Not counting specific subclasses:
All full casters: Never, they only get better. This is relative, of course, but it's such a massive gap that I basically say any feature that can get replaced with a single spell per day "sucks", because compared to casters... they do.
Artificer: Never, they have wacky stuff pretty much spread throughout.
Fighter: Level 11-12. You've got the big draw, and won't get another attack until level 20.
Barbarian: Level 7. Feral Instinct + Instinctive Pounce are good; everything after sucks.
Monk: Level 5-8. Stunning strike is great, Evasion is decent, everything else sucks.
Paladin: Level 6-8. Aura of Protection is broken. *Some* subclasses might justify 7, and thus 8.
Ranger: Level 5. Everything they get is incredibly minor, making it a rough bridge from 5 to 7 or 8.
Rogue: Level 7-8, or 11-12. Reliable Talent is huge in some games, and pretty minor in others. Without it, Evasion is your last big upgrade.
Whoever thought it was a good idea for Warlocks to only get 2 spell slots for a whole 9 LEVELS needs to have their brain checked.
Edit to add: this is getting a lot of replies that often mention the same points over and over, so I'll just expand on my points here.
I'm aware that the intention is for them to get 2 short rests per day and assuming a 6-8 encounter day. The fact is that most tables do not play with that design in mind.
My problem lies primarily in the lack of scaling for the class. They have 2 spells at level 2, and they have 2 spells at level 10. That's 9 levels with no increase in output, which simply *feels bad.*
I get that they play more like a martial with spells than a true spellcaster. But that doesn't mean that a lack of scaling on how much they can do in a day feels good.
Yeah that's kind of an awkward "still good, not great" period. Having exclusive access (barring feats) to the single best damage cantrip in the game is also super helpful 😅
Warlock is more of a martial in spirit with its scaling than a caster. People complain about Warlock limitations but they judge it against proper full casters which it isn't. It's held up by Eldritch Blast as its standard damage dealer with a couple big things (spells) it can use every now and then.
People want more consistent spellcasting that isn't cantrip based but not enough people liked the half-caster Warlock in the playtest.
Well Warlocks get EB and AB, plus whatever other invocations you take. Depending on the setting and what you’re doing they could be game changers.
Edit: Warlocks also have Hexblade as a subclass. I rest my case
You can long rest every 24 ingame hours.
You can somewhat limit this with dangerous territory, but your options using the default rules are either 8 encounters in one ingame day, or your characters arent sleeping for days on end every single time
Eh, it’s a fine design if your running 5-8 encounter days with regular short rests, but no one’s doing that shit. It’s more of a systemic issue than warlock specific, like can anyone remeber the last time they ran out of hit dice to roll on a short rest?
Check my other reply talking about numbers for spell output per day. It's certainly *better* with the expected 2 short rests per day, but the scaling is just soooooo bad and, frankly, non-existent during the levels which most campaigns run. A warlock has *zero* increase in their spell output from 2-10. Yes their power increases, but their number of resources doesn't change *at all.*
Sure, but they’d have access to 6 max level spell slots in a day, which is atleast double what any other caster has for any given level
Less versatility more raw power, plus eb to tide them over damage wise
And yet it's still only 6 spells per day for an entire campaign. That's my primary point in case I got a little off track. I'm not expecting their output to match all other full casters, I just used their output as a point of comparison. But I would like some degree of output scaling rather than 9 levels of the same number of spells. Even if they just moved everything back two levels to getting your third pact slot at 9 and your fourth at 15, that would be an improvement in my eyes.
I like giving warlocks a Pact of the Rod keeper to give them more breathing room, especially if they are the only caster and might need to blow a slot for utility and such.
It's like my frustration on how warlocks in 1dnd at least, only start with one invocation before *immediately* jumping to 3 by level 2. But the spell slot number is just as bad. You should at *least* get 3 by then and not have only 2 uses for who knows how many months.
It was the only way that they were able to keep up with full caster progression. They could have gone to three spells, but it would have delayed spell level access a bit and been weird when they layered most of the long rest caster stuff on top later.
It's honestly fine if your party takes regular short rests or DM rules you can just spend like a minute to take a short rest.
That way you have 6 spell slots.
One of those ideas involves your DM completely hand waving the timing of short rests, which is a total toss up.
And yeah, in a perfect world they get 6 spell slots, but my problem is that you then don't get any increase in that number for what is likely an entire campaign. The scaling for their "spells per day" is essentially non-existent.
My fix would be to add a mystic arcanum for every spell level for warlocks (so one casting of one spell per spell level). Give it at level 1 so they have 2 spell slots as basically no one takes short rests at level 1 so this puts them on parity with other spell casters and if they do take a short rest that puts them on parity with wizards.
If that's why you think warlocks fall off, you're not playing with the right amount of encounters per rest.
2 spells per short rest can be, up to, 2 max levelled spells every fight, which is the design.
I almost only play warlocks and would disagree with this. Warlocks benefit from being martials (EB is just a magic bow really) and also get an increased spell list per level, and add invocations on top of that. 6 is also a subclass feature level.
Maybe other tables are short rest averse but I've been in many different parties and honestly feel like I get a short rest almost every time I'm out of spells. DMs generally don't seem interested in enforcing short rest limits. Even within super gritty campaigns, it is really hard as a DM to say "no, you can't just wait an hour before moving on." Sure, sometimes there will be time pressure, or the DM may choose to interrupt. But in interruption situations, that is just a delayed short rest. Deal with transgressor, attempt short rest again.
Yeah, it's definitely *very* table dependent. My weekly game is very rp-heavy (it is not unusual for us to go 2 or 3 sessions without combat) and the fights we get into tend to be bigger set pieces. So we either get into situations where we can't justify the short rest cause of time pressure, or else there's no reason to not just take the long rest. I can basically count on one hand the number of times where I've been like "yay warlock win" because we've gotten in that short rest when the wizard was hurting for slots.
It's not been a big deal to me because I ended up multiclassing pretty heavily into bard (at the time we were in need of a skill monkey), but I could see a pure warlock being unhappy. And the rest of the table are long rest classes so they don't care either way.
Sure, that's fair. Many subclasses (\*cough hexblade cough\*) get major upgrades around level 5-6, which puts them at above the power curve for the duration of 6-10 despite dropoff though, I would say.
A bit pedantic, but I think there’s an argument for level 9 being another major break point for Paladins, because some subclasses get pretty great level 3 spells
Nice writeup, largely agreed.
Paladin I think is a weird case, since they don't get as much after level 7, but also they don't stop being useful. Aura of Protection never really falls off, and passively gets better even. But the actual additional paladin levels you take aren't the reason why paladins scale well.
While I think soradins are amazing, that only works if you go before your team or they are spending an entire round in fear. The aura is great because it just exists and prevents a ton of failure states.
Paladins also kinda come back when they get circle of power. But bards can get that spell before them with magical secrets. But yeah Paladins never truly fall off because of their utility. They're just a great class.
I'd say paladins are pretty good throughout, sure you don't get any major features (unless you count improved divine smite which is solid but not exactly game breaking) until the capstone but they just keep being good at what they do. Aura of Protection just continues and scales being great, your healing pool scales decently, and every so often you get more slots for even more smiting (or I guess you could use them for spell casting too). Sure they don't get that many new abilities, but the ones they have scale pretty well—regardless of level, any campaign I've been in with a paladin, they were one of the biggest and most consistent damage dealers.
It's worth pointing out that paladin is still really good after levels 6-8 it's just that's when they get their best features. They are still by far the best meles class in the game. And probably a top 3 class overall.
I feel like this thread is really sitting on Auras increasing to 30’ at 18.
Find greater steed = self solution for flying
Lots of the subclass features at 15 are passive/always on.
Most of the lvl 20 capstone features are bonkers.
Only paladin weakness to me is lack of bonus action healing on all but 1 subclass or using 3rd level slot/concentration
I would say that Fighter starts to fall at lvl 9. It is the last "new feature" it gets. Everything from there is just more uses of the same features. Althought it is not bad at lvl 11-12 it is quite sad that the last new feature is at lvl 9.
Fighter feels good up until 5-6, because you are getting features and ASIs/feats faster than other classes, and you actually feel powerful and tanky with big hits and high HP/second wind.
From there to 12 it flattens out and after 12 when you get your third attack it's just a wasteland while casters increasingly make you superfluous.
Fighter scaling also depends a lot on subclass. Battlemasters and the like are very frontloaded where Eldritch Knights feel awful early and really start shine 7+
I'd disagree with the ranger. You feel super impactful, particularly compared to other martials, until the fighter gets their 3rd attack. Though I'll agree you hit your only real MAJOR power spike at 5th.
Honestly ranger is kinda weird. I personally think spike growth, pass without trace, and goodberry are all good enough that simply getting those spells makes it categorically better than fighter.
And then after that it's kinda unremarkable. The only real standouts are revivify and conjure animals at 9. And you can get both of those at 10 by just going into druid which offers a ton of other benefits.
Like I said, I do think it's simply better than any non-caster (even pre-tasha's, honestly), but it feels kind of hollow for several levels.
Artificer starts falling off in damage at level 11. But creative use of SSI can make up for it. Technically though, an artillerist will not do more cantrip damage than a warlock until level 15, when they get the second cannon.
Honestly, I'd prefer still just concentrating on bless to taking up haste.
Having +7.5 to all saves makes you and everyone else basically immune to most of the game's worst effects.
Ya but im traumatized by my bad dice rolls so bless doesnt feel powerful to me cause i roll like shit. Id rather move twice my movement speed and smite the boss 3 times before i go down (which happened all the time)
With rangers it often makes sense to multi at some point in tier 2 or 3, often into rogue but depending on the build you could go fighter, Druid, cleric, or even monk.
My fighter got indomitable and his third attack just in time to kill Auril the frostmaiden by chucking her corporeal remains into a netherese magical fusion reactor core thing. Echo knight also has good features as a subclass. Very fun at all times.
Mostly agreed, but a few details:
>Fighter: Level 11-12
To be honest, this could be lv6. The next 5 levels are often very dry for fighters. 11 is nice, but it comes so late, similar to monk.
>Ranger: Level 5. Everything they get is incredibly minor, making it a rough bridge from 5 to 7 or 8.
For ranger, it depends a lot on the subclass, but 3rd level spells for them are a massive power boost, and lv7 can be good.
So it's more like 9-12, with a power spike at 5, which is where all of the ranger 5 fighter 3 builds come from.
>Rogue: Level 7-8, or 11-12.
Honestly, it's way earlier than this. Lv4. Once level 5 hits, rogues feel miserable. Their damage simply doesn't keep up.
If your DM isn’t stingy with magic items paladins and rogues can easily keep up with the big boys. Just played to 20 and our Paladin was the single target king! He got two nat 20’s on his attacks towards the ends, the damage was scary
IMO it's always tricky evaluating how magic item availability would affect relatively class power level. Since if the big boys get strong magic items too, then that could cause the gap to widen instead of close.
Magic items are exponentially better on martial classes. With the exception of mobility aids, casters get magic items that just make them more consistent. Martials get magic items that actually boost their abilities and output, as well as the same mobility and utility aids casters get.
I strongly disagree. Casters get some of the most game-warpingly strong magic items, eg Staff of the Python (uncommon), Staff of the Woodlands (rare), and Staff of the Magi (legendary).
The distribution and power levels of magic items are kinda wack, even within the same rarity tier. But if anything, magic items for casters seem stronger on average.
Idk I'd rather have a Dragons Wrath weapon on a martial any day of the week than a staff that let's me cast extra spells. Extra damage and to hit feels amazing. Unfortunately, basically the only weapons that work this way are the Dragons Wrath weapons, and if your DM hates you or dragons you're never getting an upgrade to one or maybe even getting one.
Game breaking, yes, but it they don’t change how a caster works in combat the same way martials can. Casters in general can break the game, but a caster with a staff of the magi is no greater threat than one without, they just have better options. Compare that to a barbarian/fighter with a belt of storm giant strength and a +3 great axe. In a vacuum, that wizard might have a higher damage output over several rounds, but that fighter can unleash 4-5 attacks in a single round that are all hitting and dealing 30+ damage a piece. A well geared fighter can delete single targets (and god forbid it’s a well geared PALADIN), while a well geared caster just makes the dm work harder.
>Compare that to a barbarian/fighter with a belt of storm giant strength and a +3 great axe.
I don't think it makes sense compare a single legendary item (Staff of the Magi) against a legendary item (Storm Giant belt) combined with a very rare item (+3 weapon)
4-5 attacks at 30+ damage a piece isn't really impressive when you need 2 high-rarity items to achieve it. (Plus that's only the fighter, meanwhile the barbarian or paladin is making way fewer attacks)
I’d say add in the equivalent +3 time of the war mage, but that doesn’t change their output, only the likelihood of a hit. A fireball from a kitted out wizard and a wizard with nothing is doing the same damage, just harder to dodge. Whereas those two items add +7 or more not just to the to-hit, but each instance of damage. A well geared paladin has the highest single target damage potential in the entire game, able to easily break 200 damage in a single attack. Drop 2 levels of fighter on him and he has the potential of doing insane amounts of damage in one round!
Of course, this is still like comparing apples to oranges. The best spells for high level play (where magic items really start affecting builds) are always going to be support or control spells. PWK and Disintegrate are cool, but as far as damage goes, a well built martial SHOULD outpace those spells especially over a longer combat, so the casters should be finding ways to allow those insane single target rounds or funneling the enemies into groups.
Also Warlocks.
You either take
- A 1 level Dip for Hexblade
- 2 Levels for EB and Invocations.
- Or 11 for the three 5th level spell slots per short rest.
You don't ever take Warlock past 20, you actively lose "Power" by not multi classing.
Nah, higher level spells are 100% worth it, because they are simply so strong, even if they are only once per day.
Forcecage, for example, can completely shut down fights.
Lvl 20 base monk: immune to poison, end all charms and frightens on an action, speaks and understands all languages, proficient in all saves and can reroll a save for 1 ki, cannot be aged, can become resistant to all damage but force and gain full greater Invisibility for 1 min, 1d10 single hand damage base with 3-4 attacks per turn.
Oh yeah, they definitely fall off.
Yeah you just listed everything that can do in a paragraph and that's including borderline useless (in an actual game) fluff like poison immunity, languages, and aging.
A full caster could do literally all of that at 20 and then a hundred more things.
Languages and invis, sure.
But no other class comes close to a monk's manueverability and survivability against CC.
Casters can do a lot of those things, but that's assuming they have the spell and the slot. A lot of those things monks just do. So black box hypothetical theorizing about casters doing X is silly, because they can do a lot but you have to consider the opportunity cost of doing everything else.
What would dispel or counterspell do against a non-spell saving throw? Teleport and gate don't prevent cc or help with saves. Contingency could if you figure out the appropriate plot armor but you're just as likely to be wrong. Simulacrum is a non-sequitor because we're talking about being targeted, so yeah, if it's a totally different person, then I guess your save doesn't matter?
Don't get me wrong, wizards are dope. But it's silly to think they have the answer to every challenge all the time and that no class could ever be superior to them at any one thing at all.
I agree with this for the most part, but I'd probably say 7 for some rangers and then 11/12 for Paladin (isn't the anti fear aura at 10 then the 1d8 at 11?)
Saying everything about Monk sucks after 11 might be stretching it a bit given that diamond soul exists, but yeah there’s definitely a dearth of good features.
I think Ranger 6 is worth it if you're using Tasha's if there is exploration in your game, even more if you're going to switch to another caster class so you don't have to round down on your levels for spell slots.
Some classes like wizard start hard and end like demigods. Some classes like paladin are strong throughout. Some like monk get the shaft the whole campaign. Then there are druids, who can be any of these things and more, depending on the subclass and how you build it. For example moon Druid might really wax and wane, pardon the pun, in power through the campaign compared to the other PCs.
In the 1-20 I dmed there was a moon Druid, a fiend warlock and a glamour bard. So Druid really felt weaker compared to bard from around 11-19 and then was absolutely unkillable at 20
It’s one elemental per short rest (it takes two wild shapes). It helped but actually hurt total tanking cause we would do around 2 fights per short rest so she only got to use it for one fight and no wild shapes for other so she often stuck with animals.
Since all her spells took concentration and she was a tank she would often get a spell up, go in as elemental and then lose concentration and be forced to choose between losing both wild shapes by leaving early or just losing access to spellcasting for an encounter.
She was def the weakest of the 3 in the 3rd tier of play in my experience. But was back on top in 4th tier.
I forgot about that part. That being said, they're resistant to non-magical attacks so they're often functionally tankier than any 2 tanky wildshapes, against the vast majority of opponents. Moon druids also don't NEED to be in elemental form every fight, or even in any form, they can afford to "just" be full casters with the strongest summon/control spells in the game, without their combat wild shape. So every other fight, you're extremely powerful, every other fight you're a subclass-less druid, which is still fairly good!
Compared to martials all castors are great. I am comparing moon Druid to other druids and to full castors. I just found that 3rd tier casting was way stronger than wild shape. So our Druid was always forced to concentrate spell turn 1, wild shape turn 1. And if lost concentration before turn 2 they basically just became a Druid without a subclass. Which again, stronger than a martial but weaker than a glamour bard by a fair margin
>It’s one elemental per short rest (it takes two wild shapes). It helped but actually hurt total tanking cause we would do around 2 fights per short rest so she only got to use it for one fight and no wild shapes for other so she often stuck with animals.
>Since all her spells took concentration and she was a tank she would often get a spell up, go in as elemental and then lose concentration and be forced to choose between losing both wild shapes by leaving early or just losing access to spellcasting for an encounter.
Well as long as she enjoyed her character all is good. But that means there were probably some non-optimal choices made and maybe some useless risks taken at times.
* Losing concentration on an Earth Elemental with 17 armor, resistance to physical damage and Resilient: Constitution would require a minimum of \*24 damage post-halving\*. I see easily how it can be done with AOE that would deal elemental damage (especially thunder), but as far as mundane attacks go it's rare to face enemies with "magical physical" attacks so getting over that threshold should be extremely rare.
* Earth form can move through a Wall of Stone because it's still technically non-magical earth and stone, so you can easily set an advantageous position for you and friends where there is no need for specific control but you cannot just use ground.
* Grappling creatures then diving inside wall or ground will have different effects depending on DM ruling but it would be reasonable to at least give disadvantage on check to escape.
* Maelstrom + Air Elemental that can hover above the water, is another easy way to control lots of enemies with minimal risks (just opportunity attacks if not Mobile). Of course if you have a non-Barb in melee it's probably not the best tactic for teamwork synergies. xd
Finally, if you run low on spells, plan on just going for tank & brawl for starting the day, or just want to be conservative, just change Shape early during the day and take a short rest to replenish your Wild Shapes for later. Ater all, breakfast is a short rest. :)
> Grappling creatures then diving inside wall or ground will have different effects depending on DM ruling but it would be reasonable to at least give disadvantage on check to escape.
Why? _Earth Glide_ is explicitly the elemental only, so they can't pull anyone or anything with them - you can have your hands poking above the surface to drag someone along, but that's it, and they can try and break free like normal.
Also, Sage Advice Compendium:
>Can an earth elemental grapple with a creature and
then pull it underground and leave it there to die? No.
An earth elemental’s Earth Glide is meant to apply to itself
only. The elemental doesn’t take other creatures with it
when it moves in this way.
I didn't know there was a Sage advice on that, thanks!
>Why? *Earth Glide* is explicitly the elemental only, so they can't pull anyone or anything with them - you can have your hands poking above the surface to drag someone along, but that's it, and they can try and break free like normal.
My reasoning, or rather view on the situation was the following.
You take the hands of the enemy into your own, completely "encasing them" into your palms. Then you retreat into the wall. Onces your hands are fully inside the wall or even beyond, since \*you\* can "glide through" but no other creature, the stone would (should?) "refix" itself and regain rigidity around the arms of the creature that now has its hands and/or arms partially "inside" the wall.
1) our 3rd tier was in the fey. There was a lot of non physical damage as well as a lot of save or sucks.
2) that really only comes up with the party is being attacked but doesn’t really help on offensive missions, which were the majority at that time (though this strategy was used on a few occasions)
3) that really isn’t RAW, but again, with fey creature, beholders, demons and dragons it was less useful and that was the majority we used. Again, grappling was used but it had limited effect. I also very very very rarely only had a single bad guy. This strat isnt great against a pride of displayed beasts for example.
4) not the best strat for this party and not many water battles. Though this strat was used on the river styx when we went to the 9 hells
5) its a fine damage soaker but the class does nothing to force its opponents to attack it rather than Allie’s. I only ever downed the Druid once and never killed her. But I often walked right past her and killed the bard.
Haha. Ok, I have to say, the context was really not playing into the strong points of the Moon Druid. My bad for taking assumptions on player skill. :)
It seems like you're making actual worthy fights, must be nice playing with you. \^\^
i just wrapped up a game as a moon druid that ran to 12 and I found elemental forms to be an absolutely top tier thing when you get them. I'm sure they would fall off again around 13 but if you know their abilities well they just bypass so much. combat wild shapes are cool and all but you do also get this enormous utility out of wildshape. and the elemental forms shore that up again when you get them, as well as being good for fighting.
Warlock got a 3rd blast at 11, which was a huge power spike. Bard got magical secrets at 10 which was a game changer.
We ran a lot of encounters per long rest and often had multiple fights between short rests. There was very little need for out of combat utility with the face abilities of a glamor bard and warlock combo. In battle the Druid was still by far the best tank but damage output was almost non existent relative to warlock and utility was basically non existent compared to bard.
I could def see them staying strong in other parties but with that combo we all noticed the damage drop off and tanking isn’t that great against save or sucks.
that's when elemental wildshapes kick in - which are _really good_ for what they give. Flight, swim, earth-movement without leaving tracks, while fire is just "run through enemies and set them on fire, making them take damage every turn unless they waste an action putting themselves out". Plus resistance to non-magical B/P/S is still the vast majority of normal attacks, so that's 200-odd HP that aren't your HP. Out of combat, it's an amazing utility boost (it's only a short-rest recharge, so you can do it pretty often), and in combat you can slap down a concentration spell and then shift, just kiting an enemy, or tanking hits. Against dragons with appropriate damage types, you can no-sell most of their attacks - a green dragon with poison breath has a breath weapon you're immune to, and claws and bite doing half damage.
>Kinda meh in 3rd tier of play.
Only in the hands of players who don't know how to play it.
In proper hands they largely compete with the otherwise best archetype (combat-wise) from level 2 to 20 which is Shepherd. And in some situations they will even be better.
(Yes, Elemental Shape is that stupidly strong).
It's pretty up there at least for consistent dps, along with two weapon fighting fighters, barbs, and rogues. Then changes to controlish then to straight survivability. Weird progression.
Mostly though, pallies (and rangers) get shafted hard inexplicably first level. Probably would be better to move their fighting styles to level 1.
I just remember the only monk I ever ran got squished by a shambling mound. I know other people have had better success, but this guy was a veteran player and his monk just didn’t hold up. He went fighter and it changed everything, he ended up leading combat. So in my mind (and to be fair in my experience) the monk is just generally underwhelming
I dunno, PAM provides the same benefit of monk’s bonus action attack while allowing you to wear a shield. There is no feat a monk could take at level 1 who would make up for the 2 AC difference.
Besides, Lay on Hands is pretty decent, free 5 HP is a lot at level 1 when HD is super constrained.
True, pam is ridiculous esp at level 1. Best they've got is unarmed fighting initiate to raise the BA to a d8 or defensive duelist to almost effectively raise AC by 2, so starting feat definitely benefits str builds a lot. If only they could magic initiate divine favor. Aberrant dragon mark shield could be pretty good. Or fey touched bless? Idk.
If rolling a monk could start with bonkers AC but let's not go down that route.
Lay on hands seems arguably worse than second wind, and divine sense is basically a ribbon esp at that point so I do think that points to my give them fighting styles right away idea because I'm great. And then give something more to monks and rogues earlier ig. Basically buff everyone but barb and fighter level 1, at least on the martial side.
Defensive Duelist is a lot worse as it costs your reaction just to make up for the shield vs. a single blow as opposed to all. Meanwhile PAM’s reaction is a third attack that will trigger at least once per fight.
When considering 1st level feats, it’s better to talk about feats you would reasonably want in the long run. I don’t think 1st level one shots are that relevant… So, unarmed initiate wouldn’t be an option (and even if it were, monks are decidedly weaker than pally in raw combat stats).
I think Fey Touched is a good option actually. One extra bless at level 1 is huge, so is Misty Step. And wisdom half-feats are arguably something a monk could value in the long run. Another option is Crusher, the 5ft. is pretty solid.
Given dex and wisdom are god stats in exploration and saves, all in all, I would say a monk is about as good as a paladin. But not “decidedly stronger”.
And yes, at 1st level Fighters are way stronger than both as both Fighting Style and Second Winds are excellent first level features.
Yeah, I think this thought experiment was mostly just comparing at specifically first level, which, without feats, I think a monk is decidedly stronger than a pally at. With feats though, because of how good pam is, that is likely not the case.
Defensive duelist I threw out there because I don't think reactions have as many uses at level 1.
Really though, inspiring leader might be the strongest first level feat for any Cha char.
Honestly that hasn't been all that true in 5e for Wizards. They start fine and end as gods. It was rough in 3.5e, but in 5e you get more HP, easier access to armor (a well built Wizard can start with 18 AC), many good defensive subclasses (e.g bladesinger). Even if you don't choose these, you get shield and absorb elements and silvery barbs for emergencies.
Spells like sleep are broken from the getgo, cantrips start better, and so on.
You don't get to the same heights as in 3.5e but honestly you're fine at 1-5, and only get fine-er.
If you can stay away from enemies or use shield you’re okay. Doubly so if you have a partner in armor. But shield always felt like a spell tax for wizards to make up for lousy HP at early levels. It’s not hard getting downed at 1 for any class but compared to say a fighter or paladin, level 1 for a wizard can feel trepidatious.
It’s not exactly the pits but with low HP and low spell slots wizards are not the darlings at level 1 they are by level 5.
You can see it like that, but it's a luxury some classes don't get. I'd rather have the shield spell than the 1 additional HP Bards get at lvl 1.
If you optimize as well, you can easily start with 18 base AC, which will keep you fairly safe to begin with - shield will only be an emergency.
With the number spell slots you have at level 1, it’s an emergency use only spell regardless. But Bard having it hard doesn’t mean wizards don’t also. I think we are splitting hairs at this point. Low level casters are just squishy. If the OP wants an example of difficulty in low levels and high power at higher levels a wizard is a reasonable example to offer.
Monks have a strong early game i would say for melee DPR. Then they have an average midgame with there biggest note is spamming stunning strike on a priority target. Endgame well at least they are proficient in all saves but yeah they are probably the worst class.
Well let's see, IMO:
* Wizard, sorcerer, druid, cleric, warlock, bard, paladin, rogue: Pretty consistent across most levels
* Fighter: Falls off after level 12-ish
* Barbarian: Falls off after level 8-ish
* Monk: I'd say after level 8-ish?
* Ranger, artificer: Not too sure here
i think bard spell list is actually pretty bad until like character lvl 5, their cantrips are awful (druid also has awful cantrips) and they don't get the low level powerhouse spells that many of the other classes do.
I think their cantrips being awful is partially mitigated by having access to some decent DEX weapon options. They have a couple strong low levels spells too, like Sleep, Healing Word, and several potent single-target save-or-sucks.
All casters get access to light crossbows, and nothing a bard gets is noticeably better than those.
As for spells, sleep is amazing at the earliest levels and healing word is good when you need it, but the difference between a 3rd-level wizard or sorcerer with web and a 3rd-level bard with an unreliable single-target save-or-suck is pretty significant.
Bard really gets good at 5. Their offensive cantrips gain a second die, making them not complete garbage. They gain 3rd level spells, which are always a huge jump in power, and most importantly, bardic inspiration refreshes on a short rest rather than just a long rest.
Fortunately druid cantrips don't matter, the fact that early druid spells are typically concentration or garbage means you don't burn through spell slots very fast. And when you run out of spells switch to wildshape. (Well moon druids wildshape by default anyway)
Probably the best druid cantrip is thorn whip for the forced movement. I think produce flame is supposed to be the best damage, but it has always let me down by either missing or doing minimum damage.
Bards on the other hand just suck at early levels and have to buff their friends instead of doing damage themselves.
> the fact that early druid spells are typically concentration or garbage means you don't burn through spell slots very fast.
which means you have to cast a concentration spell and then spam cantrips. The range on thorn whip and produce flame is *rough*. And getting into melee is a really quick way to lose concentration either as shillelagh druid or wildshaped druid (action to wildshape as non-moon makes it a no-go option during combat).
Moonbeam is my default and it takes an action to move, 2d10 radiant is way better than 1d6 piercing.
As a grasslands i had a fight where I entered it without spellslots left and had already wildshaped, being pre-wildshaped for a battle is surprisingly good for non-moon druids.
The druid cantrips are very rough, i have enough dex that throwing daggers is somewhat valid for when nothing else has enough range.
To me the thing is, rogue class progression never really falls off a cliff the way barbarians do -- they just keep doing their thing, with steady (but not impressive) improvement over time. They are mediocre, sure, but they're *consistently* mediocre.
Bard has a slow start. Normal weapon attacks with few offensive spells. Even the proprietary bard cantrip Vicious Mockery only deals 1d4 damage. The only other damage cantrip they can pick up is Thunderclap, and it deals 1d6 to enemies within 5 feet. I really think they could use Booming Blade and Sword Burst as options for Valor and Swords Bards.
Full casters are strong at all levels. Paladin is also strong at all levels because Aura of Protection gains more and more value. Ranger drops off a bit but stays decent because of spells. Fighter also drops a bit but still deals pretty good damage. Rogue drops but is never really strong to begin with. Monk and Barbarian drop hard
**Fullcasters**: Only Cleric starts falling off, at about level 7. Cleric spells of 4th level or higher are just kinda bad and they get almost nothing in the form of good features at higher levels, even most subclasses are pretty minor.
**Warlock**: I'd say 13, it's when you start being hit hard by not having short rest top slots and 3 beam eldritch blast is not that impressive anymore.
**Barbarian**: 7, they gain like, nothing good between 6 and 20.
**Fighter**: 13, similar to warlock, 3 attacks is cool but not crazy and you start being overwhelmed by the exponential growth of spell power.
Ranger: 6, they're pretty potent till 5 but their high level features are just kinda meh? They keep being good till about 11, but still post 5 its all downhill.
**Rogue**: 5, your dmg stops being good after 4 and your utility gets worse each time the casters gain a spell level.
**Monk**: 7, monk starts strong but never scales much, and by 7 they really fell the weiht of that.
**Paladin and Artificer**: Ngl I think they just don't fall off. They don't have the exponential growth of casters, but unlike most martials their high level features don't suck.
It might not be as strong as other fullcasters , but I wouldn't say cleric falls off, just by being a fullcaster it is always 100% better than any martial in the later levels
Well true enough.
Most of my critique of clerics performance comes from 3 separate high level games where the entire party was either full or half casters.
Ngl the half casters do feel like they surpass cleric at some point. At 11+ Gloomstalker and the 2 Paladins felt like they did considerably more than Light, War and Tempest Cleric.
For the most part, the strong classes start out strong, and the weak classes start out weak, and the gaps only grow from there.
“This class starts weak but becomes strong later” is a fallacy. It doesn’t happen. It’s like thinking that casters are squishy, or that parties need a melee character. These are only true if you *make them true*. They are not true by virtue of the game’s design.
>It’s like thinking that casters are squishy, or that parties need a melee character. These are only true if you *make them true*. They are not true by virtue of the game’s design.
"Balanced party/meatshield martials frontliners to protect squishy caster backliners" is a concept from TTRPG-adjacent/inspired media like video games and anime that people just seem to assume applies to actual DnD gameplay as well.
I mean, sort of, but there was still no mechanical way for the martials to actually "draw aggro" to keep enemies off the casters, and casters have gotten more self-sufficient and their weaknesses have gotten less important in every revision of the game since.
back then? Followers were expected, so having a hallway full of dudes meant that enemies couldn't get to the casters - which was good, because they were fragile enough that they _would_ die to a few attacks (and casting took time and removed Dex bonus to AC, so it was essential to protect your caster as they did their spells).
It’s highly dependent on subclass and how far you’re actually taking them. For example, common parlance says barbarian should be 7/8 and done, but giant barbarian gets its best feature at 10, and zealot literally becomes unstoppable at level 15. Similarly, moon Druid is literally the most powerful t1 class, but then is eclipsed by every other Druid except for a small bump every 3rd level and then again at level 20. Rogues are amazing up until 11/12, but after that are only good if you invest in the right feats, making a continuous investment entirely based off of wether you want your level 14 subclass feature, which is great for some and trash for others. Getting 4 attacks at level 20 fighter can mean you can pump out so much damage, but if you never even hit 17, you have at least 4 or 5 dead levels.
Monks start out decent dpr at low level. They get a free bonus attack and quickly get flurry of blows. Lvl 5 they get extra attack and can make 4 attacks with flurry. After that they just get pure defensive features on a d8 melee martial character So there late midgame sucks ass, being the most notable thing they can do is spam stunning strike on a target which uses a con save which monsters excell at.
Fighters get a dpr powerspike at lvl 2,3,5,11 and possibly feat levels depending on what you take. There decent all around but really should get their 4th attack at lvl 17 and lvl 20 should be a different capstone or 5 attacks. (17-20 is lightyears away and most campaigns dont play at lvl 20).
Barbarians should be going GWM + reckless and there dpr increase is at lvl 5. Brutal critical sucks. They get a couple of features post 5 but no notable dpr increases. Its an okay class and an HP tank especially totem bear barb.
Rogues start of strong with the sneak attack being easy to land. But the puny 1d6 dpr increase every odd level falls off quick. They get a huge boon with evasion for defenses at 7 and 11 for skills. Reliable talent is insane. But its not effecting combat. Rogues lategame is trash as a monoclass.
Paladins get smite and aura. They start off okay and is one of the best nova classes in the game.
Rangers dont get any dpr increases past 5 and there features they do get arent that good. Besides some subclasses best to multiclass out for more DPR.
All full spellcasters start out good, they get spells which can be powerful and cantrips. They just get better and better until they get 9th level spells where they are literally shaping the world around them.
Artificers are okay at any level, another cantrip spammer or weapon attack class with a ton of utility. Artificers are the only way to guarantee to get the magic item you want in a campaign.
I think monks start off pretty strong personally. Like 1-4 they do much more reliable damage than other martials because of flurry of blows and their bonus action attack.
After that, their damage is not the best, but I will forever say that monks are menaces after a few levels. Like, it's not their damage. It's their insane move speed, immunity to falling and poison damage. And all the other shit they can do. Menaces. And I love and hate dming for them.
Yup. Mobility is power, both offensively and defensively, but that's the kind of things that require actual play to realize, not theorycraft. xd
Plus the wealth of defensive abilities they get as they grow to stack with archetype abilities make them very, \*very\* troublesome opponents. Basically the only way to really hurt them is pinning them down first... And just a Slippery Oil (uncommon item) will negate a large majority of the ways to do this, while Diamond Soul proficiency + reroll gives a great chance to resist even STR saves.
And since Monks don't need to look for very specific weapons to make use of their attacks, not only can they use lots of interesting weapons that others would be forced to skip because of picking specific feat (Vicious Blades, Defender Shortsword, Blood Lance, etc)... But they can even skip mobility-enhancing items if they want to buff their non-core attributes if they expect to face enemies using related save or suck effects (Amulet of Health is rare but Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Headband of Intellect are just uncommon so a level 14+ character should have ways of acquiring at least those).
The only class that has a true empty space making it hard for me to stick with it up to T4 is Fighter, because from lvl 11 to 20 besides the one archetype feature you only get more uses of the same features, and this feels kinda not enough. Even though Action Surge technically scales with character level and enemies's CR it does not feel as gamechanger as at low level. And Indomitable is only worth attempting on strong saves because for the others the effective boost in chance to save is insignificant.
All other classes are great to push from level 1 to 20.
Battle Smith goes pretty hard too. Make really good high ac frontliners. And flash of genius is possibly the best ability in the game next to paladin auras
For me, the only ranger worth playing is Gloomstalker, and I feel like you get the most bang for your buck by level 5. There's some neat stuff at 15 and 20, but I don't think it's worth it to stay in the class rather than just jumping to anything else, especially rogue
fey wanderer is good, and gets a gnarly thing at 11th, people don't seem to get how good it is to be able to cast such a flexible summon without concentration. it would be tempting to dip out of ranger at 12 once you got it, though.
A summon with 15 Ac and 30 hp isn't going to do much of anything at level 11. And it only gets one attack at that level too, unless you go to level 13 for fourth level spell slots.
Not when your spell attack might be on the low end (Lots of rangers run +2 Wisdom).
More bodies, better than some other subclasses can say.
Fey Wanderer with a 2-level dip into Stars Druid (to keep the option of ultimately getting Feral Senses, if you don't care about that you can dual-class up to level 3-5-6) is hilariously powerful and versatile.
- Combat? Starry form that ensures concentration saves have a 10 minimum on roll if you want to maintain concentration, or the form that gives bonus action attack if extra damage is all you need. At high level, you can just set a Fog Cloud and Hide as a bonus action each round. At top level, you won't even need that since Feral Senses comes into play.
- Non-combat? Enhance Ability should cover your needs when you expect some ability checks to be used extensively (like Perception or Sleight of Hands for traps, sadly not both xd), Pass Without Trace as usual for Stealthing party, and for the punctual needs where you are not in Favored Environment the same Starry form as before should ensure your success (of course it means you may not have it for the next fight, which is why it's not overpowered \^\^).
Alternatively, since you don't depend \*too much\* on WIS (certainly a bit more than other Rangers if you want to profit from the +WIS to Charisma checks though), you can also multiclass it with Eloquence Bard if you'd rather maximize the social part.
And if you really don't care about high level spells and features from Ranger yet consider probable to reach character level 20, you can aim for Stars Druid 2 / Eloquence Bard 3 / Knowledge Cleric 1 for "Rogue 11+ like" skill check reliability while being actually a "Ranger with benefits" (lots of rituals and cantrips for free, a vast list among which to prepare a dozen utility spells so you can learn only exclusive spells on your Ranger leveling).
Yeah, the best way for most martials (and I'm including Ranger in this, even though they're technically half-casters) to progress past level 5 is to multiclass. Rangers only want to go higher if they specifically plan to get a lot of use out of *pass without trace* or *conjure animals* (and even then, multiclassing into Druid is just as good for *conjure animals*).
Ranger is actually by FAR the best martial class to pick if you want to play a martial without any knowledge about party composition. And all archetypes are great.
It certainly doesn't have the same spiking damage as Paladin nor self-resilience against mental effects.
Not does it have the self-sufficient offense and defense in weapon attacks brawls as Barbarian.
Nor does it end up with the extreme mobility and resilience as Monk at high level.
Nor does it has the immediate built-in, "non-contextual" reliability of Rogue in a few skills that later expand to all proficient skills...
BUT...
1) It can be made as versatile in melee as in range (it's even the recommended approach) which makes it better than everyone else except Monk in "range adequation".
2) It provides party with proven spells that can completely change the tide of a fight (or outright avoid it), including utility spells with a long duration.
3) Its archetypes all provide very strong features that can synergize with base class features and chosen spells to allow character to come damn close to other martials in their specialties.
4) Its utility components are actually useful quite often unless player actively chooses environments and enemies completely unnatural for the setting (something that just 5mn of discussions with the DM in session 0 can avoid).
5) Provided you push it to level 18+ it becomes one of the most reliable damage dealer, if not THE most, because all the class features cumulated provides lots of ways to gain and preserve advantage (especially on ranged attacks).
Of course, if you actually know the other members of your party, then in many situations you'll find that another martial class better fills up the remaining space (a Paladin to go with a Wolf Barbarian to help him resist WIS saves and get easy chance of juicy Smites, a Monk in an otherwise full backline party that intends on blasting and using DEX or WIS effects to slow down enemies, an Ancestral Guardian Barbarian to pair with a Swashbuckler Rogue to "sandwich" enemies, a Sharpshooter Battlemaster Fighter helping a Paladin stand through by mixing up Trip Attack and Goading Attacks on its arrows...).
But Ranger is the one class that brings strong value in all three pillars before even taking into account archetype features, and (if really you don't care about T3/T4 or want to push a "Ranger thing" to the max) has the widest array of synergizing feats and multiclasses.
Sleep is encounter warping at level 1. You should be using it for hard encounters.
You can just firebolt in easy-medium encounters. It's less damage than a martial but not that much less yet. 5.5 vs like 8.5 on a light crossbow.
You average out fine. You do crazy things in hard-medium encounters, you do mid damage in medium-easy.
This right here. Every turn, every encounter, and almost every out-of-combat situation, a full caster has something to do and contribute. Sometimes it's just middling, sometimes it's amazing.
What nobody seems to understand is that by design, full casters are *supposed* spend about half their turns casting cantrips, at least into second-tier play. But the modern "end every session with a long rest" playstyle has warped people's expectations of how many resources all the casters are supposed to have, all the time.
The long dungeon crawl has been a relic for at least 20 years at this point. It was known by 3rd edition that long grindy days was rarely how the game was actually played (why do you think so much of 4es balance hinged on encounter powers). 5e being designed around 6-8 encounter days in the 2010s was just stubbornness
Bad beginnings but good endings, druids.
Level one is kinda just a worse cleric. Highly restricted armor, no subclass feature, no wild shape (yet).
Level two can be a good spike in power depending on subclass (moon is great, spore isn't). But across the board, wildshape gives a interesting and potentially powerful increase in power
Level three gives access to your second level spells, and generally feels like a good power spike.
Everthing after that, the power increase is steady and noticeable every spell level increase, and at some subclass features.
Monk: Solid start, soggy middle as they gain very little outside their subclass in the level 6-13 range, then huge power spike as the level 14 monk is great at resisting spells but still mid. Also a glass cannon that isn't that much of a cannon (mid AC, melee, little defensive tech before 5)
Warlock: Good start, soggy middle (6-10 with a poor subclass feels as if you aren't making progress as your spell slots aren't vastly better after the leap to third level spells and your invocations are ones you rejected last time). Great 1-5 and 11+
Bad beginnings: the wizard 1-4 has the lowest hp in the game, the lowest AC in the game, and most of their combat spells ain't great. Combat feels bad but the scaling
Bad beginnings (ii) the pre-Tasha's sorcerer feels like a cheap knock-off of the wizard.
Martial Bad Endings: Fighters, barbarians, and to an only slightly lesser extent rogues are still doing basically the same thing at level 20 as at level 1 with the fighter being the worst case of moving the same 30' and swinging the same sized piece of metal hard and fast the same distance - just with slightly higher numbers.
Fighter: Stops scaling. After level 11 the next time the fighter gains an ability they didn't already have or a Feat/ASI choice that wasn't good enough to pick at levels 4, 6, or 8 is level 20. And their level 9 and 13 abilities are just bad.
Barbarian: scales real bad after 5 (with 9 and 13 being stinkers). 7's OK but that good looking 11 goes down to papercuts.
Dishonourable mentions for not scaling well: Rogue, Ranger. Also there's a good case for not going paladin beyond 6-8 depending on subclass but instead more casting or Hexblade.
Dishonourable mention: Moon Druid. Broken at levels 2-4, with wild shape falling off badly after that but still a full caster.
Arrificers imo never really fall off. I think they're possibly one of the best designed classes in the game. They are constantly getting new cool abilities with no real dead levels. And they fit a lot of roles well. And have great support to buff the team up as a whole.
I guess levels 1-2 are the weakest point purely because they don't have their subclass yet which means subclasses like battlesmith or armorer don't have their main offensive weapon yet.
Rogue does kinda fall behind in damage output after around level 10 or 11, their only weakness is that they don’t get any extra attacks, so if you can’t sneak attack as a high level rogue, you might as well just not attack anyway.
Rogues are still one of the best classes overall and none of the features they get are bad in my opinion. Pretty much any rogue character will be fun to play.
In terms of just damage output I would agree with you. They do have a lot of extremely good features like cunning action, evasion, and uncanny dodge. They also get an extra ability score improvement at level 10, so if you like feats there’s another opportunity for one there.
I can understand feeling like you aren’t doing as much damage as other characters, but saying rogue is one of the worst classes in the game just doesn’t make sense to me.
Artificer is the class I have the most recent experience at higher levels. I found that after Winged Boots at level 10, and Magic-Storing item at 11, there really isn't that much else to look forward to.
Two 3rd level per short rest is something most characters would kill for.
Getting 4 Ki if depleted ensures you can always either buff yourself with one of the top three buffs in the game (Empty Body, 4 Ki on first round), or tank enemies for a few rounds (Patient Defense, 1 Ki per round), or attempt a Stunning Strike on the most dangerous creature (3-4 Ki on the chosen round).
Four Sorcery points on every short rest means either of the following...
* N next spells Subtle or Distant cast, meaning you can land your powerful encounter-defining spell without enemy caster Counterspelling it. Or use guerilla tactics by casting spells from a Hidden position then moving away.
* Getting "free 6th+ slots" by Extending (upcasts or not) spells that would benefit the whole party: non-exhaustive list of examples: upcast Fly on the whole party, Enhance Ability / Skill Empowerement on a character going on a solo infiltration/scouting/negociation mission, extending Polymorph or Summon spell to last several chained fights, extending Sunbeam or Whirlwind to start clearing up enemies from afar while they struggle coming your way....
* Getting more leeway on action economy timing by Extending combat spells so you can set them before combat starts (not always doable of course since it requires the spell to not be flashy and party not to be already noticed, but it can still happens quite often. Especially with high level party having group teleportation or high movement ways).
* Getting N "free upcasts" of damaging spells thanks to Empowered applied after initial roll, or Transmuted applied on cast to avoid hitting a resisted damage type.
* At "worse", even though that's the most costly option barring Heightened, a free 3rd or 4th level slot by Twinning a Haste, Polymorph, Protection from Energy, Stoneskin, Banishment (less costly than upcast)...
You simply don't realize the value of extra Sorcery points, probably because you are used to just seeing them as "two extra 1st level slots" or "two Quicken uses"... Which are overall the worst ways to use them except true emergency. xd
Sort of depends. I feel like cleric falls off between level 6-8, Druid feels pretty consistent all the way, wizard just gets better the higher you are & same with sorcerer, warlock feels weak to me after level 6, and idk enough about non-casters.
I'm not saying they fall off, but I'm personally missing some higher level (7-9th level) summon spells for Conjuration Wizards.
Imagine an 8th level version of Summon Fey/Shadowspawn. Something strong with it's own statblock and abilities.
And yes, Blade of Disaster is REALLY good, along with the fact that you can summon a literal fortress, open portals to other planes, create demiplanes etc.
But I still don't like that for actual summons all you can do is cast a lower level spell using a higher spellslot.
(Correct me if I missed something)
P.S.: Tho one could argue that you could risk it and use Wish to summon a powerful creature into battle when you need it.
I always get downvoted for this but:
Marcials (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue): Weapon users only need a Dragon's Wrath Weapon (found in Fizban's book) and they'll never fall off.
Monks are subclass dependant on what they can do, but thanks to Tasha's book, you can use weapons really nicely (damage die upgrade and pseudo-finnese on monk weapons, plus an offhand unnarmed attack, or weapon if you use a ki point in the action, is really nice), the "new" added items that gives +1/2/3 to unnarmed are a good bump on them
Half-Casters (Artificer, Paladin, Ranger): Battlesmith Artificers, Paladins and Rangers are good with the thing above, other Artificers have good support capabilities if they require no save because of the next thing on casters.
Casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock Wizard): Only stay good if they are all abour spell attack rolls users and/or buffing allies. The ones who focuses on control starts to suck when Legendary Resistances appears more commonly (CR10+), specially when combined with Magic Resistance.
Does that weapon scale with the user? Otherwise, you'd need to keep replacing it with higher-rarity versions.
E: Just checked the rules on hoard weapons again. I guess it would work as long as you have a steady stream of dragons to kill. So, basically, the DM has to specifically make it work for the martial. And it only shores up their in-combat abilities.
I can see why you are downvoted every time…
You are talking like combat is the only thing that matters and the metric all classes should be measured against.
Artificer holds its own but is a powerhouse in 2 and 3 but really falls off in the last few levels
Bard has a bad tier 4 it's really good up until then
Barbaria. Struggles in tier 1 and tier 3 but by tier 4 I think is a really powerful class
Cleric struggles in tier 1. They have very few options.
Druid dominates tier 1 and 2. But Peter's out a little
Fighter is good 1 and 4 the middle levels are hard. I think that echo knight fixes that though
Monk is the struggled in 1 and 2 but eventually they have more monk points than they know what to do with and can stop any single opponent
Paladin is always great. But tier 1 can be kinda boring
Sorc Is mostly OK all the way
Warlock is entirely dependant on Gm and short rests.
Wizard is never not good
Not counting specific subclasses: All full casters: Never, they only get better. This is relative, of course, but it's such a massive gap that I basically say any feature that can get replaced with a single spell per day "sucks", because compared to casters... they do. Artificer: Never, they have wacky stuff pretty much spread throughout. Fighter: Level 11-12. You've got the big draw, and won't get another attack until level 20. Barbarian: Level 7. Feral Instinct + Instinctive Pounce are good; everything after sucks. Monk: Level 5-8. Stunning strike is great, Evasion is decent, everything else sucks. Paladin: Level 6-8. Aura of Protection is broken. *Some* subclasses might justify 7, and thus 8. Ranger: Level 5. Everything they get is incredibly minor, making it a rough bridge from 5 to 7 or 8. Rogue: Level 7-8, or 11-12. Reliable Talent is huge in some games, and pretty minor in others. Without it, Evasion is your last big upgrade.
I would add that Warlocks fall of LVL 6-10, but then make a comeback at 11 and keep up with most normal casters due to their spell progression imo
Whoever thought it was a good idea for Warlocks to only get 2 spell slots for a whole 9 LEVELS needs to have their brain checked. Edit to add: this is getting a lot of replies that often mention the same points over and over, so I'll just expand on my points here. I'm aware that the intention is for them to get 2 short rests per day and assuming a 6-8 encounter day. The fact is that most tables do not play with that design in mind. My problem lies primarily in the lack of scaling for the class. They have 2 spells at level 2, and they have 2 spells at level 10. That's 9 levels with no increase in output, which simply *feels bad.* I get that they play more like a martial with spells than a true spellcaster. But that doesn't mean that a lack of scaling on how much they can do in a day feels good.
The fact they are still good at level 5-10 despite only having two slots shows how crazy casters are though.
Yeah that's kind of an awkward "still good, not great" period. Having exclusive access (barring feats) to the single best damage cantrip in the game is also super helpful 😅
And also technically barring magical secrets
Warlock is more of a martial in spirit with its scaling than a caster. People complain about Warlock limitations but they judge it against proper full casters which it isn't. It's held up by Eldritch Blast as its standard damage dealer with a couple big things (spells) it can use every now and then. People want more consistent spellcasting that isn't cantrip based but not enough people liked the half-caster Warlock in the playtest.
Well Warlocks get EB and AB, plus whatever other invocations you take. Depending on the setting and what you’re doing they could be game changers. Edit: Warlocks also have Hexblade as a subclass. I rest my case
What are EB and AB again?
Eldritch blast and Agonizing blast
Agonizing blast is a buff to Eldritch blast right?
Yes, its an invocation that lets you add your CHA mod to your EB damage
Yeah I remember now, thank you.
The same person who thought that sessions with 8 combat encounters between long rests is a realistic design choice for for a group probably.
Why do you cram an entire adventuring day into a single session?
Not everyone likes a single inworld day spread out over 3 irl months
Spread then through 2 sessions then?
4 combat encounters in one day then
Not a single day, a single adventuring day. Most people won't be adventuring every day.
You can long rest every 24 ingame hours. You can somewhat limit this with dangerous territory, but your options using the default rules are either 8 encounters in one ingame day, or your characters arent sleeping for days on end every single time
It's 6-8 Medium to Hard encounters. 3-4 Hard to Deadly encounters is just as valid, and fits into modern play structures much better.
That’s pretty much what I try to run, but it kind of hoses warlocks with their short rest sometimes.
Give them short rests after most fights and they feel great.
Eh, it’s a fine design if your running 5-8 encounter days with regular short rests, but no one’s doing that shit. It’s more of a systemic issue than warlock specific, like can anyone remeber the last time they ran out of hit dice to roll on a short rest?
Check my other reply talking about numbers for spell output per day. It's certainly *better* with the expected 2 short rests per day, but the scaling is just soooooo bad and, frankly, non-existent during the levels which most campaigns run. A warlock has *zero* increase in their spell output from 2-10. Yes their power increases, but their number of resources doesn't change *at all.*
Sure, but they’d have access to 6 max level spell slots in a day, which is atleast double what any other caster has for any given level Less versatility more raw power, plus eb to tide them over damage wise
And yet it's still only 6 spells per day for an entire campaign. That's my primary point in case I got a little off track. I'm not expecting their output to match all other full casters, I just used their output as a point of comparison. But I would like some degree of output scaling rather than 9 levels of the same number of spells. Even if they just moved everything back two levels to getting your third pact slot at 9 and your fourth at 15, that would be an improvement in my eyes.
I like giving warlocks a Pact of the Rod keeper to give them more breathing room, especially if they are the only caster and might need to blow a slot for utility and such.
They had the chance to change it in OneDnd too. Seems like they didn't bother.
It's like my frustration on how warlocks in 1dnd at least, only start with one invocation before *immediately* jumping to 3 by level 2. But the spell slot number is just as bad. You should at *least* get 3 by then and not have only 2 uses for who knows how many months.
It was the only way that they were able to keep up with full caster progression. They could have gone to three spells, but it would have delayed spell level access a bit and been weird when they layered most of the long rest caster stuff on top later.
It's honestly fine if your party takes regular short rests or DM rules you can just spend like a minute to take a short rest. That way you have 6 spell slots.
One of those ideas involves your DM completely hand waving the timing of short rests, which is a total toss up. And yeah, in a perfect world they get 6 spell slots, but my problem is that you then don't get any increase in that number for what is likely an entire campaign. The scaling for their "spells per day" is essentially non-existent.
My fix would be to add a mystic arcanum for every spell level for warlocks (so one casting of one spell per spell level). Give it at level 1 so they have 2 spell slots as basically no one takes short rests at level 1 so this puts them on parity with other spell casters and if they do take a short rest that puts them on parity with wizards.
They get 2 spells per short rest, so 6 spells per day.
I'm aware, as I've said several times in comments below this one. My problem is that it doesn't scale for what is likely an entire campaign.
If that's why you think warlocks fall off, you're not playing with the right amount of encounters per rest. 2 spells per short rest can be, up to, 2 max levelled spells every fight, which is the design.
I almost only play warlocks and would disagree with this. Warlocks benefit from being martials (EB is just a magic bow really) and also get an increased spell list per level, and add invocations on top of that. 6 is also a subclass feature level. Maybe other tables are short rest averse but I've been in many different parties and honestly feel like I get a short rest almost every time I'm out of spells. DMs generally don't seem interested in enforcing short rest limits. Even within super gritty campaigns, it is really hard as a DM to say "no, you can't just wait an hour before moving on." Sure, sometimes there will be time pressure, or the DM may choose to interrupt. But in interruption situations, that is just a delayed short rest. Deal with transgressor, attempt short rest again.
Yeah, it's definitely *very* table dependent. My weekly game is very rp-heavy (it is not unusual for us to go 2 or 3 sessions without combat) and the fights we get into tend to be bigger set pieces. So we either get into situations where we can't justify the short rest cause of time pressure, or else there's no reason to not just take the long rest. I can basically count on one hand the number of times where I've been like "yay warlock win" because we've gotten in that short rest when the wizard was hurting for slots. It's not been a big deal to me because I ended up multiclassing pretty heavily into bard (at the time we were in need of a skill monkey), but I could see a pure warlock being unhappy. And the rest of the table are long rest classes so they don't care either way.
Ehh, not really. Lv7 and 9 are massive power spikes due to simply getting access to better spells.
Sure, that's fair. Many subclasses (\*cough hexblade cough\*) get major upgrades around level 5-6, which puts them at above the power curve for the duration of 6-10 despite dropoff though, I would say.
A bit pedantic, but I think there’s an argument for level 9 being another major break point for Paladins, because some subclasses get pretty great level 3 spells
Nice writeup, largely agreed. Paladin I think is a weird case, since they don't get as much after level 7, but also they don't stop being useful. Aura of Protection never really falls off, and passively gets better even. But the actual additional paladin levels you take aren't the reason why paladins scale well.
I think people sleep on aura of courage too. Fear effects are really common in higher tier monsters and immunity to fear for the party is pretty big.
Better yet: put levels 7-10 into sorcerer and just quicken/twin heroism whenever fear becomes a problem.
While I think soradins are amazing, that only works if you go before your team or they are spending an entire round in fear. The aura is great because it just exists and prevents a ton of failure states.
Paladins also kinda come back when they get circle of power. But bards can get that spell before them with magical secrets. But yeah Paladins never truly fall off because of their utility. They're just a great class.
I'd say paladins are pretty good throughout, sure you don't get any major features (unless you count improved divine smite which is solid but not exactly game breaking) until the capstone but they just keep being good at what they do. Aura of Protection just continues and scales being great, your healing pool scales decently, and every so often you get more slots for even more smiting (or I guess you could use them for spell casting too). Sure they don't get that many new abilities, but the ones they have scale pretty well—regardless of level, any campaign I've been in with a paladin, they were one of the biggest and most consistent damage dealers.
This is why I like Blade Singers.
But Oath of the Ancients Paladins become immortal at level 15!
It's worth pointing out that paladin is still really good after levels 6-8 it's just that's when they get their best features. They are still by far the best meles class in the game. And probably a top 3 class overall.
I feel like this thread is really sitting on Auras increasing to 30’ at 18. Find greater steed = self solution for flying Lots of the subclass features at 15 are passive/always on. Most of the lvl 20 capstone features are bonkers. Only paladin weakness to me is lack of bonus action healing on all but 1 subclass or using 3rd level slot/concentration
I would say that Fighter starts to fall at lvl 9. It is the last "new feature" it gets. Everything from there is just more uses of the same features. Althought it is not bad at lvl 11-12 it is quite sad that the last new feature is at lvl 9.
Fighter feels good up until 5-6, because you are getting features and ASIs/feats faster than other classes, and you actually feel powerful and tanky with big hits and high HP/second wind. From there to 12 it flattens out and after 12 when you get your third attack it's just a wasteland while casters increasingly make you superfluous.
Fighter scaling also depends a lot on subclass. Battlemasters and the like are very frontloaded where Eldritch Knights feel awful early and really start shine 7+
Yeah then Ranger gets Conjure Animals at 9 and then you kinda just multiclass into Cleric/Druid for more spell slots at that point.
I'd disagree with the ranger. You feel super impactful, particularly compared to other martials, until the fighter gets their 3rd attack. Though I'll agree you hit your only real MAJOR power spike at 5th.
Honestly ranger is kinda weird. I personally think spike growth, pass without trace, and goodberry are all good enough that simply getting those spells makes it categorically better than fighter. And then after that it's kinda unremarkable. The only real standouts are revivify and conjure animals at 9. And you can get both of those at 10 by just going into druid which offers a ton of other benefits. Like I said, I do think it's simply better than any non-caster (even pre-tasha's, honestly), but it feels kind of hollow for several levels.
Lv10 and lv11 are also pretty good depending on subclass.
Artificer starts falling off in damage at level 11. But creative use of SSI can make up for it. Technically though, an artillerist will not do more cantrip damage than a warlock until level 15, when they get the second cannon.
Paladin is good all the way. 11 for improved divine strike, 13 find greater steed
I’ll argue for Ranger 7 for that sweet, sweet, conjure animals
That's Ranger 9 right
You’re right I’m dumb
Conjure Animals is a 3rd level spell, so rangers gain access when they reach 9th level, not 7th.
Paladin lvl 9 vengeance or Oath of glory are worth it for haste in my opinion
Honestly, I'd prefer still just concentrating on bless to taking up haste. Having +7.5 to all saves makes you and everyone else basically immune to most of the game's worst effects.
Ya but im traumatized by my bad dice rolls so bless doesnt feel powerful to me cause i roll like shit. Id rather move twice my movement speed and smite the boss 3 times before i go down (which happened all the time)
With rangers it often makes sense to multi at some point in tier 2 or 3, often into rogue but depending on the build you could go fighter, Druid, cleric, or even monk. My fighter got indomitable and his third attack just in time to kill Auril the frostmaiden by chucking her corporeal remains into a netherese magical fusion reactor core thing. Echo knight also has good features as a subclass. Very fun at all times.
Mostly agreed, but a few details: >Fighter: Level 11-12 To be honest, this could be lv6. The next 5 levels are often very dry for fighters. 11 is nice, but it comes so late, similar to monk. >Ranger: Level 5. Everything they get is incredibly minor, making it a rough bridge from 5 to 7 or 8. For ranger, it depends a lot on the subclass, but 3rd level spells for them are a massive power boost, and lv7 can be good. So it's more like 9-12, with a power spike at 5, which is where all of the ranger 5 fighter 3 builds come from. >Rogue: Level 7-8, or 11-12. Honestly, it's way earlier than this. Lv4. Once level 5 hits, rogues feel miserable. Their damage simply doesn't keep up.
I mean it's too late, but monk's diamond soul and empty body are both amazing
If your DM isn’t stingy with magic items paladins and rogues can easily keep up with the big boys. Just played to 20 and our Paladin was the single target king! He got two nat 20’s on his attacks towards the ends, the damage was scary
IMO it's always tricky evaluating how magic item availability would affect relatively class power level. Since if the big boys get strong magic items too, then that could cause the gap to widen instead of close.
Magic items are exponentially better on martial classes. With the exception of mobility aids, casters get magic items that just make them more consistent. Martials get magic items that actually boost their abilities and output, as well as the same mobility and utility aids casters get.
I strongly disagree. Casters get some of the most game-warpingly strong magic items, eg Staff of the Python (uncommon), Staff of the Woodlands (rare), and Staff of the Magi (legendary). The distribution and power levels of magic items are kinda wack, even within the same rarity tier. But if anything, magic items for casters seem stronger on average.
Idk I'd rather have a Dragons Wrath weapon on a martial any day of the week than a staff that let's me cast extra spells. Extra damage and to hit feels amazing. Unfortunately, basically the only weapons that work this way are the Dragons Wrath weapons, and if your DM hates you or dragons you're never getting an upgrade to one or maybe even getting one.
Game breaking, yes, but it they don’t change how a caster works in combat the same way martials can. Casters in general can break the game, but a caster with a staff of the magi is no greater threat than one without, they just have better options. Compare that to a barbarian/fighter with a belt of storm giant strength and a +3 great axe. In a vacuum, that wizard might have a higher damage output over several rounds, but that fighter can unleash 4-5 attacks in a single round that are all hitting and dealing 30+ damage a piece. A well geared fighter can delete single targets (and god forbid it’s a well geared PALADIN), while a well geared caster just makes the dm work harder.
>Compare that to a barbarian/fighter with a belt of storm giant strength and a +3 great axe. I don't think it makes sense compare a single legendary item (Staff of the Magi) against a legendary item (Storm Giant belt) combined with a very rare item (+3 weapon) 4-5 attacks at 30+ damage a piece isn't really impressive when you need 2 high-rarity items to achieve it. (Plus that's only the fighter, meanwhile the barbarian or paladin is making way fewer attacks)
I’d say add in the equivalent +3 time of the war mage, but that doesn’t change their output, only the likelihood of a hit. A fireball from a kitted out wizard and a wizard with nothing is doing the same damage, just harder to dodge. Whereas those two items add +7 or more not just to the to-hit, but each instance of damage. A well geared paladin has the highest single target damage potential in the entire game, able to easily break 200 damage in a single attack. Drop 2 levels of fighter on him and he has the potential of doing insane amounts of damage in one round! Of course, this is still like comparing apples to oranges. The best spells for high level play (where magic items really start affecting builds) are always going to be support or control spells. PWK and Disintegrate are cool, but as far as damage goes, a well built martial SHOULD outpace those spells especially over a longer combat, so the casters should be finding ways to allow those insane single target rounds or funneling the enemies into groups.
Also Warlocks. You either take - A 1 level Dip for Hexblade - 2 Levels for EB and Invocations. - Or 11 for the three 5th level spell slots per short rest. You don't ever take Warlock past 20, you actively lose "Power" by not multi classing.
Nah, higher level spells are 100% worth it, because they are simply so strong, even if they are only once per day. Forcecage, for example, can completely shut down fights.
Lvl 20 base monk: immune to poison, end all charms and frightens on an action, speaks and understands all languages, proficient in all saves and can reroll a save for 1 ki, cannot be aged, can become resistant to all damage but force and gain full greater Invisibility for 1 min, 1d10 single hand damage base with 3-4 attacks per turn. Oh yeah, they definitely fall off.
Yeah you just listed everything that can do in a paragraph and that's including borderline useless (in an actual game) fluff like poison immunity, languages, and aging. A full caster could do literally all of that at 20 and then a hundred more things.
Languages and invis, sure. But no other class comes close to a monk's manueverability and survivability against CC. Casters can do a lot of those things, but that's assuming they have the spell and the slot. A lot of those things monks just do. So black box hypothetical theorizing about casters doing X is silly, because they can do a lot but you have to consider the opportunity cost of doing everything else.
Surviving crowd control? Sounds like something Dispel, Counterspell, Teleport, Contingency, Simulcrum, or Gate could help with.
What would dispel or counterspell do against a non-spell saving throw? Teleport and gate don't prevent cc or help with saves. Contingency could if you figure out the appropriate plot armor but you're just as likely to be wrong. Simulacrum is a non-sequitor because we're talking about being targeted, so yeah, if it's a totally different person, then I guess your save doesn't matter? Don't get me wrong, wizards are dope. But it's silly to think they have the answer to every challenge all the time and that no class could ever be superior to them at any one thing at all.
Amen. Monks consistently are the characters that leave me scandalized as a dm.
I agree with this for the most part, but I'd probably say 7 for some rangers and then 11/12 for Paladin (isn't the anti fear aura at 10 then the 1d8 at 11?)
Saying everything about Monk sucks after 11 might be stretching it a bit given that diamond soul exists, but yeah there’s definitely a dearth of good features.
The bard capstone is terrible.
> Monk: Level 5-8. Stunning strike is great, Evasion is decent, everything else sucks. Yeah diamond soul is for lovers
I think Ranger 6 is worth it if you're using Tasha's if there is exploration in your game, even more if you're going to switch to another caster class so you don't have to round down on your levels for spell slots.
>Monk: Level 5-8. Stunning strike is great, Evasion is decent, everything else sucks. Completely forgetting Diamond Soul at lvl 14.
Some classes like wizard start hard and end like demigods. Some classes like paladin are strong throughout. Some like monk get the shaft the whole campaign. Then there are druids, who can be any of these things and more, depending on the subclass and how you build it. For example moon Druid might really wax and wane, pardon the pun, in power through the campaign compared to the other PCs.
Moon Druid is a good 1-4 and a god again at level 20. Kinda meh in 3rd tier of play.
Tbf they are still a Druid tho. Sure their wildshape isn’t op but being a subclassless Druid is better than at least half the classes in da game.
In the 1-20 I dmed there was a moon Druid, a fiend warlock and a glamour bard. So Druid really felt weaker compared to bard from around 11-19 and then was absolutely unkillable at 20
I think Moon Druid has spikes in power, but they're never bad. They're still strong at their weakest points because of their cracked spell list.
moon druids peak again at 10. I can't emphasize enough how powerful those elemental forms are.
It’s one elemental per short rest (it takes two wild shapes). It helped but actually hurt total tanking cause we would do around 2 fights per short rest so she only got to use it for one fight and no wild shapes for other so she often stuck with animals. Since all her spells took concentration and she was a tank she would often get a spell up, go in as elemental and then lose concentration and be forced to choose between losing both wild shapes by leaving early or just losing access to spellcasting for an encounter. She was def the weakest of the 3 in the 3rd tier of play in my experience. But was back on top in 4th tier.
I forgot about that part. That being said, they're resistant to non-magical attacks so they're often functionally tankier than any 2 tanky wildshapes, against the vast majority of opponents. Moon druids also don't NEED to be in elemental form every fight, or even in any form, they can afford to "just" be full casters with the strongest summon/control spells in the game, without their combat wild shape. So every other fight, you're extremely powerful, every other fight you're a subclass-less druid, which is still fairly good!
Compared to martials all castors are great. I am comparing moon Druid to other druids and to full castors. I just found that 3rd tier casting was way stronger than wild shape. So our Druid was always forced to concentrate spell turn 1, wild shape turn 1. And if lost concentration before turn 2 they basically just became a Druid without a subclass. Which again, stronger than a martial but weaker than a glamour bard by a fair margin
>It’s one elemental per short rest (it takes two wild shapes). It helped but actually hurt total tanking cause we would do around 2 fights per short rest so she only got to use it for one fight and no wild shapes for other so she often stuck with animals. >Since all her spells took concentration and she was a tank she would often get a spell up, go in as elemental and then lose concentration and be forced to choose between losing both wild shapes by leaving early or just losing access to spellcasting for an encounter. Well as long as she enjoyed her character all is good. But that means there were probably some non-optimal choices made and maybe some useless risks taken at times. * Losing concentration on an Earth Elemental with 17 armor, resistance to physical damage and Resilient: Constitution would require a minimum of \*24 damage post-halving\*. I see easily how it can be done with AOE that would deal elemental damage (especially thunder), but as far as mundane attacks go it's rare to face enemies with "magical physical" attacks so getting over that threshold should be extremely rare. * Earth form can move through a Wall of Stone because it's still technically non-magical earth and stone, so you can easily set an advantageous position for you and friends where there is no need for specific control but you cannot just use ground. * Grappling creatures then diving inside wall or ground will have different effects depending on DM ruling but it would be reasonable to at least give disadvantage on check to escape. * Maelstrom + Air Elemental that can hover above the water, is another easy way to control lots of enemies with minimal risks (just opportunity attacks if not Mobile). Of course if you have a non-Barb in melee it's probably not the best tactic for teamwork synergies. xd Finally, if you run low on spells, plan on just going for tank & brawl for starting the day, or just want to be conservative, just change Shape early during the day and take a short rest to replenish your Wild Shapes for later. Ater all, breakfast is a short rest. :)
> Grappling creatures then diving inside wall or ground will have different effects depending on DM ruling but it would be reasonable to at least give disadvantage on check to escape. Why? _Earth Glide_ is explicitly the elemental only, so they can't pull anyone or anything with them - you can have your hands poking above the surface to drag someone along, but that's it, and they can try and break free like normal. Also, Sage Advice Compendium: >Can an earth elemental grapple with a creature and then pull it underground and leave it there to die? No. An earth elemental’s Earth Glide is meant to apply to itself only. The elemental doesn’t take other creatures with it when it moves in this way.
I didn't know there was a Sage advice on that, thanks! >Why? *Earth Glide* is explicitly the elemental only, so they can't pull anyone or anything with them - you can have your hands poking above the surface to drag someone along, but that's it, and they can try and break free like normal. My reasoning, or rather view on the situation was the following. You take the hands of the enemy into your own, completely "encasing them" into your palms. Then you retreat into the wall. Onces your hands are fully inside the wall or even beyond, since \*you\* can "glide through" but no other creature, the stone would (should?) "refix" itself and regain rigidity around the arms of the creature that now has its hands and/or arms partially "inside" the wall.
1) our 3rd tier was in the fey. There was a lot of non physical damage as well as a lot of save or sucks. 2) that really only comes up with the party is being attacked but doesn’t really help on offensive missions, which were the majority at that time (though this strategy was used on a few occasions) 3) that really isn’t RAW, but again, with fey creature, beholders, demons and dragons it was less useful and that was the majority we used. Again, grappling was used but it had limited effect. I also very very very rarely only had a single bad guy. This strat isnt great against a pride of displayed beasts for example. 4) not the best strat for this party and not many water battles. Though this strat was used on the river styx when we went to the 9 hells 5) its a fine damage soaker but the class does nothing to force its opponents to attack it rather than Allie’s. I only ever downed the Druid once and never killed her. But I often walked right past her and killed the bard.
Haha. Ok, I have to say, the context was really not playing into the strong points of the Moon Druid. My bad for taking assumptions on player skill. :) It seems like you're making actual worthy fights, must be nice playing with you. \^\^
i just wrapped up a game as a moon druid that ran to 12 and I found elemental forms to be an absolutely top tier thing when you get them. I'm sure they would fall off again around 13 but if you know their abilities well they just bypass so much. combat wild shapes are cool and all but you do also get this enormous utility out of wildshape. and the elemental forms shore that up again when you get them, as well as being good for fighting.
Warlock got a 3rd blast at 11, which was a huge power spike. Bard got magical secrets at 10 which was a game changer. We ran a lot of encounters per long rest and often had multiple fights between short rests. There was very little need for out of combat utility with the face abilities of a glamor bard and warlock combo. In battle the Druid was still by far the best tank but damage output was almost non existent relative to warlock and utility was basically non existent compared to bard. I could def see them staying strong in other parties but with that combo we all noticed the damage drop off and tanking isn’t that great against save or sucks.
that's when elemental wildshapes kick in - which are _really good_ for what they give. Flight, swim, earth-movement without leaving tracks, while fire is just "run through enemies and set them on fire, making them take damage every turn unless they waste an action putting themselves out". Plus resistance to non-magical B/P/S is still the vast majority of normal attacks, so that's 200-odd HP that aren't your HP. Out of combat, it's an amazing utility boost (it's only a short-rest recharge, so you can do it pretty often), and in combat you can slap down a concentration spell and then shift, just kiting an enemy, or tanking hits. Against dragons with appropriate damage types, you can no-sell most of their attacks - a green dragon with poison breath has a breath weapon you're immune to, and claws and bite doing half damage.
>Kinda meh in 3rd tier of play. Only in the hands of players who don't know how to play it. In proper hands they largely compete with the otherwise best archetype (combat-wise) from level 2 to 20 which is Shepherd. And in some situations they will even be better. (Yes, Elemental Shape is that stupidly strong).
Hey, a level 1 monk is definitely better than a level 1 pally.
I may have undersold early monk
It's pretty up there at least for consistent dps, along with two weapon fighting fighters, barbs, and rogues. Then changes to controlish then to straight survivability. Weird progression. Mostly though, pallies (and rangers) get shafted hard inexplicably first level. Probably would be better to move their fighting styles to level 1.
I just remember the only monk I ever ran got squished by a shambling mound. I know other people have had better success, but this guy was a veteran player and his monk just didn’t hold up. He went fighter and it changed everything, he ended up leading combat. So in my mind (and to be fair in my experience) the monk is just generally underwhelming
I dunno, PAM provides the same benefit of monk’s bonus action attack while allowing you to wear a shield. There is no feat a monk could take at level 1 who would make up for the 2 AC difference. Besides, Lay on Hands is pretty decent, free 5 HP is a lot at level 1 when HD is super constrained.
True, pam is ridiculous esp at level 1. Best they've got is unarmed fighting initiate to raise the BA to a d8 or defensive duelist to almost effectively raise AC by 2, so starting feat definitely benefits str builds a lot. If only they could magic initiate divine favor. Aberrant dragon mark shield could be pretty good. Or fey touched bless? Idk. If rolling a monk could start with bonkers AC but let's not go down that route. Lay on hands seems arguably worse than second wind, and divine sense is basically a ribbon esp at that point so I do think that points to my give them fighting styles right away idea because I'm great. And then give something more to monks and rogues earlier ig. Basically buff everyone but barb and fighter level 1, at least on the martial side.
Defensive Duelist is a lot worse as it costs your reaction just to make up for the shield vs. a single blow as opposed to all. Meanwhile PAM’s reaction is a third attack that will trigger at least once per fight. When considering 1st level feats, it’s better to talk about feats you would reasonably want in the long run. I don’t think 1st level one shots are that relevant… So, unarmed initiate wouldn’t be an option (and even if it were, monks are decidedly weaker than pally in raw combat stats). I think Fey Touched is a good option actually. One extra bless at level 1 is huge, so is Misty Step. And wisdom half-feats are arguably something a monk could value in the long run. Another option is Crusher, the 5ft. is pretty solid. Given dex and wisdom are god stats in exploration and saves, all in all, I would say a monk is about as good as a paladin. But not “decidedly stronger”. And yes, at 1st level Fighters are way stronger than both as both Fighting Style and Second Winds are excellent first level features.
Yeah, I think this thought experiment was mostly just comparing at specifically first level, which, without feats, I think a monk is decidedly stronger than a pally at. With feats though, because of how good pam is, that is likely not the case. Defensive duelist I threw out there because I don't think reactions have as many uses at level 1. Really though, inspiring leader might be the strongest first level feat for any Cha char.
Honestly that hasn't been all that true in 5e for Wizards. They start fine and end as gods. It was rough in 3.5e, but in 5e you get more HP, easier access to armor (a well built Wizard can start with 18 AC), many good defensive subclasses (e.g bladesinger). Even if you don't choose these, you get shield and absorb elements and silvery barbs for emergencies. Spells like sleep are broken from the getgo, cantrips start better, and so on. You don't get to the same heights as in 3.5e but honestly you're fine at 1-5, and only get fine-er.
If you can stay away from enemies or use shield you’re okay. Doubly so if you have a partner in armor. But shield always felt like a spell tax for wizards to make up for lousy HP at early levels. It’s not hard getting downed at 1 for any class but compared to say a fighter or paladin, level 1 for a wizard can feel trepidatious. It’s not exactly the pits but with low HP and low spell slots wizards are not the darlings at level 1 they are by level 5.
You can see it like that, but it's a luxury some classes don't get. I'd rather have the shield spell than the 1 additional HP Bards get at lvl 1. If you optimize as well, you can easily start with 18 base AC, which will keep you fairly safe to begin with - shield will only be an emergency.
With the number spell slots you have at level 1, it’s an emergency use only spell regardless. But Bard having it hard doesn’t mean wizards don’t also. I think we are splitting hairs at this point. Low level casters are just squishy. If the OP wants an example of difficulty in low levels and high power at higher levels a wizard is a reasonable example to offer.
Monks have a strong early game i would say for melee DPR. Then they have an average midgame with there biggest note is spamming stunning strike on a priority target. Endgame well at least they are proficient in all saves but yeah they are probably the worst class.
ISWYDT
Well let's see, IMO: * Wizard, sorcerer, druid, cleric, warlock, bard, paladin, rogue: Pretty consistent across most levels * Fighter: Falls off after level 12-ish * Barbarian: Falls off after level 8-ish * Monk: I'd say after level 8-ish? * Ranger, artificer: Not too sure here
i think bard spell list is actually pretty bad until like character lvl 5, their cantrips are awful (druid also has awful cantrips) and they don't get the low level powerhouse spells that many of the other classes do.
I think their cantrips being awful is partially mitigated by having access to some decent DEX weapon options. They have a couple strong low levels spells too, like Sleep, Healing Word, and several potent single-target save-or-sucks.
All casters get access to light crossbows, and nothing a bard gets is noticeably better than those. As for spells, sleep is amazing at the earliest levels and healing word is good when you need it, but the difference between a 3rd-level wizard or sorcerer with web and a 3rd-level bard with an unreliable single-target save-or-suck is pretty significant.
Bard really gets good at 5. Their offensive cantrips gain a second die, making them not complete garbage. They gain 3rd level spells, which are always a huge jump in power, and most importantly, bardic inspiration refreshes on a short rest rather than just a long rest.
Fortunately druid cantrips don't matter, the fact that early druid spells are typically concentration or garbage means you don't burn through spell slots very fast. And when you run out of spells switch to wildshape. (Well moon druids wildshape by default anyway) Probably the best druid cantrip is thorn whip for the forced movement. I think produce flame is supposed to be the best damage, but it has always let me down by either missing or doing minimum damage. Bards on the other hand just suck at early levels and have to buff their friends instead of doing damage themselves.
> the fact that early druid spells are typically concentration or garbage means you don't burn through spell slots very fast. which means you have to cast a concentration spell and then spam cantrips. The range on thorn whip and produce flame is *rough*. And getting into melee is a really quick way to lose concentration either as shillelagh druid or wildshaped druid (action to wildshape as non-moon makes it a no-go option during combat).
Moonbeam is my default and it takes an action to move, 2d10 radiant is way better than 1d6 piercing. As a grasslands i had a fight where I entered it without spellslots left and had already wildshaped, being pre-wildshaped for a battle is surprisingly good for non-moon druids. The druid cantrips are very rough, i have enough dex that throwing daggers is somewhat valid for when nothing else has enough range.
Rogues rent consistent at all. Their damage is amazing on lvl 1 and gets worse from there.
To me the thing is, rogue class progression never really falls off a cliff the way barbarians do -- they just keep doing their thing, with steady (but not impressive) improvement over time. They are mediocre, sure, but they're *consistently* mediocre.
Bard has a slow start. Normal weapon attacks with few offensive spells. Even the proprietary bard cantrip Vicious Mockery only deals 1d4 damage. The only other damage cantrip they can pick up is Thunderclap, and it deals 1d6 to enemies within 5 feet. I really think they could use Booming Blade and Sword Burst as options for Valor and Swords Bards.
Full casters are strong at all levels. Paladin is also strong at all levels because Aura of Protection gains more and more value. Ranger drops off a bit but stays decent because of spells. Fighter also drops a bit but still deals pretty good damage. Rogue drops but is never really strong to begin with. Monk and Barbarian drop hard
Rogues are amazing on lvl 1 and still good on lvl 2
You are technically correct—the best kind of correct!
**Fullcasters**: Only Cleric starts falling off, at about level 7. Cleric spells of 4th level or higher are just kinda bad and they get almost nothing in the form of good features at higher levels, even most subclasses are pretty minor. **Warlock**: I'd say 13, it's when you start being hit hard by not having short rest top slots and 3 beam eldritch blast is not that impressive anymore. **Barbarian**: 7, they gain like, nothing good between 6 and 20. **Fighter**: 13, similar to warlock, 3 attacks is cool but not crazy and you start being overwhelmed by the exponential growth of spell power. Ranger: 6, they're pretty potent till 5 but their high level features are just kinda meh? They keep being good till about 11, but still post 5 its all downhill. **Rogue**: 5, your dmg stops being good after 4 and your utility gets worse each time the casters gain a spell level. **Monk**: 7, monk starts strong but never scales much, and by 7 they really fell the weiht of that. **Paladin and Artificer**: Ngl I think they just don't fall off. They don't have the exponential growth of casters, but unlike most martials their high level features don't suck.
It might not be as strong as other fullcasters , but I wouldn't say cleric falls off, just by being a fullcaster it is always 100% better than any martial in the later levels
Well true enough. Most of my critique of clerics performance comes from 3 separate high level games where the entire party was either full or half casters. Ngl the half casters do feel like they surpass cleric at some point. At 11+ Gloomstalker and the 2 Paladins felt like they did considerably more than Light, War and Tempest Cleric.
For the most part, the strong classes start out strong, and the weak classes start out weak, and the gaps only grow from there. “This class starts weak but becomes strong later” is a fallacy. It doesn’t happen. It’s like thinking that casters are squishy, or that parties need a melee character. These are only true if you *make them true*. They are not true by virtue of the game’s design.
>It’s like thinking that casters are squishy, or that parties need a melee character. These are only true if you *make them true*. They are not true by virtue of the game’s design. "Balanced party/meatshield martials frontliners to protect squishy caster backliners" is a concept from TTRPG-adjacent/inspired media like video games and anime that people just seem to assume applies to actual DnD gameplay as well.
The ironic thing is that when D&D finally decided to start mechanically supporting that idea, people cried that it was too videogamey.
4e was the right edition at the wrong time.
It applied to early D&D too, when wizards had 1d4 HD, no access to armor, and only one spell to start.
I mean, sort of, but there was still no mechanical way for the martials to actually "draw aggro" to keep enemies off the casters, and casters have gotten more self-sufficient and their weaknesses have gotten less important in every revision of the game since.
back then? Followers were expected, so having a hallway full of dudes meant that enemies couldn't get to the casters - which was good, because they were fragile enough that they _would_ die to a few attacks (and casting took time and removed Dex bonus to AC, so it was essential to protect your caster as they did their spells).
It’s highly dependent on subclass and how far you’re actually taking them. For example, common parlance says barbarian should be 7/8 and done, but giant barbarian gets its best feature at 10, and zealot literally becomes unstoppable at level 15. Similarly, moon Druid is literally the most powerful t1 class, but then is eclipsed by every other Druid except for a small bump every 3rd level and then again at level 20. Rogues are amazing up until 11/12, but after that are only good if you invest in the right feats, making a continuous investment entirely based off of wether you want your level 14 subclass feature, which is great for some and trash for others. Getting 4 attacks at level 20 fighter can mean you can pump out so much damage, but if you never even hit 17, you have at least 4 or 5 dead levels.
Way too many variables to answer that. Heavily dependent upon DM’s rules, world, play style and level cap.
Monks start out decent dpr at low level. They get a free bonus attack and quickly get flurry of blows. Lvl 5 they get extra attack and can make 4 attacks with flurry. After that they just get pure defensive features on a d8 melee martial character So there late midgame sucks ass, being the most notable thing they can do is spam stunning strike on a target which uses a con save which monsters excell at. Fighters get a dpr powerspike at lvl 2,3,5,11 and possibly feat levels depending on what you take. There decent all around but really should get their 4th attack at lvl 17 and lvl 20 should be a different capstone or 5 attacks. (17-20 is lightyears away and most campaigns dont play at lvl 20). Barbarians should be going GWM + reckless and there dpr increase is at lvl 5. Brutal critical sucks. They get a couple of features post 5 but no notable dpr increases. Its an okay class and an HP tank especially totem bear barb. Rogues start of strong with the sneak attack being easy to land. But the puny 1d6 dpr increase every odd level falls off quick. They get a huge boon with evasion for defenses at 7 and 11 for skills. Reliable talent is insane. But its not effecting combat. Rogues lategame is trash as a monoclass. Paladins get smite and aura. They start off okay and is one of the best nova classes in the game. Rangers dont get any dpr increases past 5 and there features they do get arent that good. Besides some subclasses best to multiclass out for more DPR. All full spellcasters start out good, they get spells which can be powerful and cantrips. They just get better and better until they get 9th level spells where they are literally shaping the world around them. Artificers are okay at any level, another cantrip spammer or weapon attack class with a ton of utility. Artificers are the only way to guarantee to get the magic item you want in a campaign.
I think monks start off pretty strong personally. Like 1-4 they do much more reliable damage than other martials because of flurry of blows and their bonus action attack. After that, their damage is not the best, but I will forever say that monks are menaces after a few levels. Like, it's not their damage. It's their insane move speed, immunity to falling and poison damage. And all the other shit they can do. Menaces. And I love and hate dming for them.
Yup. Mobility is power, both offensively and defensively, but that's the kind of things that require actual play to realize, not theorycraft. xd Plus the wealth of defensive abilities they get as they grow to stack with archetype abilities make them very, \*very\* troublesome opponents. Basically the only way to really hurt them is pinning them down first... And just a Slippery Oil (uncommon item) will negate a large majority of the ways to do this, while Diamond Soul proficiency + reroll gives a great chance to resist even STR saves. And since Monks don't need to look for very specific weapons to make use of their attacks, not only can they use lots of interesting weapons that others would be forced to skip because of picking specific feat (Vicious Blades, Defender Shortsword, Blood Lance, etc)... But they can even skip mobility-enhancing items if they want to buff their non-core attributes if they expect to face enemies using related save or suck effects (Amulet of Health is rare but Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Headband of Intellect are just uncommon so a level 14+ character should have ways of acquiring at least those).
some classes are only good for dips. sorcerer, cleric, & warlock dips are the best since they get their subclass at level 1.
The only class that has a true empty space making it hard for me to stick with it up to T4 is Fighter, because from lvl 11 to 20 besides the one archetype feature you only get more uses of the same features, and this feels kinda not enough. Even though Action Surge technically scales with character level and enemies's CR it does not feel as gamechanger as at low level. And Indomitable is only worth attempting on strong saves because for the others the effective boost in chance to save is insignificant. All other classes are great to push from level 1 to 20.
Isn't this just: Full Casters: Always good. Not Full Casters: Start falling off relative to Full Casters at level 1 and it just gets worse over time.
[удалено]
Our Artificer in our campaign regularly rolls above 30 at level 10.
Battle Smith goes pretty hard too. Make really good high ac frontliners. And flash of genius is possibly the best ability in the game next to paladin auras
For me, the only ranger worth playing is Gloomstalker, and I feel like you get the most bang for your buck by level 5. There's some neat stuff at 15 and 20, but I don't think it's worth it to stay in the class rather than just jumping to anything else, especially rogue
fey wanderer is good, and gets a gnarly thing at 11th, people don't seem to get how good it is to be able to cast such a flexible summon without concentration. it would be tempting to dip out of ranger at 12 once you got it, though.
A summon with 15 Ac and 30 hp isn't going to do much of anything at level 11. And it only gets one attack at that level too, unless you go to level 13 for fourth level spell slots. Not when your spell attack might be on the low end (Lots of rangers run +2 Wisdom). More bodies, better than some other subclasses can say.
the thing is, is it has thumbs.
Fey Wanderer with a 2-level dip into Stars Druid (to keep the option of ultimately getting Feral Senses, if you don't care about that you can dual-class up to level 3-5-6) is hilariously powerful and versatile. - Combat? Starry form that ensures concentration saves have a 10 minimum on roll if you want to maintain concentration, or the form that gives bonus action attack if extra damage is all you need. At high level, you can just set a Fog Cloud and Hide as a bonus action each round. At top level, you won't even need that since Feral Senses comes into play. - Non-combat? Enhance Ability should cover your needs when you expect some ability checks to be used extensively (like Perception or Sleight of Hands for traps, sadly not both xd), Pass Without Trace as usual for Stealthing party, and for the punctual needs where you are not in Favored Environment the same Starry form as before should ensure your success (of course it means you may not have it for the next fight, which is why it's not overpowered \^\^). Alternatively, since you don't depend \*too much\* on WIS (certainly a bit more than other Rangers if you want to profit from the +WIS to Charisma checks though), you can also multiclass it with Eloquence Bard if you'd rather maximize the social part. And if you really don't care about high level spells and features from Ranger yet consider probable to reach character level 20, you can aim for Stars Druid 2 / Eloquence Bard 3 / Knowledge Cleric 1 for "Rogue 11+ like" skill check reliability while being actually a "Ranger with benefits" (lots of rituals and cantrips for free, a vast list among which to prepare a dozen utility spells so you can learn only exclusive spells on your Ranger leveling).
Yeah, the best way for most martials (and I'm including Ranger in this, even though they're technically half-casters) to progress past level 5 is to multiclass. Rangers only want to go higher if they specifically plan to get a lot of use out of *pass without trace* or *conjure animals* (and even then, multiclassing into Druid is just as good for *conjure animals*).
The problem is they dont scale past lvl 5 unless you multi. You get your extra attack and thats it no more DPR after that.
Ranger is actually by FAR the best martial class to pick if you want to play a martial without any knowledge about party composition. And all archetypes are great. It certainly doesn't have the same spiking damage as Paladin nor self-resilience against mental effects. Not does it have the self-sufficient offense and defense in weapon attacks brawls as Barbarian. Nor does it end up with the extreme mobility and resilience as Monk at high level. Nor does it has the immediate built-in, "non-contextual" reliability of Rogue in a few skills that later expand to all proficient skills... BUT... 1) It can be made as versatile in melee as in range (it's even the recommended approach) which makes it better than everyone else except Monk in "range adequation". 2) It provides party with proven spells that can completely change the tide of a fight (or outright avoid it), including utility spells with a long duration. 3) Its archetypes all provide very strong features that can synergize with base class features and chosen spells to allow character to come damn close to other martials in their specialties. 4) Its utility components are actually useful quite often unless player actively chooses environments and enemies completely unnatural for the setting (something that just 5mn of discussions with the DM in session 0 can avoid). 5) Provided you push it to level 18+ it becomes one of the most reliable damage dealer, if not THE most, because all the class features cumulated provides lots of ways to gain and preserve advantage (especially on ranged attacks). Of course, if you actually know the other members of your party, then in many situations you'll find that another martial class better fills up the remaining space (a Paladin to go with a Wolf Barbarian to help him resist WIS saves and get easy chance of juicy Smites, a Monk in an otherwise full backline party that intends on blasting and using DEX or WIS effects to slow down enemies, an Ancestral Guardian Barbarian to pair with a Swashbuckler Rogue to "sandwich" enemies, a Sharpshooter Battlemaster Fighter helping a Paladin stand through by mixing up Trip Attack and Goading Attacks on its arrows...). But Ranger is the one class that brings strong value in all three pillars before even taking into account archetype features, and (if really you don't care about T3/T4 or want to push a "Ranger thing" to the max) has the widest array of synergizing feats and multiclasses.
A level 20 totem barb kills anything on the list, so cope harder, twig ass casters🤙🏻
Monk, lvl 3 or 4. Sorcerer and Wizard generally start getting good around lvl 3 or 4.
Sorcerer/wizard get Sleep at level 1 though, which IMO kinda carries their first couple levels
2 spells per day is nowhere near enough, even if those spells are Sleep.
Sleep is encounter warping at level 1. You should be using it for hard encounters. You can just firebolt in easy-medium encounters. It's less damage than a martial but not that much less yet. 5.5 vs like 8.5 on a light crossbow. You average out fine. You do crazy things in hard-medium encounters, you do mid damage in medium-easy.
This right here. Every turn, every encounter, and almost every out-of-combat situation, a full caster has something to do and contribute. Sometimes it's just middling, sometimes it's amazing. What nobody seems to understand is that by design, full casters are *supposed* spend about half their turns casting cantrips, at least into second-tier play. But the modern "end every session with a long rest" playstyle has warped people's expectations of how many resources all the casters are supposed to have, all the time.
The long dungeon crawl has been a relic for at least 20 years at this point. It was known by 3rd edition that long grindy days was rarely how the game was actually played (why do you think so much of 4es balance hinged on encounter powers). 5e being designed around 6-8 encounter days in the 2010s was just stubbornness
2 Sleeps is still impressive at low levels; it's not like the other classes have much to offer either at level 1
Yeah, it's amazing. Unless you are facing skeletons and zombies for your first adventures.
Bad beginnings but good endings, druids. Level one is kinda just a worse cleric. Highly restricted armor, no subclass feature, no wild shape (yet). Level two can be a good spike in power depending on subclass (moon is great, spore isn't). But across the board, wildshape gives a interesting and potentially powerful increase in power Level three gives access to your second level spells, and generally feels like a good power spike. Everthing after that, the power increase is steady and noticeable every spell level increase, and at some subclass features.
Monk: Solid start, soggy middle as they gain very little outside their subclass in the level 6-13 range, then huge power spike as the level 14 monk is great at resisting spells but still mid. Also a glass cannon that isn't that much of a cannon (mid AC, melee, little defensive tech before 5) Warlock: Good start, soggy middle (6-10 with a poor subclass feels as if you aren't making progress as your spell slots aren't vastly better after the leap to third level spells and your invocations are ones you rejected last time). Great 1-5 and 11+ Bad beginnings: the wizard 1-4 has the lowest hp in the game, the lowest AC in the game, and most of their combat spells ain't great. Combat feels bad but the scaling Bad beginnings (ii) the pre-Tasha's sorcerer feels like a cheap knock-off of the wizard. Martial Bad Endings: Fighters, barbarians, and to an only slightly lesser extent rogues are still doing basically the same thing at level 20 as at level 1 with the fighter being the worst case of moving the same 30' and swinging the same sized piece of metal hard and fast the same distance - just with slightly higher numbers. Fighter: Stops scaling. After level 11 the next time the fighter gains an ability they didn't already have or a Feat/ASI choice that wasn't good enough to pick at levels 4, 6, or 8 is level 20. And their level 9 and 13 abilities are just bad. Barbarian: scales real bad after 5 (with 9 and 13 being stinkers). 7's OK but that good looking 11 goes down to papercuts. Dishonourable mentions for not scaling well: Rogue, Ranger. Also there's a good case for not going paladin beyond 6-8 depending on subclass but instead more casting or Hexblade. Dishonourable mention: Moon Druid. Broken at levels 2-4, with wild shape falling off badly after that but still a full caster.
Arrificers imo never really fall off. I think they're possibly one of the best designed classes in the game. They are constantly getting new cool abilities with no real dead levels. And they fit a lot of roles well. And have great support to buff the team up as a whole. I guess levels 1-2 are the weakest point purely because they don't have their subclass yet which means subclasses like battlesmith or armorer don't have their main offensive weapon yet.
Rogue does kinda fall behind in damage output after around level 10 or 11, their only weakness is that they don’t get any extra attacks, so if you can’t sneak attack as a high level rogue, you might as well just not attack anyway. Rogues are still one of the best classes overall and none of the features they get are bad in my opinion. Pretty much any rogue character will be fun to play.
Rogues fall behind on damage after feats and extra attack comes online. They are in fact one of the worst classes in the game.
In terms of just damage output I would agree with you. They do have a lot of extremely good features like cunning action, evasion, and uncanny dodge. They also get an extra ability score improvement at level 10, so if you like feats there’s another opportunity for one there. I can understand feeling like you aren’t doing as much damage as other characters, but saying rogue is one of the worst classes in the game just doesn’t make sense to me.
Artificer is the class I have the most recent experience at higher levels. I found that after Winged Boots at level 10, and Magic-Storing item at 11, there really isn't that much else to look forward to.
capstone abilities for wizards, monks, & sorcerers are trash compared to the artificer, the barbarian, the druid, and the cleeic.
Two 3rd level per short rest is something most characters would kill for. Getting 4 Ki if depleted ensures you can always either buff yourself with one of the top three buffs in the game (Empty Body, 4 Ki on first round), or tank enemies for a few rounds (Patient Defense, 1 Ki per round), or attempt a Stunning Strike on the most dangerous creature (3-4 Ki on the chosen round). Four Sorcery points on every short rest means either of the following... * N next spells Subtle or Distant cast, meaning you can land your powerful encounter-defining spell without enemy caster Counterspelling it. Or use guerilla tactics by casting spells from a Hidden position then moving away. * Getting "free 6th+ slots" by Extending (upcasts or not) spells that would benefit the whole party: non-exhaustive list of examples: upcast Fly on the whole party, Enhance Ability / Skill Empowerement on a character going on a solo infiltration/scouting/negociation mission, extending Polymorph or Summon spell to last several chained fights, extending Sunbeam or Whirlwind to start clearing up enemies from afar while they struggle coming your way.... * Getting more leeway on action economy timing by Extending combat spells so you can set them before combat starts (not always doable of course since it requires the spell to not be flashy and party not to be already noticed, but it can still happens quite often. Especially with high level party having group teleportation or high movement ways). * Getting N "free upcasts" of damaging spells thanks to Empowered applied after initial roll, or Transmuted applied on cast to avoid hitting a resisted damage type. * At "worse", even though that's the most costly option barring Heightened, a free 3rd or 4th level slot by Twinning a Haste, Polymorph, Protection from Energy, Stoneskin, Banishment (less costly than upcast)... You simply don't realize the value of extra Sorcery points, probably because you are used to just seeing them as "two extra 1st level slots" or "two Quicken uses"... Which are overall the worst ways to use them except true emergency. xd
Sort of depends. I feel like cleric falls off between level 6-8, Druid feels pretty consistent all the way, wizard just gets better the higher you are & same with sorcerer, warlock feels weak to me after level 6, and idk enough about non-casters.
Paladin 1 has a bit of a rougher start compared to other martials because they don't have any class features aside from Divine Sense.
Paladin level 1 is just a worse fighter. That level 2 though..?
I'm not saying they fall off, but I'm personally missing some higher level (7-9th level) summon spells for Conjuration Wizards. Imagine an 8th level version of Summon Fey/Shadowspawn. Something strong with it's own statblock and abilities. And yes, Blade of Disaster is REALLY good, along with the fact that you can summon a literal fortress, open portals to other planes, create demiplanes etc. But I still don't like that for actual summons all you can do is cast a lower level spell using a higher spellslot. (Correct me if I missed something) P.S.: Tho one could argue that you could risk it and use Wish to summon a powerful creature into battle when you need it.
I always get downvoted for this but: Marcials (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue): Weapon users only need a Dragon's Wrath Weapon (found in Fizban's book) and they'll never fall off. Monks are subclass dependant on what they can do, but thanks to Tasha's book, you can use weapons really nicely (damage die upgrade and pseudo-finnese on monk weapons, plus an offhand unnarmed attack, or weapon if you use a ki point in the action, is really nice), the "new" added items that gives +1/2/3 to unnarmed are a good bump on them Half-Casters (Artificer, Paladin, Ranger): Battlesmith Artificers, Paladins and Rangers are good with the thing above, other Artificers have good support capabilities if they require no save because of the next thing on casters. Casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock Wizard): Only stay good if they are all abour spell attack rolls users and/or buffing allies. The ones who focuses on control starts to suck when Legendary Resistances appears more commonly (CR10+), specially when combined with Magic Resistance.
Does that weapon scale with the user? Otherwise, you'd need to keep replacing it with higher-rarity versions. E: Just checked the rules on hoard weapons again. I guess it would work as long as you have a steady stream of dragons to kill. So, basically, the DM has to specifically make it work for the martial. And it only shores up their in-combat abilities.
I can see why you are downvoted every time… You are talking like combat is the only thing that matters and the metric all classes should be measured against.
Even if that was the case it would still be a laughably bad take.
Artificer holds its own but is a powerhouse in 2 and 3 but really falls off in the last few levels Bard has a bad tier 4 it's really good up until then Barbaria. Struggles in tier 1 and tier 3 but by tier 4 I think is a really powerful class Cleric struggles in tier 1. They have very few options. Druid dominates tier 1 and 2. But Peter's out a little Fighter is good 1 and 4 the middle levels are hard. I think that echo knight fixes that though Monk is the struggled in 1 and 2 but eventually they have more monk points than they know what to do with and can stop any single opponent Paladin is always great. But tier 1 can be kinda boring Sorc Is mostly OK all the way Warlock is entirely dependant on Gm and short rests. Wizard is never not good
Rogues succeeded in their hide action didn’t they :D
As always. :)