Your argument of weak or under powered is weak and under powered

[MBControl]

This is a thread based on a little bit of frustration, but I would like to allow the opportunity to others to set me straight or agree.

I'm getting a little tired of the complaining about class and PC types being "weak". There are a few that get trashed, but the most common I hear is around the melee caster type, so I'll use it as my example.

Why isn't my bladelock the most power melee character on the board, and have access to a lot of the most powerful spells in the game? Well, Timmy power gamer, it's because you're not supposed to. There is a price to pay to versatility. That's why multi classing affects your spell levels. Access to more spells, costs you the ability to cast at higher levels faster.

It seems like a simple concept to understand, but I think the real issue isn't the build of the classes, or the multi classing limitations, it's the fact that certain players will never be happy until they are the only PC's that matter in a game. If you gave some of these people a full fighter class with unlimited casting abilities, they would be angry that their character couldn't fly and speak every language.

The designers of this game, who I hear have played quite a bit of D&D, have a simple guideline, you either have strengths and weakness, or you're kind of good at a lot of things. They also made stuff that was full of flavour, for a different style of players. The hardest thing to achieve in a game like D&D is balance, so sometimes you see weakness when it's simply balance.

I'm what I would call an "active" player, meaning I want to be involved in the story all the time, but I make myself take a back seat to allow others to showcase themselves. And it's more fun that way.

Embrace your weakness, let your play group shine, and don't complain that you can't do everything.

[Sicarius Victis]

While for many character types I agree, your opinion - as written - is far too generalized to be entirely correct. While many options are weaker due to tradeoffs, there are some that can be just inherently worse, and it's just wrong to generalize and state that all players complaining about some of them being weak are incorrect.

In short: I agree with the idea, but your post was too generalized to be completely correct.

[Foxhound438]

While for many character types I agree, your opinion - as written - is far too generalized to be entirely correct. While many options are weaker due to tradeoffs, there are some that can be just inherently worse, and it's just wrong to generalize and state that all players complaining about some of them being weak are incorrect.

In short: I agree with the idea, but your post was too generalized to be completely correct.

pretty much this. A good example would in fact be the bladelock, who has to try to use a polearm with strength (forcing multiclass for armor or sacrificing a lot in stats) in order to keep up with the bladesinger, and then the bladesinger's doing just as much damage (a bit less if they never take a fighter level for 2wfs), has way better defensive abilities, way more spells to cast in every fight, and way better support options to help the team. You can argue that short rest recovery is a thing that helps the warlock out a lot, but wizards also get some short rest recovery, and most of the time unless you're regularly having like 4 short rests in a day the wizard still has more casting power.

[Specter]

The ones that get the most s**t tossed at them (the way I see it) are 4 Elements Monk, Beastmaster and Frenzy Barbarian.

While the PHB Beastmaster does blow because of its action economy, I've seen the other two at the table and they were quite good, especially the Berserker. Most people who speak ill of classes have little to no experience with playing with them.

[SilverStud]

I, too, have to agree. The game is generally pretty balanced, but there are some options that just........ well, it's hard to defend the design thought when you have two obviously super similar things (bladesinger and bladelock), except one is strictly better. That is the definition of imbalanced. If you're just thinking of spells and melee ability:

Defense options: Bladesinger
Spellpower: Bladesinger
Spell list: Bladesinger
Assist capability: Bladesinger

This is one area where the game is definitely not balanced.

However, I do share your frustration over people complaining that it can't do everything. It's just that when you have another option that almost can do everything, you have to blame the devs too.

[xyianth]

There is also the other 'cost' of versatility: all too often trading potency for versatility just means your character traded one area in which they shined for multiple areas where they are overshadowed. This is not a game issue, it's a psychology issue. As a team based game, you are far better off specializing in a few areas so you can shine when they come up. Trying to stretch yourself thin just makes it that much easier for you to always be 2nd best at something. Some players will never be ok with that, and are often caught unaware that it happens.

[jas61292]

There is also the other 'cost' of versatility: all too often trading potency for versatility just means your character traded one area in which they shined for multiple areas where they are overshadowed. This is not a game issue, it's a psychology issue. As a team based game, you are far better off specializing in a few areas so you can shine when they come up. Trying to stretch yourself thin just makes it that much easier for you to always be 2nd best at something. Some players will never be ok with that, and are often caught unaware that it happens.

It is partially true that specializing is ideal, but not fully. Specialization does mean you will always have areas where you are the best in your party, but it doesn't always mean that your party will be the best off. One shot with a good chance of success is sometimes worse than two shots with a lower chance of success. Being the backup in a lot of roles won't get you the spotlight, but it will tend to make the party more likely to succeed at those things. Its a different approach, but it is no more or less valid. It will work better in some situations and worse in others.

But, as you say, it is more a psychological issue. It is definitely possible to play a role that is greatly helping your party, but that gives you no enjoyment because you don't feel special. It is also possible, for example, to specialize in things that are not that important at all, and so rarely be all that useful to the party, but to be happy and feel special because on a rare occasion you are, in fact, the best one for the job.

Ultimately, there is no right or wrong way to play. Specialists and Jacks of all Trades can easily co-exist, and neither is innately superior. There will always be situations where one is more useful than the other.

Edit: That said, the internet loves optimization, and it is impossible to optimize for a generically well rounded role the same way you can when your goal is to be the best at a specific thing. Again though, that does not mean it makes you worse. Just harder to discuss in this kind of setting.

[Specter]

To me, being focused and being broad have always been a matter of personal style. When it comes to skills, for example, you can be the right man for the job or the guy giving assistance for advantage; both are good. In combat, I'd rather be able to shift with the flow of combat than do one thing good and get stuck doing nothing when the situation isn't favorable. Paladins, for instance, can deal absurd damage, but put a flying enemy in front of them and watch them get mad.

[Foxhound438]

To me, being focused and being broad have always been a matter of personal style. When it comes to skills, for example, you can be the right man for the job or the guy giving assistance for advantage; both are good. In combat, I'd rather be able to shift with the flow of combat than do one thing good and get stuck doing nothing when the situation isn't favorable. Paladins, for instance, can deal absurd damage, but put a flying enemy in front of them and watch them get mad.

the #1 case for ancients pally being best: moonbeam.

aside from that, barbarians will be in the same boat in the same situation, except they have to try throwing javelins at the thing (often to little effect). Fighters too, if they're str based.

[djreynolds]

I used to rock it as a beast master,

I grabbed plate armor (just took a level of fighter), used protection style and had sentinel and S&B til 12th, for some reason my beast just drew agro and I either protected him or let him get hit

And then I switched out weapons and got PAM at 12th

I literally lived off reactions for a long time, be surprised how often they come up. Mooks just wanted to target my pet because I was in plate and they paid for it

I had a wolf on a chain and would just change him out when died, or I had a giant poisonous snake and if they died I just got something new... I wasn't a very nice beastmaster

I think berserker is better than people think, mindless rage is automatic pass. No fail. You still get the same resistance to damage other than bear totem. I think if bear totem didn't exist, berserker would be seen as better.

4E, its not good, we have one now and we allow them to use water whip as a BA, why that was errata'd I'll never know. The disciplines just come to late, stoneskin at 17th level, really. Wall of Fire/Stone aren't bad but when you get them monsters can just charge through or break them at those levels. Gaseous form is nice, but it is better for utility or a get out of jail free card

[SharkForce]

it is worth noting that if a class is reasonably good but feels bad to play, that is still something you should complain about.

i mean, i don't imagine anyone here has ever seen a barbarian PC that literally frenzied themselves to death from exhaustion stacking up so much, but it doesn't change the fact that most of the time, your berserker won't be using frenzy. in fact, you need to use it very sparingly, or else over the course of a couple of days you can quickly reach the point where instead of using rage to become an ultra-powerful warrior, you're using rage so that you can function at all in a fight.

likewise, while there may in fact be some rare situation where being able to trade your entire action for potentially inflicting the frightened status on one enemy (with a skill that you have no particular bonuses, and which is otherwise probably your 4th most important attribute at best) is a good idea... it's the wrong thing to use the great majority of the time.

so yeah, most everything is at the very least playable without being completely awful... some things genuinely are less good than other things, and sometimes things that are mechanically balanced reasonably well are still poorly designed because of how they make the players feel.

and in many cases, fixing those problems wouldn't necessarily ruin anything... i mean, imagine a world where bladelocks get medium armour and shield proficiency just for being bladelocks. would that be overpowered? heck, imagine a world where they don't need to blow an invocation just for extra attack as well, where it's just part of being a blade lock. valour bards don't need to give up any base class resources or spend levels on multiclassing to feel a bit like a warrior, and i would argue that the bard has a whole lot more power in the base class than the warlock has in the core class.

so... again, i agree with the general statement... most anything in 5e is pretty playable... but not with the specifics. some stuff is weaker. some stuff just feels bad and should be changed to provide a more enjoyable experience.

[The Ship's dog]

I have to say, the melee spellcaster type of character is by far my favourite out of any. Even though it might not be the best and unfortunately you do need to MC to get armour proficiencies in many cases, it is so appealing to me fluff-wise that I've realised that all three of my characters are melee spellcasters (Rogue/Bard, Fighter/Ranger, Warlock/Paladin).

The versatility that they bring to the table is what makes them good in my opinion and sure, you do miss out on being the best at one thing, but who cares? I can control people's minds/go invisible/throw freaking lightning and pick up a weapon and beat people to death with it. The Bladelock does this versatility the best in melee combat in my opinion, simply because you can change what weapon you are using at will and are automatically proficient in that weapon. You need to use a dagger for stealth? You now have a dagger. You need a greataxe to smash through that door with? You now have a greataxe. The possibilities are only limited to the melee weapons available!

I'm soon going to post a build guide for my Bladelock/Paladin after I've got the back story finished and I think it's quite a good character, but maybe that's just because I thrive on versatility as a player.

[Dr. Cliché]

I have to say, the melee spellcaster type of character is by far my favourite out of any.

I can certainly relate to this. I think it's true regardless of which one you specialise in. Melee warriors can still benefit from spells - to make them even stronger in combat (e.g. Mirror Image), to shore up their weaknesses (by giving them ranged attacks) or by giving them extra versatility. Likewise, I think a lot of mages appreciate being able to pull out a sword and do some decent damage with it.


The versatility that they bring to the table is what makes them good in my opinion and sure, you do miss out on being the best at one thing, but who cares? I can control people's minds/go invisible/throw freaking lightning and pick up a weapon and beat people to death with it. The Bladelock does this versatility the best in melee combat in my opinion, simply because you can change what weapon you are using at will and are automatically proficient in that weapon. You need to use a dagger for stealth? You now have a dagger. You need a greataxe to smash through that door with? You now have a greataxe. The possibilities are only limited to the melee weapons available!

Honestly, that reasoning seems a bit weak. "You need to use a dagger for stealth? You now have a dagger." But, why not just carry a dagger around with you? They're not exactly cumbersome. :smalltongue:

"You need a greataxe to smash through that door with? You now have a greataxe." But will you have the strength to use it? Also, why not just use Eldritch Blast? It's probably going to be vastly more effective than the axe (regardless of your strength), is far less tiring and can be done from 120ft away (thus giving you a good chance of avoiding any traps or people on the other side of said door).

Also, if we're comparing this to the Bladesinger, surely a wizard will have *something* in his arsenal to deal with a door, even if it's just firebolt or acid splash?

Also also, I'd be more enthusiastic about the Bladelock's weapon swapping ability if it didn't use up an entire action. Would swapping weapons as a bonus action really have made it OP?

[Mikal]

This is a thread based on a little bit of frustration, but I would like to allow the opportunity to others to set me straight or agree.

I'm getting a little tired of the complaining about class and PC types being "weak". There are a few that get trashed, but the most common I hear is around the melee caster type, so I'll use it as my example.

Why isn't my bladelock the most power melee character on the board, and have access to a lot of the most powerful spells in the game? Well, Timmy power gamer, it's because you're not supposed to. There is a price to pay to versatility. That's why multi classing affects your spell levels. Access to more spells, costs you the ability to cast at higher levels faster.

It seems like a simple concept to understand, but I think the real issue isn't the build of the classes, or the multi classing limitations, it's the fact that certain players will never be happy until they are the only PC's that matter in a game. If you gave some of these people a full fighter class with unlimited casting abilities, they would be angry that their character couldn't fly and speak every language.

The designers of this game, who I hear have played quite a bit of D&D, have a simple guideline, you either have strengths and weakness, or you're kind of good at a lot of things. They also made stuff that was full of flavour, for a different style of players. The hardest thing to achieve in a game like D&D is balance, so sometimes you see weakness when it's simply balance.

I'm what I would call an "active" player, meaning I want to be involved in the story all the time, but I make myself take a back seat to allow others to showcase themselves. And it's more fun that way.

Embrace your weakness, let your play group shine, and don't complain that you can't do everything.

TL;DR summary: I don't like people who play differently than me, so play like I do.

[The Ship's dog]

"You need a greataxe to smash through that door with? You now have a greataxe." But will you have the strength to use it? Also, why not just use Eldritch Blast? It's probably going to be vastly more effective than the axe (regardless of your strength), is far less tiring and can be done from 120ft away (thus giving you a good chance of avoiding any traps or people on the other side of said door).

Also, if we're comparing this to the Bladesinger, surely a wizard will have *something* in his arsenal to deal with a door, even if it's just firebolt or acid splash?

Also also, I'd be more enthusiastic about the Bladelock's weapon swapping ability if it didn't use up an entire action. Would swapping weapons as a bonus action really have made it OP?

Haha, right! Perhaps that was pretty weak reasoning, it was 2330 hours so my brain was not working the best it could have been.

I made no allusions to what I meant to say so I don't blame you for thinking that my reasoning was shoddy. What makes the Bladelock pretty unique in my opinion is that, at will and without using any spell slots or even a Cantrip, they can summon their Pact weapon without any spell foci or component materials. This means that, even if they are stripped butt naked, gagged and bound, they can still summon a dagger to cut through their bonds. It's up to the DM, but nowhere in the PHB does it say this summoning makes any sound or visual effect so it is completely subtle and doesn't expend a spell-slot.

This out of combat utility of a what is designed to be a combat mechanic is ridiculous. Sure, you might not have the strength wield big weapons effectively, but if you do, you can also wield daggers and other finnese weapons effectively because you can choose to use your strength modifier or your dexterity modifier.

I agree that being able to switch weapons as an action in combat is just mediocre (why didn't you just bring more weapons and swap them out?), but being able to do it with literally no repercussions and spending none of your precious spell slots out of combat is great.

[SharkForce]

there are repercussions though. you miss out on potentially having an invisible familiar, or having extra cantrips and potential access to all rituals. i'm not really sold on the value of having a hidden dagger as being quite that high. and certainly, if your hands are tied well enough to prevent somatic components, i suspect they're also tied well enough to prevent you from being able to hold a dagger in them, no matter how easy it is to summon to you.

[Dr. Cliché]

Haha, right! Perhaps that was pretty weak reasoning, it was 2330 hours so my brain was not working the best it could have been.

No worries.


What makes the Bladelock pretty unique in my opinion is that, at will and without using any spell slots or even a Cantrip, they can summon their Pact weapon without any spell foci or component materials.

That's true, but my issue is that it's not really that useful. You can choose from all the weapons in the PHB, but it seems like you'd only ever need a handful anyway (dagger, sword, maybe something with reach). So, you could probably just carry them with you and take one of the other warlock pacts with very little loss.


This means that, even if they are stripped butt naked, gagged and bound, they can still summon a dagger to cut through their bonds.

Is this a common scenario for you? If so, I think a better solution would be to find a DM who isn't into 50 Shades of Grey. :smallwink:

More seriously, I think it's worth noting that an invisible imp/pseudodragon/sprite familiar could probably accomplish the same thing, and can also act as a spy/scout on those occasions when you haven't been stripped naked, bound and gagged.

Incidentally, if your DM did do that, I'm be curious as to what he'd expect you to do if you had neither a blade pact nor a familiar to untie you.


This out of combat utility of a what is designed to be a combat mechanic is ridiculous. Sure, you might not have the strength wield big weapons effectively, but if you do, you can also wield daggers and other finnese weapons effectively because you can choose to use your strength modifier or your dexterity modifier.

Sure. But, as above, how many of those weapons do you really need? Given that they are (by their very nature) relatively light, you could probably just carry the ones you need around with you.



I agree that being able to switch weapons as an action in combat is just mediocre (why didn't you just bring more weapons and swap them out?), but being able to do it with literally no repercussions and spending none of your precious spell slots out of combat is great.

Well, swapping between weapons on your person doesn't use spell slots either. :smallbiggrin:

The thing that gets me though isn't about swapping your weapon in combat, it's about summoning it in the first place. It just makes me sad, because starting a fight by summoning an eldritch blade into your hand would make for a fantastic way to start a fight.

Unfortunately, since it takes your action, it then leaves you standing gormlessly around until the next round of combat - which diminishes the effect somewhat. :smallconfused:

Having it as a bonus action would let you summon a cool-looking weapon at the beginning of a fight, and then immediately jump into the fray with it.

[The Ship's dog]

That's true, but my issue is that it's not really that useful. You can choose from all the weapons in the PHB, but it seems like you'd only ever need a handful anyway (dagger, sword, maybe something with reach). So, you could probably just carry them with you and take one of the other warlock pacts with very little loss.


Well you could do that, but then you wouldn't be fulfilling the melee spellcaster character type very well as a Warlock because you don't have access to Thirsting Blade/Lifedrinker which are huge losses if you wanted to make a melee spellcaster with a Warlock (no Extra Attack without MCing, less damage riders on your weapons). I agree that you could just take a different Pact and possibly be more useful with scouting (Chain) or minor spells (Tome) but really, the fluff appeal is just not there for me in either of those Pacts, and I know that's just my opinion and you can completely ignore it if you want.



Is this a common scenario for you? If so, I think a better solution would be to find a DM who isn't into 50 Shades of Grey. :smallwink:

More seriously, I think it's worth noting that an invisible imp/pseudodragon/sprite familiar could probably accomplish the same thing, and can also act as a spy/scout on those occasions when you haven't been stripped naked, bound and gagged.

Incidentally, if your DM did do that, I'm be curious as to what he'd expect you to do if you had neither a blade pact nor a familiar to untie you.


1. :smallredface:

2. Well, yes, my only answer is to re-read the first part of my reply

3. I would be very scared if my DM did this to me I had neither of those things. I don't what they'd expect me to do, die?



Sure. But, as above, how many of those weapons do you really need? Given that they are (by their very nature) relatively light, you could probably just carry the ones you need around with you.


Again, refer to part 1 of reply.



Well, swapping between weapons on your person doesn't use spell slots either. :smallbiggrin:

The thing that gets me though isn't about swapping your weapon in combat, it's about summoning it in the first place. It just makes me sad, because starting a fight by summoning an eldritch blade into your hand would make for a fantastic way to start a fight.

Unfortunately, since it takes your action, it then leaves you standing gormlessly around until the next round of combat - which diminishes the effect somewhat. :smallconfused:

Having it as a bonus action would let you summon a cool-looking weapon at the beginning of a fight, and then immediately jump into the fray with it.

First of all, my reply wasn't worded well so I can see where you'd get that from. What I meant was that you don't need to expend spell-slots to break down a door or use a flashy Cantrip like Firebolt.

Second, I agree, it is unfortunate that it takes an action and not a bonus action, but generally I already make sure to say to the DM that "I've drawn my weapon expecting a fight" even when not playing a Bladelock.

[MBControl]

I can agree to that. It was a general comment that was very general, though I feel there is type of player that seem to never be happy unless the class they play is OP.

Can't part of the fun be finding a way to make weaker classes fun and playable?

Again, I was just getting annoyed.

[Jerrykhor]

Not really. Class balance is a problem, always have been in any RPG games, or games with multiple class types, but its not that big of a problem if its not a PVP game. And D&D is traditionally not a PVP game, so classes do not have to be perfectly balanced against each other. But its still a problem if the power levels are too big, otherwise you won't see the magic users constantly getting nerfed in each edition, or the UA Ranger too.

[BigONotation]

I think things are fairly balanced except for Bladesinger. Too much versatility for nothing sacrificed.

[BW022]

...
Well, Timmy power gamer, it's because you're not supposed to. ...


You are assuming motives which I don't think are valid. There are dozens of other reasons why someone might complain about, ask for advice on builds, etc. other than "power gaming". Easy to come up with alternate reasons why this might be the case... especially if they are new, not familiar with 5e, etc.

1. Concept. They had a concept in mind -- often from movies, video games, previous editions, etc. I don't know how many new players want to be Conan, a Jedi, or Legolas.

2. Short-term view. They see issues in the short-term and select easy fixes. You keep getting hit, so you multi-class to get some armour. It can be hard to new players to realize in a few levels, you'll have spells to prevent getting hit.

3. Long-term view. You keep building your character for some long-term goal or plan, only to realize that it is hard to play at lower-levels.

4. It doesn't match your game style. You pick a spell caster only to realize that you like hitting things.

5. You aren't flexible. Your class needs to change tactics, weapons, spells, etc. as they level or are really weak against certain opponents.

6. You are in a party. Other characters, other player's actions, etc. suddenly negate or don't permit your tactics. Being a trickster is pointless if the paladin keeps telling the truth. Being a ranged expert fails if there is no one tanking in the party.

7. Your campaign and DM. An arctic ranger sucks in an underdark campaign. A warlock isn't so great if the DM rarely has more than one encounter per day.

8. Duplicated roles. You are a jack-of-trades in a well-rounded party of specialists or you are forced into a missing role.

9. Something goes wrong. Most encounters have a rock-paper-scissor aspect and the player suddenly realizes their character can't face X. Inexperienced players assume this is 'normal' and try 'fixing' the weakness, rather than accept that its rare or another party member/ability needs to deal with it.

etc., etc.

I find that most players who have issues with their character's "power" typically comes down to falling into 'traps' or not having the 5e experience to know that certain tactics, builds, etc. don't work. Most aren't trying to game the system or gain advantage. They try something and only after player, realize that is isn't optimal.

IMO, actual "power gamers" have enough rule knowledge and experience and don't fall into such 'traps' in the first place. They realize that X choice is making them weaker at Y or that it will cost them in a few levels.