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

[iserith]

I'll happily play the worst class if I think it's fun. I play Berserkers and I play strength based Rangers.

But I do think there are some questionable decisions in regards to the class and subclass design. Rather than Rangers being better at wilderness stuff, things like Natural Explorer completely bypass some wilderness stuff in certain terrain. I don't like reminding my DM that I can't get lost in Mountainous Terrain when he is reasonably calling for a Survival check. I think a bonus is better than a bypass.

I'm good with the bypass. Not rolling is better than rolling in my view because the d20 is nobody's friend. Also, something to consider is that even if the party can't get lost, the ranger still has to be the one navigating to gain that benefit, which means he or she is not performing some other potentially useful task like foraging or tracking. There's something of a trade-off here. (Though he or she does get to keep watch for danger, which is nice.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm claiming that people are not braindead. People may make mistakes but it's very easy to know a climax when you see one. I'm playing Odyssey right now and I can say I'd never frenzy against the goatlings, the first boss monster, though, yeah.

In other words, you're giving Ruin Explorer tons of credit for being better at predicting climax battles than he/she claims, right?

 

[Aldarc]

Overall I think the recent UA on Class features has a Ranger than fits the fiction better. Canny, Tireless, Roving make a Ranger feel more enduring, mobile, and skilled to me. And I think a lot of new players especially look more for "feels right" than anything else.

Wasn't one of the oft-floated criticisms of the recent UA ranger that it had features that made it a better barbarian than the core barbarian?

 

[BookBarbarian]

Wasn't one of the oft-floated criticisms of the recent UA ranger that it had features that made it a better barbarian than the core barbarian?

I haven't seen that clam at all. If I did I would disagree with it heartily. It has no Rage, no Reckless attack and that's the 5e Barbarian's bread and butter.

Tireless with it's short rest Exhaustion removal I think was seen as a great dip for a Berserker, and I agree with that, but that's a far cry from making a Ranger a better Barbarian.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm playing Odyssey right now and I can say I'd never frenzy against the goatlings, the first boss monster, though, yeah.

Don't you dare spoiler me! We haven't actually met any goatlings yet, but have definitely fought a "boss monster" or two (I mean not counting anything pre-oracle, obviously), so I suspect we may be going a different route. Someone told me it was "basically a Bioware game", which seems to be true so far!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wasn't one of the oft-floated criticisms of the recent UA ranger that it had features that made it a better barbarian than the core barbarian?

I've not heard that criticism and it doesn't make much sense, on the face of it. The only Barbarian it even vaguely could be considered similar to is the old 2E Barbarian which was basically "Hunter-Gatherer: THE CLASS!" and which trod all over the toes of the 2E Ranger, whilst being objectively worse than it.

 

[Aldarc]

I haven't seen that clam at all. If I did I would disagree with it heartily. It has no Rage, no Reckless attack ad that's the 5e Barbarian's bread and butter.

Tireless with it's short rest Exhaustion removal I think was seen as a great dip for a Berserker, and I agree with that, but that's a far cry from making a Ranger a better Barbarian.

Some dimensions of the barbarian, from what I gather, namely the stuff that made it more enduring and tough.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I've not heard that criticism and it doesn't make much sense, on the face of it. The only Barbarian it even vaguely could be considered similar to is the old 2E Barbarian which was basically "Hunter-Gatherer: THE CLASS!" and which trod all over the toes of the 2E Ranger, whilst being objectively worse than it.

I think there's always been overlap in the concept of the Barbarian and the concept of the Ranger. Especially with 5e having the Outlander background which can make a great "Barbarian" or "Ranger' from the narrative without having any levels in either class.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I think there's always been overlap in the concept of the Barbarian and the concept of the Ranger. Especially with 5e having the Outlander background which can make a great "Barbarian" or "Ranger' from the narrative without having any levels in either class.

That's because Classes are a bit more on the "gameplay" side of things than anything else.

Rangers are fairly obvious, they're supposed to be the ones who are the best at one of the three pillars of the game, while Barbarian is the easiest and most understandable name for what the class actually is (melee fighter with big dumb super mode).

 

[BookBarbarian]

Some dimensions of the barbarian, from what I gather, namely the stuff that made it more enduring and tough.

Eh, even taking into account the THP from Tireless it still doesn't have the durability of the Barbarian.

It does however make one heck of a multiclass combo. THP+Resistance has always been good.