给点例子
Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven
First of all - thank you for the time and effort taken to translate all of this!
But many of these rankings are just ridiculous. In what world any of the wizards can be ranked lower than ranger? Any wizard or artificier in the Tier 3 or 4 is nonsense.
Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven
The other big problem with this list is that it's logically inconsistent. Take for instance that the author ranks a life cleric above a light cleric. Ok, fine. The author seems to prefer combat healing and utility over blasting and dpr. (even though its mostly out of *combat* stuff, but I digress...)
But then, its the opposite situation with the evoker and enchanter.
Default Re: Translation from Chinese D&D Forum: Ranking of Classes Based on Combat Effectiven
Frankly, I'm just amazed at how low Shepherd Druid is. The thing can buff HP to ridiculous levels, and summons dealing magical B/P/S make them arguably the king of DPR, far and above any other class from level 5 onward. Not to mention Planar Binding and Conjure Fey; an Annis Hag can be simply spectacular, not to mention Korreds and Bheur Hags at higher levels. And this is on the level of Arcane Archer?
They're unquestionably the best summoner in the game. The mind boggles. I just have to wonder what summoning builds it's "weaker" than, when it's the king of Tier 2/3 summoning.
Interesting read, thanks for sharing. Having said that:
1) I have the opinion that creating tiers in 5e is a hopeless task to begin with. All classes would be 'tier 3' in JaronK's 3.5 tier system (ok, with the few tier 2 exceptions of the nuclear wizard, simulacrum/wish abusers, and maybe coffeelocks). The funny thing is: on the one hand the OP seems to acknowledge this ("the most balanced version of DND", and the observation that at the higher levels classes are even closer in power), but on the other hand the tier names that are chosen are "Pinnacle of the edition", "powerhouses", "quasi-strong", "ordinary joe" and "weak classes"... I mean... how does that correspond? Why 5 tiers when they are close together, why not 2 or 3? Especially when the metric you can use is (very) far from exact, and more like, you know, your opinion man?
2) I also quite strongly feel that it's better to have no information than misinformation, and thus no ranking is better than a flawed ranking;
3) even disregarding the two points above, and in the hypothetical situation that a ranking could work, I can't agree with most of this. Classes whose subclass really isn't that interesting for theri power are all over the place; wizard from 'powerhouse' to 'weak'? No way. Land Druid weak, shepard druid "ordinary joe"? Nope. Lore bard super and glamour bard ordinary joe? Nope nope.
