Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GlassJaw" data-source="post: 8055283" data-attributes="member: 22103">I like that this thread uses &quot;least performing&quot; instead of weak/sucks/underpowered, etc. Given the nature of 5E's core mechanic, I don't think any class is truly weak or under-powered compared to any other.That said, the PHB ranger sucks. It's the only class that needs a heavy revision, which it largely got if you do a mashup of the UA revised ranger and class variants. It's not because the ranger is mechanically weak but that it's design is so convoluted. Its mechanics are also either heavily dependent on the DM/campaign or negate portions of the game (exploration and wilderness travel). Not to mention how borked the Beastmaster subclass is.Otherwise every PHB class is playable as-is.I do put the sorcerer into its own category though. Again, it's not weak and its mechanics aren't a mess like the ranger but it's incredibly bland and a massive missed design opportunity. The Next playtest sorcerer was way more interesting but it got gutted at the last minute. It also suffers from the fact it only has 2 subclasses in the PHB and one of them is totally nuts (wild magic).The sorcerer is a little bit trickier to &quot;fix&quot; though because it's not broken per se. Giving more spells known, more metamagic options, and more sorcery points all help. However, those are just band-aids and don't change how the class is played.The sorcerer needs a change to its core class to make it unique and to differentiate from the wizard. I love spell points for the sorcerer but I also know that isn't universally shared, whereas the reaction to the ranger changes has generally been positive.The only other class &quot;fix&quot; that might be needed is giving the monk more ki points somehow. But again, that's subject to debate. A few subclasses make the list too: Berskerer (exhaustion), Beastmaster, Four Elements.After that, any change is really just personal preference.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GlassJaw, post: 8055283, member: 22103"] I like that this thread uses "least performing" instead of weak/sucks/underpowered, etc. Given the nature of 5E's core mechanic, I don't think any class is truly weak or under-powered compared to any other. That said, the PHB ranger sucks. It's the only class that [I]needs [/I]a heavy revision, which it largely got if you do a mashup of the UA revised ranger and class variants. It's not because the ranger is mechanically weak but that it's design is so convoluted. Its mechanics are also either heavily dependent on the DM/campaign or negate portions of the game (exploration and wilderness travel). Not to mention how borked the Beastmaster subclass is. Otherwise every PHB class is playable as-is. I do put the sorcerer into its own category though. Again, it's not weak and its mechanics aren't a mess like the ranger but it's incredibly bland and a massive missed design opportunity. The Next playtest sorcerer was way more interesting but it got gutted at the last minute. It also suffers from the fact it only has 2 subclasses in the PHB and one of them is totally nuts (wild magic). The sorcerer is a little bit trickier to "fix" though because it's not broken per se. Giving more spells known, more metamagic options, and more sorcery points all help. However, those are just band-aids and don't change how the class is played. The sorcerer needs a change to its core class to make it unique and to differentiate from the wizard. I love spell points for the sorcerer but I also know that isn't universally shared, whereas the reaction to the ranger changes has generally been positive. The only other class "fix" that [I]might [/I]be needed is giving the monk more ki points somehow. But again, that's subject to debate. A few subclasses make the list too: Berskerer (exhaustion), Beastmaster, Four Elements. After that, any change is really just personal preference. [/QUOTE]

Verification