. just look at Critical Role, they make their own backstory. Other then that its fine.
This video feels arbitrary and bad (usually a big fan of your vids).
Battlemaster is a fun martial class with plenty of options and decisions to make due to it's limited combat dice. Much more interesting than say, life cleric or hunter ranger IMO.
Edit: Four element Monk is not well designed as well as not being powerful. It's not at all versatile because it gets so few spell-like abilities to play with (and so few of *those* are really playable).
I have not seen this yet, but I very much agree that the Battlemaster is superiour over most paladins, rangers and clerics in terms of versitility, mechanics and style. It is so much more open
I wouldn't call it bad but battle master deserves a higher spot and maybe druids should be classified as top tier because they really are
This video really does feel bad. Using revised BM when it is in UA seems disingenuous. The other issue is calling the power level of a rogue as equal to the power level of a bard. This list makes no sense, and just puts 60% of the classes in the top tier and puts arbitrary negatives on some classes but not others.
Welcome to the Tier-System and its years old discussion. Everyone please grab a bucket full of shit and an umbrella
Bartoc Here's what I don't quite get about this Tier List though: it sounds more like a "how much do I enjoy this class" list than a ranking of mechanical power.
Champion Fighters are strong mechanically at almost any level; build a DEX-fighter Longbow-Archer and use the Fighter's extra ASIs to dabble in a couple Feats. Suddenly you have a guy who can effectively shoot 600 feet four times a round and crits on 18+, while ignoring anything less than total cover. Thanks to high-DEX and the Archery fighting style his hit chance is through the roof as Archery's extra +2 goes above and beyond most other sources of +hit.
It's ripe for abuse if your DM runs a campaign anywhere outdoors as it should be easy with all that DEX to sneak to within 400' or so and just start lighting everything up with hails of arrows.
Kind of dull from a mechanics sense but he's not "F-tier" in power; it's just plain "this class isn't my favourite to play".
If you take both Bard and Assassin, do you become a Jester?
No, Jester is a Trickster Domain Cleric.
Nah, Jester is a background, sub of the Entertainer.
Yes, and you have to name your character Cicero
@@lazerbeam134 ooooooOoOOOo oh hoho
Idk, I think that's a Badass'un.
Esper... why di you gi´ve the monk a low rating for roleplaying because it's all based on asian archetypes, and the at the same time rank the paladin relaly high in roleplay, when that class entire concept is pretty much just holy knight smiting evil
I loved when you said that Monks all usually have the same roleplaying hooks and that that is kinda boring. My most recent Monk has the background of being born and raised within the civilization of the Lizardfolk, but he is a human. I will not go into too much detail because I don't want this to become too long, but basically, he got bullied a lot throughout his childhood, and not just bullied, his female side of the family got more or less used by the Lizardfolk. He never wanted to accept it, but basically they were slaves. He developed such an incredible hate against them but could never defend himself in the slightest, whenever he tried to defend himself, he would just hurt himself punching their scales and of course, get punished in return. At some point he escaped from this situation and decided to travel to one of those Monk monasteries he once heard about because he heard those men are able to punch through stone and steel with only their fists. My character did not become a monk because of enlightenment or anything like that. He became a monk out of pure hatred and drive for revenge. He did not want to learn typical fighting, he wanted to show them that he needs nothing but his bear hands to crush their scales and kill them. While he did his very best to learn everything he can and paid attention to every lesson in his monastery, he did not adopt the philosophy of them. He was there for the practical applications. For learning how to strenghten his body and mind so that noone may ever get the better of him again.
I am personally rather happy with that background because it puts a spin on the typical Monk and makes for an awfully fun to play character. He is incredibly care free and strange to most since he does things like sleep outside on the grass instead of joining his companions in the inn. He values his independence so he prefers to get his own food instead of paying for it, he prefers to sleep in nature instead of having to rely on a protective building. It makes him feel strong and independent. And he is a rather nice guy that has next to no prejudice to the goals of others so he likes to take a ride along for a lot of adventures. But then he suddenly flips completely when he sees Lizards or Dragons. While he is pretty perceptive and wise, he is not the most educated in biology, in his mind, Dragons are just the biggest of the Lizardfolk and so he projects his hatred on them too.
Funnily enough, that character managed to kill a dragon at level 2 because in that dungeon, there was an unstable relic that was able to produce the True Polymorph spell, so we used it once to transform the Dragon into a tiny Lizard and I stepped on that Lizard to kill him. The relic broke after we used it and the Dragon was rather easily defeated, which we were thankful for since we were running low on HP from the previous encounter.
Anyways, this guy is impossible in a party with a Lizard PC and he will basically commit suicide if a dragon is sighted since, let's be honest, he will take that fight, but how in the hell will he beat a dragon? At least right now he is not strong enough to 1 vs 1 any Dragon.
You literally put the whole backstory in
@@akrielparlaq9436
No I actually did not.
I went through the entire concept. But the entire story would include details like a lot of NPCs or whatever. And I felt that was irrelevant to my comment so I left those out.
Only about 4 minutes in, and I agree with your placements. I just wanna say that my favorite character I ever played was a Berserker/Champion multiclass. I felt bad critting as often as I was, and being a half-orc didn't really help. Being a monster was a lot of fun.
Samuel Howarth I played a similar character except it was a half-orc Zealot/Champion. He was a powerhouse, especially with Great Weapon Master
Making a dwarf fighter battle master with a friend. We screwed up my dice rolls as in the numbers are from 5d6’s instead of just three. 22 strength and 22 constitution is a bit overkill isn’t it? Might multiclass barbarian for rage
New subscriber. I'm an old school 2nd edition player but I've been watching love your videos lately and you're really inspiring me to pick up those 5th edition books. Thanks for all your hard work. I barely have time to prepare dming notes, I don't know how in the world you pull off is but I'm really loving it.
Welcome Angel, I'm glad to have an oldschool gamer here. A bard is most pleased to spread the inspiration.
2nd edition? Newbie.
i did catch the end of first edition, I started playing at 14 and I am 44 now, but I have played and continue to DM a 2nd edition campaign for 12 players, to this day. We played last night in fact.
Disclaimer for anyone new to D&D watching this for advice. This man has literally no Idea what he's talking about when refering to melee based characters, Ignore everything he has said about them, especially the fighter. They're nowhere near as bad as he makes out, and a well built fighter will always deal more consistant damage than any caster.
Consistent yes, but when a level 5 sorcerer throws out fireball.... heh.
@@animewarrior3 I agree, and for a sorcerer or wizard, or even a bard or light cleric that's an awesome feeling. Throwing out a fireball and killing a group of enemies in a single turn that otherwise would've taken multiple rounds to kill otherwise is amazing. But once your spell slots are gone they're gone, if you blow all your fireballs on one encounter only to come into another, then you'll be cheering the fighter and other front line PC's on from the side lines and hiding behind them. Each class has their ups and downs, I just really dislike this fool notion of "Wizards(Spell casters) are the best class because magic" It was true in earlier editions to a degree of melee based characters reaching a brick celling when it came to damage output much earlier and thus becoming more useless later into the game, however in fifth edition it really isn't the case.
@@rileyboy10 the issue comes once you hit level 9-11, where full casters get so many spell slots they always have something useful to throw out before they get a long rest. And those higher level spells get more powerful. I admit however, I've not played a lot of 5E though. At least not alot of anything past level 10.
I think the fighter shines if you allow feats (even though feats need to be balanced). I'm pretty sure this class was made purposely without a lot of options to let you instead choose feats to complement your playstyle
To be fair, he isn't talking just about how they fair in a fight, but also what they have in lore and story.
A Sorcerer has built in some crazy bloodline or supernatural event that is the source of their powers- by default. A fighter is just some dood with a pointy stick by default. A good player can make a fighter much more interesting, but without anything to work with, it is just a guy with a sword.
Your choice of background music is incredibly distracting
Since we have very few friends, my brothers and I have a system where they use two characters each. The Champion fighter is perfect for that, and making him a Batista style Drax the destroyer Goliath does a lot for role playing.
Wolverine is a raging dwarf berserker BARBARIAN not a rogue.
Listen to that part again. I listed beloved characters that are scoundrels. The rogue classes embodies the scoundrel or the trickster more than any other.
Harry Potter is a sorcerer.
dat multi-class is always nice
@@esperthebard Yeah, i just came from this point as well. Wolverine is a berzerker. He's an asshole, not a witty trickster.
Esper the Bard scoundrel is the background flavor not the class.
Wolverine is a raging regenerating dwarf barbarian with claws.
I have two monk characters. The first was a evil neutral character who high potential and drive to be better caused him to be the top of his class even past the masters. Because of this he killed everyone and with his master's dying breath and last actions he sealed away my character's potential and now he's out with a party and slowly breaking the curse and getting stronger every passing day.
My other is a musclegut having strongman who self-taught and somehow became a pretty good monk though he doesn't believe the inner peace stuff. A chaotic good he goes around showing that, with enough determination, someone can be great and fight. I made them like this because fuck the traveling monk cliche.
I made a halforc monk JUST to break that trope :)
Before watching, this is some confrontational shit right here
dems fightin' wurds! also right you are. i can just imagine the fireworks in the comment section.
Controversial I think is the words you mean to use, but confrontational works too I suppose
The clear bias in this video is silly. I am disregarding your 'built in rp' crap as that is garbage. RP is about the player and your class can tie into it or not, player choice. In regards to actual power (which you mostly disregard), the ranger is at the bottom of the list with fighter at the top. I agree that the Bard in 5e is amazing, especially Lore Bards. Wizard master class is nothing without a cleric to heal them and a fighter or barbarian meat shielding them. The lack of love for the indispensable fighter is appalling; just because YOU don't know how to RP a fighter does not mean the class is any less viable than any other. Really what it sounds like you are bad at RP, but as that I have never played at the same table, I will never know for sure. But if I did, I would roll a Champ fighter cross classed with Berserker Barbarian!
Gotta call bullshit on the wizard having to rely upon other classes for support. If you need to rely upon other classes then you aren't playing the wizard right. They can 100% hold their own if they need too. It's not about tanking the damage and healing, instead the wizard should be avoiding damage.
I recently took part in a level 20 battle royal with 7 other players. They all brought varied combinations of different classes, Barbarian/rogue, Paladin/champion, cleric/fighter etc and I brought a pure illusion wizard. Not even the most combat focused wizard.
I kicked ass. They all died one by one to me and I took next to no damage.
Just because you don't know how to play a wizard properly doesn't mean they're weak or have to rely upon others.
MrEakieran
How long did the Barbarian/Rogue really expect to live?
@@MrEakieran I have gone in many tournaments, you could have a level 10 wizard, I have a level 5 barbarian, and easily destroy you 1 on 1 based of the sheer ability to take hits deal damage and look unscaved doing it.
@@k1_shark384 I call bullshit.
Why?
Fly.
1 level 3 casting. This puts me permenantly out of your reach for the entire fight leaving you unable to damage me.
Again, people use wizards wrong. I don't give a damn how much damage you can tank compared to me, if you can't lay a finger on me I win.
@@MrEakieran congrats you fly up into the sky I deal enough dmg for you to roll the concentration check, you fail and take 6d10 force, I hit you once and your dead
Best class to play is the one you can figure out within 15 minutes, preferably before you encounter a monster that wants you dead. Of course, when your spells don't work, you can always grab a weapon, preferably one you can use with either Strength or Dexterity (whichever is higher in case you lack proficiency with the weapon,) and just get Medieval on the opposition. Of course, if strong, throwing a javelin from the back is good, just as is using a light crossbow if you're quick, in the chance you can't be in the front.
My personal opinion; Hunter is better than beast master in both roleplay and mechanics
As well I have been playing a cleric for almost 2 years now and, I can say for myself that playing with a damage focused party as the only cleric is hard. Also paladins are usually picked for their overpowered abilities like oath of the ancients resistance to all spells, not for the roleplay.
Just a little rant on classes if you have different experiences please comment so that I and many others can learn from each other.
I think Beast Master is better in terms of Roleplaying since especially if your GM is good with roleplaying animals, like for example Trinket from the Original Critical Role had some of the best funny moments in the entire series.
u right
Thanks for the feedback and for watching Isaac!
welcome
I enjoy my Beastmaster Halfling riding his spider. It's been a blast to roleplay.
I essentially took Fighter BM with a single level in Wizard to make a Witcher character and its super fun. Plus with only a single level in wizard you have to choose wisely and truly plan how youre going to go into combat cause you will only ever have 2 1st level spells. I always have Shield and then I might use ER if I know im going up against a mobile creature or maybe Charm Person if I need to take a more tactful approach. Maybe I need to use Gust to push a creature away from me. I have defeninlty found the mechanics of this mixed class to be super fun and rather flexible, ecspecially when you add the manuevers into it.
Right on, shield stays legitimately good at any level
Don't forget to record any 1st level wizard rituals you find. They really help out when they're needed!
While I agree with all the points you made here, I do find myself a bit miffed at your low placement of the more martial classes. I may be biased as I tend to play more of these than the spellcasting focused classes, my most picked class being the fighter.
I notice a clear favor for anything that can cast spells and use magic, but I personally find that the real fun of Fighters and Barbarians and their ilk to come from working with their limited tools and finding the ways to enhance your party as such and working around what they lack in comparison to spellcasters.
I always find character tier lists to be very misleading, be it for power or flavor. An opinion like this shines a boring and undeserved light on fighters in general, while they are actually just as versatile as wizards if you put the time and effort into it. But again, that's likely my love for the martial classes speaking.
E1Alpha
This a nice sentiment but it’s wrong. Full casters are the strongest and most versatile classes in 5e just like they were in 3.5. It’s not a good thing but it is a true thing.
@@gma5607 N before a level 15 fighter gets an action surge round against a wizard...
@@animewarrior3
Oh man damage I'm so impressed.
You don't have the system mastery to engage in this conversation so save us both a little time and don't, casters are far more flexible and powerful than any martial and just like everyone else who's deluded themselves into thinking this is somehow untrue you've fixated on the Wizard rather than the even more potent Druid, Cleric and Bard.
You're entirely wrong about how this particular altercation would go by the by but PVP really isn't too relevant to a primarily cooperative game. No the true value of the caster is in being able to solve almost any problem with their massive list of cheat codes to the universe, to be able to end fights with singular save-of-lose spells and to annex the role of any of the lesser classes using their flexibility and power.
@@gma5607 oh yeah, the save or suck spells.. that have to get through legendary resistances and high saves.
I've not alot of experience with 5e, that's true. I've much more with 3.5 and pathfinder. The latter of which I still feel is a much better system than 5e ever could be mind.
And it's true, in some cases a eally high level caster can do something a martial character couldn't. Such as teleport the party, or control the weather. Or, at the highest levels, bend reality via wish or miracle.
I never said omegalul casters or worse than martials. But in many scenarios involving combat, (especially so by my few experiences in 5e) their combat options are limited to buffing the martial characters, or creating space on the battlefield.
What I attempted to do, albeit in a poor way, was state that martials can do things a caster can't, such as provide high consistent damage. Which, has been and always will be the most reliable way to remove something trying to kill your party.
A fighter will never go "well guys, I don't have a spell for this scenario, so I'm mostly out of usefulness"
And it's a trade off, as a full caster(especially arcane casters) you wont start feeling really grood until level 5. Even then, you wont be making martial characters look silly on your best of days. You won't truly "surpass" most martial characters until around level 11. In other words, casters are truly only superior for less than 50% of the game.
@@animewarrior3
Ah yes the legendary resistances (which only exist because casters are broken) which you'll only find on about ten things in the Monster Manual and only at very high level where you even admit the casters are even more out of control...
"I've not a lot of experience with 5e"
Thanks I can tell! Please just stop, please spare me going though this conversation for the third time this week. Please don't make me have to spell out the existence of caster supremacy yet again. And most of all please don't make me have to do it with someone who thinks Pathfinder is a good design.
There is nothing martials can do that casters can't, that's the point. A Druid, Cleric or Bard can be easily built as a better fighter than the fighter. I'm really excited to hear your fun little anecdote about the casters who had no idea what they were capable of but it's just not relevant. The fact you even think damage per turn is relevant is just further evidence that you don't know what your talking about so show us both a little mercy and stop typing.
"A fighter will never go "well guys, I don't have a spell for this scenario, so I'm mostly out of usefulness" "
He'll never say he has a spell either! That's the point, he can do damage and nothing else. The class is not flexible or useful in any unique way, at every turn it is outclassed and I really don't get what stake people have in perpetuating the myth that this is somehow untrue.
And how foolish of me to forget the weak low-level abilities of the caster like Invisibility, Fly, Sleep, Protection for Good and Evil, Disguise Self and Knock if you really want to make any rogues feel irrelevant, Fear, Hex, Darkness, Hold Person, Healing Word, Command, Cure Wounds, Spirit Guardians, Hypnotic Pattern. All these WEAK abilities!
That moment when he says you can reflavor any class to make it fit yourself and your style better, but bashes on classes for not having enough style, despite the fact that you can reflavor them to fit your needs.
I'm running my group through Saltmarsh currently. They are a Druid (Moon), Wizard (abjuration), Sorcerer (Storm), and Rogue. Every single major battle the party gets absolutely wrecked. In the very beginning when they were level 1 I had to remove some monsters because they definitely would have died. But having the 'tank' and the 'healer' be basically the same character is not doing them any favors. They have been sometimes saved by the fact that the Rogue and Sorcerer are half-orcs so they can get an extra round instead of going straight unconscious. The wizard is the one who actually tanks things well because of Mage Armor, bracers of defense and Shield.
She uses dragon's breath to do consistent damage every round but she burns through spell slots fast to keep standing.
Of course The moon druid very frequently goes into beast form but it doesn't last very long. Low AC and just taking straight damage pops her out quick. They were only half-way through a dungeon when she ran out of beast shapes and they decided to just explore ahead and stumbled into the next encounter with no beast shapes available. They came so close to dying.
So to me should casters be ranked the best? Hell no. The 3 of this lists top 5 are in the group. I shudder to think what they are going to do against something that has legendary resistances and magic resistance, plus likely some special damage resistance. I love having magic classes in my group as a player or DM but not an entire party of them. It is too easy to TPK the party without even really trying.
Sweet child o' mine is clearly better than paradise city
I don't know they are both such great songs.
My half-orc champion with a 3 levels dip into totem barbarian is offended by your ranking :D
did I *send him into a rage?*
@@esperthebard
Hey, better not poke the bear.
I love how you just disregard the fighter classes because of your bais for magic . That is like saying I like sandwiches but not bread . They are needed especially if you start at lvl 1 . Mages will always die if no tank to stop damage . SMH all classes are needed , sorry you think it's boring
He literally says that all classes have important roles at the beginig of the video
Many thanks for posting Esper, I loved this work & it was well done IMHO. I'm pushing 60 & was so dorky I can remember the very 1st D & D book that came out. An adventure called "The Keep." I think you had 4 char classes. Ftr, MU, Cler, Thief, Then AD&D w/ the 3 tomes Dungeon Master's Guide, Player Handbook, & Monster Manual and we were allowed to be Rangers, Paladins, Bards, Monks, & Illusionists + the original 4. And Multiclass Characters too. It was fascinating how many new classes they have created.
I still prefer the Elven MU, Elven Ranger, Elven Thief, Human Paladin, & 2 Dwarven Clerics for my party of 6. Spells, Healers, Fighters, Ranged weapons & Multi attacks seem to keep the party alive and active. You also have a good blend of Language skills. But I guess these days that party would seem quite lame.
What's your favorite party spread? And, do they have new dice, or is it still d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, & d20 ?? I'd like to see the creation of a 3 sided die. There's a puzzle for you. Keep up the good work & thanks for keeping the adventure spirit alive. These days I love the movies, though I'd love to build a character and play some more AD & D.
"As we all know, knowledge is power."
*Cersei intensifies*
Him: berserker will have you doing the same basic weapon attack over and over
Me: **who in our last session joined our Monk in head butting everything to death**
Me: **Goliath Barb throwing barrels off the back of a carriage like Donkey Kong, knocking everyone prone.**
I am immensely proud of this. This will be a new form of combat for me
I like how roleplaying is on this list, like that isn't largely up to the player; group; DM.
P.S.
I see the Champion as an entry level character concept for players new to D&D, that as well as the Berserker.
Yes, but the problem isn't just that they're simple, they're trash. Berserker can work, but it's abilities are still limited and bland. Champion's only good feature is the 19 for crits, rarkable athlete is just a mess, extra fighting style is ok, superior critical isn't as much of a gain as the first, and survivor comes online way to late.
@@malmasterson3890 berserker abilties are great, you just dont know how to use them
Champions crits are for the class that gets the most hits in. Every attack you gain is now a chance to crit, opportunity attacks too, and increasing the crit range also boosts your critical chance per attack. Its very powerful if you actually did the math for it and compared to others
@@elgatochurro First of all, I said that they can work. Saying that I "Don't know how to use them, " isn't an argument for it actually being a good subclass, and honestly makes no sense; it's not hard at all to understand these abilities. It has it's moments/positives, but if you're doing a dungeon crawl or if you're entering a lot of combats per day it takes a major toll. Not to mention the 10th level ability adds so much madness to it, since as Barbarian you're already splitting your ASI's between the martial abilitity scores, and now you gotta have good charisma to even use IP.
I literally stated that the 19-20 crit IS A GOOD ABILITY. My problem is that the rest of the subclass just isn't worth it. Champion is great as a martial dip for many classes, but going full champion is terrible due to the lackluster abilities that follow.
@@elgatochurro I also love that little bit you added at the end there:"It's very powerful if you actually did the math for it and compared it to others". Not only does that show how much of an *sshole you are, but it also makes no sense. In comparison to what, other subclasses that don't get 19-20 crits? No sh*t 10% is going to be a lot better than 5% chance to crit. Anyone with a basic elementary education can figure that out.
In conclusion, your arguments lack any depth, and try to use this false idea that I must be misinformed to back them. When in reality the information is clear as day for anyone to see, and you're just trying to act like you know better than the majority that says they're bad subclasses.
@@malmasterson3890 heh i didnt even insult you and you act like a rabid dog
"If you do a lot of combats per day it takes a major toll" what? Its a resourceless buff... plys fighters get to heal for almost free as a bonus action every short rest, saving hit dice for later in the day and smollet all fights base abilities are on a short rest cooldown...
How does this "take its toll"?
Plus youre bad at math... i tried hinting at it but you just look at it as a 10% crit chance instead of what it actually is... 10% crit chance every hit on a class that gets up to 4 hits.
The crit chance fir a regular nondual wielder per turn is about:
10% lvl 3
20% lvl 5
30% lvl 11
45% lvl 15
60% lvl 20
All based on the crit chance PLUS amount of attacks a turn. GWM and dwf and opportunity attacks and more all increase your chances as well.
Why is the 5e community so bad at simple math?
I worked in a comic and gaming store in high school and college (during the 90s so it quickly became more gaming as the comic industry collapsed), and we ran a *_ton_* of tabletop games (the 15’x6’ table helped) from the miniature games like Warhammer to the RPGs, mostly *AD&D 2nd Ed.* I had years of great nights that hundreds of stories come from... of course life happened and I spent the last 20 years on tour with a band as the lighting director, spending 300-340 days each year on tour. Now that I’m back in society, videos like these have made me want to find a game again, so thanks for that. One thing I enjoy, before I left a friend (a GM) asked if he could have the characters I’d made... he apparently enjoyed some of them so much they’ve been fixture NPCs in my decades of monastic living.
As long as you have a decent DM you can make any character fun to play with a nice backstory
Honestly, lorewise and roleplay wise i'd say race is more defining than the class. Other than backstory about how you gained your expertise, class is mostly about combat.
I do not know about that. People will treat a wizard differently than a fighter. A fighter should more easy get along with soldiers. Depending on how common magic is. A wizard, or worse a sorcerer may be looked at in a bad light.
Your backstory will probably also define your personality and actions a fair bit. :3
It is also in general going to be shaping what your dude is good and bad at. For example, a fighter. What stats will they most likely take. What is the stats that would be... the standard. That the class itself would recommend? And how useful are these stats outside of just combat. A fighter, strength, dex and constitution will be high on the shopping list. With charisma probably coming soon after. Chance is that this character will not be a super smart or wise person.
Sure you can build the character differently. But then you are probably sacrificing what the class is designed for. Making the character weaker for it. A warlock who wants to manipulate people, be smart or wise. If you do not build the character for close combat, you do not need strength, and even dexterity will not be that important. You still want it. But you will have more room to play around with without hurting the dude.
Naturally race do have a large bit to say on your character. You may be right that the race will take a bigger bite. But I would think that depends a bit on the setting and race. The relations they have within the world. Worth while point indeed. The class is ultimately just 1 piece that makes up a character.
Love it my fav class and sub class is in F tier, i understand why but I always love simple mechanics that i can add personal flare over so prefer this over BM and EK.
Role-playing is based entirely on the creativity of the player. I have a friend who played a monk, see. But his whole thing was that he was brought to a monetary as a baby, raised as a monk til he was like 8, then he got captured by the cult of the dragon queen, and developed a loose, childlike sense of ethics well into his adulthood, needing constant guidance from his friends to not get himself killed or put in prison
One very versatile aspect of the Path of the Totem Barbarian is that you can choose a different spirit at each Path Feature. So Bear at 3rd level (for the resistances), then potentially eagle, wolf, tiger, elk, or bear for any of the other 2 path features. Makes the character build a touch more custom.
I've revamped some classes. I've made the Rogue base class out of the Theif. The Champion is the base Fighter class. The Arcane Archer is the base Ranger, although the Theif has access still as a subclass. I've changed the Sorcerer as well. They have access to all spells they've seen cast, when they are of sufficient level. Seeing it cast is a knowledge trigger of sorts. They don't use material components, they use Mana (hit points). After a long rest, they roll a d20, the result is the amount of mana they have to draw from, if they go above that amount, they start draining hit points The mana cost is 2 times the spell level. At 3rd level, they get Mana drain ability, it only costs 3 Mana to cast but they roll 2d6 to see if it was worth the cost. It's a last ditch effort ability. It either restores actual Mana or hit points, or worst case scenario, they lose 1. I'm still fleshing this out. I am thinking about doing something with a voluntary drain from party members.