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

[Tony Vargas]

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.

 

[Horwath]

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.

 

[Tallifer]

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

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.

 

[Horwath]

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]

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]

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.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Horwath]

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
Ranger from UA is doing pretty good.

 

[Horwath]

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]

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...