D&D 5E Classes that Suck

[Asisreo]

It's more situation than it appears at first. If you need the heal from Second Wind but your allies are relatively fresh, then your heal is wasted, inversely if you're feeling fresh and your allies (with low HP) are in trouble, you might end up wasting your Second Wind to heal them and find yourself out of it later on. It also scales poorly, as level HP becomes less and less of a chunk of healing as you level up. It also does not work on unconscious allies because they can't see or hear you.

Honestly, you're never using that ability for the purpose of healing your allies. It's an okay AoE heal, but it doesn't work as well as any other form of healing.

You'll want it as a boost to your pre-existing second wind use.

The fact you only get one is a bit better...huh...oh! I just realized, it's slow and tedious, but it's a very rare free party heal per short rest. Given, say, 4 hours, you can actually heal up quite a bit without HD. Now, I doubt you'll be able to get that in during a dungeon raid, but it's possible to do so in adventures where there's only, like, 3 fights in the day. The only free short rest heals I can remember is a celestial warlock and a level 20 divine sorcerer. I'm not exactly impressed with the feature. It just has some uses.

Those two abilities are pretty good yeah. Inspiring Surge does conflict with a ton of decent reactions that someone might prefer to use, and as you say, it depends on who gets to use it (A Rogue would actually like it, provided they're in a position to get Sneak Attack). But Inspiring Surge letting you pick a second target takes the place of a proper level 18 ability. You get no capstone for your class and you still only have a limited number of Action Surge from your base class. So you're basically down on ressources and have no passive abilities like a Champion does to compensate.

So...yes and no. Everything the PDK has are buffs, which are passive, but they're buffs to active features. So they need to be activated. I'm not particularly afraid of such a type of playstyle. I don't need anything unique to satiate me, but I can respect that others would want something flashy in their abilities. That doesn't necessarily make them weak, though. Especially since inspiring surge scales completely with how your teammates scale.

Bulwark is actually terrible because of all the condition you have to meet. First of all, its needlessly limited to only Mental saves while Indomitable works on all saves, then you need to fail that save, your allies need to be in range of the same effect and ALSO fail that save, and then they have to take the second roll.

I can only assume it's for flavor reasons. I doubt it makes too much of a difference, though. Fighters are good with most physical saves except for dexterity. Even moreso, I don't know all that many AoE effects that target multiple targets. Dex is the exception, though it mostly only applies to spellcasters and those with specific AoE attacks like dragon's breath weapons. It would be more powerful if it did allow dex saves to be included.

If you compare that to a Paladin's Aura it's pretty lame. Especially at level 15.

Don't do that. Don't compare specific, similar effects from two different classes. The way they work may be similar but the way they synergize with the class is more important.

Paladin's aura of courage has a 10ft radius. Paladins are a melee class which means only those that are in melee with Paladins will actually benefit from it. At level 18, the aura is now 30ft. When the fighter gets it, the aura is a static 60ft. The fighter's bulwark covers 36x more area than paladin's aura of courage at level 15 and 4x more area at level 18. Is this enough to justify it as an ability? I don't know. Sure, I guess. I don't have any strong favoring for it since it is a feature I've never used before.

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Ashrym

I'm not quoting you because then I'd be tempted to go with specific responses instead of a general thoughts.

First, you seem to make a lot of assumptions about how things will work. Like saying that prof+mod is going to be enough, so you don't need expertise, which makes me wonder what you think the point of expertise is? Or, when you mentioned that fighter's have strength and equipment. I'm not sure what you are imagining, but Strength pretty much never comes up outside of combat in my experience unless it is breaking doors or you are doing menial labor. Neither of which is really a social encounter. As for equipment... anybody can buy equipment. If that is a metric of measurement it goes equally to every class.


Secondly, DnD has a problem with omni-competent characters. As in, it is nearly impossible to build one without rolling. A fighter needs Strength to wear heavy armor, they generally want high con to survive in a fight, they want Dex for initiative, stealth and saves, they want Wisdom for perception and saves. And to get a 16 CHA with point buy means it is likely one of your highest scores.

And, that is where the problem with your "if you want to be a social character" assertion comes in.

Combat is 1/3 of the game, and everyone can and does participate in it. There is no class that is actively bad at combat if you put your primary score as your highest.

Exploration is 1/3 of the game, and it can be tackled with items, clever plans, and multiple scores. Strength and Con can actually be very useful here. There are spells designed for this. And generally, everyone participates on generally equal footing.

Social is 1/3 of the game, and you have to actively invest in it. Specifically in Charisma and the associated skills, as well as Insight. No other skills, items, tools, or anything else really applies without GM Fiat. Even spells are of extremely limited use. And if you don't invest in it, you don't participate.


There is no way to not participate in combat or exploration. "There is a chasm stretching in front of you, how do you get across" affects the entire party. Even if they don't have the solution, they have to think about how they are getting across and are engaged. Just Social is opt-in. If you do not specifically build to include it, usually at the detriment of other things you want to accomplish, then you just do not engage with a third of the game.

It is weird when you look at it like that. As essentially an optional part of the game, and when you are building your character you have no idea if it will be included or how you might end up interacting with it. I know there are likely to be hidden enemies, or clues. So Perception and Wisdom are needed. I know there are going to be times when we need to be fast or sneaky, so Dexterity and stealth are needed. Constitution keeps me alive.

But I don't know how important Charisma, persuasion, deception and intimidation will be. They can range from non-factors to vitally important. And simply talking to your DM won't tell you much, because the game can veer into needing social skills very quickly and with little warning. And you only get to build your character once.

 

[Asisreo]

This will probably be my final rant about this "social" and "exploration" stuff that comes up about characters like fighters and barbarians.

First off, the "three pillars of play" is an abstraction. It isn't actually a real concept. There is no such thing as the three pillars of play. The designers introduced the term to the system to give a guideline for structuring the adventure. But an adventure is not equally distributed by three types of scenarios isolated from one another. You can engage with them all at once easily. The only requirement for exploration is that the DM describes the environment and the players react. If the players have their character communicate that they need to focus on the boss during combat, they've engaged in all three pillars simultaneously. It's possible to have situations where each section is isolated, but they never have to be. The players and DM are free to intertwine any of these pillars in any given scenario.

Second off, your class is not the driving force on how your character interacts with the world. You character's background is. And it's more than just "apply 2 skills and get money." I'm talking about what you write who your character is. Whether they're elegant or arrogant, whether they're kind or rude, your personality traits, bonds, ideals, alignments. Your background shifts the way the story flows in profound ways. Even if the DM was not planning on it, if they follow the natural course of action, your background has already shaped the story.

Third off, there's this weird obsession with classes being unique and how spellcaster can do unique things with what they can do but other characters can't be unique. Having access to charm person doesn't make your character unique. A bard, sorcerer, druid, warlock, or wizard has access to that same spell. A spellcaster can almost never be truly "unique." Even with expertise, both the bard and rogue has it, so that isn't unique either. There's very few unique socially applicable spells and features available to any given class. But, more than that, how would your character possibly be unique if someone else can just take the same class as you? Anyone can play a wizard, what makes your character unique because they're a wizard? If you think that makes your character unique because it's such a huge investment that you can't double back on it, how come backgrounds don't get that treatment. Sure, someone can pick the same background as you, but it's such a big investment and it's unchangeable. How does that not make you anymore unique than being a cleric?

More than that, it's laughable how afraid some people are from DM fiat. The entire game is DM fiat even if you're playing a module. In it's purest form, you'll never get better without DM fiat. People say it's easy to get equipment so it shouldn't count as DM fiat, but DM fiat is precisely having the equipment available at the store. How is it not DM fiat that a character multiclasses but it's DM fiat when they use alternative ability scores? How can it not be DM fiat to expect expensive material components to be handed out but it is when magic items are to be given? The DM can postpone your level ups indefinitely, even your class features are DM fiat. Even in regular EXP, he can choose to not have any threatening monsters appear until the boss fight where you're level 1 vs the demilich because the DM decided to never allow level ups. DM fiat is part of the game, moreso, it is part of your power. Your power is tied directly to the DM no matter how RAW you try to keep your games. If you shy away from that power, you've gimped yourself before you've even created your character. And if your DM won't accomodate you, tell them it's hurting your gaming experience and you don't feel motivated to play with them anymore. Be upfront and honest. If your DM is the type to target your characters weakness unjustly or is obviously biased against your character, even if accidental, then it needs to be discussed. You cannot unmarry the DM from the game without changing the entire system in a way that might as well be a videogame or boardgame.


Lastly, it's okay that some players have options with less actual engagement with these "pillars." Not every subclass should be equal in those terms. But those types of classes are pretty rare. Fighter can go eldritch knight and rogue can go arcane trickster. Monks have a place socially with their high wisdom and the 2 PHB barbarians have some nice low-key social stuff going on with them if you know how to use them. But if a player wants a low-option, low-engagement style, they should be obliged to do so and not be forced to be in a specific role by a class. Imagine how awful it would be if owning a keep was part of the fighter's chassis. Now an innocent player would need to start organizing their keep and keep it running and the DM would have to take care of that as well.

 

[Undrave]

Honestly, you're never using that ability for the purpose of healing your allies. It's an okay AoE heal, but it doesn't work as well as any other form of healing.

You'll want it as a boost to your pre-existing second wind use.

So your big level 3 class feature, the one that welcomes you into your archetype is... just a mild situational boost to something you already do that you're not supposed to use specifically for what it says it does?!

It should also be noted that this means that, at level 3, you're essentially only a Purple Dragon Knight for ONE bonus action per shot rest. The rest of the time, you might as well have not taken that extra level of Fighter. It's pretty ridiculous if you ask me. I think, more than the combat effectiveness, the fact that your subclass has no impact on 99.9% of your actions is the biggest offender for me. If I choose a subclass it's to play that subclass!

That's why I advocate for the Purple Dragon to get their bonus skill at level 3, so you at least get SOMETHING you can use more often.

The fact you only get one is a bit better...huh...oh! I just realized, it's slow and tedious, but it's a very rare free party heal per short rest. Given, say, 4 hours, you can actually heal up quite a bit without HD. Now, I doubt you'll be able to get that in during a dungeon raid, but it's possible to do so in adventures where there's only, like, 3 fights in the day. The only free short rest heals I can remember is a celestial warlock and a level 20 divine sorcerer. I'm not exactly impressed with the feature. It just has some uses.

The Life Cleric has their Channel Divinity that recharges on a short rest and heals five times their cleric level. They can also distribute these points however they want to as many allies as they want... It is a standard action, but you're probably not expected to use it in battle until it's an emergency. It's also limited to people who are below half their max HP.

More than that, it's laughable how afraid some people are from DM fiat.

DM fiat is difficult to account for when comparing classes between one another, it's a variable that we should eliminate as much as possible... DM Fiat is also unreliable. A feature can be AMAZING with the right DM and then be practically useless with the wrong one, so when we discuss if a class is bad or good, we can't rely on 'Well if your DM is nice it'll be useful'. We should assume the DM is gonna be bad and mean and then compare classes in that optic.

 

[Asisreo]

DM fiat is difficult to account for when comparing classes between one another, it's a variable that we should eliminate as much as possible... DM Fiat is also unreliable. A feature can be AMAZING with the right DM and then be practically useless with the wrong one, so when we discuss if a class is bad or good, we can't rely on 'Well if your DM is nice it'll be useful'. We should assume the DM is gonna be bad and mean and then compare classes in that optic.

Hard disagree. I cannot stress enough how having the wrong DM undermines your entire character regardless of the stuff in it. Spellcasting is probably the best feature of the game until the DM puts only counterspelling enemies in your path. Can you say that the DM wouldn't do that? If a DM was bad and mean, they'd certainly do it very often. Or maybe have the entire setting have very frequent antimagic fields.

We can't say we're being impartial then try to argue for assumptions based on what's reasonable. A reasonable DM would never have so many antimagic fields present in a game like that, but a reasonable DM would also take note of their player's features and apply them. Because that's the same thing.

DM fiat is unreliable, just like dice. The game is not meant to be reliable. The game was not created to be read and discussed. The game was meant to be played with unreliability. A +6 to persuasion is more reliable than a +2 to persuasion, but it's still unreliable. Unpredictable. This is massively more true when accounting for these social and exploration encounters anyways. Even if you succeed, what happens next is pure DM fiat. You could have successfully persuaded the guard to let you in the keep and open the gate to be met with 5 guards that say "Hey! You can't be in here!" And you're tossed out, back to square one. Because that's what a bad and mean DM would do.

Instead, why don't we assume the DM will work with their players? Why don't we assume a good and nice DM that will run the game the way it was intended, to be fun, rather than to stifle a player any opportunity the books will allow? If you're playing with a bad and mean DM, your character wouldn't even matter because the campaign will be ending early.

 

[Undrave]

Hard disagree. I cannot stress enough how having the wrong DM undermines your entire character regardless of the stuff in it. Spellcasting is probably the best feature of the game until the DM puts only counterspelling enemies in your path. Can you say that the DM wouldn't do that? If a DM was bad and mean, they'd certainly do it very often. Or maybe have the entire setting have very frequent antimagic fields.

We can't say we're being impartial then try to argue for assumptions based on what's reasonable. A reasonable DM would never have so many antimagic fields present in a game like that, but a reasonable DM would also take note of their player's features and apply them. Because that's the same thing.

DM fiat is unreliable, just like dice. The game is not meant to be reliable. The game was not created to be read and discussed. The game was meant to be played with unreliability. A +6 to persuasion is more reliable than a +2 to persuasion, but it's still unreliable. Unpredictable. This is massively more true when accounting for these social and exploration encounters anyways. Even if you succeed, what happens next is pure DM fiat. You could have successfully persuaded the guard to let you in the keep and open the gate to be met with 5 guards that say "Hey! You can't be in here!" And you're tossed out, back to square one. Because that's what a bad and mean DM would do.

Instead, why don't we assume the DM will work with their players? Why don't we assume a good and nice DM that will run the game the way it was intended, to be fun, rather than to stifle a player any opportunity the books will allow? If you're playing with a bad and mean DM, your character wouldn't even matter because the campaign will be ending early.

I guess 'bad and mean' was the wrong way to put it. I think we should expect the same DM for every character, that's for sure. How about a DM who is a stickler for RAW and isn't really creative with their resolution?

 

[Asisreo]

I guess 'bad and mean' was the wrong way to put it. I think we should expect the same DM for every character, that's for sure. How about a DM who is a stickler for RAW and isn't really creative with their resolution?

So long as they're kind and want fun for their players, it's fine. The fact that you communicate your desires to them (less reliance on dice, more reliance, an opportunity to use your features) then it shouldn't be a problem. Because two RAW DM's can have playstyles that completely change the game.

Take, for instance, a DM who has multiple antimagic fields in the world. They aren't there out of malice, but rather he believes the world would be far more interesting where there's frequent bubbles of antimagic (maybe the weave has been greatly disrupted. Storyline?). He incorporates them in every battle because it would make sense. A spellcaster might object and the DM can then adjust. Which is 100% reasonable. But you can see how the changes were DM fiat created outside of the DM's initial plans?

I still believe that every feature should be made with the assumption that the DM will work with the player to have them come to light.

 

[Undrave]

I still believe that every feature should be made with the assumption that the DM will work with the player to have them come to light.

I think that's way too generous... features should come to light on their own without burdening the DM with too much work. If the DM has to contort to make every feature worth using, that's just way too much work for them on top of managing monsters and the world.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This will probably be my final rant about this "social" and "exploration" stuff that comes up about characters like fighters and barbarians.

First off, the "three pillars of play" is an abstraction. It isn't actually a real concept. There is no such thing as the three pillars of play. The designers introduced the term to the system to give a guideline for structuring the adventure. But an adventure is not equally distributed by three types of scenarios isolated from one another. You can engage with them all at once easily. The only requirement for exploration is that the DM describes the environment and the players react. If the players have their character communicate that they need to focus on the boss during combat, they've engaged in all three pillars simultaneously. It's possible to have situations where each section is isolated, but they never have to be. The players and DM are free to intertwine any of these pillars in any given scenario.

You are stretching things so thin they are snapping here. I get what you are saying that the game is not neatly divided into three even boxes, but the abstraction is useful for talking about different sections of the game. Talking to another player during combat (by the way, something some DMs expressly forbid under the aegis of discussing tactics after the fight has started) is not what we mean by the social pillar of play.

Heck, the social pillar actually does not generally encompass players talking to players, since it is generally bad manners to use your skills against another player to persuade or intimidate them. As I had expeirence with in one of the incredibly few times I tried in high school to play 3.5 and in the first five minutes of the game, one of my fellow players had his halfling roll up, and intimidate my character by rolling a 36 and just declaring I was scared of him.

Third off, there's this weird obsession with classes being unique and how spellcaster can do unique things with what they can do but other characters can't be unique. Having access to charm person doesn't make your character unique. A bard, sorcerer, druid, warlock, or wizard has access to that same spell. A spellcaster can almost never be truly "unique." Even with expertise, both the bard and rogue has it, so that isn't unique either. There's very few unique socially applicable spells and features available to any given class. But, more than that, how would your character possibly be unique if someone else can just take the same class as you? Anyone can play a wizard, what makes your character unique because they're a wizard? If you think that makes your character unique because it's such a huge investment that you can't double back on it, how come backgrounds don't get that treatment. Sure, someone can pick the same background as you, but it's such a big investment and it's unchangeable. How does that not make you anymore unique than being a cleric?

You seem to have missed the point on the equipment deal. So, maybe I'll try this again.

Everyone has access to equipment.
Everyone has access to gold
Everyone has access to Backgrounds, Personalities ect

Barbarians can't cast charm person.
Barbarians have no class features that apply to convincing NPCs through persuasion

So, if the barbarian has three things they can do, then the bard has all three of those things, plus their unique thing, plus their charm person, plus having a better score.

It isn't about being unique, it is that I have half or less of the options the other guy has at his disposal.


Also, Tangent:

Can we acknowledge for a second that Intimidation is the worst social skill to have? It is literally threatening people to do what you want. Which hey, that can be great against the barkeep, or a gate guard... to a degree.

See, people don't react well to threats, and some people have the resources to fight back. So, you intimidate the King to get what you want, then the next time you are in town, you are denied access to the palace, why? Because the King knows you are a violent person who threatened their life. Heck, they could logically hire assassins to kill you for being an active threat to their well-being.

I had a paladin I built to essentially be a cop, so I gave him Intimidation, because that made the most sense. And I rolled it... once? I know I failed the roll, so I don't remember the circumstances, but it never came up. Because threatening people was never the right move to get what we wanted. So, it was essentially a wasted proficiency.

More than that, it's laughable how afraid some people are from DM fiat. The entire game is DM fiat even if you're playing a module. In it's purest form, you'll never get better without DM fiat. People say it's easy to get equipment so it shouldn't count as DM fiat, but DM fiat is precisely having the equipment available at the store. How is it not DM fiat that a character multiclasses but it's DM fiat when they use alternative ability scores? How can it not be DM fiat to expect expensive material components to be handed out but it is when magic items are to be given? The DM can postpone your level ups indefinitely, even your class features are DM fiat. Even in regular EXP, he can choose to not have any threatening monsters appear until the boss fight where you're level 1 vs the demilich because the DM decided to never allow level ups. DM fiat is part of the game, moreso, it is part of your power. Your power is tied directly to the DM no matter how RAW you try to keep your games. If you shy away from that power, you've gimped yourself before you've even created your character. And if your DM won't accomodate you, tell them it's hurting your gaming experience and you don't feel motivated to play with them anymore. Be upfront and honest. If your DM is the type to target your characters weakness unjustly or is obviously biased against your character, even if accidental, then it needs to be discussed. You cannot unmarry the DM from the game without changing the entire system in a way that might as well be a videogame or boardgame.

I'm not scared of it, I find it unreliable.

Heck, if my solution to the rules of the game, is to convince the arbiter of the rules to change the rules, then I'm not really engaging with the rules of the game, am I?

I do it all the time, but I also acknowledge that situations can vary wildly from table to table. Especially in the social and exploration aspects of the game. But combat? Combat is generally, reliably similar.

I think that's way too generous... features should come to light on their own without burdening the DM with too much work. If the DM has to contort to make every feature worth using, that's just way too much work for them on top of managing monsters and the world.

This. Assuming that the DM will work to bring every aspect into the light is far too much. It is the ideal to strive for, but in practice it simply is not going to happen.

 

[Asisreo]

It isn't about being unique, it is that I have half or less of the options the other guy has at his disposal.

The game is not balanced around having a number of options. You have infinite options. It's just that you're holding yourself back if you don't use them. If you're getting bored by letting the bard talk, then you do it. Let the dice fall as they may and allow yourself to fail. Failing a check is not losing the game, it's a part of the game. Intimidate the guard, punch him in the face, get arrested, find your way out. If that's not how you want to go about it, bribe them, have them take the money and refuse, accuse the guard of taking bribes.

And yes, everyone has access to backgrounds. But everyone has access to classes in the exact same way. One choice that sticks with you. Saying that both the bard and barbarian chose charlatan as a background and now has similar backgrounds features is the same as saying that both the charlatan and soldier characters both took bard and now have the same class features.

Fundamentally, any permanent feature at character creation can be said to be un-interchangeable and therefore unique.

If you really want to lean into being the charismatic face of the party, be a bard. It's just another piece of character creation. If you want to be a strong man with an axe that can also be persuasive, be a barbarian and take proficiency in persuasion. Even if it isn't at the level of bard, you still have a means to succeed reliably. Take artisan as your background. Only another artisan can ever have the feature of Guild Membership. Which is just the same as saying only a bard can have bardic inspiration, except you could multiclass as a bard. If you need magic, take the V.human charm person magic initiate. Need expertise? Grab prodigy. Now you have a place on your team.

More than that, we've just been assuming there's even a bard on the team with access to charm person or other enchantment spells. If the party is running from levels 3-10 and consists of a fighter, cleric, and wizard that didn't choose to take enchantment spells and/or dumped CHA, it seems the party's face is up for grabs. There's no guarantee that there will be a bard in the party so just taking proficiency might be enough to be the highest persuasion in the group. And that's all that matters, isn't it? There's no point being saddened by a character that doesn't even exist.

But I seriously, in my time playing 5e, have never come across anyone that didn't speak up if their character had direct ties to the events happening, even when their CHA was 8. How do people have fun if they're so worried about failure? Failure's a part of the game that adds to the story. If the guard won't let you in, sneak in. Or knock the guard out. Or never even go inside. It's not that big of a deal to fail in my games.