D&D 5E It is OK for a class to be the worst

[iserith]

It is possible to do that while playing a peasant PC.

Suggesting that all the talk about class balance maybe isn't all that important at the table.

This reads like "I was poor and got rich, so everyone who is poor has only themselves to blame" nonsense.

Playing D&D well is a skill. It can be improved with effort. That effort is a great deal easier than moving up the socio-economic ladder. I therefore find your characterization erroneous.

The Beastmaster ranger, for example, has a problem that people who want to play it tend to like the idea of having a pet; but the class is designed such that the pet is cheap and easy to replace. This isn't the experience most of the people I've seen playing it want.

What they often end up with is a Ranger with no subclass, because they find that their pet is not strong enough to reliably survive combat. The risk they put their pet in isn't worth much.

And yes, you can play a Ranger-with-no-subclass and still contribute; you can play a peasant in 5e and still contribute. You just won't be telling a story that many people want to tell with that PC.

The beast master ranger looks to me like one where you do change up pets from time to time. So that's how I play it. If someone tries to play it in a way that is not supported, then they are making it harder on themselves.

The design errors include the load on DMs. The Ranger class abilities require a very specific amount of wilderness exploration in the regions that the Ranger is specialized in, and a specific amount outside of it. Too much, and the Ranger's veto makes it boring; too little, and the ability doesn't do anything. Without the contrast, and both look like they do nothing.

The favored enemy has the same issue. The Ranger either has to get lucky with a good pick, they have to coordinate the pick with the DM's plot, or the DM has to coordinate enemies to match the Ranger's class ability (which does nothing and is ignorable if it is ignored).

There's no real load on the DM in my experience. The smart play is to choose characters according to the campaign that is being planned e.g. don't pick a PHB ranger for an urban campaign. Choosing an effective character in the context of the campaign is just another player skill.

 

[Undrave]

The beast master ranger looks to me like one where you do change up pets from time to time. So that's how I play it. If someone tries to play it in a way that is not supported, then they are making it harder on themselves.

This isn't Pokémon Gen 1, the fiction being sold is Let's Go Pikachu, where you companion is a loyal friend you fight side by side with until the end. That's the fiction most people want to play when they play a Beastmaster Ranger, not War Dog Handler. The disposability of the pet is a bad design independent of its combat performance.

If a class doesn't fulfill its fiction properly, then it is bad and can be the worst.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't understand this (I see @Oofta mentioned this as well).

Here, let's try two quotes:

"Well, that's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

By definition, if you rank things, something is going to be "the best" and something is going to be "the worst."

So if you have more than one thing, something will be "the worst." It's a property of superlatives. Don't blame D&D, blame English language, and grammar.

 

[iserith]

This isn't Pokémon Gen 1, the fiction being sold is Let's Go Pikachu, where you companion is a loyal friend you fight side by side with until the end. That's the fiction most people want to play when they play a Beastmaster Ranger, not War Dog Handler. The disposability of the pet is a bad design independent of its combat performance.

If a class doesn't fulfill its fiction properly, then it is bad and can be the worst.

I don't understand your Pokemon references. But I can say that my beast master ranger's companion was a loyal friend with whom the character fought side by side until the end. When the end came, I used my ranger skills to find a new companion. I don't expect my character to survive forever. Why should I expect that my animal companion would?

 

[Undrave]

Also, it is fun to just tweak stuff.

 

[Redwizard007]

Also, it is fun to just tweak stuff.

The most honest answer we will ever see

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The most honest answer we will ever see

That seems extremely unfair.

You made this thread, and have just labelled all the answers to your question except one as "dishonest" by saying that. I was going to respond, but it seems like if you regard all answers except the one you dislike as "dishonest", then there's hardly any point.

 

[Istbor]

I am only in the range of upset to confused, as to why the Berserker Barbarian didn't later in the sub-class advancement set up something to mitigate exhaustion. I know Barbarians are pretty strong, it was just an odd decision for the only class to impart that negative, to also not provide a bandage for it later up the ladder.

Easily fixed by a DM with understanding of it, and even if unmitigated, the character is not the worst or useless. Just weird, a rank 14 thing that says you can ignore one level of exhaustion a day or up to some low hanging modifier. shrug

 

[Undrave]

I don't understand your Pokemon references. But I can say that my beast master ranger's companion was a loyal friend with whom the character fought side by side until the end. When the end came, I used my ranger skills to find a new companion. I don't expect my character to survive forever. Why should I expect that my animal companion would?

In the first Pokémon games, a lot of Pokémon were designed with the concept of you just replacing them as you went on. Catch a Pidgey or Spearow? Replace it with a Dodo/Dodrio later on. Catch a Rattata? Ditch it for a Meowth and then Snorlax. Caught a Beedrill? Grab a Paras and then later a Scyther or Pinsir.

They didn't take into account that kids would grow ATTACHED to their virtual pets. In future game they improve the starting routes Pokémon so that many can realistically be carried until the end of the game without being penalized too much.

Let's Go Pikachu and Let's Go Eevee were remakes of the first games that gave you a special partner Pokémon with boosted stats and special coverage moves not available to the regular ones. I'm saying a Beast Master should have a partner like that.

 

[Undrave]

I am only in the range of upset to confused, as to why the Berserker Barbarian didn't later in the sub-class advancement set up something to mitigate exhaustion. I know Barbarians are pretty strong, it was just an odd decision for the only class to impart that negative, to also not provide a bandage for it later up the ladder.

Easily fixed by a DM with understanding of it, and even if unmitigated, the character is not the worst or useless. Just weird, a rank 14 thing that says you can ignore one level of exhaustion a day or up to some low hanging modifier. shrug

Yeah the Beserker is just a poor design because the Exhaustion mechanic is just too shallow to be worth hanging anything on it.