D&D 5E Classes that Suck

[auburn2]

Okay. There is a thread currently active discussing the Monk and whether or not it sucks. I have not gotten involved in that thread, because it is currently around 47 pages and there's not much for me to add to the current discussion.

Monks are not the main topic of this thread, but they can be discussed. Monks have their flaws, IMHO, and don't quite suck but are lacking at certain levels. There are a few classes that do deserve the "suck" label on them, and these are the ones I think deserve it, in order of worst to not as bad:

1. Rangers.
2. Sorcerers
3. Warlocks and Monks, tied.

Okay, lets start with the Ranger. Why does the Ranger suck? (I'm sure most of you are aware of its flaws, but I will state them here because this is the topic of the thread):
First, and foremost, Favored Enemy. At first glance, it seems like a nice boost; a free language, advantage on certain Intelligence (History) checks, a bonus to damage against certain creature

So for me it would be:
suckiest - cleric
2nd suckiest - paladin.

I almost never play these myself. As a player I find Clerics are a waste of space and an XP sponge. Paladins are pretty powerful and dope when you need to save (gather around him and attack from there) but they are so, so awful to be in the party for anything other than combat. They are like police - when you need them it is good that they are there but you would rather not have them around on a regular basis.


As far as Ranger, I think the PHB/RAW Ranger is underpowered compared to other classes but they do NOT suck to play. I note you are talking about the revised Ranger, not the RAW ranger. RAW there is no bonus to favored enemies, so it is even worse than you allege. The counter is the Ranger is flat awesome if you are playing in your favored terrain and your DM is using navigation, foraging etc. I find navigation is near impossible without a Ranger. Yes you can have a rogue with expertise in survival and get a huge bonus but you will fail the check eventually and when you do you have spend days getting back on track. On the other hand a Ranger is never lost (in favored terrain) I would say do this one of two ways - either talk to the DM (ok this is an underdark campaign so I can have an underdark ranger) or pick up ranger as a multiclass after the campaign is moving and you realize most of it is going to be in one terrain. I agree 100% that it sucks to have your forest ranger tromping through the desert for 15 levels. And if your DM is not playing the things a Ranger excels at, then yes you are better off with another class.

I was playing a fighter in my current campaign and we were getting lost all the time even with a Rogue in the party proficient in survival (not expert). He had like a +4 at 2nd level. It sucked - ok we are here, we want to go here 2 hexes away, that is 2 days at a normal pace. So our options are 1 DC 15 check wth disadvantage or 2 normal checks. What is the chance we get there without being lost? It was rare that we would get anywhere and we would spit out after 2 days in a random direction, sometimes further from the gal. We spent most of the time recovering from being lost and we eventually started following the coast until we got as close as we could to wherever we want to go (you can't accidentally wander into the ocean or forrest when you are purposely staying on the beach). I did not plan to multiclass to Ranger, but I had the wisdom so when we made 3rd level I took it. Now we are never lost in the jungle and the whole game is more fun. Did I give up some offensive power? Yeah sure, but I got a skill and the game for the whole party is just better than it was.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I almost never play these myself. As a player I find Clerics are a waste of space and an XP sponge. Paladins are pretty powerful and dope when you need to save (gather around him and attack from there) but they are so, so awful to be in the party for anything other than combat. They are like police - when you need them it is good that they are there but you would rather not have them around on a regular basis.

XP sponge? I'm sorry, but I honestly have to ask if you've played 5e. Paladins are very powerful, and great at dealing damage and great support characters as well. Clerics can also do damage, are very useful for keeping your party alive if they want to do that, and are one of the most diverse classes in the game, nevermind the fact that they get to prepare spells, have great spell lists, and have Channel Divinities which often are extremely useful.

As far as Ranger, I think the PHB/RAW Ranger is underpowered compared to other classes but they do NOT suck to play. I note you are talking about the revised Ranger, not the RAW ranger. RAW there is no bonus to favored enemies, so it is even worse than you allege. The counter is the Ranger is flat awesome if you are playing in your favored terrain and your DM is using navigation, foraging etc. I find navigation is near impossible without a Ranger. Yes you can have a rogue with expertise in survival and get a huge bonus but you will fail the check eventually and when you do you have spend days getting back on track. On the other hand a Ranger is never lost (in favored terrain) I would say do this one of two ways - either talk to the DM (ok this is an underdark campaign so I can have an underdark ranger) or pick up ranger as a multiclass after the campaign is moving and you realize most of it is going to be in one terrain. I agree 100% that it sucks to have your forest ranger tromping through the desert for 15 levels. And if your DM is not playing the things a Ranger excels at, then yes you are better off with another class.

I am not using the Revised Ranger. I am strictly using the PHB Ranger, and they do get a +2 bonus to damage rolls against their favored enemies. Navigation is hardly "impossible without a ranger" as anyone can take proficiency in Survival, Scout Rogues automatically get Expertise in it, which automatically makes them better at it than almost any ranger.

I was playing a fighter in my current campaign and we were getting lost all the time even with a Rogue in the party proficient in survival (not expert). He had like a +4 at 2nd level. It sucked - ok we are here, we want to go here 2 hexes away, that is 2 days at a normal pace. So our options are 1 DC 15 check wth disadvantage or 2 normal checks. What is the chance we get there without being lost? It was rare that we would get anywhere and we would spit out after 2 days in a random direction, sometimes further from the gal. We spent most of the time recovering from being lost and we eventually started following the coast until we got as close as we could to wherever we want to go (you can't accidentally wander into the ocean or forrest when you are purposely staying on the beach). I did not plan to multiclass to Ranger, but I had the wisdom so when we made 3rd level I took it. Now we are never lost in the jungle and the whole game is more fun. Did I give up some offensive power? Yeah sure, but I got a skill and the game for the whole party is just better than it was.

I think you're complaining more about the fact that the rogue didn't have a high enough bonus to Survival to help a ton. +4 is tiny. If you have a Scout Rogue, with even a 16 (+3) in Wisdom, at level 5 they have a +9 bonus to Survival, which is higher than any level 5 ranger, unless they are a human, half-orc, or half-elf who uses the Prodigy feat to get expertise in it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Does a single good subclass make the whole class not suck anymore?

Yes. If it’s possible to make characters that don’t suck with the class, the class doesn’t suck.

If WotC made a class with only 2 subclasses, one of them was great, and another was awful, the class sucks. Sure, one subclass sucks and the other is at least playable, but if they didn't make the class good enough to be playable in any subclass, that's the fault of the class.

No, that isn’t how 5e is built. Some classes lean more on the base class, some lean more on the subclass.

I am strictly using the PHB Ranger, and they do get a +2 bonus to damage rolls against their favored enemies.

No, they don’t.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Well from all of the responses I have seen in this thread and others, the only consensus is the Ranger. Many people feel the Monk, Sorcerer, and Warlock are fine and enjoy playing them. So I think the evidence supports just "fixing" the Ranger at this time.

Hell, from what I have seen in recent thread:

• Martials suck: Barbarians, Rogues and Fighters can’t contribute outside combat;
• Sorcerers and Warlocks suck, they can’t compete with Wizards;
• Rangers suck, their special abilities are too situational;

-Monks suck, it was the subject of an ongoing flame war.

What’s it going to take to conclude that not all of those classes suck, Druids, Wizards and Clerics are probably slightly overtuned? (Bards and Paladins are probably all right).

 

[CapnZapp]

Hell, from what I have seen in recent thread:

• Martials suck: Barbarians, Rogues and Fighters can’t contribute outside combat;
• Sorcerers and Warlocks suck, they can’t compete with Wizards;
• Rangers suck, their special abilities are too situational;

-Monks suck, it was the subject of an ongoing flame war.

What’s it going to take to conclude that not all of those classes suck, Druids, Wizards and Clerics are probably slightly overtuned? (Bards and Paladins are probably all right).

The only things that actually suck:

Beast master ranger (since Hunters don't suck, the Ranger class should not get any upgrades)

Four Elements monk (since Open Fist doesn't suck, don't buff the entire class)

Berserk Barbarian is penalized too heavily. Other Barbarians are fine though.

Wild Magic Sorcerer (but since Draconic is good, the class can't get upgrades)

That said the Warlock and Sorcerer classes could greatly benefit from a redesign. Cut down on clutter in the first place, actually add choice and breadth in the latter.

 

[NotAYakk]

I am not using the Revised Ranger. I am strictly using the PHB Ranger, and they do get a +2 bonus to damage rolls against their favored enemies.

No they don't. PHB rangers get 0 combat features at level 1. Favored Foe is a knowledge/exploration feature only.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes. If it’s possible to make characters that don’t suck with the class, the class doesn’t suck.

No, that isn’t how 5e is built. Some classes lean more on the base class, some lean more on the subclass.

Your argument here doesn't ring true for me. And one specific example comes to mind. The Divine Soul Sorcerer.

A lot of people claim that the Divine Soul sorcerer proves sorcerers are perfectly fine as designed, but if you look over the claims people make, and compare it to the actual abilities they mention, it becomes glaringly obvious that the Divine Soul sorcerer is fine.... because of the abilities that make it a cleric.

And I think in that situation, if you make the claim "The sorcerer doesn't suck because you can build a sorcerer who plays like a cleric" you have a serious problem with the class. (I acknowledge the Shadow Sorcerer is pretty good too, but this is an example)


Additionally, I sometimes think about how many different builds you can make with a class. You can make quite a lot of different fighters, you can make a ton of different styles of wizard, but when you get to a class like the sorcerer it boils down to single combos, like Twin+Polymorph. And while that combo is often incredibly powerful, if your entire class is build around doing 1 of four hyper specific combos... again, I think we have a problem.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Your argument here doesn't ring true for me. And one specific example comes to mind. The Divine Soul Sorcerer.

A lot of people claim that the Divine Soul sorcerer proves sorcerers are perfectly fine as designed, but if you look over the claims people make, and compare it to the actual abilities they mention, it becomes glaringly obvious that the Divine Soul sorcerer is fine.... because of the abilities that make it a cleric.

And I think in that situation, if you make the claim "The sorcerer doesn't suck because you can build a sorcerer who plays like a cleric" you have a serious problem with the class. (I acknowledge the Shadow Sorcerer is pretty good too, but this is an example)


Additionally, I sometimes think about how many different builds you can make with a class. You can make quite a lot of different fighters, you can make a ton of different styles of wizard, but when you get to a class like the sorcerer it boils down to single combos, like Twin+Polymorph. And while that combo is often incredibly powerful, if your entire class is build around doing 1 of four hyper specific combos... again, I think we have a problem.

But that isn’t even true. The Sorcerer doesn’t need to boil down to any combo. Most people don’t play the class that way. It’s only in heavily optimized games and Internet forums that people think like that about the class.

A class doesnt need to have high end optimization to not suck. Sorcerer is quite playable and fun as it is. Even the changes I proposed in my thread are just there to loosen things up for players feeling frustrated by a small set of known spells and the class not leaning hard enough on sorcery points and metamagic due to running out of points too easily.

 

[Minigiant]

I find myself disagreeing, because of how things are designed.

I'm going to take the Warlock as an example. The blade pact, kind of sucked, it was just close enough to working that everyone wanted it to do cool things, but just couldn't deliver.

However, that was because of the mechanics of the subclass. The class itself is much better designed. It still has issues, but declaring the class sucks because of a bad subclass makes it harder to fix the problem, because it misidentifies the problem.

Another example is the Inquisitive Rogue. It isn't a very good subclass, but it works decently because the rogue class is great. But, if we wanted to fix the inquisitive, it wouldn't work to try and fix the rogue itself.

For Sorcerer? The issue is in the base class, the subclasses are just in addition to that, But the Oath of the Crown we were just discussing is bad itself, the paladin base class is mostly fine.

Someclasses get theirpower from their base class features. (paladin, fighter, monk,)
Some classes get their power from their subclass features (ranger, warlock)
Some classes get their power from the subsystem they tap into (most full spellcasters)

 

[Chaosmancer]

But that isn’t even true. The Sorcerer doesn’t need to boil down to any combo. Most people don’t play the class that way. It’s only in heavily optimized games and Internet forums that people think like that about the class.

A class doesnt need to have high end optimization to not suck. Sorcerer is quite playable and fun as it is. Even the changes I proposed in my thread are just there to loosen things up for players feeling frustrated by a small set of known spells and the class not leaning hard enough on sorcery points and metamagic due to running out of points too easily.

That has literally not been my experience with sorcerers. But I don't want to devolve this into another discussion about them. Because it would just be the same discussion we always have about them.

Someclasses get theirpower from their base class features. (paladin, fighter, monk,)
Some classes get their power from their subclass features (ranger, warlock)
Some classes get their power from the subsystem they tap into (most full spellcasters)

I have a problem with that paradigm. Firstly, if that is true of rangers, it certainly explains a lot, since they only get 4 subclass abilities, compared to 11 or so class abilities. If the majority of their power is supposed to come from those four abilities, I find it completely unsurprising that the ranger typically comes across as under-powered. Especially before they get their sub-class and in the gap levels where they aren;t getting new subclass abilities.

As for the "subsystem", well, first of all, there is only one, so you are talking only about spell casting because we don't have another sub-system to work with.

But, Druids, Bard, and Clerics also have very nice and impactful abilities. Clerics less so than the other two in general, but it is there. And these abilities (Bardic Inspiration and Wildshape particularly, as well as subclass features like the Dream Druid healing pool or the glamour bards charm abilities) change how the class plays almost as much as their spell choices,.