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

S'mon

Legend
IME Fighter feels a bit weak, mostly good for a 2-3 level dip. I'd prefer they risk being too good than too weak. Ranger, leaving aside XGE, definitely feels underwhelming too.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

TwoSix

The hero you deserve
Supporter
IME Fighter feels a bit weak, mostly good for a 2-3 level dip. I'd prefer they risk being too good than too weak. Ranger, leaving aside XGE, definitely feels underwhelming too.
1) I wish fighter got their 4th attack earlier, at 17th level.
2) Indomitable should be on a short rest.
3) I'd like them to get a 2nd fighting style sometime during tier 2.

Makes those changes, and I'm pretty good with single class fighter.
 

Hmm. I didn't think I was responding to you, or to any particular assertion regarding the BM (Bowel Movement) Fighter.
You quoted my post, which was specifically responding to an assertion re the need for Monks to do less damage than BM Fighters by that person's whiteroom DPR calcs.

I don't think I'm really being sassy when I suggest that quoting a specific post (which you have to press a button to do) might give the impression that you were talking about that post! :p
 


Fair enough! Posts tend to blend together after enough time. :)



Well, looking back at them, it appears I pretty much stated the same thing in both my replies. So I am consistent, if not always good with the memory.

I blame society, and/or a lack of coffee this morning.
Recent US DoD research indicates we kind of need to drink coffee like hours before we expect it to be effective, so very understandable!
 


Insulting other members
Oh buddy... you just nuked your own argument from orbit. Was it the only way to be

Monks are okay, certainly not as bad as Rangers, in 5E, but they're not perfect.
Ahh Ruin Explorer, the exemplar of blustery opinion and misplaced certainty that their perspective is Indubitably, the only correct opinion. It is a charming reminder of the grand days when a British man’s opinion, in his own mind, ( the only one that matters, really) was worth 12x the ‘truthiness’ value of any facts someone might bother with, ( 20x a frenchman’s). 😉

I write this with affection, I have appreciated your forceful voice in ENworld since the 3x days,
( Sincerely)

yet. When I run your statement below through the Universal Translator:

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.

the statement translates as: “ I hand wave away the reality of decades of years of fun, players have had with the mechanically dubious monk class, as the result of simple, unwashed, blissfully ignorant, players that do not mind sucking “.

It certainly captures the spirit of your words 👍

The 1e PHB literally describes the monk as, perhaps, the most deadly class in the game at that time. (Pre U/A). Put an 8th level MU, 8th Druid, and 8th level Monk with just fists against a Demon with Magic Resistance and +1 Weapons to hit, and the group is in real trouble!
The monk can still stun or outright kill on a hit, even if the monk does no damage.

A monk with a Staff of Striking, is like chocolate and orange....fairly classic.

There are times, in 1e where the monk shines, but to be fair, there are times the monk just gets slaughtered, but hey in 1e that is true for most classes beyond Fighter and Ranger.

‘Flurry of Misses’ was the 3e knock of the monk class, but let us face it, the last two attacks of any class were going to most likely miss, especially against high AC opponents. The secret was to maximize the damage on the initial hits. No power attack or Smite feats no dice. This is a system problem, not a Monk problem.

You have also never addressed how 5e monks have a magic item problem, that you intimated earlier in the thread.

So, respectfully R.E., my consideration of decades of people’s fun, does not “nuke”, my argument. Dismissing, outright, the players of in your opinion: “mechanically dubious”....(read classes that do not meet R.E.’s particuliar standards), only shows that whatever pronouncements you make, however vibrant and flavorful the writing is, still is the mere opinion of one person, with limited universality, if any.

Proclaim away, R.E., for you certainly seem short on actual arguments!🤓 🤺
 
Last edited:

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
Sure. Fun can be had in spite of mechanical weaknesses. Certain kinds of fun can even be had by leveraging them, often not conventional nor plays-well-with-others kinds of fun, but still.

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
Well, yeah, the whole "best at fighting" (with weapons, without magic) mandate: the tricked out BM blowing his Action Surge and all his CS dice should not be out-damaged by the Monk blowing all his Ki. Not unless they're both fighting unarmed, of course.

[qoute]Really hoping you blow my mind with some kind of mechanical insight here, don't just double down on Fighters should do more damage! ;)[/QUOTE]Sorry, nothing mind-blowing, just 5e Fighters got tossed the design-goal bone - sorta a giant's femur, really - of "best at fighting." Sure, it's with the proviso that it's only when fighting with weapons and without using magic, and 'best' just in the advertising sense of 'no one else is demonstrably better,' but it's the fighter's bone and you should let him gnaw on it in the corner.
 

IME Fighter feels a bit weak, mostly good for a 2-3 level dip. I'd prefer they risk being too good than too weak.
Luke Skywalker, shakes his head and states “Everything in that sentence is wrong “.

I don’t wish to be outright dismissive, but find, alas I can’t.😭

If the 5e Fighter is too weak for you in relationship to the other 5e classes, then you must either want such power increases (Double Weapon Specialization?), as to overshadow the other 5e classes, or you have a really high opinion of spells.

As it stands now Fighters will have better stats than the rest of classes due to extra ASI, or more Feats if ability scores are already high.

A Fighter with the Duelist Fighting Style and Heavy Armor Master feat eats the Barbarians lunch.

So is your opinion that fighters are weak based off Paladins?
 

If the 5e Fighter is too weak for you in relationship to the other 5e classes, then you must either want such power increases (Double Weapon Specialization?), as to overshadow the other 5e classes, or you have a really high opinion of spells.
Or just looking past DPR when assessing what makes a class strong.
Certainly, the last thing the fighter needs is some sort of further DPR-grinding feature, like the 2e double-speciation you suggest (heck, Archery and the 3rd & 4th extra attack come pretty close to that as it is).
Rather, it lacks versatility/resources to put in a good showing when it's main features don't apply (out of combat, and even in-combat, when the fight can't be readily reduced to single-target DPR). It also lacks design space to 'fix' that lack. It's literally an imbalanced class - just imbalanced in the direction of DPR, which is the easiest "white-room" yardstick of class 'strength.'
 

Tony, I am afraid I just do not disagree. A Fighter with the Criminal Background Smuggler and a high Dex can pick locks just as well as anyone without Expertise.

In a Feat-less game, the extra ASI allows one to quickly increase ability scores, which can absolutely increase out of combat effectiveness. This goes double if Feats are allowed.

What these ASI increases, are not is free, choosing the Actor feat, or increasing one’s Cha score does not inherently make one a better Fighter, it also does not hurt your fighting ability either to broaden your skill set, as it is hard to make a sucky Fighter in 5e.

Pally’s ASI have to go to Str, Cha and Con, just to keep on track.
Fighters have room for Role Playing decisions, which I personally judge to be quite powerful.
 

It is a charming reminder of the grand days when a British man’s opinion, in his own mind, ( the only one that matters, really) was worth 12x the ‘truthiness’ value of any facts someone might bother with, ( 20x a frenchman’s). 😉
That an American* can type this without literally dying of hypocrisy this is what is truly astonishing here, I say to you, sir! :p As arrogant as the British empire was at it's peak, the US has outshone it like the sun to the moon, certainly for well over a hundred years. Not so much the pot calling the kettle black as the deepest ocean calling a river "wet"!

As for the rest, there's no actual argument. That's your problem right there! You start your talk re: 1E with a quote - and we all know how """"accurate"""" (hatequotes) class descriptions were in 1E through 3E, and you end it by admitting, yes a lot of the time they died horribly, but claim everyone except Rangers and Fighters did. Not exactly an argument for their mechanical soundness.

3E Monks were indeed "flurry of misses", and "Well everyone misses more often after the first two attacks!" is a statement, one I agree with, but it's not an actual argument. It's just a fact. That the class seemed balanced around this terrible ability (by your own admission a poor ability) again speaks against it's mechanical soundness. Monks were a Tier 5 class, right down there with the Fighter. Did people have fun playing Fighters in 5E? Sure they did. Were they mechanically terrible? None could deny it. System problem or not, fellow inmates or not, Monks were bad, real bad, in 3E. You're not even outright denying it.

Also, I get that you're having a good time, but I was one of the people I'm talking supposedly about in 1E through early 3E, the people who play mechanically unsound classes and have a good time anyway (didn't stop me pointing out the issues they had on the boards, mind). Unfortunately late 3E, after really seeing the tiers play out (as you may recall I was somewhat in denial about LF/QW initially), broke me of that, and 5E hasn't cured me. So it's like, insulting but not perhaps in the way you mean it to be!

You have also never addressed how 5e monks have a magic item problem, that you intimated earlier in the thread.
The most obvious issues are:

A) Only AC-boosting item Monks can benefit from is Bracers of Defense (correct me if I'm wrong), so they can get +2 AC like, ever, and only if they get that specific item (or a close relative thereof that the DM makes up). Whereas many other melees can benefit from magic armour (up to +3) and potentially a shield (so total +5 potential), and can invest in CON, leveraging HP, rather than relying on pushing up DEX (which admittedly broadly useful) and WIS (which is far less so).

B) Flurry of Blows has to be used unarmed - not even with Monk weapons (there may be a subclass which breaks this, I forget). That means you don't get the very significant hit and damage bonuses on your Flurry attacks. It's not 3E "Flurry of Misses" bad, but it's a distinct disadvantage.

I believe there are others I'm forgetting.

And people are ignoring what I'm saying re: 5E Monks - they're a solid class, that needs a slight improvement, not an "Oh god..." class like Rangers. They're in a better state than arguably any other edition. I do appreciate the general "Not this guy again..." tone of your post about me though! Takes me back! :D

Well, yeah, the whole "best at fighting" (with weapons, without magic) mandate: the tricked out BM blowing his Action Surge and all his CS dice should not be out-damaged by the Monk blowing all his Ki. Not unless they're both fighting unarmed, of course.
Mmmm. No. "Best at fighting" absolutely does not necessarily mean "highest DPR" (which Fighter only arguably has anyway). It's best all-rounder in mixing it up physically. And a BM Fighter is a vastly better all-rounder than a Monk.

That absolutely includes a Monk who gets +WIS mod to his Ki.

* = If you are Canadian, you have my sympathies.
 

1) I wish fighter got their 4th attack earlier, at 17th level.
2) Indomitable should be on a short rest.
3) I'd like them to get a 2nd fighting style sometime during tier 2.

Makes those changes, and I'm pretty good with single class fighter.
I saw an idea on here that fighters could get an "improved" fighting style. Basically the fighting style they chose got better/did something special (I think one of the examples was Archery letting you take an Opportunity Attack when they moved within 30 ft of you) and that could be neat. It would give them a small buff and show off that they're better at fighting than other classes.
 

I was one of the people I'm talking supposedly about in 1E through early 3E, the people who play mechanically unsound classes and have a good time anyway (didn't stop me pointing out the issues they had on the boards, mind). Unfortunately late 3E, after really seeing the tiers play out (as you may recall I was somewhat in denial about LF/QW initially), broke me of that, and 5E hasn't cured me.
I get that.

RE: the magic item problem Monks may have, 5e supposedly "doesn't assume" magic items. So if classes benefit differently from the inclusion of items, either it's a problem with the items, not the class, or incumbent on the DM curate said items in a way that works for his table.

Mmmm. No. "Best at fighting" absolutely does not necessarily mean "highest DPR" (which Fighter only arguably has anyway).
I'd put it "no on else clearly has a higher DPR," and maybe add "not just the highest DPR," but, yes, essentially I can agree with that.
DPR is just the easiest measure, and the one that connotes most readily of 'strong' as opposed to weak. If a class claimed "best at fighting" and didn't arguably take - or at multi-way-tie for - the theoretical top DPR spot, there'd be a hew & cry, I'd think.
 

Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
The most obvious issues are:

A) Only AC-boosting item Monks can benefit from is Bracers of Defense (correct me if I'm wrong), so they can get +2 AC like, ever, and only if they get that specific item (or a close relative thereof that the DM makes up). Whereas many other melees can benefit from magic armour (up to +3) and potentially a shield (so total +5 potential), and can invest in CON, leveraging HP, rather than relying on pushing up DEX (which admittedly broadly useful) and WIS (which is far less so).

B) Flurry of Blows has to be used unarmed - not even with Monk weapons (there may be a subclass which breaks this, I forget). That means you don't get the very significant hit and damage bonuses on your Flurry attacks. It's not 3E "Flurry of Misses" bad, but it's a distinct disadvantage.
My 5th level Kensai Monk with a 16 WIS did the following using no ki points or feats, just a bonus action each round.

Either
AC 18
Longsword: +8/D8+5
Longsword: +8/D8+5
Punch: +8/D6+5
or
AC 20
Longsword +1: +9/D8+5
Punch: +8/D6+5
Punch: +8/D6+5
or
Longbow: +8/D8+D4+5
Longbow: +8/D8+D4+5

I can't think of vary many classes that can keep up with this damage without expending resources at that level range. Even if you move to 6th level and up the cantrip damage for the casters they are still behind the two bow attacks curve set here.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
My 5th level Kensai Monk with a 16 WIS did the following using no ki points or feats, just a bonus action each round.

Either
AC 18
Longsword: +8/D8+5
Longsword: +8/D8+5
Punch: +8/D6+5
or
AC 20
Longsword +1: +9/D8+5
Punch: +8/D6+5
Punch: +8/D6+5
or
Longbow: +8/D8+D4+5
Longbow: +8/D8+D4+5

I can't think of vary many classes that can keep up with this damage without expending resources at that level range. Even if you move to 6th level and up the cantrip damage for the casters they are still behind the two bow attacks curve set here.
Longsword could have been d10 with kensai via versatile.

Monks deal good damage, they get hurt by feats.
 


Zardnaar

Legend
When it comes to Monks, people always seem to forget about Stunning Fist and how good that ability is.
That or they spend ki points avoiding damage instead of inflicting it.

Cowardly rogue syndrome aka using your bonus action defensively or running around like a headless chicken drags your damage down.
 

Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
Longsword could have been d10 with kensai via versatile.

Monks deal good damage, they get hurt by feats.
You are correct! I retired that character awhile ago and forgot that I was rolling D10s on those. Even more supports the argument, though. I also didn't mention that I would drop the one Punch frequently to Dodge as my bonus action when tanking.

I did spend my first chance at a feat to get to the 20 dex but used the 8th level one for Mobile rather than raise my WIS.
 

That or they spend ki points avoiding damage instead of inflicting it.

Cowardly rogue syndrome aka using your bonus action defensively or running around like a headless chicken drags your damage down.
And as a monk you can get right the back of the enemy lines (dash to run faster if necessary, dodge to get past the frontliners without taking hits, and you can do both of those in one turn) to get to any potential mages/ranged damage dealers. Grab Mage Slayer for the former and just completely ruin their day and let your casters focus on other things rather than just countering the other caster.
 

Most Liked Threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top