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

[Don Durito]

Our heavy armored characters are in a bad spot whenever they are attacked in the middle of their long rest when they are without armor. The barb just smiles and jumps into the fray. And the barb isn't afraid of rust monsters. Well... maybe a little as that beautiful sword can rust... You do carry a wooden maul don't you? The only weakness of the Barb is its Multiple Ability Dependency. If it had been Strength and Constitution for its unarmored defense... Ok... enough dreaming. Time to go on next class.

I always feel it's better to just handwave this and let them have their armour. Otherwise, it feels like your just unfairly punishing heavy armour PC for the limits of the system - it's not like all classes are even playing by the same rules here.

In any case, it's not the sort of thing that really makes for a good balancing factor.

 

[Helldritch]

Quite the contrary. I do implement the random encounters if the 6-8 encounters between long rests have not been met. This gives short rest characters their chance to use their abilities as intended. It prevents the 5 MWD and Daily classes are still relevant. And getting caught with your pants down once in while gives a good boost to your friends ego.

 

[Stoutstien]

A barbarian should be twice as tanky as the second highest health class wearing the heaviest armor and using the most defensive weapon choice possible with a class feature for further defense?

You gotta realize there is some serious opportunity cost here that's happening, and it's also only one way to look at tankiness. How many enemy attacks you can endure throughout a day is one thing, but staying up through spikes of damage (crits. Always crits) is extremely meaningful so you don't put your party in difficult positions.

Speaking of looking at tankiness another way, you're really focused on AC, but a barbarian's defense still works the same where AC struggles (taking attacks at advantage, for example). How much that situation comes up is going to depend on what you fight, but having a defense that's more widely applicable is a serious boon.

there really isn't any opportunity cost for the champion fighter take duelist and defense because in the above example of a feat less/single class game it's the best option other than archery which is a whole different problem that Barbarian has but that is a separate topic.
duelist practically matches two weapon fighting once the second attack comes online and great weapon fighting is well garbage. Duelist also has the potential to work with thrown weapons so overall it's the most general pick for the first fighting style for the champion then for the second, defense.

I also look at AC based defense primarily because a character is going to be attacked a lot and when and how much are each saving throw an individual table sees varies greatly. The saving throws also don't work in The barbarians favor. Sure they take way less damage on Dex saves but I'm more likely to bomb a wisdom intelligence or charisma save which could lead to action denial or worse. Both the fighter and the Barbarian suffers in this regard but at least the fighter has some more wiggle room to shore up those saves. in my games the ratio is about 50% AC/ and 12 % each for the ability checks/saves from the get go but i know that is rare.

I guess my real problem is rage. too much of the class is wrapped up into a resource that is limited for most of the game and without it the class suffers where just about every other class has a few more options to bring out for encounters when they want to be more useful but not go all out.

 

[Frozenstep]

there really isn't any opportunity cost for the champion fighter take duelist and defense because in the above example of a feat less/single class game it's the best option other than archery which is a whole different problem that Barbarian has but that is a separate topic.
duelist practically matches two weapon fighting once the second attack comes online and great weapon fighting is well garbage. Duelist also has the potential to work with thrown weapons so overall it's the most general pick for the first fighting style for the champion then for the second, defense.

I also look at AC based defense primarily because a character is going to be attacked a lot and when and how much are each saving throw an individual table sees varies greatly. The saving throws also don't work in The barbarians favor. Sure they take way less damage on Dex saves but I'm more likely to bomb a wisdom intelligence or charisma save which could lead to action denial or worse. Both the fighter and the Barbarian suffers in this regard but at least the fighter has some more wiggle room to shore up those saves. in my games the ratio is about 50% AC/ and 12 % each for the ability checks/saves from the get go but i know that is rare.

I guess my real problem is rage. too much of the class is wrapped up into a resource that is limited for most of the game and without it the class suffers where just about every other class has a few more options to bring out for encounters when they want to be more useful but not go all out.

Using a longsword instead of a greatsword is already an opportunity cost. Heck, using a longsword instead of a rapier is already an opportunity cost. You chose a class that gives more freedom in how you build them, and you used that freedom to take many defensive options when you could have taken options that provide more damage and more versatility (such as being able to still use a bow pretty well by choosing dex). It's an opportunity cost.

My argument with AC wasn't that "saving throws exist", but that you should also take a look at cases where you're taking attacks at advantage, because that's more favorable to the barbarian. Also that bad luck happens, crits sometimes happen in quick succession, but a barbarian's form of tankiness is more effective at dealing with that.

But beyond that, as I've already said in my other comment, the fact that a barbarian's defense isn't so much tied up in AC means they can still use a two-handed weapon and do more damage while retaining more defensive power then a fighter would have if they chose to give up a shield. And looking through the anydice chart, with barbarian AC being put as 17...so you were already comparing a barbarian using a two handed weapon against a fighter with a shield? And the barbarian was still able to take a good deal more damage?

As for rages, yeah, it's a serious downside, but one that matters on a more longer term scale. Taking a bit of extra damage in encounters not worth raging in is a problem, but one that can be solved with health potions, healing spells, and short rests. That's a cost, but what the cost pays for is having rage up for difficult fights to keep you alive...and if you don't survive the difficult fight, the macro-level management of hp wasn't going to matter anyway.

 

[Stoutstien]

Using a longsword instead of a greatsword is already an opportunity cost. Heck, using a longsword instead of a rapier is already an opportunity cost. You chose a class that gives more freedom in how you build them, and you used that freedom to take many defensive options when you could have taken options that provide more damage and more versatility (such as being able to still use a bow pretty well by choosing dex). It's an opportunity cost.

My argument with AC wasn't that "saving throws exist", but that you should also take a look at cases where you're taking attacks at advantage, because that's more favorable to the barbarian. Also that bad luck happens, crits sometimes happen in quick succession, but a barbarian's form of tankiness is more effective at dealing with that.

But beyond that, as I've already said in my other comment, the fact that a barbarian's defense isn't so much tied up in AC means they can still use a two-handed weapon and do more damage while retaining more defensive power then a fighter would have if they chose to give up a shield. And looking through the anydice chart, with barbarian AC being put as 17...so you were already comparing a barbarian using a two handed weapon against a fighter with a shield? And the barbarian was still able to take a good deal more damage?

As for rages, yeah, it's a serious downside, but one that matters on a more longer term scale. Taking a bit of extra damage in encounters not worth raging in is a problem, but one that can be solved with health potions, healing spells, and short rests. That's a cost, but what the cost pays for is having rage up for difficult fights to keep you alive...and if you don't survive the difficult fight, the macro-level management of hp wasn't going to matter anyway.

The sword and board duelist/defense champion is the generalist approach. That was the point. it could just have been as well defense and protection style or whatever. duelist is always attractive because it raises both the lowest and highest damage range and a large selection of weapons.

We could also look at cases where each was being attacked by hordes of low CR NPCs when the champion is practically immortal but that doesn't do much good for an overview.

The totem barbarian using a shield is a much larger opportunity cost. They rely on damage to be considered a target at all.

You also quickly disregard the resources needed for the barbarian if they see alot of fights without the ablity to rage. Healing potions are not automatically giving and spell slots are spell slots.
Then there is the question of if the players recognize a hard/easy fight early enough to call it before it's 1/2 over. The barbarian could rage and that hill giant could end up being a illusion.

Risk/reward is only a rewarding play style if the choices made are informed. If not, it is gambling.

 

[Frozenstep]

The sword and board duelist/defense champion is the generalist approach. That was the point. it could just have been as well defense and protection style or whatever. duelist is always attractive because it raises both the lowest and highest damage range and a large selection of weapons.

We could also look at cases where each was being attacked by hordes of low CR NPCs when the champion is practically immortal but that doesn't do much good for an overview.

The totem barbarian using a shield is a much larger opportunity cost. They rely on damage to be considered a target at all.

You also quickly disregard the resources needed for the barbarian if they see alot of fights without the ablity to rage. Healing potions are not automatically giving and spell slots are spell slots.
Then there is the question of if the players recognize a hard/easy fight early enough to call it before it's 1/2 over. The barbarian could rage and that hill giant could end up being a illusion.

Risk/reward is only a rewarding play style if the choices made are informed. If not, it is gambling.

You say it's a generalist approach, but it's still an approach that is highly defensive in nature. It's the classic heavily armored warrior with a shield, it'd be really weird if it was only half as good as the barbarian with a greataxe at taking damage.

Don't...both of them rely on damage to be a target at all? The point was that a barbarian can go ahead and focus on damage with their two handed weapon, but I guess if you're playing a featless game then the benefit of that quickly drops. But at least the barbarian can easily switch weapons and pick up a shield if they need to, since they don't have a fighting style to worry about. Heck, they can use a shield in those rageless combats.

Yeah, resources are not guaranteed, but neither is surviving a difficult fight. We can get into a whole argument over whether being good 100% of the time is better then being able to spend a resource to become better when it really matters is worth it or not, but it's really going to come down to your party and campaign. Sometimes one or the other is better.

 

[Stoutstien]

You say it's a generalist approach, but it's still an approach that is highly defensive in nature. It's the classic heavily armored warrior with a shield, it'd be really weird if it was only half as good as the barbarian with a greataxe at taking damage.

Don't...both of them rely on damage to be a target at all? The point was that a barbarian can go ahead and focus on damage with their two handed weapon, but I guess if you're playing a featless game then the benefit of that quickly drops. But at least the barbarian can easily switch weapons and pick up a shield if they need to, since they don't have a fighting style to worry about. Heck, they can use a shield in those rageless combats.

Yeah, resources are not guaranteed, but neither is surviving a difficult fight. We can get into a whole argument over whether being good 100% of the time is better then being able to spend a resource to become better when it really matters is worth it or not, but it's really going to come down to your party and campaign. Sometimes one or the other is better.

I just feel barbs as a whole are tied to a single resource that is both limit and narrow.
AG is amazing but you could easily transplant it onto ranger or fighter with little effort and it stays amazing.(Number of uses equal to CON or WiS? I rename champion works well with the Barbarian chassis. Just a passing thought)
The margin of difference in 5e is so much smaller than other editions most people don't see a problem with any of the class options other than the lack of fulfilling a certain image or When tables are playing in the margin as far as the number of encounters they are seeing per short or long rest.

Barbarians have the potential to fall into both of those categories.