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

Zardnaar

Legend
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.
Mage Slayer feat lol. Opportunity cost you didn't take sentinel or mobility.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Barbarian are both one dimensional and weak. The class is held up by feats which is just disappointing.

Sorcerer origins could be fixed with giving each one a free metamagic and a few thematic spells to loosen up the restrictions.
 


FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
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! ;)
Looking at no feats
Sword and shield BM fighter with duelist
Monk with no subclass using flurry of blows

Level 1-5 monks do more damage than BM
Level 6-7 The classes do nearly identical damage
Level 8-10 monks do more damage
Level 11 the fighter finally pulls ahead and will stay ahead the rest of his career.

Level 11+ the monk has enough KI to flurry of blows all day and use stunning strike (gives party members advantage when used - which likely makes up the damage difference)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On defenses,
The monk gets deflect missiles, evasion, stillness of mind, purity of body, diamond soul.

Fighters will get 1 hp extra per level up to level 8. The fighter will then get 2 extra hp per level. By level 12 he can get 3 extra hp per level

The fighter will have about 2 AC over the monk for most of his career.

The fighter has a slight edge IMO, but it's close.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

On, mobility
Monk wins handsdown

How much damage do you do when you can't reach the enemy? 0....
Is it ever effective to be able to prioritize high damage targets in the back of the enemies group? Monks can do this well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

On control,
Monks win handsdown

It's not that you have to use stunning strike all the time, it's that having the option to use it allows you to pick the times it will be most efficient.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On out of combat,
Depends on monk subclass but shadow monk makes an amazing option for this. Have I mentioned the base monk class is keeping up with the most damaging fighter subclass in damage? Yea, you can afford to pick any monk subclass you want.
 

S'mon

Legend
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?
No, I find Fighter is very vulnerable compared to Barbarian. Any heavy armour class can take heavy armour master, and it only helps vs low damage mundane BPS attacks. Duelist's +2 damage is nice but if GM allows multiclassing a Barbarian can get that too with a 1 level dip, and you're giving up Greatweapon Master, not using Sharpshooter, etc. Fighter is probably best sticking to archery, unless they're an Eldritch Knight who can burn spell slots to Shield for a decent level of protection.
 

I can't for the life of me think why 5E decided to make Barbarians "tanks".

Who compared the idea of a big musclely guy with no shirt to the highly skilled warrior in friggin chain or plate and decided "let's give the former a mechanic to resist damage, and have the latter be mostly about DPR"?

Did someone get their memos mixed up or something?
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Legend
I can't for the life of me think why 5E decided to make Barbarians "tanks".

Who compared the idea of a big musclely and guy with no shirt to the highly skilled warrior in friggin chain or plate and decided "let's give the former a mechanic to resist damage, and have the latter be mostly about DPR"?

Did someone get their memos mixed up or something.
D12 HD used to be a bigger dealhence tanky.

Most classes have had their hit dice upsized along with damage inflation.

Blame 3E.;)
 

Hmm. I didn't think I was responding to you, or to any particular assertion regarding the BM (Bowel Movement) Fighter.

But, again, I'm not a huge fan of DPR whiterooming. If you are, that's great! That's not me.
There is a fundamental flaw in whiterooming: It doesn't know how to account for tactical movement.

So you see two competing false assumptions: the monk will never be able to avoid damage through movement, the monk will always be able to avoid damage through movement.
 

Minigiant

Legend
I think when it comes to strength and weakness, I find that the strength of 5E comes down to how clear an image of a class is and what they do.

Look at one of the stronger classes: The Paladin. A holy warrior in heavy armor that smites enemies, heal allies, shrugs of conditions, and rides a magical steed.

Now look at the top classes in this poll. "Big guy who gets mad and hulks out" "unarmed unarmored warrior who punches a lot and can stun punch" "guy in a green hood who ummm does nature stuff and shoots arrows or dual wields" "a mage born with innate magic" "a mage who makes a pact to do Eldritch Blast and cheat out some spells"

Not as solid. These are some of the most variable classes through the editions. And that lack of solid base imagery and actions likely forced the designers to fill gaps themselves and do it cautiously because they are creating it not the community.
 


Looking at no feats
Sword and shield BM fighter with duelist
Monk with no subclass using flurry of blows

Level 1-5 monks do more damage than BM
Level 6-7 The classes do nearly identical damage
Level 8-10 monks do more damage
Level 11 the fighter finally pulls ahead and will stay ahead the rest of his career.

Level 11+ the monk has enough KI to flurry of blows all day and use stunning strike (gives party members advantage when used - which likely makes up the damage difference)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On defenses,
The monk gets deflect missiles, evasion, stillness of mind, purity of body, diamond soul.

Fighters will get 1 hp extra per level up to level 8. The fighter will then get 2 extra hp per level. By level 12 he can get 3 extra hp per level

The fighter will have about 2 AC over the monk for most of his career.

The fighter has a slight edge IMO, but it's close.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

On, mobility
Monk wins handsdown

How much damage do you do when you can't reach the enemy? 0....
Is it ever effective to be able to prioritize high damage targets in the back of the enemies group? Monks can do this well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

On control,
Monks win handsdown

It's not that you have to use stunning strike all the time, it's that having the option to use it allows you to pick the times it will be most efficient.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On out of combat,
Depends on monk subclass but shadow monk makes an amazing option for this. Have I mentioned the base monk class is keeping up with the most damaging fighter subclass in damage? Yea, you can afford to pick any monk subclass you want.
I agree with most of that except the HP issue is bigger than you represent imo in real world scenarios as Fighter likely has 16 CON where the Monk has 12 or at the outside 14, and the Fighter likely boosts CON sooner and more. So the HP disparity will be larger imo. It looks like you partially but not entirely account for this.

And the Monk has to burn hard to stay equal in damage on those levels, so can't really use what are otherwise cool defensive abilities like Evasion. IRL Monk does use those abilities, especially when going after the backline, because that's often a position of high risk. Sure high reward if you can kick in some poor caster's face but also you often get rushed by some guys so face a round or two on your own.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Um, yeah, no. That's not right, at all. I mean, it's your opinion, of course, but it doesn't make any sense.

The Paladin (which is a terrible class) is one of the self-referential classes in D&D, just like the Ranger.

IOW, what is the D&D Ranger? It's Strider. It's Tolkien. That's why the class was created.

And what's a Paladin? It's Anderson. Three Hearts and Three Lions. Everything about it (from the holy avenger, to the ability to lay on hands, to the steed) is from the book. Even the OG Paladin alignment restriction comes from the law/chaos in the story.

The original barbarian was just Conan, for the most part. Most of the additional classes have some sort of antecedent. Contrast that with, say, either the monk (martial arts or unarmed fighters) or the warlock (power given through a pact) and you have a huge design difference.

But, yeah. this is mostly about power. The reason Paladins are popular is because they've been given a lot of power. Not because they have a clear image. Sheesh. On the other hand, some classes (such as Ranger) have had issues since they've moved from the literary antecedent; is a Ranger Strider, or Drizzt, or a Beastmaster, or Robin Hood?
Yeah it is about image

Because until people decide whether Ranger is Strider, Drzzt, Beastmaster, Rexxar, Wulfhart, Jon Snow, or Robin Hood, you can't determine what you are looking for to be powerful. Each one has different strengths and ideas of power.
 


The worse part is the barbarian falls off both as the one who can take the most damage and the one who deals alot of damage.

even in the best-case scenario where the Barbarian has enough rage for every round and every encounter all day long and never fails a ST to knock them out of it, a champion fighter still beats them in both categories.

The only Barbarian that's really worth it is ancestral guardian or totem for wolf if you have 2 or more party members I can take advantage of the constant advantage.

On the defensive side the difference between a fighter wearing plate/shield/defense style vs a barbarian with a shield is almost a flat out tie.
Once you factor in second wind and the fact that at least once The barbarians going to get hit with not raging it shifts into the fighters favor.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
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). 😉
Mod Note:

This is not the way to post if you want to continue discussions in a thread. We expect everyone to give a modicum of respect to their fellow posters, and this sarcasm-and-disdain-laden composition falls well short of the minimums. So... now you'll need to go find another thread. Please be better.

I hope I need not remind anyone else here - the same goes for all of you.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Well last night the PCs encountered a Marilith. Level 7 PCs CR 16.

1 Fighter1/Warlock 6
1 invoker
1 rogue:scout
1 monk:long death
1 cleric1/Sorcerer 6. Death/divine soul.

Cleric had buffed everyone's go by 31.

Using a portion of invisibility the marilith attacks the rogue. 2 or 3 hits I roll crap.

Monk stuns her and everyone else beats on her. Then next turn my crappy rolls contio and she gets stunned again.

CR 16, PCs lose around 2 ki points and 40 hit points of which 9 were real.

Monk damage competes very well with rogue and fighter damage.

My one was the way of fists was keeping up fine knocking stuff prone.
 

Well last night the PCs encountered a Marilith. Level 7 PCs CR 16.

1 Fighter1/Warlock 6
1 invoker
1 rogue:scout
1 monk:long death
1 cleric1/Sorcerer 6. Death/divine soul.

Cleric had buffed everyone's go by 31.

Using a portion of invisibility the marilith attacks the rogue. 2 or 3 hits I roll crap.

Monk stuns her and everyone else beats on her. Then next turn my crappy rolls contio and she gets stunned again.

CR 16, PCs lose around 2 ki points and 40 hit points of which 9 were real.

Monk damage competes very well with rogue and fighter damage.

My one was the way of fists was keeping up fine knocking stuff prone.
monks can turn deadly encounters into easy ones which is hard to gauge from the players view point because they can only guess after the fact.

the only sore point i have with monks is that some DM see stunning strike as too powerful and fix rolls, give out immunity to stun, or buff con saves. due to how much of the class's power is wrapped up in a single ability if it is shutdown it gets shutdown hard.
 

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top