D&D 5E Classes that Suck

[Minigiant]

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,.

The other substyem is the skill system and this is how the rogue stays strong. Heavy interaction with ability, skill, and tool, checkis where rogues get their power.

Same with the full casters. Their poweer comes from the spellcasting system itself. Their other features like Wildshape or Bardic Inspiration are toppings on topping.

If you downgraded full casting on the bard, cleric, and druid then made the "warrior" subclass features base class features, those classes downgrade. A half casting druid who gets both mood and Land features is weaker that a full casting druid with either Moon, Land,or Shepherd.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

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.

People (rightly) complain about the Sorcerer because it doesn't adequately fulfill it's intended fantasy. Despite that, it's a very powerful class and nearly all the subclasses work well. If you play Draconic and spend most of your time shooting suped up fireballs while occasionally remembering to twin haste/polymorph you've contributed more than most people while still feeling pretty dragony.

 

[FrogReaver]

People (rightly) complain about the Sorcerer because it doesn't adequately fulfill it's intended fantasy. Despite that, it's a very powerful class and nearly all the subclasses work well. If you play Draconic and spend most of your time shooting suped up fireballs while occasionally remembering to twin haste/polymorph you've contributed more than most people while still feeling pretty dragony.

Yea. The biggest problem with sorcerer is that meta magic is the only really cool ability they get and it can only be used a few times per day for most of the game. Never mind that even those few uses makes sorcerers one of the most powerful classes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The other substyem is the skill system and this is how the rogue stays strong. Heavy interaction with ability, skill, and tool, checkis where rogues get their power.

Same with the full casters. Their poweer comes from the spellcasting system itself. Their other features like Wildshape or Bardic Inspiration are toppings on topping.

If you downgraded full casting on the bard, cleric, and druid then made the "warrior" subclass features base class features, those classes downgrade. A half casting druid who gets both mood and Land features is weaker that a full casting druid with either Moon, Land,or Shepherd.

I misunderstood your point then, the Rogue's abilities are in the base class, not from the skill system itself. Everyone has access to the skill system, rogues base class abilities deal with that.

But, I'm not entirely certain about your argument for Druids. Most Moon Druids focus heavily on their wildshaping, using their spells either as a single buff, or a pool of personal healing. I could see them working quite well as a warrior.

People (rightly) complain about the Sorcerer because it doesn't adequately fulfill it's intended fantasy. Despite that, it's a very powerful class and nearly all the subclasses work well. If you play Draconic and spend most of your time shooting suped up fireballs while occasionally remembering to twin haste/polymorph you've contributed more than most people while still feeling pretty dragony.

I disagree, but I don't want to drag this into yet another argument about Sorcerers

 

[Minigiant]

I misunderstood your point then, the Rogue's abilities are in the base class, not from the skill system itself. Everyone has access to the skill system, rogues base class abilities deal with that.

I was separating class features that primarily and wholly interact with a subsystem (Expertise, Spellcasting, Extra Attack) and class feature that only partially deal with a subsystem (Sneak Attack, Second Wind, Wildshape)

But, I'm not entirely certain about your argument for Druids. Most Moon Druids focus heavily on their wildshaping, using their spells either as a single buff, or a pool of personal healing. I could see them working quite well as a warrior.

My point was on Base Class Wildshape. Base class wildshape is not the power of the druid. The power of the druid comes from full access to a subsystem.

A land druid upgrading to Moon Wildshape at the expense of Full Spellcasting shrinking to Half Spellcasting is a net downgrade.

A beastmaster ranger upgrading to Full spellcasting at the expense of losing FE/NE/PA/Land's Stride and Foeslayer is a net upgrade in power.
The power of a ranger comes from their subclass.

 

[Marandahir]

People (rightly) complain about the Sorcerer because it doesn't adequately fulfill it's intended fantasy. Despite that, it's a very powerful class and nearly all the subclasses work well. If you play Draconic and spend most of your time shooting suped up fireballs while occasionally remembering to twin haste/polymorph you've contributed more than most people while still feeling pretty dragony.

Honestly, we should just make a Final Fantasy-inspired Dragoon subclass of the Blood Hunter and give them the Draconic but martialist features that people keep wanting to graft onto the Sorcerer (and particularly onto the Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer).

Sorcerer is a Mutant a la X-Men, or else an Inhuman, or a non-Jedi Force user, or a Witch-species, etc. Very different narrative function from Warlock, for sure, though oft quick to compare (did I inherit my abilities from a demonic ancestor or am I forced into a pact with that demonic ancestor?). And yes, there are some powered people that are really strong as their superpower, but they can also be modeled with Barbarians rather than Sorcerers.

There's a place for an Ancestry-based martial arcanist like an FF Dragoon, but there isn't enough room in the Sorcerer class for this concept.

It's better served as a subclass elsewhere, and I like Blood Hunter for that because the Blood Rites still give you that bloodline possibility. But Fighter, Ranger, or even Paladin could work too. Even Artificer, if flavoured properly (ExE's Forge Adept is a fantastic Swordmage with everything but the Aegis, and I could see other Intelligent Warriors akin to Forge Adepts and Battle Smiths really fill out the Artificer as the Int-Arcane Gish).

Oh, and Wild Soul Barbarians capture a bit of the martial Sorcerer concept, too. Not the Dragoon Sorcerer, but they show another mode where you could do them justice. 4e Barbarians had dragon spirits in some of their daily totemic rage powers, so I could definitely see this an a road to go down, there.

As for fixing the Sorcerer itself, just switch them over to Spell Points, make Sorcery Points and Spell Points a single pool of resources, and give a way to recover a few points 1/long rest akin to the Wizard's Arcane recovery. Spell points are already balanced the same way as the Monk's ki points for casting spells, so the only place Sorcerers are really being screwed right now are converting between Spell Slots and Sorcery Points and vice versa. Make it a single resource, no conversions needed, and they can just be the innate caster again, a sort of cha-casting psionic Wilder aka 3.5e Expanded Psionics Handbook.

 

[nevin]

Long Long ago the general groupthink was if a class or a character was sucking, then DM should make sure they had better equipment, more central attachment to the story. Or the DM should just upfront warn them that certain classes were going to suck. I'm playing a game now where everyone hates Elves, and magic users our game. Sucks to be my wizard a lot. But I was warned and I'm ok with it. Now if your DM lets you play a Ranger without warning you the adventure is all going to be sea and city based, the ranger doesn't suck, the DM sucks. If a character plays a class that is just underpowered to all the other characters, there are all kinds of options the DM has to even that playing field. the problem these days is we teach young DM's that they are just there to make sure the rules are being followed. So when the inevitable happens they think thier only option is to just let the player be useless. Any DM that can't make a player feel useful and important needs help. If they absolutely feel it's not thier problem then they shouldn't be DM'ng

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Long Long ago the general groupthink was if a class or a character was sucking, then DM should make sure they had better equipment, more central attachment to the story. Or the DM should just upfront warn them that certain classes were going to suck. I'm playing a game now where everyone hates Elves, and magic users our game. Sucks to be my wizard a lot. But I was warned and I'm ok with it. Now if your DM lets you play a Ranger without warning you the adventure is all going to be sea and city based, the ranger doesn't suck, the DM sucks. If a character plays a class that is just underpowered to all the other characters, there are all kinds of options the DM has to even that playing field. the problem these days is we teach young DM's that they are just there to make sure the rules are being followed. So when the inevitable happens they think thier only option is to just let the player be useless. Any DM that can't make a player feel useful and important needs help. If they absolutely feel it's not thier problem then they shouldn't be DM'ng

DM's who don't agree with your opinion should give up DMing...why? If such a DM weren't running a fun game, players would leave or start their own games.

 

[Marandahir]

Long Long ago the general groupthink was if a class or a character was sucking, then DM should make sure they had better equipment, more central attachment to the story. Or the DM should just upfront warn them that certain classes were going to suck. I'm playing a game now where everyone hates Elves, and magic users our game. Sucks to be my wizard a lot. But I was warned and I'm ok with it. Now if your DM lets you play a Ranger without warning you the adventure is all going to be sea and city based, the ranger doesn't suck, the DM sucks. If a character plays a class that is just underpowered to all the other characters, there are all kinds of options the DM has to even that playing field. the problem these days is we teach young DM's that they are just there to make sure the rules are being followed. So when the inevitable happens they think thier only option is to just let the player be useless. Any DM that can't make a player feel useful and important needs help. If they absolutely feel it's not thier problem then they shouldn't be DM'ng

5e is a very DMs-first edition, unlike the Players-first editions that were 3.5e and 4e. The DM is no longer just rules expert & arbiter, but is back to having their role as facilitator of fun emphasized. This requires trust in the DM, and that trust can be lost if the DM drops the ball.

That's also why Session 0 exists. But 5e is also a game where it's easier than ever to rotate DMs midcampaign. So experiment! You having trouble with your Desert Ranger character build for this aquatic adventure? Maybe it's time the party took a hard right out of the sea and into the desert.

 

[NotAYakk]

DM's who don't agree with your opinion should give up DMing...why? If such a DM weren't running a fun game, players would leave or start their own games.

That is a waste of people's time.

I'd rather have fewer games where you learn the game sucks 3-10 sessions in than more.