D&D 5E [Poll] Are any of the subclasses underpowered?

[Merudo]

Do any of the available subclasses need a buff? If so, which ones?

I've made a list of subclasses often depicted as underwhelming. Vote for those you think are actually underpowered.

If you think I left out some weak subclasses, please tell me and I'll add them to the list.

 

[ad_hoc]

You missed Assassin.

I include it because it doesn't play the way people think it will play out so it becomes a problem.

 

[Fenris-77]

You missed Assassin.

I include it because it doesn't play the way people think it will play out so it becomes a problem.

I don't know if that's here or there in a discussion about power levels.

 

[Salthorae]

it doesn't play the way people think it will play out so it becomes a problem

Honestly thats the problem with most of these.

The only one I selected from this list is Four-Elements Monk. They're just not good.

Beastmaster Ranger is doing pretty well with the Class Features UA, so I think they're good. They would have been my #2 choice on this list.

 

[Merudo]

You missed Assassin.

I've now added the Assassin Rogue.

 

[ad_hoc]

I don't know if that's here or there in a discussion about power levels.

People's enjoyment is the only thing that matters.

D&D is not a competitive game and the parameters of the challenges are all over the place.

Determining power within a broad range is very hard to do. Most people can't actually do it in actual strategy games where there are winners and losers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know if that's here or there in a discussion about power levels.

I suppose it gets into the power level experienced at the table? If you expect a class to play one way, and it doesn't, you may well underperform. The Wild Sorcerer might suffer from that a bit, too, for instance.

Also, a sub-class being underwhelming as an example of a given class is not necessarily the same thing as underpowered.

 

[Fenris-77]

People's enjoyment is the only thing that matters.

D&D is not a competitive game and the parameters of the challenges are all over the place.

Determining power within a broad range is very hard to do. Most people can't actually do it in actual strategy games where there are winners and losers.

I agree completely, but, then again, this isn't a thread about what's fun to play, which I find often isn't the same at all as what's the most optimal. Viewing the game through the lens of optimization tends to focus the conversation on combat, both through DPR, nova damage, and battlefield control. Actual games of D&D aren't played in a whiteroom, and aren't solely focused on combat though. Depending on the campaign, and the amount of and importance placed on non-combat encounters of various sort really change the notion of both power and player enjoyment.

I'm assuming that this thread indexes more the mechanical and optimized element of 'power', as a yardstick with which to compare subclasses.

 

[RogueJK]

Not surprising that Beastmaster is topping the poll. Even WOTC halfway acknowledges it as such. However, the Revised Ranger and/or Variant Class Features UAs have done a good job of propping it back up.

As for the others, some are certainly the least appealing/interesting subclasses within that specific class, but they still have their niches where they'd shine, and aren't noticeably underpowered overall.

I used to think Four Elements was underpowered, until I read an explanation (I think it was here) of how it aligns near-perfectly to the Spell Point variant system in the DMG. When you view them through the lens of a Spell Point half-caster, with all of the usual Monk abilities, they're actually just fine. It just takes looking at it from a different perspective.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think 'performs as expected' is a different question than 'underpowered'. They are related, certainly, but not equivalent. It's an interesting conversation though.