D&D 5E [Poll] Are any of the base classes too weak?

[atanakar]

No class is too weak.

 

[Horwath]

One could argue that compared to a Paladin most classes are bad

Rangers flaw is really that they don't scale from level 11 on.

problem is 1-10 not 11+ as few people play those levels.

Both classes have 1d10 HD, half-casters and Extra attack.

But Extra features from Paladin are few categories better that Rangers even before level 10.

Lay on hands, Divine smite and Aura of Protection vs. Favored enemy, natural Explorer and primeval awareness?
Not even a contest.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Weiley31]

The Monk needs more ki. Just add their Wis modifier and it may be enough.

Sounds like a reasonably good/fine Monk house rule to me. Sorcerer could probably get extra sorcery points by adding their CHA Modifier too.

 

[Horwath]

Sounds like a reasonably good/fine Monk house rule to me. Sorcerer could probably get extra sorcery points by adding their CHA Modifier too.

sorcerer needs sorcery points on short rest recharge.

In 3.5 sorcerers strength over wizard was more spell slots over few spells known.

Now they have the same number of spell slots(more or less), and wizard has arcane recovery and that is only if sorcerer does not use any metamagic or burns tons of low level slots to gain few high level ones.

 

[TwoSix]

The sorcerer isn't too weak, it's simply not quite strong enough compared to its comparable classes. Give it sorcery points refreshed on a short rest and it would be fine.

I would have voted for ranger, but that's only assuming you don't use the UA class variants. With those in place, the class is quite good.

 

[Minigiant]

problem is 1-10 not 11+ as few people play those levels.

Both classes have 1d10 HD, half-casters and Extra attack.

But Extra features from Paladin are few categories better that Rangers even before level 10.

Lay on hands, Divine smite and Aura of Protection vs. Favored enemy, natural Explorer and primeval awareness?
Not even a contest.

Depends if all you care about is combat.

Ranger class features greatly beat Paladin class features in exploration and social.

 

[Horwath]

Depends if all you care about is combat.

Ranger class features greatly beat Paladin class features in exploration and social.

ranger is better that paladin in exploration if you count on DM charity.

You have favored terrain. Outside of it, you are no better than a paladin(having same skills OFC)

Same goes for favored enemy.

There is a reason that ranger got most changes over the years in UA.

 

[Todd Roybark]

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer”and they don't just lose out on feats but also on magic items


In what sense? Sure the Monk class can't use magic armor or greatswords, but magical simple weapons, Sunswords, and the rest are good to go.

 

[Minigiant]

ranger is better that paladin in exploration if you count on DM charity.

You have favored terrain. Outside of it, you are no better than a paladin(having same skills OFC)

Same goes for favored enemy.

There is a reason that ranger got most changes over the years in UA.

You forgot the skills lists, the language and skill bonuses, and the exploration spells.

The ranger is seen as weak because it is seem by many of as an alternate fighter. Or their group skips most of wilderness exploration.

If you skipp wilderness, monster and enemy interaction, and minimize travel and stealth, the ranger will look terrible compare to a paladin.