D&D 5E Classes that Suck

[Undrave]

Player: fighters suck because they lack out of combat benefits.
Response: PDK
Player: PDK sucks because because it has weaker combat options

??? ;-)

It's the same conundrum. Players say they want non-combat on a fighter but when given a choice they go for combat abilities. This happens with subclasses and feats.

The PDK doesn't even do anything special out of combat. It has 1 skill more with expertise in persuasion. That's it... An Eldritch Knight at least has access to utility spells. You don' even get any sort of flavorful ribbon or anything.

Rallying Cry is a cool feature, but its heal doesn't scale that well.

The one that triggers on your action surge is pretty cool.

Arcane shot recovers on a short rest, and later has the "recover on initiative if empty" ability.

Were you thinking EK?

Oh my bad, I don't have Xanathar's. Still, you get 2 Arcane Shot. That means you're an Arcane Archer for two rounds between short rests. That's... very underwhelming. The shots themselves are good, but the Arcane Archer still feels like it's only a part time subclass. The Battlemaster gets 4 superiority dice and I think its borderline... imagine if it only got two.

The skill and cantrips are nice, not gonna lie.

 

[auburn2]

I want to play a Hexblade Bladelock without sucking, compared to both other Warlocks and other melee/ranged weapon attackers. A hexblade that doesn't multiclass can get at most 3 attacks in a round with a weapon (using feats as well), compared to a EB spammer's 4 attacks. The highest damage dice you can do for this if you just want to make 3 attacks every round, not dependent on killing other creatures, without being mounted is 1d6 (crossbow expert, hand crossbow). While mounted, it's 1d12 (but there are disadvantages to that as well) with a lance and the dual wielder feat.

So, only 3 attacks each round, which takes at least one feat to get and an eldritch invocation (Thirsting Blade), when it takes EB spammers no feats and only one Eldritch Invocation to get Agonizing blast, makes the Hexblade feel sucky.

Then, if the Hexblade wants to actually do more/equal damage to an EB spammer, they need to use a spell slot to Hex, just like the EB spammer. They then need to take Sharpshooter, Life Drinker, and Improved Pact Weapon, while also giving up their bonus action every round to make threee attacks while the EB spammer is making 4 in one action. You'll need Haste cast on you by a buddy to match the amount of attacks in a round. (Also, note that the only way to have a hand crossbow as a pact weapon is to get a magic one, with the help of your DM or an Artificer (let's assume it's +2 at this level).

Hexblades have to give up a lot to be on par with other Warlocks, and other weapon based characters, and need a lot of help from their DM and fellow players just to not feel like they suck.

A warlock is a spell caster. A hexblade warlock is a spell caster that is better in melee than most spell casters at the cost of some other abilities or spell casting potency.

IMO you can't have your cake and eat it to. Either you want a melee character, a Gish character or a spellcaster. If you chose hexblade you chose the Gish. You will always be a better spell caster than a fighter and you will always be a better melee character than your EB warlock .

If you want to compare a hexblade in melee compare him to a war domain cleric or a bladeinger. You will do more melee damage than either of those and they are similar in concept - a spellcaster with melee abilities. Yes a bladesinger gets an extra attack for "free" but that attack sucks in terms of damage and are generally behind a hexblade in hit rolls too.

I think this is like complaining that if I take the eldritch sight and eyes of the runekeeper I can't get as much DPR as someone who took agonizing blast. Yes you don't get as ,much DPR because you can read all writing and detect magic at will. In your case you don't get as much DPR because you can go into melee and get 2 attacks a round.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I hated trigonometry class.

 

[auburn2]

The problem with the PDK is that their new toys use up their basic class features without giving them more use of them so they effectively have less ressources than other archetypes. The Indomitable one is also too situation to be worth a full class feature. The PDK should do more than it does now.



the Arcane Archer's problem is that they run out of cool things to do in a flash and only recharge on long rest. If they were balanced around short rests, say similar to a Warlock, they'd be a lot more interesting. They're effective when they ARE Arcane Archer, but they . They should also be able to make them shots count as magical damage without expending ressources around the time a monk's fist become magical.



If you dodge though, you give up your attack so I'm not sure how that doesn't advantage the party then.

Is the Rogue THAT much of a threat that you need to dedicate tons of ressources and attention to disabling their Sneak Attack when a Fighter can just full attack for a similar result and is usually harder to take down?? I feel like your obsessed with denying the Rogue their bonus damage a little too much if they can only get it once every 4 round.

I'm still certain the Rogue's damage is balanced around sneak attacking every turn so a once every two round feels more like a 'Monsters are aware of the Rogue's ability, but they also need to take the rest of the party into account' normal situation.

Yes if you dodge you can't take another action (which could be an attack or could be something else). It absolutely is an advantage to the party, albeit not always a signficant one. That is not the point though - the point is that it does deny SA in most cases and if that cost for the enemy is better than suffering a sneak attack he is going to do it. As I said when I posted it, dodge is a high cost. But if for example said dodger is the enemy "tank" guarding the front line while the other enemies in the back hurl damaging spells or ranged attacks or my favorite - man siege weapons then that it is a very viable option. If a particular enemy who is likely going to get attacked by the rogue is not going to do a lot of damage anyway, why wouldn't he dodge? Heck he might dodge even if there is no rogue. Take an example - Goblins are fighting along the front line. They do on average 5 points of damage per hit. A 3rd level rogue is going to hit them for an extra 10 if he gets SA and he just saw his two buddies get skewered by the Rogue on the last 2 turns. Why wouldn't that enemy give up his 5 points of damage to take dodge and save 10 on himself ... or more if the dodge causes a miss?

As for the other stuff I posted, it depends. Intelligent enemies are not going to be stupid though and just attack whoever is nearest every round using whatever their default attack is. That is not a viable strategy for intelligent enemies unless the party is overmatched (which should rarely happen). In the games I DM and in the games I am a player - in most battles between humanoids both sides (party and enemy) routinely do things other than attacking to get advantages in the battle. Rogues themselves routinely do things other than attacking (and that itself eliminates SA). Further a rogue who is immoblized is generally inneffective in battle and if an enemy can do that without sacrificing comparable combat power himself he is going to. If I can get three Goblins to peel off from the larger battle and knock prone and then grapple a 5th level rogue - that is a "win" for the enemy because taking a 5th level rogue effectively out of the battle is worth taking 3 goblins out of the fight. They will do that to fighters too, but not as often because it is not as effective. Fighters will still hit you hard even while grappled and sometimes even while prone.

 

[Ashrym]

I think the most attractive thing about a high-level sorcerer is they can really leverage their spells in unique ways with metamagic and other things.

At a certain point, casters will have more slots than they will have reasonable actions to use them with. A sorcerer, in particular, will have less utility spells than other classes. However, the sorcerer's spell slots that aren't being used do not have to collect dust. They can be converted to be used with metamagic. By time you're casting 7th-level spells, 2nd-level spells aren't that big of a deal. But you can find yourself using them to enhance spells with metamagic even further. You can also convert them into more powerful spell slots more often. So you don't need to only have the 3 5th-level spell limit a level 13 wizard/druid would have.

And having extra metamagic at higher-levels is incredibly good. Being able to heighten your most powerful spells is soooo good. It's a bit expensive at lower levels but there's nothing quite like imposing disadvantage on your polymorph, then hitting them with an empowered finger of death (ignores restances/other features).

Trading slots to power metamagic is great, but it's the opposite overall effect of arcane recovery where slots are lost instead of gained.

That's because metamagic is often better than having the slots available.

The PDK doesn't even do anything special out of combat. It has 1 skill more with expertise in persuasion. That's it... An Eldritch Knight at least has access to utility spells. You don' even get any sort of flavorful ribbon or anything.

Rallying Cry is a cool feature, but its heal doesn't scale that well.

The one that triggers on your action surge is pretty cool.

Expertise in persuasion is strong in social checks. STR and athletics is also out of combat. They still have the bonus feats all fighters have too.

Oh my bad, I don't have Xanathar's. Still, you get 2 Arcane Shot. That means you're an Arcane Archer for two rounds between short rests. That's... very underwhelming. The shots themselves are good, but the Arcane Archer still feels like it's only a part time subclass. The Battlemaster gets 4 superiority dice and I think its borderline... imagine if it only got two.

The skill and cantrips are nice, not gonna lie.

It's one arcane shot per combat encounter or so. Those arcane shots are generally more powerful than battle master maneuvers. 1 arcane shot vs 2 maneuvers isn't bad, while arcane shots renew more quickly than EK spells.

Curving an arrow competes for the bonus action though.

PDK and Samurai gain bonus skills and skill bonuses. Cavalier and arcane archer gain a bonus skill.

Most fighter subclasses add something to non-combat and all fighters gain bonus ASI's/feats than can be used for non-combat.

If those aren't good enough we've moved the goal posts from having options to being more specialized for out of combat.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Disagree. A good party generally gets sneak attack for the rogue.

Quite right. Due to 5E's SA "flanking" rule (i.e. enemy of the target w/in 5ft), it's actually quite difficult not to get a Sneak Attack unless something wacky is going on. You don't need Advantage, it's just nice-to-have.

Player: fighters suck because they lack out of combat benefits.
Response: PDK
Player: PDK sucks because because it has weaker combat options

??? ;-)

It's the same conundrum. Players say they want non-combat on a fighter but when given a choice they go for combat abilities. This happens with subclasses and feats.

No, you're flat-out wrong here.

Go read the PDK subclass. I'm guessing you haven't looked at it for a long time. It's not sacrificing in-combat ability for out-of-combat stuff. I'll list all the out-of-combat benefits for the PDK:

1) Persuasion skill
2) Expertise in the Persuasion skill

That's it.

Expertise in one skill. You literally cannot reasonably suggest players are at fault here. All the other abilities the PDK has are in-combat, and they're all pretty much complete rubbish, which is why it is so rarely used.

Compare this to a Samurai, they get:

1) Skill from a small list (including Persuasion) or any language.
2) WIS bonus to Persuasion

So very similar benefits. Except Samurai is awesome in combat. It's actually arguably one of the best Fighter subclasses. I'm guessing you don't actually think having a 1-3 point edge in Persuasion checks (which is what a PDK has on a Samurai, likely) is worth going from awesome subclass combat abilities to dire subclass combat abilities?

The problem is not players here, and it is outright wrong to suggest it is. PDK is a trash subclass. With Feats, you're also wrong, because the social interaction ones are all terrible deals - the offer very little for the very significant cost of an entire Feat. That's the real problem here. The strong social-pillar abilities are simply not available to certain classes, or have an extremely high cost.

This is not a solvable problem, note, this is too baked-in to 5E. You'd need another edition, and designers who ensured every class had real options in all three pillars, which was clearly not even attempted in 5E.

 

[Ashrym]

Quite right. Due to 5E's SA "flanking" rule (i.e. enemy of the target w/in 5ft), it's actually quite difficult not to get a Sneak Attack unless something wacky is going on. You don't need Advantage, it's just nice-to-have.



No, you're flat-out wrong here.

Go read the PDK subclass. I'm guessing you haven't looked at it for a long time. It's not sacrificing in-combat ability for out-of-combat stuff. I'll list all the out-of-combat benefits for the PDK:

1) Persuasion skill
2) Expertise in the Persuasion skill

That's it.

Expertise in one skill. You literally cannot reasonably suggest players are at fault here. All the other abilities the PDK has are in-combat, and they're all pretty much complete rubbish, which is why it is so rarely used.

Compare this to a Samurai, they get:

1) Skill from a small list (including Persuasion) or any language.
2) WIS bonus to Persuasion

So very similar benefits. Except Samurai is awesome in combat. It's actually arguably one of the best Fighter subclasses. I'm guessing you don't actually think having a 1-3 point edge in Persuasion checks (which is what a PDK has on a Samurai, likely) is worth going from awesome subclass combat abilities to dire subclass combat abilities?

The problem is not players here, and it is outright wrong to suggest it is. PDK is a trash subclass. With Feats, you're also wrong, because the social interaction ones are all terrible deals - the offer very little for the very significant cost of an entire Feat. That's the real problem here. The strong social-pillar abilities are simply not available to certain classes, or have an extremely high cost.

This is not a solvable problem, note, this is too baked-in to 5E. You'd need another edition, and designers who ensured every class had real options in all three pillars, which was clearly not even attempted in 5E.

That's still moving the goal posts from having out of combat options to having several or stronger out of combat options.

A fighter of any sort can do quite a bit with athletics, STR, and gear. It's not flashy but it is effective. Or go DEX for different synergy.

Aside from reliable talent, a PDK isn't any different than a thief taking expertise in persuasion but is more effective in combat, but if you don't like PDK then make the samurai because it also gives social abilities as we both said. That's the point: subclasses add those options.

PDK doesn't actually suck either. It grants healing, attacks, and extra saves as bonuses using standard fighter abilities. My guess is you looked at it, knee-jerk reacted because it's still not a 4e warlord, and didn't give a real chance playing one. ;-)

It doesn't have the additional offensive abilities beyond inspiring surge, which gets back to my other point that as soon as the choice is an alternative to damage then damage becomes the priority regardless if the desire for other options. That's a player mentality more than an issue with the options.

As for feats, they are a trade off. Skilled, prodgy, magic adept, or ritual caster gives the same abilities that get called out for being good (extra proficiencies, expertise, guidance, rituals) so it's a bit of a double standard to call them out as good on another class but not a fighter.

Keeping on point, fighter subclasses do offer additional out of combat support, feats are a option for out of combat support, fighters have the same options available to all classes, and just because another class has the same or similar opportunities doesn't create a condition where the fighter PC no longer has the options given.

Cheers. ;-)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's still moving the goal posts from having out of combat options to having several or stronger out of combat options.

Mate, no. You put the goal posts in the bleachers. I'm putting them back on the field.

A fighter of any sort can do quite a bit with athletics, STR, and gear. It's not flashy but it is effective. Or go DEX for different synergy.

Snort. They can generally achieve less than what one 1st-level spell can do. In some cases less than what a cantrip or familiar can do. So I guestion "effective".

Aside from reliable talent, a PDK isn't any different than a thief taking expertise in persuasion but is more effective in combat, but if you don't like PDK then make the samurai because it also gives social abilities as we both said. That's the point: subclasses add those options.

??? I can't even follow the grammar here.

Adding a terrible option which occupies design space, as the PDK does, is actively unhelpful.

As for feats, they are a trade off. Skilled, prodgy, magic adept, or ritual caster gives the same abilities that get called out for being good (extra proficiencies, expertise, guidance, rituals) so it's a bit of a double standard to call them out as good on another class but not a fighter.

I've literally never heard any of those except Ritual Caster called out as "good" generically. So not really convinced there.

I wouldn't say they're "good" on other classes either, in most cases. It's more like "Well I've maxed my primary and secondary stats (or close enough) and I don't need War Caster or GWM or whatever, so I guess I can spend Feats on frippery!". That or stuff you buy because the DM is giving out free Feats but not the good stuff like GWM.

PDK doesn't actually suck either.

Less than 4% of people agree with you! #madeupnumbers But like seriously it is an incredibly unpopular class (as shown by Beyond) because it fails hard at what Fighters are good at, whilst not even being at all good at the stuff it adds.

I don't give two shakes of a lamb's tail if it's a Warlord or what (I never liked Warlords particularly in the first place - especially not Lazy Warlords - I've only ever argued that their healing isn't as illegitimate as people make out). It's a bad, bad subclass and widely recognised as a bad subclass.

 

[Asisreo]

Less than 4% of people agree with you! #madeupnumbers But like seriously it is an incredibly unpopular class (as shown by Beyond) because it fails hard at what Fighters are good at, whilst not even being at all good at the stuff it adds.

But how do you know that?

The survey from D&D beyond is fundamentally flawed. Most notably, the free classes are leading most likely due to them being free and available to all players.

But also, it could possibly be because the Purple Dragon Knight doesn't even have an identity. The Champion is someone that dominates with sheer will, like an arena champion. The battlemaster is tactical and understands their enemy's weakness, like someone who has mastered battle. The eldritch knight has mastered the arcane, much like a magical knight that chose magic in a way other than religion or study. The Purple Dragon Knight...what in the world does that name even mean? It's a knight, sure, but um...purple dragon? That doesn't even exist in D&D lore and it's meaningless. You aren't replicating a Dragon.

Everyone knows what a cavalier is unless you don't know the definition of the word. I know the definition of the words purple and dragon and knight and I have no clue what they are supposed to mean when put together.

I also don't think being at the bottom of a popularity list makes them unpopular. The least popular would be correct, but unpopular implies the majority of people don't like them, which isn't necessarily true. It would be like an election between two extremely favorable Prime Ministers (if only this was common), so someone has to win and someone has to lose, but that doesn't mean that even a single person disliked the loser.

But if I was asked to play any of the fighter subclasses, hearing "Purple Dragon Knight" out of Champion, Samurai, Arcane Archer, Battlemaster, etc. Would make me think you added it as a joke or something.

 

[TwoSix]

I want to play a Hexblade Bladelock without sucking, compared to both other Warlocks and other melee/ranged weapon attackers. A hexblade that doesn't multiclass can get at most 3 attacks in a round with a weapon (using feats as well), compared to a EB spammer's 4 attacks. The highest damage dice you can do for this if you just want to make 3 attacks every round, not dependent on killing other creatures, without being mounted is 1d6 (crossbow expert, hand crossbow). While mounted, it's 1d12 (but there are disadvantages to that as well) with a lance and the dual wielder feat.

So, only 3 attacks each round, which takes at least one feat to get and an eldritch invocation (Thirsting Blade), when it takes EB spammers no feats and only one Eldritch Invocation to get Agonizing blast, makes the Hexblade feel sucky.

Then, if the Hexblade wants to actually do more/equal damage to an EB spammer, they need to use a spell slot to Hex, just like the EB spammer. They then need to take Sharpshooter, Life Drinker, and Improved Pact Weapon, while also giving up their bonus action every round to make threee attacks while the EB spammer is making 4 in one action. You'll need Haste cast on you by a buddy to match the amount of attacks in a round. (Also, note that the only way to have a hand crossbow as a pact weapon is to get a magic one, with the help of your DM or an Artificer (let's assume it's +2 at this level).

Hexblades have to give up a lot to be on par with other Warlocks, and other weapon based characters, and need a lot of help from their DM and fellow players just to not feel like they suck.

I'm struggling to imagine the party composition wherein the Hexblade is not a top tier character. The 4 attack thing is only at Tier 4, which is barely relevant in making class comparisons. And comparing it to the "EB spammer" is silly, it only takes one invocation for a melee Hexblade to be the EB spammer. Being such a viable switch-hitter is part of the Hexblade's charm.

I played a single-class Hexblade for over a year, from level 7 to level 12; it's probably the single best experience I've had playing 5E. That character was an absolute powerhouse despite having almost 0 magic items, I absolutely love Hexblades.