Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 7910208" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Fighter and Ranger, without question. Barbarian and Sorcerer, with some minor caveats. That is, Fighter and Ranger are, from multiple not-too-difficult analysis perspectives, designed in ways that work well with neither the way the designers intended 5e to be played, nor how it is actually played. Frex, the numbers were meant to work out for even Champions once you hit about 8 actual combat encounters a day, as long as you had ~2.5 short rests/long rest, and Fighters were supposed to have a clear albeit flexible identity. Two things that....didn't quite work in practice, both of which have been recognized to one degree or another. And none of that jives with the actual practice of 0-2 (avg ~1.5) SR/LR and six-or-less encounters of any kind that is much more typical of 5e play experience. (Hence why we got that "class feature variants/upgrades" UA. They're using errata by another name to patch issues without ruffling feathers.)Sorcerer and Barbarian are not in nearly so bad a position. Both have areas where they can be quite powerful, even uniquely so. The bigger problems are an extreme pigeonholing; they're close to one trick pony classes and subclasses don't really change that that is true, they just change which thing(s) it's true of. I would mind a lot less if (frex) Sorcerer subclasses granted on-theme spells, or if Barbarian subclasses offered more than microscopic/token noncombat utility (and if the Champion-equivalent didn't punish the player for using it as intended...)So...yeah. Fighters and Rangers, to a lesser extent Barbarians and Sorcerers. Certain specific subclasses also could use a touch-up (most notably Four Elements Monk) but in terms of the overall class chassis, the listed four are where some TLC is either very or at least somewhat needed.</blockquote>

Verification