D&D 5E (2014) Basic Thoughts on All the PHB Classes

[Bacon Bits]

I don't like those classes:

- Berserker is problematic, their basic class feature works differently to all class features, instead of a limited number of uses it gets exhaustion and you need a high level spell or a long rest to recover 1 level of exhaustion. It's absurd when you think it's only an extra attack using a bonus action when you rage which is also a limited resource per long rest, all classes can have an extra attack using 2 weapons without exhaustion, fighters can have more attacks than the berserker without exhaustion. Intimidating presence at level 10 is useless if the DM uses the intimidate skill with the same effect.
At least it can be easily fixed, I don't use exhaustion and at lvl 10 it gets 2x proficiency to Intimidate.

I don't think I've seen anyone use Frenzy more than once a day except in dire emergencies. If I were to make a change I'd just make the attack be part of the Attack action instead of yet another bonus action (i.e., make it an Extra Attack attack and not a bonus action attack). Yeah, that makes them pretty sick at low level with TWF and pretty good with GWM, but, well, both those things should be true.

- Bard college of valor is in no mans's land, you get some armor and weapon proficiencies, an extra attack and lastly you can cast a spell and make one attack. This is a very limited dip for warrior features that ends practically inconsequential at higher levels.

Eh, that's pretty subjective. Valor Bard is the worst fighting class that gets Extra Attack, but it does get Extra Attack as well as full casting. It fights better than the Cleric and casts better than a Paladin or Ranger. That's perfect, IMO, for the kind of versatility the Bard class is supposed to exemplify. Valor Bard only looks weak in comparison to the Lore Bard. Valor makes the Bard more versatile. Lore makes the Bard more focused. It's much easier to play the Lore Bard as mage-of-all-trades instead of playing a Valor Bard as real a jack-of-all-trades.

- Ranger sucks. Favored enemy and natural explorer have a very limited utility. Primeval awareness wastes your spells slots (compare it with divine sense). TWF has a bad mechanic but it has the worst synergies for a ranger which is the class more associated with that fighting style. Foe slayer is completely underwhelming.
Hide in plain sight is a bit absurd when other classes get invisible, hide in shadows, etc. What's the purpose of a class with spells if you have to dedicate 10min to hide?
The beast master has horrible mechanics and instead of the beast being a follower of the ranger it ends the other way in combat.
Multiattack for hunters doesn't work well comparatively speaking with other class features at lvl 11. You need hordes, whirlwind attack is the worst case, you need at least 3 enemies at the same time to be comparable to an extra attack, but 1 attack to each is far worse that 3 attacks to one, and being surrounded by enemies is dangerous.

Ranger's problem is that players have no control on whether or not favored enemy and natural explorer come up, and all the damage from the class comes from Hunter's Mark (a spell) and subclass features. So the base class doesn't do anything particularly interesting and all the combat prowess is forced into the subclasses, which drastically limits their flexibility. It constantly feels like the DM can turn off all your abilities with a moment's notice, too, since every ability is conditional. That means the class just doesn't ever feel powerful. It feels clunky compared to the others, particularly (IMO) because they feel compelled to make it a part-time pet class and make the pet viable. I have to think they made the pet class the Ranger instead of Druid because of Drizzt, but I am not a fan of pet classes. Too many DMs I've played under just kill pets because they're not PCs. However, if you want a utility pet, you're sacrificing a ton abilities that are supposed to be your damage abilities that let you keep up with Barbarian, Fighter, and Paladin.

I'd like there to be a Horizon Walker type Ranger that can pick and choose his Favored Enemy types and Natural Explorer terrains each long rest or each short rest. Let him be like Batman and be able to take advantage of preparation and knowing your enemy. None of these abilities is that useful in combat. About all it lets you know is that Trolls are weak to fire and Demons resist everything but acid and Vampires can be killed in several oddly specific ways (if you have the right favored enemy). That means the Horizon Walker subclass would have to grant all the combat bonuses with Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer terrains, which is unfortunate because it means you can't do anything else with it, but it's certainly doable.

Hide in Plain Sight would be fine if it didn't say, "Once you move or take an action or a reaction, you must camouflage yourself again to gain this benefit." and instead said, "[...] you must press yourself against a solid surface to hide again." If the effect lasted as long as you were in the terrain you camouflaged for, it'd be great. It'd be +10 to Stealth when not moving, making it almost as good as the Warlock's One with Shadows.

Colossus Slayer is not a bad ability at all. It works better with TWF than the other abilities, certainly, but the remainder of the Hunter abilities are all fairly specialized and often won't come up. Multiattack Defense and Evasion are really the only generic good ones.

I agree TWF isn't great for the Ranger, but I think TWF isn't that great in 5e. Bonus actions are, generally speaking, pretty heavily overloaded if you're min/maxing at all. Finding something to do with your bonus action is part of maximizing a character. TWF is good for rogues to increase chances of sneak attack, but that's about all.

Contrary to some people I really like Warlocks and Sorcerers:
- The warlock as a man with a lasgun can be a bit boring in combat but it works very well, outside of combat with CHA and DEX skills and some invocations he is very interesting. The melee warlock also works very well, I've been playing one and he tanks good without a shield thanks to armor of agathys, darkness and killing enemies, damage is good thanks to armor of agathys and hellish rebuke. He can also stay back and shoot the lasgun or a bow.

I hate Devil's Sight. It's a stupid ability that should not be available to the PCs without a magic item. I also hate the "on hit" wording of eldritch blast, hex, and Agonizing Blast, too. It's damage that's on par with a Fighter with a 2 handed weapon, and it feels like you're cheating because of how the game works in every other situation (i.e., 1 spell == 1 hit). I also don't really like short rest abilities in general due to the effects they cause, so short rest spellcasting is something I'm not a fan of.

Beyond that, I like the class just fine. I played an Archfey Warlock that focused on versatility as much as possible, and I was more than capable of keeping up. Faerie fire is devastatingly effective in a large party.

I've not played or seen a Sorcerer. I don't find the class interesting in the slightest, and strongly prefer Wizard.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

In no particular order:

* Bard: Lore bard suffers from the worst base AC in the game. Which matters if the DM makes use of ranged attacks or ambushes from the rear. Valor bard gets a nigh instantaneous AC boost from medium armor / shield proficiency. Bard is certainly a solid class, but their spell list lacks the breadth of most other primary casters without the expansion abilities.

* Rogue: With a lot of possible tricks and easy access to an owl familiar, Arcane Trickster is easily the most powerful of the three base rogue subclasses. Assassin's assassinate ability can be difficult to impossible to get off depending on DM and exploration environment.

* Sorcerer vs Wizard: Some of the metamagic types DO change the power and utility of certain spells; Haste, Fly, or something like Phantasmal Force become different creatures entirely when twinned. And Sorcerer spell damage frequently IS slightly higher when combined with class abilities. But the limited spell list coupled with sharply limited known spells and lack of ritual casting makes for a huge hit to versatility.

* Wizard: Naturally, which type of class one likes is entirely subjective. But IMO Light Cleric is not even close to Wizard in terms of blasting...except for a very narrow level range where the cleric has Spiritual Weapon and where Fireball is still a combat-ender. Notwithstanding the Wizard's massively greater spell versatility. Cleric does get some pretty decent single and limited-target damage in the early levels.

 

[Mistwell]

Bard
Valor bard is underwhelming for a variety of reason the lore Bard is very versatile and powerful and can sub a large variety of roles (skill monkey, primary caster, healer etc).

I am surprised at your current views on valor bards. I agree overall lore bards have more to offer. However I think a well built valor bard is pretty darn good and not underwhelming compared to most of the other classes which you rate as underwhelming. They might be underwhelming relative to a lore bard, but relative to the other classes in general? I disagree.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I also hate the "on hit" wording of eldritch blast, hex, and Agonizing Blast, too. It's damage that's on par with a Fighter with a 2 handed weapon, and it feels like you're cheating because of how the game works in every other situation (i.e., 1 spell == 1 hit). I also don't really like short rest abilities in general due to the effects they cause, so short rest spellcasting is something I'm not a fan of.

I think that these abilities are vital to maintaining Warlock combat viability in the face of their extremely limited spell slots, myself. For most other casters cantrips are more of a backup ability past low levels. For the warlock, they are bread-and-butter attack routines.

 

[Zardnaar]

I am surprised at your current views on valor bards. I agree overall lore bards have more to offer. However I think a well built valor bard is pretty darn good and not underwhelming compared to most of the other classes which you rate as underwhelming. They might be underwhelming relative to a lore bard, but relative to the other classes in general? I disagree.

Mostly compared to lore bard but also clerics in concept. We have kind of stopped playing them due to MAD and concentration rolls retc.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ranger's problem is that players have no control on whether or not favored enemy and natural explorer come up, and all the damage from the class comes from Hunter's Mark (a spell) and subclass features. So the base class doesn't do anything particularly interesting and all the combat prowess is forced into the subclasses, which drastically limits their flexibility. It constantly feels like the DM can turn off all your abilities with a moment's notice, too, since every ability is conditional. That means the class just doesn't ever feel powerful. It feels clunky compared to the others, particularly (IMO) because they feel compelled to make it a part-time pet class and make the pet viable. I have to think they made the pet class the Ranger instead of Druid because of Drizzt, but I am not a fan of pet classes. Too many DMs I've played under just kill pets because they're not PCs. However, if you want a utility pet, you're sacrificing a ton abilities that are supposed to be your damage abilities that let you keep up with Barbarian, Fighter, and Paladin.


Hide in Plain Sight would be fine if it didn't say, "Once you move or take an action or a reaction, you must camouflage yourself again to gain this benefit." and instead said, "[...] you must press yourself against a solid surface to hide again." If the effect lasted as long as you were in the terrain you camouflaged for, it'd be great. It'd be +10 to Stealth when not moving, making it almost as good as the Warlock's One with Shadows.

Again, I'll recommend checking out the Unearthed Arcana Revised Ranger. They fixed a lot of stuff. It isn't perfect but it is vastly improved in regards to things like Primeval Awareness, Natural Explorer and Hide in Plain Sight. It also offers a massively better rewrite of the Beastmaster which at my table has been much more viable than the PHB version

 

[dco]

I figure the berserker would be a lot less controversial if they put the following in big bold letters in the PHB: You are not supposed to frenzy every fight. Seriously. Save it for the big fight.

It wouldn't make it anymore popular, but it would save us the confused puppy dog looks. I will admit it is a thematic mismatch (for both the berserker and the sorcerer) that to get the most value out of them, you have to play them tactically.

That could be said of all the book and all the classes, it is supposed to be played as it is written, still there will be people who not like the classes or the game.
I don't see tactics, only punishment and a gamble.
The player usually don't know if the group will face more fights or more dangerous fights, normally he saves his only class feature while his friends use their new shiny powers and recharge them without problems. Frenzy is also used a lot of times in a less than optimal manner because sometimes the fight is going bad, instead of using it since the beginning it ends being used in the middle of the fight.
Then it comes the punishment, you used your ability, ok, now you have disadvantage on all your ability checks, oh, you used it at the beginning of the day?, bad luck, you like your strong barbarian? now that skinny wizard could wrestle you. If you continue using your class feature you start losing what makes your class shine, speed, attack, hit points, etc. In my opinion it is bad design, the only class with that kind of fault.

Eh, that's pretty subjective. Valor Bard is the worst fighting class that gets Extra Attack, but it does get Extra Attack as well as full casting. It fights better than the Cleric and casts better than a Paladin or Ranger. That's perfect, IMO, for the kind of versatility the Bard class is supposed to exemplify. Valor Bard only looks weak in comparison to the Lore Bard. Valor makes the Bard more versatile. Lore makes the Bard more focused. It's much easier to play the Lore Bard as mage-of-all-trades instead of playing a Valor Bard as real a jack-of-all-trades.

It's the problem of the class system, only some features change within subclasses, we see some small dips on magic for some classes and in this case a small dip on martial features, but this time it doesn't work as well, martial classes get spells and features that work well and strengthen their class. The valor bard gets one attack and armor/weapon/shield proficiencies, 3 levels later the lore bard can get mage armor and an offensive cantrip, the shield is bad for casting somatic spells and not all people plays with feats. I like combat inspiration but it doesn't change the bard too much towards a martial archetype, it's only a small variation of the lvl 1 power. Beyond lvl 10 the valor bard only gets a bonus attack after casting a spell.
I think the bard needs less class features and more sub class features, I like the valor bard till level 10 and the lvl3 proficiencies are a bit meh.

 

[Eubani]

Fighters give up everything outside of combat to spend most of its career behind other weapon classes and when it eventually pulls ahead it is only by a marginal amount. Add to this the lack of flavour/story the design of the fighter was under cooked. The fighter should of also been split into 2 classes one for the basic class and the second for an advanced fighter.

 

[Mistwell]

Mostly compared to lore bard but also clerics in concept. We have kind of stopped playing them due to MAD and concentration rolls retc.

I seemed to recall you being a fan of Cleric 1 (for Guidance, Bless, and heavy armor), Valor Bard X was a pretty good path to follow. Have you changed your mind entirely on that or am I misremembering?

 

[ccs]

Fighters give up everything outside of combat

In my xp this is only true when the player of said fighter chooses not to interact with the rest of the game.
Such players choose not to select non-combat skills/feats, chooses to ignore 4-5 of their stats, & sits mostly mutely when anything but combat is occurring. And they don't claim non-combat related loot.
Of course, this sitting mutely stems directly from having not invested in other stats/skills/feats. The player realizes that they don't have the highest modifier & so doesn't risk failure by trying anything....
And then this type of player compounds their problem by continuing to over-invest in combat as they lv up because they preceive no value in upping non-combat stuff that they're already "behind" in.

to spend most of its career behind other weapon classes and when it eventually pulls ahead it is only by a marginal amount.

If you're playing a fighter (or any other class) & your jealous of the class abilities of others - the answer is that you have chosen the wrong class.
Fighters don't lag behind the other weapon classes (whatever you think those are), they just do things differently.
Primarily they get additional ASI/Feats. Yes, I know I just said that taking nothing but combat focused ASIs/feats is bad. But there IS a balance to be had....

Add to this the lack of flavour/story the design of the fighter was under cooked. The fighter should of also been split into 2 classes one for the basic class and the second for an advanced fighter.

?? Lack of flavor/story? This might come as a shock, but that's on YOU the player to provide, not WoTC. If you lack imagination you're playing the wrong game.

A basic fighter? What do you think the Champion sub-class is? That's about as simple as you get without going back to the 1e fighter.