D&D 5E It is OK for a class to be the worst

[Asisreo]

That's exactly what I'd expect, and an adventure where you don't have it means it might as well have not existed in many ways (not all ways). Whereas iserith seems to be saying he can use it basically all the time and just con the DM ("player skill" as he puts it) into letting him not roll for stuff (sounds like he has a massively soft-touch DM to me, esp. as his Zealot has also never been killed, but hey whatever is fun!).

They're certainly different playstyles, aren't they? Either way, Rages are a LR resource of itself so you obviously can't Rage every encounter, or you're assumed to not use them every encounter. Until level 20, the maximum amount of rages you get is the expected minimum of an adventuring day. At level 3, it's impossible to get exhausted more than 3 times in a day from frenzy.

But you certainly aren't terrible without rage. You still get reckless attack, extra attack, unarmored defense, and danger sense without having to rage. You just have an option to push yourself further with rage and even further beyond with frenzy whenever the fight calls for it.

I've yet to play in a game where a barbarian seriously suffered for their frenzy because they just didn't use it on a couple of goblins when there's most likely a boss encounter later down the road.

Plus, people downplay how freaking fun it is to play a kaioken-type character that keeps pushing themselves recklessly. It's just a fun roleplay, at least to me.

 

[NotAYakk]

That's called a playstyle, though. Understandably, some people prefer a good, limited ability. Others might like the strategy of a big-move at higher costs. Doesn't mean it's bad or need fixing, just means you could do more with it.

Basically, it is exhaustion in exchange for about half a feat of benefit.

The argument that "_____ is the worst" bugs me. Because there's always a worst option. Something has to be at the bottom

And if the argument stopped there you'd have a point.

But it doesn't. It goes on to describe the size of the gap, and checks if there are mitigsting circumstances.

For example, imagine two classes, otherwise identical, but class B has half the HP and half the Damage per action. Otherwisr completely identical.

While one class is weaker, that is not all. B is dominated by A. And the gap is large.

Now suppose B has half the damage, but twice the HP. Now saying which is worse is harder; quite possibly there would be solid arguments for either.

Or B has the same HP but 5% less damage. Now it is dominated, but the gap is small.

Champion's problem compated to BM is that near brainless near zero tactics BM play dominates the Champion. And the gap is pretty significant.

"X is the worst" is where you start. The argument continues from there. If you stop reading at that, sure the srgument sucks, but really it is a problem with your reading, not the argument.

 

[jgsugden]

I have built highly efficient PCs in every class. I have built incredibly fun PCs in every class. Accordingly, no fix is required.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've yet to play in a game where a barbarian seriously suffered for their frenzy because they just didn't use it on a couple of goblins when there's most likely a boss encounter later down the road.

I've been suggesting the opposite would happen so I'm extremely confused by this.

The problem the Frenzy creates is that, if they use it too early in the adventuring day, you're basically weakening the entire party for the rest of the day outside of combat (get it to 3 and its inside of combat, too). Anything you were good at, now you're bad at it. Strongest guy in the party? Not anymore. Agile and unarmoured so stealthy and good at climbing/swimming? Not anymore. Keen senses? Not anymore. Any skills at all? Better off someone uses the Help action on someone else for all those rolls. So you have to hold it back until late in the adventuring day.

If you were running Grim and Gritty, it would be completely insane, too, you could be going days with those penalties (though still likely only 6-8 resource-draining encounters, to be fair). Not sure why you think using it 3 times in a day wouldn't be bad, either - that takes three long rests (which only a very generous DM and a very non-time-sensitive adventure is going to let you take as 24 hours of laying down) to recover from.

 

[Retreater]

I normally DM, but if I'm not, I will only have fun being the most useful character I can play. If I'm not able to feel like I'm contributing to the group, that just removes the fun for me.

 

[iserith]

@Ruin Explorer Exhaustion has real consequences. It's just not as bad as people make it out to be because it depends on many variables that cannot be accounted for in forum theory. It can be mitigated and worked around. Some of the barbarian features already do that.

Further, a group that plays in a manner the DMG calls "Roll With It" may naturally see exhaustion as a much bigger problem - more tasks will call for ability checks because the DM doesn't strike a balance between using dice and deciding on success as is the case with the "Middle Path" (DMG p. 236-237) which is how I play.

In any case, for the DM to ask the player to make an ability check, the character must be performing a task with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. If the player can address the situation at hand and remove one of those prerequisites, then there's no ability check which is far better than hanging your fortune on a d20. That is hardly "chatting the DM." That is engaging with the environment the DM has taken the trouble to describe for the players. That is player skill.

Also, my zealot hasn't died because he's a half-orc whose racial feature has kept me from dying several times as have the two celestial warlocks in my group. But nice dig at my DM there. Classy.

If you'd like to address statements I have made, please feel free to reply to me directly in future.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I normally DM, but if I'm not, I will only have fun being the most useful character I can play. If I'm not able to feel like I'm contributing to the group, that just removes the fun for me.

I tend to feel similarly, which probably colours my take on this stuff. As such I tend to end up as Paladins, Bards, Druids, and Clerics (and I'm pretty sure I'd be fine on a Wizard, possibly even a Rogue but only because I've discussed some of the trickier things they can do with you guys so much!).

If you'd like to address statements I have made, please feel free to reply to me directly in future.

I already did. You repeatedly described how you avoided rolling any actual dice due to your "player skill" which you seemed to think others lacked, and how none of the problems caused by Exhaustion actually had a meaningful impact because of various factors. You can't have it both ways, mate.

 

[Rdm]

I normally DM, but if I'm not, I will only have fun being the most useful character I can play. If I'm not able to feel like I'm contributing to the group, that just removes the fun for me.

See, here is the disconnect. I don’t think you can make a character that can’t contribute unless that is what you are intentionally trying to do. Just because something isn’t ‘optimal’ doesn’t mean it ‘can’t contribute’.

 

[Krachek]

The berserker deserve a fix. It is the only none magical barbarian and thus he own an exclusive niche.

The champion is ok for a dont bother character. If you want to perform play a BM. There is no real thematic difference.

the sorcerer and the ranger are more complex case. They may not under perform but may produce insatisfaction or frustration. Same thing for the elemental monk, he is not so bad, but its spells are often a second choice behind stunning strike, unless exceptional situation.

 

[iserith]

I already did. You repeatedly described how you avoided rolling any actual dice due to your "player skill" which you seemed to think others lacked, and how none of the problems caused by Exhaustion actually had a meaningful impact because of various factors. You can't have it both ways, mate.

Can't have what both ways? My position is consistent. Also, I also did not state that anyone lacked skills. Only that certain approaches were skillful in context and I explained why.