D&D 5E Classes that Suck

[Asisreo]

True, but don't forget their oath spells. That gives them a maximum of 25 prepared spells; not known, BTW, I assume you just misspoke.

True, I also use prepared and known interchangeably as a bad habit. What happens when you frequently play Rangers and Sorcerers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It doesn't really matter. The point is that 5e is designed so that every class in the PHB does well at the game and isn't overwhelmed by the output of any other class. That some classes do better at damage doesn't make any class suck. No class sucks in 5e.

Oh, I agree. It can still be frustrating to have other PCs consistently outperforming you in combat, however, particularly if you get into a lot of fights. Combat is fun. If one optimized PC wrecks the opposition so totally that other contributions are miniscule by comparison, it becomes less fun.

 

[Minigiant]

?
All 3.5 feats that is gone.

Yes. I am upset at the partry list of Metamagic that they gave the Sorcerer when the designers ported over 3.5 metamagic feats. If Sorcerers are to be the holders of Metamagic they should have gone a bit harder on the metamagic gimmick. I personally converted over a few metamagics from 3.5 and my group's sorcerer loved it while she was alive.

Widened Empowered Fireball is a doozy.

 

[Asisreo]

It doesn't seem like it at first glance, but Lay on Hands can be pretty useful in social situation, since you can use it to cure a disease or neutralize a poison. Curing someone of a disease is a good way to get favors you know. Divine Sense is also useful in some niche situations...

This is kinda why I feel the notion of Exploration vs Combat vs Social to be such a weird line in the sand that the community gives. All of them crossover to one-another in ways that can be useful.

Lay on hands would be strictly seen as a combat skill because owing favors isn't in the feature's language, but you're absolutely correct. I'd imagine a king that got poisoned can give quite some boons. However, such a situation isn't quite as common as lay on hand's main ability, to heal.

It's much like how cure wounds is a combat spell despite being able to be used to owe favors.

The Oath of the Ancient Paladin gets Speak with Animals, which opens up all sorts of source of information.

That would fall closer to the exploration category. You open up more opportunities to socialize, but you don't get any direct edge with socialization.

And they got motivation to get good CHA. Also they generally good STR, which is a positive because, supposedly, good Athletics checks count as 'being good at exploration'? It's been mentionned in this thread in regard to fighter, even though I've never encountered a STR check that was ever critical to a challenge...or one that could only be accomplished by a single individual... but I guess that's an issue for another day.

Correct again, they are more motivated to have high Charisma and therefore higher ability to succeed in Charisma checks. However, that doesn't mean a fighter can't be more or equally persuasive as a Paladin. If a paladin decides to use their 4 skill slots for anything but persuasion, which is possible since I can imagine they'd be interested in Insight, Perception, Medicine, and Religion; then a fighter can grab persuasion. Even with a +1, the fighter will be near equals in persuasion checks for a while, it goes to the paladin for a bit before going back to the fighter once again.

Here's the kicker, though. As a player, you're the master of your character. Not only do you know what he's good at, you can make them do what they're good at instead of being limited. A paladin may try to convince someone using persuasive words, which would definitely be persuasion.

A fighter may try to challenge the person to a contest of strength, dexterity, or constitution. A wizard could use their intelligence to form a logical conversation with a fellow intellect or communicate nonverbally. A cleric could use their awareness to understand what someone wants and to hit their conversational pressure points to relax or aggravate them naturally.

All ability scores can be useful for social (and exploration). It's not on the DM or the designers to force a player to use a specific ability, the player has to hunt for opportunities to have their abilities shine. It's part of having the freedom to do anything, you can engage a situation however you like.

And speaking of other non-combat uses, their Detect spells and Purify Food and Drink are also useful out of combat.

Agreed. Though, I could argue a fighter's features can be useful out of combat as well.

Indomitable is great when talking to a sly spellcaster that tried to charm you as you speak. It's also very helpful avoiding traps since you're likely to be the front rank in a dungeon crawl. Remarkable athlete really helps with those aforementioned contests. Know your enemy is huge. It can tell you what spells a spellcaster would be able to cast just by speaking with or observing them. It also gives you an idea just how much you can be certain you'll win a fight if you pick on the enemy.

 

[Undrave]

Here's the kicker, though. As a player, you're the master of your character. Not only do you know what he's good at, you can make them do what they're good at instead of being limited. A paladin may try to convince someone using persuasive words, which would definitely be persuasion.

A fighter may try to challenge the person to a contest of strength, dexterity, or constitution. A wizard could use their intelligence to form a logical conversation with a fellow intellect or communicate nonverbally. A cleric could use their awareness to understand what someone wants and to hit their conversational pressure points to relax or aggravate them naturally.

All ability scores can be useful for social (and exploration). It's not on the DM or the designers to force a player to use a specific ability, the player has to hunt for opportunities to have their abilities shine. It's part of having the freedom to do anything, you can engage a situation however you like.

That's all well and good, but that's the basic competency level. As you've pointed out: everybody can do it. If you didn't have a class and only ability scores, you'd still be able to pull these checks off.

It's not fair that some classes are limited to those naked checks while other ALSO get fancy buttons to press from tme to time. Everybody should get some. It's fine if some get MORE buttons than others, but I feel like the few scraps given to some classes are way over valued.

Agreed. Though, I could argue a fighter's features can be useful out of combat as well.

Indomitable is great when talking to a sly spellcaster that tried to charm you as you speak. It's also very helpful avoiding traps since you're likely to be the front rank in a dungeon crawl. Remarkable athlete really helps with those aforementioned contests. Know your enemy is huge. It can tell you what spells a spellcaster would be able to cast just by speaking with or observing them. It also gives you an idea just how much you can be certain you'll win a fight if you pick on the enemy.

And we're back to the Purple Dragon Knight...

'Know your Enemy' and 'Remarkable Athlete' are at the same level as 'Royal Envoy'... and Royal Envoy isn't significantly better than the other two. And that's it for the PDK's so called 'social prowess' or this idea that it gives us combat competency for being good at non-combat stuff. A Battlemaster is just as effective, and with Rally, might even want better charisma than the PDK so his Persuasion could easily be as high.

(I will note that I think Remarkable Athlete is kind of a bad ability that also has the in-combat effect of boosting your Initiative)

The PDK's bonus skill proficiency should come in at 3rd level. The healing thing is not good enough as a third level ability on its own, so could at least add non-combat buffs to the class so you can make a better case for this mythical social prowess they supposedly give up combat potential for.

Then, at 7th you give out Persuasion Expertise and throw in some bonus languages. If you're gonna be an Envoy you should know more languages to speak with foreign dignitaries...

The action surge based thing is nifty, but it needs to do more and getting to use it on two allies should NOT count as your sole level 18 ability, that's lame.

Bulwark is terribad.

And they need a real level 18 ability.

 

[Asisreo]

It's not fair that some classes are limited to those naked checks while other ALSO get fancy buttons to press from tme to time. Everybody should get some. It's fine if some get MORE buttons than others, but I feel like the few scraps given to some classes are way over valued.

Why is it unfair?

I feel that when the argument is made about how much social/utility abilities someone has, the points that everyone gets basic competency and those without extra has no competency gets mangled around.

This game is a team game up until combat ends, at which point it somehow becomes a single player game with multiple people.

A bard, by himself, against a CR-appropriate enemy (CR1 vs level 4 bard) is mostly screwed. They have good abilities in combat but they can't confirm a one-round kill easily and they can get wrecked when a monster gets within melee. They can maybe survive, but it's a toss-up and not a good situation.

A fighter against a CR-appropriate enemy can survive and probably kill it with minimal HP loss. They have higher damage actions and their defenses are naturally good enough to take quite a few blows. They're definitely in better shape than a bard. Have you never wondered why a bard only gets basic combat competency while a fighter could survive one-on-one fights without much concern? Probably not, because it's about being a team. In a team, the bard can do wonderful things. Not just buffs, they can use any concentration spell without as much threat of concentration loss.

A bard is more competent with teammates. The party is stronger than the sum of their parts.

The same goes for social and exploration. Some are more competent at something separately but they all become greater together. When the dwarf doesn't care how charming the paladin is because he bears the symbol of a diety who the dwarf hates (which is really everyone), the fighter steps in and says "Fine, then it shall be a test of who can drink the most ale!" Then the cleric casts Protection from poison to help, but you're the one who has to drink. The battle of the centuries, a likely success because your friends helped. Just like in combat.

When the ancient ruins' entrance is booby-trapped, the fighter's natural hardiness comes in handy. A wizard may have not even stood a chance against it, taking more than half their health while taking only a quarter of yours.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, I agree. It can still be frustrating to have other PCs consistently outperforming you in combat, however, particularly if you get into a lot of fights. Combat is fun. If one optimized PC wrecks the opposition so totally that other contributions are miniscule by comparison, it becomes less fun.

There aren't a lot of builds in 5e like that, though. In 3e contributions could be miniscule by comparison. In 5e you're still going to be in the ballpark. If that difference matters to you, your choices will be more limited. For myself, I love Rangers and I'm not going to avoid playing one in 5e or feel bad about the damage I do as a Ranger. I'm still going to have a blast.

 

[Undrave]

Why is it unfair?

I feel that when the argument is made about how much social/utility abilities someone has, the points that everyone gets basic competency and those without extra has no competency gets mangled around.

This game is a team game up until combat ends, at which point it somehow becomes a single player game with multiple people.

A bard, by himself, against a CR-appropriate enemy (CR1 vs level 4 bard) is mostly screwed. They have good abilities in combat but they can't confirm a one-round kill easily and they can get wrecked when a monster gets within melee. They can maybe survive, but it's a toss-up and not a good situation.

A fighter against a CR-appropriate enemy can survive and probably kill it with minimal HP loss. They have higher damage actions and their defenses are naturally good enough to take quite a few blows. They're definitely in better shape than a bard. Have you never wondered why a bard only gets basic combat competency while a fighter could survive one-on-one fights without much concern? Probably not, because it's about being a team. In a team, the bard can do wonderful things. Not just buffs, they can use any concentration spell without as much threat of concentration loss.

A bard is more competent with teammates. The party is stronger than the sum of their parts.

The same goes for social and exploration. Some are more competent at something separately but they all become greater together. When the dwarf doesn't care how charming the paladin is because he bears the symbol of a diety who the dwarf hates (which is really everyone), the fighter steps in and says "Fine, then it shall be a test of who can drink the most ale!" Then the cleric casts Protection from poison to help, but you're the one who has to drink. The battle of the centuries, a likely success because your friends helped. Just like in combat.

When the ancient ruins' entrance is booby-trapped, the fighter's natural hardiness comes in handy. A wizard may have not even stood a chance against it, taking more than half their health while taking only a quarter of yours.

Because the talky bits take longer than the stabby bits. Combat require everyone to pay attention. Combat is much more team based than any of the other pillars, frankly.

When a single PC handles all the talking stuff, you end up just sitting around on your hands for a long time, at best looking for an opportunity to like... challenge someone to an arm wrestling match or something for the upteenth time and then fail because the dice hate you or something.

 

[Minigiant]

Because the talky bits take longer than the stabby bits. Combat require everyone to pay attention. Combat is much more team based than any of the other pillars, frankly.

When a single PC handles all the talking stuff, you end up just sitting around on your hands for a long time, at best looking for an opportunity to like... challenge someone to an arm wrestling match or something for the upteenth time and then fail because the dice hate you or something.

That's why people need to use Skill Challenges more.
It really should be the default for heavy bouts of negotiation and long exploration treks.

 

[Asisreo]

Because the talky bits take longer than the stabby bits. Combat require everyone to pay attention. Combat is much more team based than any of the other pillars, frankly.

I've found that talking doesn't take the long. Only when there's an info dump or monologue do I find talking to take more than 2-5 minutes. It's usually introductions, desires, rolls, conclusion. This is for 1-to-1 interactions, of course. With something like the king or patron, everyone is involved.

Besides, when someone is talking, the only reason why everyone shouldn't be involved is because they aren't there. Isn't it kinda ominous that there's a man that can kill the average commoner with his bare hands being completely silent in the background of conversations? Like, the sorcerer is having a grand ole time with the merchant while this man that's probably covered in guts said "Hello, name's Richard." And stares at the merchant the entire time? Usually, everyone in the proximity of the conversation is involved.

When a single PC handles all the talking stuff, you end up just sitting around on your hands for a long time, at best looking for an opportunity to like... challenge someone to an arm wrestling match or something for the upteenth time and then fail because the dice hate you or something.

This is what I meant when I said that you can go about the situation however you want. If you want to be in a conversation, just lean into what you want to do.

Your character, presumably, is not unique solely from their class. If I were to take 2 fighters with the exact same builds, I doubt they'd also be the exact same character with the same backgrounds, past, personality, and goals.

If you're a part of the fighter's guild, you want to use that point as leverage. If you're in the military, you want to display that. Your character is unique not by virtue of which class you take or which build you make. I can assure you there's probably been very similar builds within these forums. What makes your character unique is who they are as a character. While that doesn't guarantee anything socially in terms of mechanics, it does effect how your character interacts with the world.

What's a bright-eyed wizard with a knack for curiosity doing being silent and unmoving when they meet a new character? Even if the character's CHA is 8, are you really going to break character because it would be optimal to shut up and let the sorcerer do the talking and charming? If so, fine, but I don't often see the 8 CHA characters actually never talk, they're usually the most talkative characters. Yet they steer the story despite their poor scores.

Because poor scores and minimal social features doesn't dictate how your character would act. You do. You're the master of your own character. Try to move the story along using your character, not just your character sheet.

This is not an excuse for you to be an untasteful player because it's "what your character would do." This is saying that your character needn't be charismatic to talk