D&D 5E Classes that Suck

[Undrave]

I too think that it is the DM's job to work out where professional game designers who supposedly spent years playtesting the game they published got things wrong. And that after normally spending over $100 on the three core rulebooks it should be acceptable to assume that every DM should fix the game they paid good money to buy. Oh wait.

If the DM is significantly diverging from the assumptions stated in the rules and this makes a class suck this is the DM's issue to explain and counterbalance. But if the class is significantly underpowered the blame should lie not with the DM but with the game designers. The DM can try and put in a patch job as a replacement - but the expectation should be that the DM isn't a professional game designer and any professional game designer worth giving money to should be able to produce a decently balanced product - and better balanced than your average DM.

It also doesn't help that the game doesn't include any sort of real guideline for what magical items load out is appropriate at various level so you don't even know HOW to compensate for a weaker character and you might end up overcompensating with the magical items.

 

[Asisreo]

It also doesn't help that the game doesn't include any sort of real guideline for what magical items load out is appropriate at various level so you don't even know HOW to compensate for a weaker character and you might end up overcompensating with the magical items.

There is some sort of guideline found on the "Starting at higher levels" section of the DMG which gives a sort of estimate based on how magical your campaign is.

So past 11th level, even if you are in a low magic setting, each character is expected to have at least one uncommon magic item at level 11, which is an alright minimum since it assumes low magic in a magic-centric system. That's 4 uncommon magic items.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

160 temp hp and 44 damage a round is ridiculously good. Even if it lowers your damage, you've essentially made the front-liners immune to damage for a few turns.

I'm not saying it is the perfect strategy at all times, but it is a dang good one in general.

It's pretty good but it relies on an awful lot of assumptions, and by making them AC12, instead of likely 18+ at that level, you're making it so that basically any CC/debilitating effect that is a rider on an attack roll is definitely going to hit them. It is extremely strong at level 7 though, for sure, just because of the huge numbers (which is essentially a level/CR discrepency - a level 7 PC is more like CR4 than CR7, but Polymorph treats them as CR7), assuming you have the willing victims. I just don't buy all this gibberish about how you're going to cast it 3x a day and it's way better than Wizards and so on. It's more like a great trick when you have two damaged frontliners and need them to beat the snot out of people for you, Donkey Kong-style.

 

[auburn2]

• Fighter sucks because short rests suck. The game told DMs to run twice as many encounters and make them half as challenging to make it so that parties would short rest more often, but if you stray too far outside that sweet spot then classes like Fighter often just have nothing to do. Oops! Hope your campaign doesn't like very few, very difficult encounters because if so you should be a Barbarian or a Paladin. Plus Fighter only gets combat abilities, with virtually no exploration or social abilities at all. And it's the same class that runs out of combat tricks if the party doesn't short rest often enough. The only reason Fighter isn't the worst at combat is because Extra Attack (2) is one of the most absurd abilities in the game. Edit: I forgot about Indomitable! The most feelsbad ability in the game! You'll get only a few uses of it, and by the time you get it you'll want to use it on saves where you only get +0 to +2 vs DC 15. So you'll use your cool ability and always fail the reroll. When I first read the playtest Fighter got advantage on all saves I though it was way too OP, but after getting to the level that you gain Indomitable... nope! Indomitable is 100% trash.
  • Someone needs to explain to me why Battlemaster has such a limited number of combat dice. Compare it to Ranger or Rogue. They get bonus damage every turn.

Nice list a couple corrections on fighters though:

1. Most fighter subclasses do get exploration and social abilities, it is just players rarely choose them. Samaurai can take one from a big list. Arcamne Archer can get nature, Purple Dragon gets persuasion, so this is not really a valid criticism. Now if you choose to forgo these options for a more battle-oriented character who can get maximize DPR-well that is what you opted for.

2. Ranger or Rogue do not get extra damage every turn. Rogues can only get extra damage when they meet conditions for a sneak attack. That can be often, but it is not every turn and if he is walking around the battlefield sneak attacking every round intelligent enemies will often take action to deny a Rogue a Sneak Attack by doing something that gives him disadvantage. Most rangers can't get extra damage every turn without using spells. A collosus slayer can get it if the opponent is damaged, which is most turns against tough opponents and almost never against weak opponents (or when they dom get it against weak opponents it is irrelevant). Moreover niether of these are comparable to battlemaster for two reasons - first the Ranger and Rogue can't simnply decide when to use it - either the conditions are there for it or not. Battlemaster can pick and choose when to take extra damage. Also the battlemaster abilities are more than just extra damage (and sometimes are not extra damage at all). They cause conditions or affect the battlefield beyond just damage.

 

[auburn2]

Oh. I did not get that memo.

No, seriously, my current Warlock doesn't even have EB. She'll never cast it, let alone spam it.

Mine too.

 

[auburn2]

Well, it's not just Improved Pact Weapon that's the problem, it's Thirsting Blade and all the Blade invocations that you have to take in order to make you be on par with other melee characters.

If you want a melee character why did you choose Warlock? They should not be on par with other melee characters.

 

[Undrave]

Nice list a couple corrections on fighters though:

1. Most fighter subclasses do get exploration and social abilities, it is just players rarely choose them. Samaurai can take one from a big list. Arcamne Archer can get nature, Purple Dragon gets persuasion, so this is not really a valid criticism. Now if you choose to forgo these options for a more battle-oriented character who can get maximize DPR-well that is what you opted for.

2. Ranger or Rogue do not get extra damage every turn. Rogues can only get extra damage when they meet conditions for a sneak attack. That can be often, but it is not every turn and if he is walking around the battlefield sneak attacking every round intelligent enemies will often take action to deny a Rogue a Sneak Attack by doing something that gives him disadvantage. Most rangers can't get extra damage every turn without using spells. A collosus slayer can get it if the opponent is damaged, which is most turns against tough opponents and almost never against weak opponents (or when they dom get it against weak opponents it is irrelevant). Moreover niether of these are comparable to battlemaster for two reasons - first the Ranger and Rogue can't simnply decide when to use it - either the conditions are there for it or not. Battlemaster can pick and choose when to take extra damage. Also the battlemaster abilities are more than just extra damage (and sometimes are not extra damage at all). They cause conditions or affect the battlefield beyond just damage.

The Arcane Archer and Purple Dragon Knight are some of the worse subclasses in the game though, no one wants those guys. And the Samurai is about as exciting as the Champion, but at least is a decent pick I guess. Doesn't excuse the base class not getting anything.

And Rogues CAN gets their sneak attack every turn. The class is basically balanced around that idea. It's not difficult.

If you want a melee character why did you choose Warlock? They should not be on par with other melee characters.

Why not? The PHB doesn't have a good 'gish' class (aside from maybe the Paladin's smites), I think it should be possible to pick between the ranged and melee options of the Warlock, but either side shouldn't be taking up ALL your invocations. A EB spammer only take Agonizing Blast to be about as potent as an archer, so I think a melee Warlock should only need 1 Invocation as well (and that they should have SCAG style melee cantrips in the PHB) to be good in melee. You should have room for more utility invocations.

 

[auburn2]

I don't want to tell you you are wrong, because this is your opinion, but you seem to be making a classic mistake of thinking of the Cleric as a healer only.

Clerics can also be phenomenal tanks, damage dealers and buffers. My favorite combo (and most basic) is Spirit Guardians for a 15ft aura of 3d8 damage to all enemies, Spiritual weapon as a bonus action for 1d8+4, and Toll of the Dead for 2d12 on a wisdom save. That is an average of 35 damage on a single target, and with a decent AC the cleric can lurk on the front-lines dishing it out.

Yeah I get what you are saying, but you are also using a 3rd and 2nd level spell to get this. So a 5th level cleric can do that in two battles a day. On the other hand a fighter with GWM is dealing about that much in every battle without using any of his limited-use abilities and without gobbling up bonus actions or maintaining concentration. When said fighter goes Nova he is going to eclipse this by a lot.

Not saying I have not had fun with clerics, but I usually multiclassed them.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The Arcane Archer and Purple Dragon Knight are some of the worse subclasses in the game though, no one wants those guys. And the Samurai is about as exciting as the Champion, but at least is a decent pick I guess. Doesn't excuse the base class not getting anything.

They are not as bad as they look on paper though. The principal weirdness with the PDK (and the champion, as a matter of fact) is that they only have 1 feature are 3rd level, while other fighter archetypes gain 2 or 3, even if some of them are as minor as a bonus proficiency or whatever; its still better than nothing. But beyond that, the rallying cry is more or less one casting of Mass Healing Word per short rest, a 3rd level spell. At 7th level, they gain 1 expertise and 1 other skill prof if you planned a little in advance. That's not bad either, there's not a lot of class that offer double prof on a skill. Bulwark makes Indomitable at least passable; you'll fail the saving throw anyway even with the re-roll because you'll likely want to use it on a non-proficient save. Might at least make it worthwhile by allowing a ally with potentially a better save modifier to succeed against an effect. All that put over the main fighter chassis which is highly functional, while a little boring, makes for a nice archetype that brings more than ''moar damagez!'' to the group.

For the AA, I must say that after seeing one in play, the banishing arrow, the grasping one and the semi-blind one are pretty nasty against the boss of an encounter. I'm still butthurt that my girlfriend kinda soloed the second Cryanwrath encounter in HotDQ by banishing him while they cleared the mooks with him, then grasping him while the party plinked him with ranged weapons like a bunch of miserable cowards!

 

[auburn2]

The Arcane Archer and Purple Dragon Knight are some of the worse subclasses in the game though, no one wants those guys. And the Samurai is about as exciting as the Champion, but at least is a decent pick I guess. Doesn't excuse the base class not getting anything.

And Rogues CAN gets their sneak attack every turn. The class is basically balanced around that idea. It's not difficult.

I like Arcana Archer, so I disagree with you that it is a bad subclass. It is a less powerful subclass than battlemaster or champion but that is not the same as sucking. I am not a fan of purple dragon knight, but the point is those fighters have exploration/social skills.

It is extremely easy to keep a rogue from sneak attacking if you make a determined effort to. The most basic thing is to just take the dodge action and give him disadvantage. Any creature can do that and unless the Rogue has a way to force advantage to cancel the disadvantage there is no way he can sneak attack regardless of allied positioning. That is not to say it is not a high cost but it is very easy to do.

Other ways are using spells like frostbite, invisibility, blur, blindness and darkness which all can cause disadvantage. Abilities that cause frightened will give him disadvantage. If he is moving in and out of combat (as they are wont to do) you can take a ready action and either push or grapple the rogue when he gets close to you, denying the geometry he is trying to create and attempt to immobilize him for the rest of the battle. Or simply have the enemies move and go knock him prone and grapple him where he stands if he is close enough. You may need one to absorb an OA to make this happen (or get the guys you are engaged with to use his reaction on something else first then do it). You can use difficult terrain to limit mobility and set up geometry for a SA.

In the games I DM a Rogue can almost always get SA it in round 1 but only in about 4 rounds out of every 10 after the first time he does it in a battle against intelligent monsters. More than that if he is a swashbuckler, but still not nearly all the time. Sometimes other party members will fight back against this with their own actions (like help) or conditioning spells, but if it is the rogue trying to make the sneak attack happen on his own, IMO it is not and should not be automatic for most intelligent monsters who watched it happen once already.

The order of initiative plays a big part in this too. Monsters whos turn is directly before the Rogue can usually deny SA by movement and positioning alone. On the other hand if a front line tank character goes directly before the Rogue it is much harder for the enemy to deny SA because the enemy can't set the geometry at the start of the Rogue's turn. The tank character does.