D&D 5E Classes that Suck

[CapnZapp]

The Ranger Hunter is solid. Not the best but not suckworthy.

The Beastmaster on the other hand is a disaster. Avoid at all costs.

The Sorcerer is different. While it is not hard to create a Sorcerer with real power, and thus the class can't be said to "suck", the actual class design does suck - it is reductive and doesn't support alternative builds. In essence, play a red dragon sorcerer that casts fireballs and you'll be fine. Great even. But the class completely fails to give boosts to support the other damage types. And the wild sorcerer is a failed experiment. And the sorcerer concept is much broader than the 5E class can support.

While some Monk subclasses aren't excellent, with the four elements monk likely at the bottom of the heap, the class in itself is fine. (That whole 47 page thread is just wrong)

The Warlock class design is too complicated for its own good, but it's clear the class is the basis for some of the most powerful builds in the game, so you can't say Warlocks suck.

---

So it's possible to argue "no PHB class sucks".

But that would ignore the real flaws in class design that are present:

If you want to play a Beastmaster akin to the World of Warcraft Hunter class, D&D5 simply fails you.
If you want to play pretty much any other sorcerous concept than Fire, you're out of luck.
Some monk subclasses are just weak.
Much of the Warlock options are just clutter, plain worse than the good options.

But I could create a character with any of these classes, straight out the PHB, that wouldn't suck. So, nope. To be constructive, you need to discuss on a more detailed level than "classes that suck".

 

[TheSword]

The Ranger Hunter is solid. Not the best but not suckworthy.

The Beastmaster on the other hand is a disaster. Avoid at all costs.

The Sorcerer is different. While it is not hard to create a Sorcerer with real power, and thus the class can't be said to "suck", the actual class design does suck - it is reductive and doesn't support alternative builds. In essence, play a red dragon sorcerer that casts fireballs and you'll be fine. Great even. But the class completely fails to give boosts to support the other damage types. And the wild sorcerer is a failed experiment. And the sorcerer concept is much broader than the 5E class can support.

While some Monk subclasses aren't excellent, with the four elements monk likely at the bottom of the heap, the class in itself is fine. (That whole 47 page thread is just wrong)

The Warlock class design is too complicated for its own good, but it's clear the class is the basis for some of the most powerful builds in the game, so you can't say Warlocks suck.

---

So it's possible to argue "no PHB class sucks".

But that would ignore the real flaws in class design that are present:

If you want to play a Beastmaster akin to the World of Warcraft Hunter class, D&D5 simply fails you.
If you want to play pretty much any other sorcerous concept than Fire, you're out of luck.
Some monk subclasses are just weak.
Much of the Warlock options are just clutter, plain worse than the good options.

But I could create a character with any of these classes, straight out the PHB, that wouldn't suck. So, nope. To be constructive, you need to discuss on a more detailed level than "classes that suck".

Do you not think that Beast master ranger was an intentional reaction to the minion spawn of earlier editions? The same for summoning.

For instance druids with animal companions with more attacks, Hp, and damage than fighter of the same level.

 

[Coroc]

i disagree, ranger is very strong (archer).
the nat explorer is that: You start out with eg forest. DM shifts everyone to Avernus. Dang you hit level 6 and now select Avernus as your favorite terrain. If your DM is not a total Bob he will allow that. Archer also excels at ranged single target dd with ss cs hm the more. He can backup heal, and if you select the criminal background combined with elf you serve as parties main trapper and unlocked.
sorc is super powerful blister
i can't tell on monks, never analysed them, but i think locks can be super powerful too.

 

[Asisreo]

Cool. Now do this with the Acid Dragon sorcerer or literally ANY OTHER sorcerer subclass. I'm so freaking tired of every damned sorcerer discussion turning into "fire sorcerers, devine souls, and shadow sorcerers are fine so therefore there is nothing wrong!" It is insufferably predictable and frankly downright obnoxious.

The acid dragon is fine.

Actually, it's probably the most damage you can get from a cantrip if the setup is right.

The fire dragon has 2d10+4=15 damage without any sorcery point expenditure at level 6.

At level 6, the acid dragon does 2d6+4=11 damage on single target. If they can get 2 enemies, it goes up to 4d6+8=22 damage which is nice. Granted, it's on failed dex saves which makes it a bit harder to put the damage on the board with your DC 15 save, though it's fine.

The biggest yucky thing about it is lack of spell support. There's chromatic orb, vitrolic sphere, and dragon's breath but not much else to look forward to in the damage type.

Now, am I going to reflex and recoil due to sheer unoptimized building? No. I'm not. I think the acid sorcerer is fine, even if the damage is low. It means the black dragon sorcerer is better served taking less spells related to doing direct damage.

 

[Shiroiken]

IMO the only class that "sucks" outright is probably the Monk. I've seen only a couple of monks over the years, and while the players enjoy the flavor, they've found the mechanics "meh" (I've never liked the monk because it just doesn't fit into the setting style I prefer). They do have the ability to spam Stunning Strike against the BBEG, but that one trick pony isn't going to get them far.

The Ranger's base class is weaker than the others, and also requires DM input (session 0). The DM should give the player an idea of what terrain type the campaign is going to start in, preventing them from getting screwed. A nice DM should give them an idea of what kind of creatures are in the area, allowing them to make reasonable choices for Favored Enemy. With that in mind, while the base class is weak, the sub-classes (save Beastmaster, who needs revision) are actually pretty good. Putting these together, the Ranger is a good class... not the greatest by any means, but still very good.

I've never understood people crapping on Sorcerers. They don't get a lot of spells, nor sorcery points, but they are a hammer, turning every problem into a nail. There are a TON of tricks and combos that they can pull off using sorcery points, or worst case the turn them into more spell slots. They can work just about any role (tank is iffy at best though), but unlike other casters they HAVE to stick to the role they're built around, since they're not flexible at all (again, hammer). This is the exact same concept they had in 3E when they were introduced, and now they're better at it (they did kinda suck in 3E). In addition, everyone I know that's played one (including myself) enjoys them a lot. The only thing I can think of why people hate on the Sorcerer is whiteboard theory crafting, which means bubkis in practice.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree. I'm currently playing a Hexblade Warlock, and it's annoying that I have to give up almost all my Eldritch Invocations just in order to keep up with other melee characters.

But if you didn’t you would be head and shoulders better than them.

 

[FrogReaver]

I just cannot take any analysis seriously that considers Warlocks weak. Maybe not the most interesting class to play, but definitely not weak.

Compared to other casters they are pretty weak. Not bad mind you, just relatively weaker.

 

[CapnZapp]

Do you not think that Beast master ranger was an intentional reaction to the minion spawn of earlier editions? The same for summoning.

First off, the beastbaster ranger is in my opinion not worth the paper it's printed on. (The animal companions of Pathfinder 2 doesn't fare much better)

But that said, you have a point, and I should provide greater context.

My position is that any beastmaster player that wants to be able to sustain the fantasy of finding a tiger or dire wolf in the forest, and creating a close friendship over the years as the pair has adventures and level up together...​

​

...need an inherently unbalanced Ranger subclass. One where the ranger itself isn't nerfed into half-strength (and thus becomes unfun to play) and more importantly where the beast isn't nerfed into being a mere appendix to the character, since that means it becomes too fragile to actually be used as a melee brawler.​

​

Look, for a summoner or necromancer or shaman, the summons or skeletons or spirit animals are fundamentally disposable. If they die, you get a new one.​

​

That's not what many beastmaster players is looking for. They want - nay need - a class where the animal companion is treated as a friend, as a party member, a valued contributor, as someone that isn't more likely to die than any other party member, not the weakest link in the chain. And more to the point: not any more likely to die than any other melee frontliner in the party. (The archer or wizard might get away with poor defense stats since they stay at range. A tiger or dire wolf isn't staying at range.) If it isn't strong enough, it feels like animal cruelty to send it to its death.​

​

So the only way to implement a satisfactory beastmaster is to be open with the fact that while master + companion might not need to equal 1+1=2 characters, they sure need to represent more than 1/2+1/2=1. (Most likely, we're talking about 9/10+6/10=1 1/2 or thereabouts). Yes, the subclass needs to be clearly and explicitly overpowered, or at least one of its two constituent parts will feel uselessly weak.​

​

So the only fair way to implement a Beastmaster subclass that respects how many humans find the killing of animals more upsetting than the killing of monsters and NPCs is to make it opt-in. A little sidebar explaining that the subclass needs the approval of every party member as well as the DM. Making it clear we're talking about an optional rule.​

So while, yes, both 5E and PF2 has "solved" the issue of overpowered animal companions, they did so by throwing out the baby with the bathwater, at least if you agree with my basic definition of an "animal friend". They created animal companions impossible to keep alive (unless you don't send them into battle in the first place, in which case I'd rather play a different subclass entirely, thanks). Note the recent attempts by WotC to fudge their way out of this situation by providing classes with companions that aren't truly alive. The reason for this is that to be balanced, the companion must be weak and disposable.

Also note that 5E summons are only balanced if the GM specifically limits the summons. A player that gets to choose his own summons will be more (over)powerful than any beastmaster (even one that fulfils the criteria set out by this post).

 

[Blue]

I think that all of the classes are viable - on the power curve of playable classes. There's a baseball player evaluation term, WAR, which means wins above replacement. In other words, if the player was replacing an average person in that position, how many more wins (or losses). I think that in general as long as you have a balanced party, the classes are with in an acceptable WAR of each other.

Different classes get different amounts of their total from base vs. subclass, so you do need to look at both. For what I generally see at my tables, I would say the Four Elements Monk and the Beastmaster Ranger are the weakest. But Open Hand, Shadow or Drunken Master Monk all work well (especially when you realize you aren't primarily a striker like other marital classes). Hunter Ranger can hold it's own and Gloomstalker often gets tapped in CharOpt builds.

At the tables I play, sorcerer is usually in the top half of the power curve. Between subclasses like Divine Sorcerer, and metamagic like twinning big buffs, they are quite successful. Metamagic basically turns every spell in a cluster of related spells - by that measure Sorcerers exceed everyone else for spells known/prepared, and have the most cantrips too. Like any caster you need to pay attention to what you pick - enough but not too many concentration, and spells that scale well and/or upcast well carry a higher weight then they might for another class.

 

[Gradine]

No classes actually suck because the only truly relevant evidence one way or the other is anecdotal real play experience which cannot be extrapolated on and everything else is so much useless white room theorycraft nonsense.



Okay except the Truenamer that jank was broken as helllllllll