D&D 5E Classes that Suck

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

Ah, sorry. I guess I had accidentally assumed the +2 damage against favored enemies was the base. You are correct.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

Wait, so if the rules don't correctly balance a class, and the DM doesn't specifically give that character magic items and other special equipment to help them be on par with the other characters, that DM is horrible and should stop DMing? What if they're a new DM, and they're only starting to learn how the game is balanced? They shouldn't be DMing, then? What if a character was playing the most OP class combo, and suddenly the whole party is falling behind that one character. Is it the DMs fault, and is it their responsibility to give the rest of the party magic items until they're on par with the OP character?

I don't agree with that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

@AcererakTriple6 and @WayOfTheFourElements

I think nevin's point was closer to that if a DM feels that a player's enjoyment of their game isn't their (the DMs) problem, and the player should just fix it themselves, then the DM isn't doing a good job.

I certainly agree that if I went to my DM with a legitimate complaint about the game, and the DM's responses was "I don't care, that sounds like a you problem." they aren't really facilitating the game in the way they are supposed to be

 

[auburn2]

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.

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 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.

I love 5e. Paladins are awesome in combat, I just don't like them when it is not combat as I stated above, . Clerics not so much in my experience and unlike previous additions you don't really need a cleric for healing. Other classes can heal and you can buy potions. Not to say Clerics are not useful but IMO they are not really good unless multiclassed. The original question is "what classes suck" In my opinion cleric sucks the most. Not saying they are never useful, but in terms of suckiest classes they are the top of my list. Note this is for single class characters.

I am pretty certain the PHB Ranger does not get a damage bonus to favored enemies. I am actually traveling right now so I don't have my PHB with me but I believe they get advantage on wisdom and intelligence checks against FE but no bonus to damage. If they get a damage bonus too please let me know what page of the PHB that is on so I can incorporate it into my Ranger.

Regarding navigation - we started at first level. Few Rogues have a 16 wisdom in my experience and a +4 survival at first level for a rogue is pretty good. Even with a +9 though you would still get lost a quarter of the time with a DC 15 check. Meaning if you have a 6-day trek across the wilderness, you would be lost 3 days on average so it would take you 9 days to get there (note the 3 out of 6 instead of 2 out of 6 is because you can get lost again while being lost). With a +9 survival the chance you actually make a 6 day trip without getting lost is less than 18%. 82% of the time you are going to get lost on that 6-day journey even if you have a +9! The key with Ranger is they are NEVER LOST IN FAVORED TERRAIN. 6 days travel means 6 days. It could be a DC 30 check and I would be ok.

 

[Asisreo]

I am pretty certain the PHB Ranger does not get a damage bonus to favored enemies. I am actually traveling right now so I don't have my PHB with me but I believe they get advantage on wisdom and intelligence checks against FE but no bonus to damage. If they get a damage bonus too please let me know what page of the PHB that is on so I can incorporate it into my Ranger.

Their level 20 capstone ability lets them add their wisdom mod (probably +5) to any attack rolls or damage rolls once per turn against a favored enemy.

It's an okay-ish ability. It's better than it sounds. You can wait until after the roll to decide whether you apply it or not. By 20th level, you should definitely be well-acquainted with what types of enemies you're seeing and have a decent chance to be their favored enemy (probably dragon or fiend). Adding +5 to an attack roll after you've made the roll is pretty good if you're hoping for something important to land like a lightning arrow.

Lightning arrow is also pretty unique. As far as I'm aware, it's the only AoE spell that uses an attack roll. But I digress.

 

[NotAYakk]

Their level 20 capstone ability lets them add their wisdom mod (probably +5) to any attack rolls or damage rolls once per turn against a favored enemy.

It's an okay-ish ability. It's better than it sounds. You can wait until after the roll to decide whether you apply it or not. By 20th level, you should definitely be well-acquainted with what types of enemies you're seeing and have a decent chance to be their favored enemy (probably dragon or fiend). Adding +5 to an attack roll after you've made the roll is pretty good if you're hoping for something important to land like a lightning arrow.

Lightning arrow is also pretty unique. As far as I'm aware, it's the only AoE spell that uses an attack roll. But I digress.

The trick is you get to turn 1 miss into a hit (great), and if everything hits you get a bit of damage.

It is still crappy as a capstone. With a hifh investment of 18 wis, that is roughly a 20% chance you can turn misses into hits per attack. XBE rangers get 3 attacks, so that is a 50-50 chance to use it each round.

If wis is 16 we get closer to 40% chance, if wis is 20 closer to 60%.

With advantage, chance to use it is often under 20%; it depends on target number.

To compare, fighter extra attack is better (if hit chance is over 50%). Even gloomstalker 11 (reroll a miss) is about as good; at 60% hit chance gloom 11 gives 0.47 hits/round (H*(1-H^3)).

And if you lack 3 attacks/round (say you want to use ranger spells like HM), it is worse.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.)

Yeah I tend to agree with this. The sad thing is, all classes improve with levels, it's just some improve a lot more than others. Monk, for example, is one of the weakest classes L1-5 (regardless of subclass, but you can make it worse by picking a bad one!), simply because of Ki starvation. And Sorcerer starts meh but gets better as you get more spells known, more sorcery points and access to more metamagic. The trouble is, of course, at the same time, other classes are improving, and often improving a lot more.

(I notice some examples here are pretty bad - the Shadow Sorcerer one, for example, ignores the opportunity cost of Polymorphing two other PCs into Giant Apes, because they are then not doing their normal damage or using their normal abilities - indeed it kind of looks like the writer thinks you can Polymorph yourself into two Giant Apes which is a pretty hysterical concept).

 

[Chaosmancer]

Clerics not so much in my experience and unlike previous additions you don't really need a cleric for healing. Other classes can heal and you can buy potions. Not to say Clerics are not useful but IMO they are not really good unless multiclassed. The original question is "what classes suck" In my opinion cleric sucks the most. Not saying they are never useful, but in terms of suckiest classes they are the top of my list. Note this is for single class characters.

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.


If you think clerics suck because other people can heal, I'd suggest trying to build a cleric (war/tempest/light or grave) that does not do healing, and see if that changes your opinion. Grave is especially good because they have Spare the Dying as a ranged bonus action, meaning that they can pretty easily stop death, even if they take no healing spells.

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.

I don't disagree, but I will note that we generally don't play the game the designers seem to expect us to. Tehy put a lot of value on things like natural weapons, that none of us utilize, and designed the game assuming no feats, which most of us use. So, there is some give and take with the idea that classes might be well balanced, but in the style of game you are running.

(I notice some examples here are pretty bad - the Shadow Sorcerer one, for example, ignores the opportunity cost of Polymorphing two other PCs into Giant Apes, because they are then not doing their normal damage or using their normal abilities - indeed it kind of looks like the writer thinks you can Polymorph yourself into two Giant Apes which is a pretty hysterical concept).

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.

 

[NotAYakk]

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.

On my Bard, I call Polymorph my "bard heal".

When someone gets focused down, I can drop it on them and give them a whole pile of HP.

Ape/TRex usually doesn't lower their damage significantly, and the big pile of "I don't care" HP is great soak.

Being able to do it on 2 allies is just nuts.