log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Which of the classes are too weak / too underpowered?


  • Total voters
    132

Merudo

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.
Until level 5, Monks have a +10 to movement. That's what the spell Longstrider gives. It's okay, but not exactly game breaking. Monks get +15 ft. for level 5-9, which is a tad better but hardly game changing.

Monks pretty much have to be in melee to attack. To get in and out of combat and make use of their mobility, they need to burn 1 Ki point and spend a bonus action each time they want to do it. This brings down their DPR considerably.

Honestly if you want a high priority target taken down, you are way better off attacking at range. A Samurai, Battlemaster, or Gloom Stalker archer with Sharpshooter is going to do more damage more reliably than a Monk can ever hope for.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dausuul

Legend
Everyone looks terrible compared to a paladin. The problem here is paladin, not ranger. Rangers are fine.

I don't think any class is too weak, per se. (Paladins are too strong, but that wasn't what the poll asked about.)

I do think that a) many subclasses are flat-out awful, b) certain classes get shortchanged in campaigns where the party does not get a lot of short rests, and c) several classes have design flaws where excessive system mastery is required to get them to perform as intended. Sorcerers, for instance, are supposed to be the "easy caster class," but they actually require more skill to play than other casters; you have to pick your spells with great care, and you have to understand the value of converting low-end slots to high-end.
 


Undrave

Hero
I like my Shadow Monk, but I still feel like, once combat start, I'm mostly doing chip damage. Stunning Strike is not that useful because the targets I would want to stun are too strong to fail the saving throw (or burn their Legendary Resistance on it) and the targets that WOULD fail the saving throw can be dispatched with enough punches to the face for less Ki. I do plenty outside of combat though, so at least I can have fun there.

I'm a few levels too far from Mobile at the moment too, but as a Shadow Monk (in an Underdark environment) I usually just teleport away from melee.
 


Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
I'm surprised myself; I didn't expect the Sorcerer to fare this poorly.
I did honestly, though I love them myself and play them more than any other class.

My biggest gripe is the # of spells known, but other than that they have proven a pretty solid class in play for me.
 

Undrave

Hero
It depends on the subclass; shadow monk plays a little different than open hand because of the teleport.

It's just a very hard class to get into the right mentality for, because so many classes in D&D are just pure attrit (I hit you, you hit me, repeat, rinse). But the class features make it the most self-sufficient skirmisher class out there, able to dart in and out of combat.

It's just very different.

The other thing that it shares with other classes many people consider underpowered is the recharge on short rest. I think that a lot of tables aren't using that correctly, and that gives short rest classes a bit of the short stick.
Well my party also includes a Warlock so Short Rest are kinda important to us.

I feel like Monk could have had D10 HD and it wouldn't have broken anything...
 




Heh. Bard's not on the list. ;) In 3.x, it'd've probably gotten a lot of votes - in 5e, it's omission is probably fine.

Are some of the classes in 5e in need of a buff? If so, which one(s)?
What's "weak?"

Over the course of a day, if the party is just beating down 6-8 tough monsters (that reply, likewise, only with damage), one at a time, with an hour break every-other monster, every class can put in it's fair share of that damage. Nobody's 'weak' - not even the monsters, they're just outnumbered.

The thing is, for some classes, that's far from their best day. They'll contribute a lot more if the day is shorter, there are groups of monsters, those monsters have special abilities that need to be overcome, or if some of the day's challenges aren't simple combat, but social or exploration challenges of various sorts that can be solved by something more or other than a bland d20 check.
Those classes aren't stronger, they're not hitting any harder or standing up to more punishment, they're just getting a lot of stuff done.

So some classes are terribly under-versatile relative to others. A recent UA took a stab at addressing that, making all classes a bit more versatile.
 
Last edited:

Horwath

Adventurer
You forgot the skills lists, the language and skill bonuses, and the exploration spells.

The ranger is seen as weak because it is seem by many of as an alternate fighter. Or their group skips most of wilderness exploration.

If you skipp wilderness, monster and enemy interaction, and minimize travel and stealth, the ranger will look terrible compare to a paladin.
I said that ranger is better in its favored terrain and against his favored enemy.

If we take lvl6 characters, we get a ranger that is good in exploration 1/4th of the time and has a small advantage in 1/7th of the encounters.

Problem is that ribbon abilities are treated are core class features of the ranger.
And they are unreliable.

6th level rogue can have expertise in Stealth, Perception, Survival and Nature. 100% "on". That is enough to "out-ranger" a ranger in most terrains.

Paladin can have all those skills. without expertise OFC, but ranger will not have expertise outside favorite terrain also.
 


Horwath

Adventurer
It was no more powerful than a Sorcerer, especially an Elementalist, or a Rogue, especially a charger. I only wish the 5E ranger hit as hard as a 5E fighter or paladin.
Ranger maybe should not hit as hard, but Natural explorer should be 100% "on" and reword favored enemy to something more reliable, not mandatory tied to combat.
 

Tallifer

Hero
I say all this because when I switched my campaign from 4E to 5E, the ranger went from the reliable hero of any fight to the sometimes barely useful forager with a few spells. All the other characters ( two clerics, paladin, witch, barbarian, swordmage) saw no noticeable diminshment, and even considerable empowerment.
 

Krachek

Adventurer
Maybe to three leaders of this poll lack of adaptation.

The ranger natural explorer is the burden of the ranger, it’s funny the the ranger feel like the less adaptative class due to this feature. He should be the champion of adaptation.

The sorcerer is presented with a feeling of « Able to bend the law of magic ». so why they give him a so restricted spell list....

Monk tend to be a good skirmisher or a good skirmisher or... a good skirmisher.
some tools to get out of this role can help.
 


Horwath

Adventurer
I say all this because when I switched my campaign from 4E to 5E, the ranger went from the reliable hero of any fight to the sometimes barely useful forager with a few spells. All the other characters ( two clerics, paladin, witch, barbarian, swordmage) saw no noticeable diminshment, and even considerable empowerment.
We mostly skipped 4E, but 5.0E ranger suffers the fate of 3.0 ranger. Let's hope he gets better in 5.5E like it did in 3.5 :D
Ranger from UA is doing pretty good.
 

Horwath

Adventurer
Maybe to three leaders of this poll lack of adaptation.

The ranger natural explorer is the burden of the ranger, it’s funny the the ranger feel like the less adaptative class due to this feature. He should be the champion of adaptation.

The sorcerer is presented with a feeling of « Able to bend the law of magic ». so why they give him a so restricted spell list....

Monk tend to be a good skirmisher or a good skirmisher or... a good skirmisher.
some tools to get out of this role can help.
Problem with sorcerer is that it is compared to wizard.

In 3.5 wizard was a swiss army knife and sorcerer was a hammer.

Now wizard is an even better swiss army knife and sorcerer is ... a knife.

now for monk, I played wood elf shadow monk and it was great. In the dark(at lvl6) with Mobile feat, I was next to immune to damage and mobility was superb.
60ft move speed, 60ft bonus action at-will teleport, no AoOs, no difficult terrains, for backup ranged combat longbow instead of pathetic simple weapons,
 

Undrave

Hero
I say all this because when I switched my campaign from 4E to 5E, the ranger went from the reliable hero of any fight to the sometimes barely useful forager with a few spells. All the other characters ( two clerics, paladin, witch, barbarian, swordmage) saw no noticeable diminshment, and even considerable empowerment.
Your Ranger would have been better off as a Fighter with the Outlander background I bet... The DnD Ranger is such a weird self-referential class...
 

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top