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
    131

log in or register to remove this ad

Dausuul

Legend
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.
Yeah, this is a big thing IME. Monks, fighters, and warlocks are very dependent on short rests. If 90% of the party's rests are long rests, these three classes will be crippled. (Thinking about it, I am tempted to go back and revise my "no weak classes" vote on that basis, simply because not getting short rests is such a common problem.)

Because I don't like having to design all my adventures around the need for short rests, I instituted a house rule that short rests are 5 minutes, but you're only allowed two of them per day. It makes a world of difference.
 


Dausuul

Legend
Another way to re-balance it is to go the other way, and make long rests much harder to get (like 1/week, or, in the case of Paladins, 1/never).
I tried that too, but the players got very unhappy with it.

Also, it creates a lot more edge cases to do it that way; a lot of spell durations (e.g., mage armor) are designed around the expectation that you can take a long rest every 24 hours.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
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.

The ranger class abilities are situational but the paladin can't replicate a ranger...

...unless the idea of a ranger to the player is just a warrior with Stealth, Nature, and a green hood.

The issue with the ranger is different from the issue with the sorcerer.

The problem with ranger is that many want to play "Fighters in green hoods". The 5e ranger is closer to the skilled wilderness warrior who uses nature and arcana to best beasts, monsters, tribal raiders, and the supernatural beings of the wild.

Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer aren't the best but they aren't as terrible as people say. The issue is some table don't run wilderness encounters in depth and some people just want to play Fighters.

The main issue with rangers is their number of small spell known. If Hunters Mark and Cure Wounds were free, it fixes a lot.
 


Horwath

Hero
The ranger class abilities are situational but the paladin can't replicate a ranger...

...unless the idea of a ranger to the player is just a warrior with Stealth, Nature, and a green hood.

The issue with the ranger is different from the issue with the sorcerer.

The problem with ranger is that many want to play "Fighters in green hoods". The 5e ranger is closer to the skilled wilderness warrior who uses nature and arcana to best beasts, monsters, tribal raiders, and the supernatural beings of the wild.

Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer aren't the best but they aren't as terrible as people say. The issue is some table don't run wilderness encounters in depth and some people just want to play Fighters.

The main issue with rangers is their number of small spell known. If Hunters Mark and Cure Wounds were free, it fixes a lot.

last UA for class features has great fix for the ranger.
Favored enemy is replaced by free hunters mark and a number of usages per day equal to wis bonus and natural explorer with various always on survival/exploration features.

most important is that they are always reliable.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Monks decent but you kinda need to know how to play and build them.

We roll dice though and if you roll well people look at classes like the monk more.
. It's like 3.5 Monks sucked- with the default array. People built them using weapon finesse smart players built then as strength based grapplers.

We build monks as skirmisher Rogue replacements. A lot of people play them like rogues. They use the class for mobility and spend more time running around doing sod all vs moar damage.

And then complain they don't deal more damage. Bonus points for the ones who ask what am I doing wrong, you tell them then they go back to running around with a shortbow doing sod all.

Or you have someone using sharpshooter or gwm. Those two feats warp things and monks and duel wielders look bad by comparison.
 

RogueJK

It's not "Rouge"... That's makeup.
As I wrote, there are those that shouldn't play the monk. Most of those fall into three camps:
1. Those who worry about whiteroom theory.*
2. Those who don't like the "Asian" or "wuxia" influence in their D&D.
3. Those who have never played one, usually because of (1) and (2).

For those that understand how to play the monk, which includes how to use the abilities effectively, it's a great class. Probably one of the best uses of 5e's design.

Nailed it. Monks seem like middle-of-the-road combatants on paper. But in practice, they're ridiculously fun and flavorful to play, don't feel noticeably underpowered, you almost always have something creative to do, and you're usually the one at the table getting to do the "cool stuff".

If you've never played one, you owe it to yourself to try, rather than simply turning your nose up to them.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Nailed it. Monks seem like middle-of-the-road combatants on paper. But in practice, they're ridiculously fun and flavorful to play, don't feel noticeably underpowered, you almost always have something creative to do, and you're usually the one at the table getting to do the "cool stuff".

If you've never played one, you owe it to yourself to try, rather than simply turning your nose up to them.

This.
 

Dausuul

Legend
I would say that it's a feature of that transition, not a bug, if you're going for a grittier feel.
If "grittier feel" is the goal, yes, it's a feature.

In this case, however, my goal was to keep monks, warlocks, and fighters from losing out on their short-rest recharges, without forcing me to plan adventures around giving them a 1-hour break. The "5 minutes, twice a day" solution achieves that goal with minimal disruption to the rest of the system.

Personally, I like the grittier feel and having to carefully husband one's resources. But I cut my teeth playing 2E wizards, throwing darts and hoarding my spells like gold. Most of my players were introduced to D&D in late 3E or later, and they are not fans of that style of play.
 



Dausuul

Legend
Ugh. I have to get to the bottom of the throwing darts thing. I think I'm going to put up a separate thread about this, because it's been bugging me for a while!
What about it? They were by far the best weapons available to an AD&D wizard, because TSR in its infinite wisdom saw fit to give them a 3/round rate of fire.
 


Dausuul

Legend
Try a fighter weapon specialist halfling with gauntlets if ogre power.
Yeah, looking at them with 2020 eyes, I boggle at the potential for abuse. But back when I played 2E, the Internet was in its infancy and none of the players in my college group were rules-savvy enough to connect those dots on our own. I stumbled onto using darts as a wizard simply because they were one of a tiny handful of weapon choices, and I preferred concealable weapons to crossbows.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
last UA for class features has great fix for the ranger.
Favored enemy is replaced by free hunters mark and a number of usages per day equal to wis bonus and natural explorer with various always on survival/exploration features.

most important is that they are always reliable.

Favored Foe is a combat feature. Favored Enemy is exploration/social feature. That's part of my point. Some people want to tilt the ranger from exploration to combat. They should instead play Fighters with a level or Rogue.

Deft Explorer is good because it tweak ranger exploration to a very generic state that fits more tables.
 


Horwath

Hero
Favored Foe is a combat feature. Favored Enemy is exploration/social feature. That's part of my point. Some people want to tilt the ranger from exploration to combat. They should instead play Fighters with a level or Rogue.

Deft Explorer is good because it tweak ranger exploration to a very generic state that fits more tables.
favored Foe is also an exploration feature as it gives advantage on Perception and Survival for tracking the target if it escapes the battle.

It can also be casted out of combat of you want to track a target more easily.
I.E. for following.
You see the target, but it would get suspicious if you would follow it closely for more than a minute. So you cast that on it and give it a good head start before you start your track.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Yeah, looking at them with 2020 eyes, I boggle at the potential for abuse. But back when I played 2E, the Internet was in its infancy and none of the players in my college group were rules-savvy enough to connect those dots on our own. I stumbled onto using darts as a wizard simply because they were one of a tiny handful of weapon choices, and I preferred concealable weapons to crossbows.

They were mostly fine as you had no guarantee of getting the gauntlets.

The RoF thing was to compensate for lack of ability score damage in ranged weapons.

Even if you did cheese it the tactic didn't work very well with critters requiring magical weapons.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top