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

[Merudo]

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.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Undrave]

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.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Salthorae]

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]

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...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Gladius Legis]

None are too weak, though the Ranger and Sorcerer are certainly awkward and not as good as they could've been.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Rangers took a severe hit from 4E to 5E.

Well, part of that is because the 4e Ranger was an overpowered monstrosity.