D&D 5E [Poll] Are any of the base classes too weak?

[Undrave]

Perhaps groups don't run wilderness travel because the Ranger seems designed to trivialise it and make it skippable?

"Ok Ranger. Your time to shine. Roll three navigation checks to see if you can find your way throuh the perilous forest"
"It's my favoured terrain. I can't get lost"
"Oh, okay then. But it's difficult going to find a path. Make roll to see if you can find an easy path - otherwise it will be a slow journey".
"Difficult terrain doesn't slow us".
"Oh, ok then. But since you are so busy finding the path, someone else will have to forage for food. Who else has Survival?"
"Actually I can do that at the same time".
"Oh, ok. I guess you arrive at the dungeon then. A big stone ruined tower looms..."

Basically it's a feature that makes you play less...

 

[Minigiant]

I get what you are saying, but at the same time, those challenges are not necessarily places for rangers to shine. Sure these are ''exploration challenges'' but most of them can be better countered by a druid, a cleric or a bard or even some rogue with specific expertises, or a wizard. In those challenges you cited, the ranger itself is not really more helpful than any other party member, to be honest.

That mostly comes down the the overall "spells known/prepared" problem in D&D.
Nature clerics, lore bards, and land druids just have way too many spells prepared that their additional spell slots can be tossed out more frequently than the average ranger.

Luckily most of the exploration spells are low level and rangers can afford a few by level 5. So by level, rangers can compete with druids and clerics with their combination of skills, spells, and class features.

The fact that it takes 5 levels to known speak with animals without halting combat ability is a problem.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Team Monk is doing a good job, and I agree with the points made. Qi points and Unlimited bonus action unarmed strikes makes them Energizer bunny like. More importantly I have seen a monk played in every edition that had them, and the players always seem to be having a blast!
40+ years of smiling faces must mean something.

Re: Sorcerer, I think the class plays better than people are giving it credit for on the conceptual level. That said, thematically there is no heavy lifting that the class does that could not be done by the Wizard class with some cosmetic changes. If the most ardent supporter, feels the class does not have enough spells/ Sorcery points...lets roll it into the Wizard class...(along with
metamagic and Sorcery points)...between votes for Wiz and Sorc, the total stands at 22. Combine the two classes.

I also am pro Gondwanaland!

As for the Ranger, sigh.....reset and restart. Add scouting features that are fun, and more than limited Expertise on Int and Wis checks. Add Ritual Magic to harken back to 1e days when a Ranger could have some magical power thru Wiz and Druid spells.
Give it some Ranger Lore, maybe similar to Bardic Inspiration, or bonus action based Help actions to aid the group in Athletics checks and Survival based checks...you know like how real wilderness survivalists do.

Or just add a Divine Strike equivalent for the class and call it a day.

Just do something

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Or just add a Divine Strike equivalent for the class and call it a day.

If WotC would do the same move as Paizo and change the name of the paladin to the more generic ''champion'', I think the ranger could be a cool ''oath of the wild'' champion.

As of now, I think a dex-based avenger or ancient paladin with a custom background to add prof in survival and perception + 1 language and cartographer tools can make for a nice ranger replacement.

Same with the new variant feature for the barbarian that gives expertise in two exploration skills + some of the totems makes an awesome ranger.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As someone who enjoys playing monks a great deal, I think that most of the criticism is misplaced.

They are amazing for what they do, but they aren't a front-line, exchange blows-type class like a Barbarian or a Fighter.

They are skirmishers. They use mobility to their advantage.

It's also not true that they "lose out" on feats. Sure, a feat that upped damage would be great. But feats like Alert and Mobile (with the ability to prevent opportunity attacks) are amazing on a monk.

TLDR; monks are great and not underpowered at all, but the constellation of abilities are not for everyone.

I think you're missing my point entirely.

My issue is with the claim that Monks would be overpowed BECAUSE they entirely theoretically could out-damage a BM Fighter. You even seem to agree with that comparison being bad, because you point out that they fill a different role.

So that is all lovely but Monks should, frankly, be significantly out-damaging a BM Fighter if they're blowing all their resources on DPR.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

More importantly I have seen a monk played in every edition that had them, and the players always seem to be having a blast!
40+ years of smiling faces must mean something.

Oh buddy... you just nuked your own argument from orbit. Was it the only way to be sure?

The cold fact is that in most editions where they've appeared, Monks have been mechanically pretty awful, so what you're proving is that the people you've played with have enjoyed the hell of terribly-designed classes. Which I'm sure is true, I too have seen pretty awful character classes provide fun, but it utterly invalidates any claim that they are mechanically fine on that basis.

Re smiling faces, my own experience is that upbeat and generally positive players tend to be far more willing to select mechanically dubious classes, and far less upset when they can't perform mechanically. If I look at all the people I've played with, this holds true. The most depressive or grumpy players tend to carefully select effective classes and races. Upbeat and grinning guys and girls tend to select ones that seem cool, regardless of whether they work.

Monks are okay, certainly not as bad as Rangers, in 5E, but they're not perfect.

 

[FrogReaver]

So that is all lovely but Monks should, frankly, be significantly out-damaging a BM Fighter if they're blowing all their resources on DPR.

Ummmm. You really don’t see what is wrong with that stance?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ummmm. You really don’t see what is wrong with that stance?

No, I don't.

Monks are a mobile DPR oriented character. BM Fighters are more versatile and survivable, but you apparently think they should not only be vastly tougher than Monks (higher AC and HP) but also do more damage and benefit more from magic items, and in any game with Feats, the BM Fighter already likely does significantly more damage.

Really hoping you blow my mind with some kind of mechanical insight here, don't just double down on Fighters should do more damage!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Minigiant]

When it comes to base class being weak, a lot of of it is nailing down the image and seeing if the class can do those things.

1. What is the image of the class?
2. What are the actions and roles that image performs?
3. Can the class perform those actions or roles?
4. Can the class perform those actions and roles well?

You have to get Part 1 nailed down before you get to Part 4. And it seems a lot of issues with class'l power is people talking about Part 4 while having vastly different ideas of Part 1.

So it makes sense that the most talked about classes here are the ones with the most changes over editions and vastly different nonD&D media portrayals.