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

[S'mon]

IME Fighter feels a bit weak, mostly good for a 2-3 level dip. I'd prefer they risk being too good than too weak. Ranger, leaving aside XGE, definitely feels underwhelming too.

 

[TwoSix]

IME Fighter feels a bit weak, mostly good for a 2-3 level dip. I'd prefer they risk being too good than too weak. Ranger, leaving aside XGE, definitely feels underwhelming too.

1) I wish fighter got their 4th attack earlier, at 17th level.
2) Indomitable should be on a short rest.
3) I'd like them to get a 2nd fighting style sometime during tier 2.

Makes those changes, and I'm pretty good with single class fighter.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Hmm. I didn't think I was responding to you, or to any particular assertion regarding the BM (Bowel Movement) Fighter.

You quoted my post, which was specifically responding to an assertion re the need for Monks to do less damage than BM Fighters by that person's whiteroom DPR calcs.

I don't think I'm really being sassy when I suggest that quoting a specific post (which you have to press a button to do) might give the impression that you were talking about that post!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Fair enough! Posts tend to blend together after enough time.



Well, looking back at them, it appears I pretty much stated the same thing in both my replies. So I am consistent, if not always good with the memory.

I blame society, and/or a lack of coffee this morning.

Recent US DoD research indicates we kind of need to drink coffee like hours before we expect it to be effective, so very understandable!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Todd Roybark]

Oh buddy... you just nuked your own argument from orbit. Was it the only way to be

Monks are okay, certainly not as bad as Rangers, in 5E, but they're not perfect.

Ahh Ruin Explorer, the exemplar of blustery opinion and misplaced certainty that their perspective is Indubitably, the only correct opinion. It is a charming reminder of the grand days when a British man’s opinion, in his own mind, ( the only one that matters, really) was worth 12x the ‘truthiness’ value of any facts someone might bother with, ( 20x a frenchman’s).

I write this with affection, I have appreciated your forceful voice in ENworld since the 3x days,
( Sincerely)

yet. When I run your statement below through the Universal Translator:

Re smiling faces, my own experience is that upbeat and generally positive players tend to be far more willing to select mechanically dubious classes, and far less upset when they can't perform mechanically.

the statement translates as: “ I hand wave away the reality of decades of years of fun, players have had with the mechanically dubious monk class, as the result of simple, unwashed, blissfully ignorant, players that do not mind sucking “.

It certainly captures the spirit of your words

The 1e PHB literally describes the monk as, perhaps, the most deadly class in the game at that time. (Pre U/A). Put an 8th level MU, 8th Druid, and 8th level Monk with just fists against a Demon with Magic Resistance and +1 Weapons to hit, and the group is in real trouble!
The monk can still stun or outright kill on a hit, even if the monk does no damage.

A monk with a Staff of Striking, is like chocolate and orange....fairly classic.

There are times, in 1e where the monk shines, but to be fair, there are times the monk just gets slaughtered, but hey in 1e that is true for most classes beyond Fighter and Ranger.

‘Flurry of Misses’ was the 3e knock of the monk class, but let us face it, the last two attacks of any class were going to most likely miss, especially against high AC opponents. The secret was to maximize the damage on the initial hits. No power attack or Smite feats no dice. This is a system problem, not a Monk problem.

You have also never addressed how 5e monks have a magic item problem, that you intimated earlier in the thread.

So, respectfully R.E., my consideration of decades of people’s fun, does not “nuke”, my argument. Dismissing, outright, the players of in your opinion: “mechanically dubious”....(read classes that do not meet R.E.’s particuliar standards), only shows that whatever pronouncements you make, however vibrant and flavorful the writing is, still is the mere opinion of one person, with limited universality, if any.

Proclaim away, R.E., for you certainly seem short on actual arguments!

 

[Tony Vargas]

The cold fact is that in most editions where they've appeared, Monks have been mechanically pretty awful, so what you're proving is that the people you've played with have enjoyed the hell of terribly-designed classes. Which I'm sure is true, I too have seen pretty awful character classes provide fun

Sure. Fun can be had in spite of mechanical weaknesses. Certain kinds of fun can even be had by leveraging them, often not conventional nor plays-well-with-others kinds of fun, but still.

Monks are a mobile DPR oriented character. BM Fighters are more versatile and survivable, but you apparently think they should not only be vastly tougher than Monks (higher AC and HP) but also do more damage

Well, yeah, the whole "best at fighting" (with weapons, without magic) mandate: the tricked out BM blowing his Action Surge and all his CS dice should not be out-damaged by the Monk blowing all his Ki. Not unless they're both fighting unarmed, of course.

[qoute]Really hoping you blow my mind with some kind of mechanical insight here, don't just double down on Fighters should do more damage! [/QUOTE]Sorry, nothing mind-blowing, just 5e Fighters got tossed the design-goal bone - sorta a giant's femur, really - of "best at fighting." Sure, it's with the proviso that it's only when fighting with weapons and without using magic, and 'best' just in the advertising sense of 'no one else is demonstrably better,' but it's the fighter's bone and you should let him gnaw on it in the corner.

 

[Todd Roybark]

IME Fighter feels a bit weak, mostly good for a 2-3 level dip. I'd prefer they risk being too good than too weak.

Luke Skywalker, shakes his head and states “Everything in that sentence is wrong “.

I don’t wish to be outright dismissive, but find, alas I can’t.

If the 5e Fighter is too weak for you in relationship to the other 5e classes, then you must either want such power increases (Double Weapon Specialization?), as to overshadow the other 5e classes, or you have a really high opinion of spells.

As it stands now Fighters will have better stats than the rest of classes due to extra ASI, or more Feats if ability scores are already high.

A Fighter with the Duelist Fighting Style and Heavy Armor Master feat eats the Barbarians lunch.

So is your opinion that fighters are weak based off Paladins?

 

[Tony Vargas]

If the 5e Fighter is too weak for you in relationship to the other 5e classes, then you must either want such power increases (Double Weapon Specialization?), as to overshadow the other 5e classes, or you have a really high opinion of spells.

Or just looking past DPR when assessing what makes a class strong.
Certainly, the last thing the fighter needs is some sort of further DPR-grinding feature, like the 2e double-speciation you suggest (heck, Archery and the 3rd & 4th extra attack come pretty close to that as it is).
Rather, it lacks versatility/resources to put in a good showing when it's main features don't apply (out of combat, and even in-combat, when the fight can't be readily reduced to single-target DPR). It also lacks design space to 'fix' that lack. It's literally an imbalanced class - just imbalanced in the direction of DPR, which is the easiest "white-room" yardstick of class 'strength.'