Class power at different levels

[Blanks]

People keep talking about wizards being overpowered and cites wishes and timestops to prove it. They are probably right. However i have never played at that level, and am much more interested in:

"What are the different classes power compared to each other in a gaming situation?"

Power=Ability to help the group achieve succes through various adventures. IE not only combat and not PvP.

Rules for the discussion:

• RAI - no cheese that any sane DM wouldnt disallow.
• Core only
• No arguments that hinges on magic items - they are not the focus of this discussion.

Here are the level "groupings", feel free to suggest more fitting groups:
1-5
6-10
11-15

Above 15. level does not interest me, if thats what you want to discuss, feel free to start a thread :)

If at all possible, give a brief argument in favor of your ranking. Please note that I have played 2E extensively but only recently shifted to 3E, so perhaps I will question your rankings out of curiosity/ignorance (actually that is the point of this thread )

Let the wisdom pour!

[Blanks]

My own thoughts were something like this:

1-5
fighter, cleric, barbarian
rogue, monk, druid
bard, wizard, sorcerer

6-10
fighter, barbarian, cleric, wizard
rogue, druid, sorcerer
bard, monk

11-15
wizard, cleric
sorcerer, druid, rogue
fighter
barbarian
monk
bard

[Saph]

Your groupings look reasonable at first glance. General rule is:

Levels 1-4: Fighter classes dominate over casters.
Levels 5-10: Fighter and caster classes are reasonably balanced.
Levels 11-14: Caster classes dominate over fighters.
Level 15+: Casters become hideously overpowered and almost unbeatable.

This is one of the reasons the majority of people play D&D around levels 5-10.

Remember that prepared caster classes get a power jump every odd-numbered level: a level 5 wizard/cleric/druid is much more powerful than a level 4 one.

Figuring out where skillmonkey classes fit in in this is much harder, because their primary contribution, out-of-combat skill use, can't be easily measured against what a fighter or cleric does. However, at high levels they also get outshined by the casters.

Monks are at the bottom of the power rankings at every single level, from 1-20.

- Saph

Edit: More specific criticisms:

- Druids should be at or near the top of the power rankings at all levels; there's no level at which a Druid is weak.
- Bards are significantly better than monks, especially at higher levels.
- Barbarians are generally stronger than fighters.

[Spiryt]

Hey, why everyone keep forgeting about rangers and Pally's? (About Blanky's rating).

Saph rating is simple yet precise, I think.

[deadseashoals]

Bards are really not that bad.

1-5:

1) Barbarian
2) Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
3) Rogue, Bard, Cleric
4) Monk, Sorcerer, Wizard

At this level, barbarians rule the roost. They hit harder and more accurately than the other fighting classes, move faster, have more HP, etc. Their primary disadvantage as compared to the other full BAB classes, their lack of AC, has not really come into play yet (not a lot of Power Attacking, rending monsters).

After that, the rest of the melee classes, plus the druid with his animal companion of death come into play. They have the endurance to go all day, and "hitting it really hard" is the correct play against many encounters.

Clerics are useful, but they don't really have the healing and other spells to keep going all day, so a lot of the time, they're just fighters without the bonus feats or BAB. Rogues and bards have a use in the party when it comes to skills, but a ranger does almost as well, and doesn't suck in combat.

Monks are terrible, and arcane classes haven't come into their own yet.

6-10:

1) Druid, Cleric
2) everyone else
3) Monk

Druid has Natural Spell, Cleric has the spell access and slots to start breathing fire. Everyone else is relatively well balanced, but the Monk continues to be utterly useless against everything and everyone.

11-15:

1) Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard
2) everyone else
3) Monk, anything with full BAB

This is where melee starts to become pointless, and by the upper end of this level range (14, 15) it's utterly pathetic, as attempting to position for a full attack against any monster will earn you a raise dead for your trouble.

[KIDS]

My ranking, by 3 tiers (a, b, c) in each level category, including core only classes:
Legend: a = excellent, b = solid, c = poor

1-5:
a) barbarian, druid, cleric
b) paladin, fighter, ranger, wizard, sorcerer, rogue
c) monk, bard

6-10:
a) paladin, druid, cleric, rogue, wizard, sorcerer,
b) fighter, ranger, barbarian, monk, bard
c) none

11-15:
a) druid, cleric, wizard, sorcerer
b) paladin, barbarian, ranger, bard, rogue
c) fighter, monk

p.s. LIST! If we were to rate classes with a b or c or something between based on their ratings here and during the game on average, it would look like this (split equals the category with 2 results, 3 results equal middle):

A: Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer
B: Paladin, Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Bard
C: Monk

[Matthew]

I agree with Saph.

[kpenguin]

This is why wizards don't rule the world in DnD: most of them are killed off at low level.

[Emperor Tippy]

Wizards have Save or Lose spells at every level. SO the yare never unable to contribute.

Levels 1-5:
Everyone except Monks contributes fairly well, fairly campaign specific one way or the other.

Levels 6-10:
Everyone still contributes fairly well, excepting Monks. Casters are gaining in power.

Levels 10-15:
Casters are solidly in the lead. They contribute more than other classes but those other classes aren't a hindrance and still contribute somewhat.

Levels 16-20:
The non casters are dead wait and actually weaken the party.

[bugsysservant]

MONKS R TEH ROXXORS!!!1!! THEY R PUR PWNGE @ EVRY LVL!

Sorry, always wanted to do that. But, yeah, the general consensus has already been pretty much established so there really is no good reason for me to be posting. Anywho...

[Orzel]

If we're talking about combat then a class' strength at a level is based on what types of attacks they have and the power of that attack at that level.

Normal Attack (normal standard attack)
Special Attack (sneak attack, smite evil)
Full attack abuse (flurry, twf, high bab)
Feat and (Ex) cheese (Leaping heedless two handed charge! +10 damage to X forever, pounce)
Buff To Win (CoDzilla, poly..)
Blasty spells (Fireball, CoC, Disintegrate)
Save or Die/Lose (roll Will save lol)

At 1-5, as my cousins says "weapons are pwn, spells are yawn". Spells are too weak or unreliable to win fights alone. Characters don't have the level for the cheesy feats. Special attacks are okay.

1-5
1) barbarian, druid, paladin, fighter, ranger
2) cleric, rogue
3) monk, bard, wizard, sorcerer,

6-10. By now you're character can get some synergy going. Their powers don't suck. And Buffs don't drop right after you cast them so buff monster can appear. Normal weapon swing start to suck. Blasting is still bad.

1) barbarian, druid, paladin, ranger, cleric, rogue, wizard, sorcerer,
2) bard, fighter,
3) monk

11-15. Spells begin to win. Full casters dominate. Half/partial/fake casters are okay. Non casters are near useless. Anything weapon related is bad useless you have spells or the enemy is dumb.

1) druid, cleric, wizard, sorcerer,
2) bard, paladin, ranger, rogue
3) monk, barbarian, fighter

15+: Spells. Have 'em or get out my party.

[Sucrose]

All right, this has already been pretty well answered, but I'd like to add two lists: one of absolutely nothing but combat power, and one of utility outside of combat.

Levels 1-5
Combat:
A list: Barbarian, Fighter, Druid, Paladin
B list: Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Ranger
C list: Rogue, Bard, monk
Because a longsword at low levels is a save-or-die, and this is pretty much the order at which people can swing them. Exception for the druid, who has both his own decent ability and a strong animal companion.

Wizards or sorcerers are more effective than everyone else a few times a day, but lack the slots for several defensive spells, and are exceptionally squishy.

One should note that these tiers are actually pretty close together.

Out of combat utility:
A list: Rogue, wizard, sorcerer* bard,
B list: everybody else except
C list: Fighter and monk

Spoiler

Show

*If the sorcerer actually has utility spells, then you should probably drop him down one on the combat effectiveness list, maybe two, if he has nothing truly devastating, and Charm Person doesn't mean that the enemy ceases attacking.

Skills are paramount for out of combat effectiveness, and Rogues rule the roost there. Arcane spells can also do many useful things, though only the wizard can really include them in his spell list without missing combat efficiency (though there are probably many things that you can do with illusions in both situations, so a sorc might have a chance there). Bards, of course, are also handy, both as diplomancers and with minor illusions.

If the situation is a wilderness one, druids, Rangers, and some barbarians are raised up a notch.

Monks can be athletic, and fighters can be athletic and train animals. Whoop-de-doo.

Levels 6-10
Combat Ability:
A list: druid, cleric, sorcerer*, wizard*
B list: all full-BAB classes
C list: bard, rogue
D list: monk

Spoiler

Show

The full-casters are the winners here, though only if they happen to be good at choosing their spell selection. Arcanes now have enough stamina to last through most adventuring days, and are getting some powerful spells. Cleric has divine power-ups, and the druid is getting to know the joy that is wildshape.

Arcanes are on the low end of the A list, and frankly would do best, in this poster's opinion, to take advantage of the awesome buffs that they have to bring the fighter and the Rogue to A list fighting ability, but they can lay down some mean battlefield control too.

Full-BAB classes are still pretty close (with the paladin behind everyone else unless he's a chargadin), especially those that chose their feats well.

Bard is good for buffing people, has some decent combat spells, and can fight okay. Rogue's sneak attack dice are adding up, and thus he can be a threatening, if squishy, presence.

Monk sucks, getting small increases to his fist dice size, a bit of flurry action if he can full attack, and power attacked by most of the big things that start popping up at these levels.

Out of Combat:
A-list: Arcane casters
B-list: Divine casters, bard and rogue
C-list: everybody else

The arcane casters are getting some very useful out of battle effects now, and are starting to get things that make the bard and rogue redundant. However, the skill monkeys remain useful. The divine casters can be handy for healing wounds, but that's really about it. Fighting classes aren't really for anything but fighting at this point.
Levels 11-20
Same as before, but with the casters pulling way ahead of everyone else, and the arcanes being perfectly capable of soloing single major enemies.

Toward the end, as stated by above posters, the arcane caster is easily the most powerful in all situations, and only the divine caster can even keep up in combat (heavily optimized characters of other types can still contribute). Out of combat, the skillmonkeys remain useful.

The fighter and the monk cry themselves to sleep.

Please note that the above assumes reasonably optimized arcane spell selection. If someone plays a blaster caster, odds are that he'll be similar to the monk in terms of both combat effectiveness and out of battle usefulness.

[Chronos]

The arcane casters are getting some very useful out of battle effects now, and are starting to get things that make the bard and rogue redundant.

Yes and no... The way the rules work, a skill is typically actually better than the equivalent spell at high levels. For instance, you can tell approximately where an invisible enemy is with a DC 20 Spot check, but the Spot check for a character with a good Hide score can easily get up into the 40s. And going unseen isn't too useful unless you also go unheard, for which wizards don't really have very good spells (though the bard and, to a lesser extent, the cleric, do). So the casters never really make the skillmonkeys completely obsolete, at any level.

[Skjaldbakka]

No arguments that hinges on magic items - they are not the focus of this discussion.

That pretty much prevents this conversation from being in any way meaningful, given that the Use Magic Device skill is an important part of the rogue's arsenal. Also the warlock, bard, and artificer. Anti-Magic Field, in particular, is much more potent in the hands of the UMDing rogue, as none of its class features are turned off by it. Doing things like sneak attacking a frost giant with a scorching ray from a wand, or a fire giant with a ray of frost from a wand are really effective strategies, because the sneak attack damage is treated as energy damage, and is thus x1.5-ed.

Not that many arguments spring up about the rogue's usefulness, or where it sits in the various tiers of class power.

[Sucrose]

Yes and no... The way the rules work, a skill is typically actually better than the equivalent spell at high levels. For instance, you can tell approximately where an invisible enemy is with a DC 20 Spot check, but the Spot check for a character with a good Hide score can easily get up into the 40s. And going unseen isn't too useful unless you also go unheard, for which wizards don't really have very good spells (though the bard and, to a lesser extent, the cleric, do). So the casters never really make the skillmonkeys completely obsolete, at any level.

...Huh. I was always under the impression that Silence was a Sorc/Wiz spell, but it's apparently cleric or bard only. While I do think that an arcane caster could make a decent "Rogue-lite," I concede the point, both because of that and your point regarding the superiority of skills to spells that replace them. The Rogue and the Bard still have things that they can do better than the Wizard.

[de-trick]

1-5)
a)barbarian, paladin, fighter, ranger (they can do damage and take a hit)
b)cleric, druid (a hitpoint or 2 can help when you max is 10)
c)sorcerer, wizard, ,monk, bard, rogue(not much hp to take even 1 hit from a bow)

[Snadgeros]

Monk Defense Force is GO!

Before I begin, I'm willing to make a few concessions.

-Spellcasters beat monks, but then again, they beat everything.
-Monk do indeed have MAD (Str, Dex, and Wis, Con isn't ESSENTIAL with all of the saves you get, just don't go charging into front-line combat).
-In a 1v1 arena match, a monk will lose to most other classes (probably not bard or rogue or some non-core classes).

With that out of the way, I'd like to begin my counter-points to the usual anti-monk arguments.


Monks have lower BAB and damage than other melee combatants!
True, but that's a fair tradeoff for higher AC, evasion feats, and massive saves.
Monks are also not meant for frontline combat. You're misinterpreting their role. They are, and always have been, a support melee class. You're supposed to let your damage-sponging fighter charge in first, let him take the monsters head on, and use your tumble, dexterity, and high movement to pick them off guerilla style. Spring Attack and mobility are great for this.
Also, they're great mage-killers (on NPCs anyway). Run in (ethereal if need be), grapple, and use your ridiculous unarmed damage to take him out, completely bypassing mage armor and stopping all spellcasting. You'll be happy you got that spell resistance.


A fighter can do everything a monk can and better!
Only partially true. You want to build an unarmed fighter? Sure, and he'll be better at it than the monk, but you can't make a fighter better at ALL aspects of the monk. You give him evasion, he still needs saves. You give him unarmed combat, he still needs AC. Sure you can just use magic items, but SO CAN THE MONK. You're wasting money and feats on stuff the monk gets for free!


Magic items for the monk cost way more!
Also true, but you're neglecting that you never buy ANYTHING ELSE. A monk can buy equipment at first level and never need any more for the rest of the adventure excluding magic items. For levels 1 through whatever, you're just saving all of that gold for that amulet of mighty fists you saw.

That's it for now. There are many more arguments I can couner, but I can't think of them at the moment. Blarg....too late at night for thinking.......

[Skjaldbakka]

I've seen better arguments for monk. Also, depending on what books are allowed, monks are not necessarily MAD.

EDIt- my bad, core only discussion. Monks are indeed MAD in core.

[leperkhaun]

alot depends on the amount of fights per rest.

If you only have 1-4 fights before you can rest the wizard is still near the top of the list. Why is that? Spells like sleep and color spray, which means who ever fails the save losses.

In general, at low levels if you have few fights per rest, the wizard will probably still come out on top. After that as they get access to more spells per day they can basically go all day.

At lower levels its EASIER for a fighter/melee type to be comparable with a caster, but after that they just cant.

Now dispite that most groups automatically balance themselves.

1-5
All classes - Its pretty much balanced for my group at this level

6-10
Casters start to shine.

Rogues Sneakyness starts to greatly out pace NPC's ability to detect him. Sneak attack does enough that low HP (caster) NPC's need to worry

When the fighter can get close to an enemy he can dish out the damage nicely.

11-15
Caster on top without a doubt, melee is there to keep the enemy distracted.

15+
Casters - melee is a footnote.

My actual group balances ourselves out so we generally dont have this disparity. Alot of what we play is picked on RP, not power. We do optimize a little, but we also make sure we dont take over other peoples area.

[Blanks]

- Barbarians are generally stronger than fighters.

Please state the argument, i have never played either :)
Rage benefit is 4 str ie +2 attack, +2 damage. Is that really that much? I know there are other benefits , but do they outshine all the feats the fighter gets?

Hey, why everyone keep forgeting about rangers and Pally's? (About Blanky's rating).

My bad :)

This is where melee starts to become pointless, and by the upper end of this level range (14, 15) it's utterly pathetic, as attempting to position for a full attack against any monster will earn you a raise dead for your trouble.

Why? There seems to be consensus regarding this, but i can't really see the argument. Then again I have never played much beyond level 10.

Regarding magic items:

That pretty much prevents this conversation from being in any way meaningful, given that the Use Magic Device skill is an important part of the rogue's arsenal.

Fair enough, i just wanted to avoid a discussion about which gear was best.

[leperkhaun]

the reason there is that consenseus, is that by that time a caster has enough spells to basically go all day.

He can prepare enough save or loss spells that he will win, and if he cant, he can always teleport away.

Clerics can do a fighters job while maintaining full casting as can the druid.

[Kantolin]

As a note, these comparisons also depend on the particular classes involved.

For example, if the wizard's two first level spells are mage armour and magic missile, the wizard will not be dominating anything. Comparably, if that same wizard prepares sleep, then that wizard will rather smash up a particular encounter. Also, the general consensus is that wizards who are essentially warmages tend to end up at the lower end of the curve on most levels.

Similarly, a fighter who has a relatively weak build is less likely to be as potent as other fighters, regardless of level.

Personally, extremely low-level games (1-3) tend to be poor analyses of classes, especially level 1. At level one, a fighter's 8+con hit points have to go against the enemy's 1d8+str damage. Throw in the fact that fighters tend to be up front, and you get very frequent deaths in either party.

Extremely low level D&D tends to be exceptionally fatal regardless of your class. The frequency of one-hit drops tends to, at least in my experience, make your defensive ability not terribly relevant there - you've got to be a dwarven barbarian to reliably soak one hit from an orc, and kobolds and the like come in groups or pairs.

[Blanks]

attempting to position for a full attack against any monster will earn you a raise dead for your trouble.

This was the part i didnt get :)

[Skjaldbakka]

This was the part i didnt get :)

I also don't find that to be the case. It isn't an issue of meleers are too weak, it is an issue of spellcasters are too strong. A cracked out barbarian can one-shot a freakin' balor, for crying out loud.

[Saph]

Please state the argument, i have never played either :)
Rage benefit is 4 str ie +2 attack, +2 damage. Is that really that much? I know there are other benefits , but do they outshine all the feats the fighter gets?

A barbarian gets more attack bonus and damage (due to rage), more hit points, and damage reduction. This makes him better at the main thing fighter classes are supposed to do; stand at the front and hit things.

The barbarian also gets a bonus on Will saves and fast movement, which help cover two of his weaknesses (no point being a tank if you can't get to the battle quick enough). And then he gets a bunch of minor plusses like extra skills and skill points, uncanny dodge, and trap sense on top of that.

Against this the fighter just gets feats. Now it's true that if you pick your feats very carefully you can be effective - but only in a specific way. Barbarians require a lot less optimisation to be effective than fighters, and they're less specialised. You pretty much just buy a two-handed weapon and you're set.

alot depends on the amount of fights per rest.

If you only have 1-4 fights before you can rest the wizard is still near the top of the list. Why is that? Spells like sleep and color spray, which means who ever fails the save losses.

In general, at low levels if you have few fights per rest, the wizard will probably still come out on top.

Not really. Okay, your 1st-level wizard prepares two/three sleeps and colour sprays. You run into vermin and undead - immune to mind-affecting. Whoops, you're useless, and you've got an AC of about 12 and 5 or 6 hit points, so you're not only useless, but actual dead weight for the party to protect. It's even worse for sorcerers - say the 1st-level sorcerer takes colour spray and mage armour for his first two spells. He can't get a new spell until 3rd-level, even if he knows what's coming.

In a typical adventuring day you will not know the details of what you have to fight, nor will you be able to have every spell you want pre-cast when you run into them. (If you do know the details of exactly when and where and what you're going to fight, odds are it wasn't a challenging encounter in the first place.)

- Saph

[Skjaldbakka]

You would think that the power curve would have favored the fighter (the class that gets lots of feats) with supplements, given that they all have feats, but somehow, that was not the case.

[Saph]

You would think that the power curve would have favored the fighter (the class that gets lots of feats) with supplements, given that they all have feats, but somehow, that was not the case.

Well, it does, sort of. There are some very powerful feat chains you can take.

The trouble is it means heavily specialising your fighter, and you're likely to kind of suck at everything else. So you become dependent on the DM throwing certain types of encounters at you.

With the Barbarian this is less of a problem, since as long as you can get into melee there's just about nothing immune to Rage + Two-Handed Weapon + Power Attack.

- Saph

[Kantolin]

To be fair, if your level 1 fighter has only a longsword and you fight enemies with damage reduction slashing, life sucks for him too.

Anyway, an extreme minority of units at CR 1 or less are immune to mind-effecting techniques, so if you absolutely have no idea what's coming, then sleep's actually still a good bet. This is assuming your DM just grabs a random CR <1 unit and plunks them at you.

So I suppose that's another feature of combat in general, but most frequently extremely low level combat when you don't have too many options - if the focal enemy of this encounter is a heavy armour and shield wearing hobogoblin who fights defensively, then pretty much all of the martial units will be useless.

Comparatively, if it's a fire elemental, then the wizard who has mage armour and burning hands will also be rather useless.

Ambushes, especially early game, favor the higher hit dice and armoured units, while ranged combat (enemy kobold up a bit away shooting arrows?) prefer magical save-ors.

So I suppose, at low levels when everyone's options are limited, a more accurate statement is 'more likely to win' as opposed to 'guaranteed to win' - there simply aren't enough options for anyone at that level to guarantee a win, especially if the DM is gunning for you.

Most DMs, I suppose, tend towards orcs, goblins, kobolds, evil humans, or other basic humanoids and animals (At least, in my experience).

[Saph]

Ambushes, especially early game, favor the higher hit dice and armoured units, while ranged combat (enemy kobold up a bit away shooting arrows?) prefer magical save-ors.

Which save-or are you hitting them with?

If you cast sleep, it has a full-round casting time. Every kobold has a full round to say "Look! Magey! Kill!" and do target practice on your unarmoured body. Or they can just spread out. Or wake up comrades once they keel over. Or . . . you get the idea.

And colour spray has a 15-foot range.

Most DMs, I suppose, tend towards orcs, goblins, kobolds, evil humans, or other basic humanoids and animals (At least, in my experience).

True, but undead are pretty popular too, as are vermin. Although you probably won't start running into plants and constructs for a little while.

- Saph

[Zincorium]

You would think that the power curve would have favored the fighter (the class that gets lots of feats) with supplements, given that they all have feats, but somehow, that was not the case.

That's because feats are (generally):

1. Fixed. You take a poor one, and that's the end of it.

2. Scale poorly, if at all. Those that do improve in usefulness (power attack is a prime example) see so much more use than those that do not.

3. Are limited in scope. You can't stop time with a feat, no matter how high level you are. Or cause a vast array of effects, as with wish. Spells just do more.

4. Deceptive in quality. Weapon specialization is lauded as a big thing for fighters, but it's really not good at all. Whereas power attack I remember was cited only as a pre-req for cleave when it was first introduced.


If you want to make feats good, addressing those will be a smart first step.