Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8053389" data-attributes="member: 12731">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".</blockquote>

Verification