D&D 5E Classes that Suck
Benjamin Olson
Hero
To me the real problem is in the progression.
Rangers have crappy progression: For level 1 they are basically a strictly worse version of the Fighter, albeit with an additional skill. The Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer abilities are likely to not come up through your whole play of level 1. They then have an awesome levels 2-5, which is the saving grace here given that this is where so much of play happens, but the rest of the progression seems interspersed with a lot of semi-dead levels. There's some really cool subclass abilities and some really cool spells but it just isn't enough to keep me excited about each level up.
Do Rangers suck? Not in raw power. They totally carry their weight on the back of spells and subclass abilities. They just don't develop in a satisfying way or have core class features which I find compelling.
Sorcerer's have terrible progression: It's a game where most people end up mostly playing low level characters, and they made Sorcerers suck as low level characters. They simply have to wait too many levels to have enough resources to use their Metamagic frequently. Whatever defenses one can make for the power of a mid or high level Sorcerer, it is a slog to get there.
Monk Ki has the same issue as Sorcery points. 1 per level is simply not a satisfying progression for a class defining resource. If there is an original design sin of both classes it is this. It ends up too little at the beginning and a trivial limitation late game. Both also then try to make capstone abilities out of getting back what is, by then, a piddling amount of the points after you no longer really have need of more. The class progression charts have room to list how many points they get at a specific level, there is no reason it has to be so simplified. If we can handle an oddball progression of spell slots we can handle the same for Ki and Sorcery points. They could actually playtest what is a satisfying but balanced number to have at each level and have it progress accordingly rather than just decide that remembering an additional number other than their character level will probably break players' brains so lets just make it equal the character level and skip on playtesting.
But, for the Sorcerer, to me the truly indefensible decision was giving them Metamagic at level 3 rather than level 2. Nobody else waits that long to get something considered their absolute signature, character defining ability. Instead they get the ability to buy spell slots at a point where they only thing they are given enough Sorcery points to do with said ability is buy a single 1st level spell slot. The progression on Metamagic and Flexible Casting should simply be switched so that you start dabbling with Metamagic at level 2 and can start burning spell slots to power it further at level 3 (which is still plenty exciting as the level where you both get 2nd level spells and finally have enough spell slots to use leveled spells regularly).
Do Sorcerers suck? Maybe a little bit Mr. I-Don't-Know-That-Spell. I know you are really excited about the showy things you can do, but everyone else at the table would have been happier if you'd just played a damned Wizard. They were sort of coming around to you when you starting Twinning Haste, but then you lost concentration mid-battle and... it was bad. But really my problem with Sorcerer is less overall class weakness and simply that they have a slog through the first tier of play owing to getting Metamagic a level later than they should and having an inane and overly simplistic 1 per level Sorcery point progression.
Rangers have crappy progression: For level 1 they are basically a strictly worse version of the Fighter, albeit with an additional skill. The Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer abilities are likely to not come up through your whole play of level 1. They then have an awesome levels 2-5, which is the saving grace here given that this is where so much of play happens, but the rest of the progression seems interspersed with a lot of semi-dead levels. There's some really cool subclass abilities and some really cool spells but it just isn't enough to keep me excited about each level up.
Do Rangers suck? Not in raw power. They totally carry their weight on the back of spells and subclass abilities. They just don't develop in a satisfying way or have core class features which I find compelling.
Sorcerer's have terrible progression: It's a game where most people end up mostly playing low level characters, and they made Sorcerers suck as low level characters. They simply have to wait too many levels to have enough resources to use their Metamagic frequently. Whatever defenses one can make for the power of a mid or high level Sorcerer, it is a slog to get there.
Monk Ki has the same issue as Sorcery points. 1 per level is simply not a satisfying progression for a class defining resource. If there is an original design sin of both classes it is this. It ends up too little at the beginning and a trivial limitation late game. Both also then try to make capstone abilities out of getting back what is, by then, a piddling amount of the points after you no longer really have need of more. The class progression charts have room to list how many points they get at a specific level, there is no reason it has to be so simplified. If we can handle an oddball progression of spell slots we can handle the same for Ki and Sorcery points. They could actually playtest what is a satisfying but balanced number to have at each level and have it progress accordingly rather than just decide that remembering an additional number other than their character level will probably break players' brains so lets just make it equal the character level and skip on playtesting.
But, for the Sorcerer, to me the truly indefensible decision was giving them Metamagic at level 3 rather than level 2. Nobody else waits that long to get something considered their absolute signature, character defining ability. Instead they get the ability to buy spell slots at a point where they only thing they are given enough Sorcery points to do with said ability is buy a single 1st level spell slot. The progression on Metamagic and Flexible Casting should simply be switched so that you start dabbling with Metamagic at level 2 and can start burning spell slots to power it further at level 3 (which is still plenty exciting as the level where you both get 2nd level spells and finally have enough spell slots to use leveled spells regularly).
Do Sorcerers suck? Maybe a little bit Mr. I-Don't-Know-That-Spell. I know you are really excited about the showy things you can do, but everyone else at the table would have been happier if you'd just played a damned Wizard. They were sort of coming around to you when you starting Twinning Haste, but then you lost concentration mid-battle and... it was bad. But really my problem with Sorcerer is less overall class weakness and simply that they have a slog through the first tier of play owing to getting Metamagic a level later than they should and having an inane and overly simplistic 1 per level Sorcery point progression.
The Ranger's issue is the design team don't know how a ranger is. They just ported the 3.5 ranger without updating the system.
An easy fix is letting rangers collect spells and Favored enemies/terrain like a wizard.
The Sorcerer's issue is that there are too few Metamagics and too few sorcerery points in the class.
Just still more Metamagics from 3e.
An easy fix is letting rangers collect spells and Favored enemies/terrain like a wizard.
The Sorcerer's issue is that there are too few Metamagics and too few sorcerery points in the class.
Just still more Metamagics from 3e.
TheSword
Legend
The OP is a hot mess of hyperbole. No classes in 5e suck. There are just some that are better than others.
If these classes did ‘suck’ then people wouldn’t have successful, contributing characters that are fun to play... which is the only requirement for a class not to ‘suck‘ by my book.
If these classes did ‘suck’ then people wouldn’t have successful, contributing characters that are fun to play... which is the only requirement for a class not to ‘suck‘ by my book.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
You know, new players are coming into the game all the time. Not everyone has been playing 5E since it came out.It's 2020... haven't you all fixed these classes for yourselves by now? These same complaints were coming up 5 years ago!
Really neither the sorcerer nor ranger are weak.
They are just poorly designed because the design teams lacked clear ideas of what either are. Both are decent at their jobs and exclusively problems can be fixed without needing actual variant. You can bandage both's bad design with new exclusive spells alone if you are against errata. And simple alternate class features would calm the most disgruntled.
But they both meet the number requirements. The issue was that the design was uninspired.
Asisreo
Patron Badass
Saying what classes suck depends entirely on your definition of "sucking."
If you're pessimistic, you may find even the smallest hint of being less powerful than an average being "sucky."
If you're less pessimistic, you may determine sucking to mean being unable to even come close to functional.
If you're literal, you may determine sucking as being a vacuum cleaner.
It should be worth noting that a class "sucking" is purely an opinion. It doesn't matter exactly how many people you've seen agree with you or how many people actually do agree with you.
In my opinion, the wizard sucks. Especially in this edition. You just have all prepared spells as an unlimited use until spellslots are out? Yuck. Unnecessary buff. If they wanted the wizard to actually not suck (again, imo), they'd give them less spells known and better defensive abilities. Maybe add a spell that gives a small bonus to dex saves.
But I know that's an opinion people will hardly ever share. But my playstyle is so incompatible with the wizard's that anytime I play it, it feels like being the class nerd who pulls out his notes and raises his hand first and wants to shout for attention when the teacher just wants to take attendance.
If you're pessimistic, you may find even the smallest hint of being less powerful than an average being "sucky."
If you're less pessimistic, you may determine sucking to mean being unable to even come close to functional.
If you're literal, you may determine sucking as being a vacuum cleaner.
It should be worth noting that a class "sucking" is purely an opinion. It doesn't matter exactly how many people you've seen agree with you or how many people actually do agree with you.
In my opinion, the wizard sucks. Especially in this edition. You just have all prepared spells as an unlimited use until spellslots are out? Yuck. Unnecessary buff. If they wanted the wizard to actually not suck (again, imo), they'd give them less spells known and better defensive abilities. Maybe add a spell that gives a small bonus to dex saves.
But I know that's an opinion people will hardly ever share. But my playstyle is so incompatible with the wizard's that anytime I play it, it feels like being the class nerd who pulls out his notes and raises his hand first and wants to shout for attention when the teacher just wants to take attendance.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Depends on the level ranges we are looking at. Some classes are bad from levels 11+.
I think all classes level 1-10 are solid. There is a hierarchy there IMO, but in general nothing actually sucks there (*unless sucks is being used as not top tier.)
I think all classes level 1-10 are solid. There is a hierarchy there IMO, but in general nothing actually sucks there (*unless sucks is being used as not top tier.)
