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


log in or register to remove this ad



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).
Bingo. Especially about the super mode. That's pretty much all that ties the Barbarian subclasses together from a narrative perspective, as opposed to say a Ranger, Wizard, or Fighter who more or less specializes. The Subclass for the barb leans more towards defining the source of their power, A bit like a sorcerer.

I play a lot of Barbarians I have an interesting time with the shift at level 3 when Rage starts sprouting lightning, ghosts and such. If I haven't tied the subclass I plan on choosing into the backstory it can cause some dissonance.
 






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?
Not quite. It is one UA Ranger feature option, Tireless, that removes a level of exhaustion with every short rest. It can be taken at Lv. 1, thus making Ranger a way-too-attractive dip for a Berserker Barbarian.

(Tireless itself is OK if taken after 6 Ranger levels, so that's what the change should be when it goes to print, IMO.)
 

Remove ads

Top