The worst designed class in 5th edition [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

View Full Version : The worst designed class in 5th edition

MrStabby

2018-04-12, 08:35 AM

A while ago there was a thread talking about the best designed class in 5th edition. Popular views were that the monk and the paladin were top. I have been thinking about the worst designed class (as a whole rather than a particular archetype).

I am also looking at a particularly narrow metric here of versatility. I class is well designed if it supports more mechanical replay-ability and diversity in how it can be taken. It is poorly designed if it pushes you into just one style of play. I am aware that maybe this isn't the best metric and some people might suggest "fun" or other aspects of a class as a better measure. I rejected that as it limited my scope to put in a title and description that would wind people up, despite it being a better idea. Some classes do get more options but the sharp drop off in effectiveness you get if you actually do use those options kind of makes them feel limited.

Obviously I am just talking about mechanically here, RP aspects of classes may vary somewhat. I am also predominantly talking about the PHB here, some add-ons do change this a little. All judgements made here are based on rigorous tests over three years of play, plus a massive load of personal prejudice.

Worst classes in order of restriction:

Monk. You have played one, you have played them all - or nearly all of them. You are mobile and use stunning strike. Restrictions in weaponry mean that you don't really get the options of any other martial class when it comes to fighting style or feats that support your build. Sometimes you see someone stat up an armoured monk but generally all the class abilities are pushing you towards a very similar build. The archetypes generally only add a minor adjustment to this. 4E monk has a lot of different abilities that could change this, which are not generally used as the base class has better uses of Ki (until crazy high levels anyway). Quivering palm might make open hand different, but it comes online too late the see much play. I am not saying things like casting pass without trace or silence are bad, just that you are still using 80% of your Ki for core class abilities.

This is slightly improved by other content in follow on books- long death has some common Ki uses and kensei offers a nod to archery as a fighting style.

Barbarian. Like the monk there are too many class features that are focused on one style of barbarian with little scope to mix it up beyond superficial changes. Sure you can do some stuff with dips of other classes but basically most barbarians share a pretty similar stat-line. Sometimes you see a little variation due to race - for example Gnome to have a better chance of passing those mental saves). The thing that sets the class above monk is that you have the support of more weapon options/styles. Yes, you still probably want the biggest weapon you can find. Biggest weapon is best weapon, but the drop off for going sword and board is small enough that it is fair enough.

New content adds a little - ancestral barbarian can do different things, same with the zealot. Good to see a little more exploration here.

Ranger. These guys would be so much further down if beastmaster was just a little easier to use well. There are plenty of options that should make these guys diverse - archery vs close quarters, hunter vs beastmaster, very different spell effects... The reality is two weapon fighting sucks hard enough to push players into archery (especially in a class that lumps so many of it's good tools into bonus actions) and in a similar way beastmasters are pretty unpopular (two of the three characters I have seen be retired from games have been beastmasters as the players didn't like them). Sure the spells could support some differences but when you subtract the spells that every other ranger will have and consider how many times per day the remaining spells will actually be cast it doesn't really make much difference (and they are generally low enough level that even when a less common spell is cast by a ranger it won't be a big plot changing spell).

Outside of the PHB there has been a lot of good work done to fix some of this. In a way the base class of ranger being a relatively weak chassis has worked well. Xanathar's has given three great additions with different abilities which all add something significant and different to the class.

Warlock. These guys are tough to place. Different pacts, different patrons feels very versatile. In reality most of the pacts don't have a massive effect on the overall class. Blade pact means that you don't have to eldritch blast someone if they are in your face - but it doesn't mean you want them to be in your face. Pact of the chain does give a familiar, although about 100% of pact of the tome warlocks also get one. Fundamentally they all seem pretty much the same though. If there in one at the table expect a lot of hanging back and eldritch blasting things most turns. It is possible to make some exceptions to this and build a bit of a different type of warlock but there is certainly a core set-up and the variations are the exception.

Warlock is a bit different to the classes above in that most characters will have a few levels here and there where they differ. Did you pick up repelling blast before or after devil's sight? Likewise with some of the pact spells: Fiend pact gets fireball which really does change the way the class plays, right up until the point where it gets swapped out for something that makes better use of a level 5 spell slot.

The new content has helped greatly diversify the warlock play experience. Celestial has added healing, it really opens up what the class can do. Hexblade actually supports warlocks getting into combat to the extent that it can be a good choice, which kind of revolutionises the whole thing. Invocations like smiting open up alternative uses of spell slots.

Druid. These guys are surprisingly similar. For all the versatility a moon druid offers it basically comes down to using the best shape for the task at hand. Faced with the same tasks the druids use the same shapes. A lot of this is just the same. Likewise with spells. The druid getting access to all spells on the druid list means no character really gives up anything to set them apart. Land druids seem relatively rare where I am (I like them, but I see what I see) but they at least have meaningful versatility in a small way so this class is further down the naughty list than others. I don't think that the new classes have helped much - they seem a little like tinkering round the edges, most actions of the core class will remain the same.

Sorcerer. This is kind of getting to the stage where I don't think the lack of diversity is so crippling. Still not good... but ok. So pretty much all the PHB sorcerers I have seen have been draconic. And with fire as their element. Metamagics are a bit more diverse but quicken and twin being ahead on the list. Throw in for extra annoyance that their "unique" (ha ha) character trait is that they are a bit of a pyromaniac and like fire. This is the bad side.

The good side is that their really tight spell selection plus a lot of great spells to chose from means that a small change in what spell is selected at a particular can have a knock on effect on what gets selected at subsequent levels. Unlike the warlock, differences that exist don't get swallowed up when getting a new spell level.

New content has shaken this up a bit. Divine soul especially has enables the sorcerer base to play differently and has helped sorcerers seem different to each other, but all of them seem to add something there that sets them apart.

Rogue. OK, now we are getting to the good side. Rogue seems pretty narrow in many respects. Sneak attack requires finesse weapons, most of the power is in the class not in the sub-class choice. Not a lot of apparent in class choices. Nevertheless I have seen and played with rogues that were very different from each other. Strength rogues are common enough and the shoving/grappling plays very differently to stabbing. Likewise rogues are one of the classes that can do close quarters or range equally well and cunning action can support a lot of different activities.

The subclasses, despite not containing a lot of power of the class, are still quite effective at making a difference. Whilst I have never seen a player opt for a thief (at least as a single classed rogue) the arcane trickster and assassin really add different things to the class.

Extra content here doesn't change much. Scout adds more mobility, but not likely to change how it is played much. Likewise with swashbuckler, although it supports two-weapon fighting a bit more. Inquisitive is the biggest change here, allowing the rogue to take on a bit more of a support role (in practice I think Bard is probably more attractive to those that want a support character so this subclass may not see a lot of play).

Wizard
Wizards are awesome. They are pretty fun and they are surprisingly varied. There is a caveat here that the DM needs to not give out too many spell scrolls/books to preserve their uniqueness. The different schools are pretty similar but they tend to actually encourage different playstyles: an enchanter twinning enchantments, a necromancer with an undead army or a divination wizard recycling spell slots. The abilities may not be huge but they do tend to maximise the differences between wizards.

The spell list is also helpful. What do you want as a spell from level 3, for example? Fear, fireball, counterspell, haste or fly? All good choices. There are enough good spells for the wizard that you don't fall behind for not playing the same thing as the next guy.

The war wizard and bladesinger adds a little more to this by supporting a more defensive set of abilities. Not revolutionary but still playable classes that broaden what people can do.

Fighter Basically the fighter is about feats. If feats are not allowed I haven't met the person who would play a fighter. The good news is that this really helps set fighters apart. I have seen pole arm mastery fighters, shield mastery fighters, great weapon mastery fighters and sharpshooter fighters. Almost every fighting style is supported and people take advantage of it. Moreover the extra feats let players develop the characters in new ways, they guy with ritual caster and a familiar is different to the guy with keen mind who is different to the guy who plays a smart tactician and so on.

Add to this that the sub-classes actually develop the different fighter types pretty well and I think you have a solid design. A champion at level 3 gets a thematic ability that can really change how the character is played, and the same with the battlemaster and eldritch knight. Some elements are really great - the EK focuss on cantrips helps ensure that it's magic is a bigger part of the class on more turns, the champion's HP recovery is pretty unique. The class isn't perfect though; there is a tendency for low level fighters to feel a bit like high level fighters - just a difference in power.

Bard. Now we get to the classes that really differentiate themselves. Valor bard can play differently to a Lore bard. A strength Valor bard plays differently to a dex bard. The ability to draw on different types of support spell, different desired ranges and different support abilities all helps to differentiate these. At higher levels the difference in cation economy for the valor bard makes yet another change. All in all the most unique features are really the magical secrets. There are enough good spells split between the different classes and of different levels that the bard is likely to end up with a different spell selection campaign to campaign. Even looking at lore bard at level 6 I have seen: counterspell; conjure animals; fireball; elemental weapon, haste, eldritch blast. Every combination of these either enhances the bard's main role or provides them with a different secondary role in the party.

Paladin was one of the classes people picked on before as being especially well designed and, from the standpoint of of build variability and difference in playstyles I think it is very strong. You can go for strength or dexterity and pretty much any fighting style is supported in some way (with the possible exception of archery). Whilst not great, the extra nova potential of two-weapon fighting can sometimes still be attractive as well as all of the other common load-outs (especially when extra damage at level 11 comes in). The different Oaths also further distinguish paladins from each other, often in profound ways. Consider the oath of ancients level 7 aura that helps protect you from spells - now the party fears AoE a lot less, can bunch up together more and change the way it plays. Vengeance at the same level can become an implacable single target hunter, chasing down enemies that try and flee or a great skirmisher (pole-arm mastery to get an attack of opportunity then move out of range of the advancing enemy). Between the different channel divinity options, solid domain spells and rich special abilities for each paladin there is huge diversity.

Cleric seems to be a great design for a class to me. It has a common core but all the domain specific elements are different and really transform the way the class plays. Right from the first level there are differences in what you get: some clerics get a real combat presence with heavy armour and weapons. Others get a broader access to modes of play outside of a typical cleric and then some, like the life cleric get a core cleric function boosted. The shear number of domains mean that some clerics will be closer to some others but there is a real range.

The special abilities are so diverse. Some are similar - like four different ways of adding damage to a weapon attack but others have no match. A knowledge cleric with expertise in certain topics and a channel divinity to give them a skill plays differently to a life cleric that heals more then uses channel divinity to heal even more whilst front-lining fights in heavy armour. This in turn is different to a nature cleric shielding the party from elemental damage or a light cleric being a blaster and throwing fireballs around.

Which does bring up the domain spells. 10 spells per domain, many of them not on the core cleric list. The tools that the abilities provide are enhanced by these spells and using them further differentiates each cleric.

The cleric, despite being top of the list (or more literally the bottom), is not without flaws. Personally I think the differentiation and flavour falls off somewhat at higher levels. No further domain spells, no real defining abilities

I have used just one measure for what I considered "best", and probably more important are measures like "how fun is it to play?", and "how fun is it to have someone else play one at the table?". I ignored those simply because it is very difficult to suggest anything more than "I like this, it is my favourite class". Not much there to agree or disagree with. If nothing else the measure I used may work for replayability.

I do find that my preferences loosely correlate with this ranking, although there are some stand out differences (monk being really high for example, fighter being lower).

Anyway, these are my views. Am I wildly inaccurate?

Matticusrex

2018-04-12, 08:44 AM

Barbarian and Fighter are incredibly boring classes compared to everyone else. Any creative thing you can do with them can be done by any other class but it does not work in the reverse.

Skyblaze

2018-04-12, 09:05 AM

I wouldn't say any of them are badly designed just some people don't find them interesting. Like I'd say barbarian is really well designed for what its going for, a brute tank. Bolstered by brutal critical and biggest health pool in the game. But you rank it 2nd to last on the list.

A good few of them could have relatively small improvements to increase their popularity. Like one of my favorite classes is sorcerer but I hate that it has so few spells learned. I just increase the spells known to 21 at max level as a homebrew.

2D8HP

2018-04-12, 10:06 AM

... Fighter Basically the fighter is about feats. If feats are not allowed I haven't met the person who would play a fighter....

I've played many 5e Fighters without Feats, and I played many more Fighters in old D&D that didn't have Feat options at all.

Though for me, besides all the spell casting classes, I find the Battlemaster Fighter to be "broken" for me, because all those extra options make the class too much for me to keep track of, and so Champion is the only Fighter I play.

Matticusrex

2018-04-12, 10:13 AM

I've played many 5e Fighters without Feats, and I played many more Fighters in old D&D that didn't have Feat options at all.

Though for me, besides all the spell casting classes, I find the Battlemaster Fighter to be "broken" for me, because all those extra options make the class too much for me to keep track of, and so Champion is the only Fighter I play.

Got a chuckle from me.

KorvinStarmast

2018-04-12, 10:20 AM

Got a chuckle from me. The point of playing is to have fun.

Willie the Duck

2018-04-12, 10:21 AM

Got a chuckle from me.

He's not joking. If you are looking for a PC who's rule-based abilities simply work and get out of the way for you to look to solve everything except enemy hit points with things-not-on-the-character-sheet, the Champion Fighter without feats is the way to do it.

Pelle

2018-04-12, 10:33 AM

The Champion Fighter is quite well designed, because its design goal was to be simple to play for new players or people like 2D8HP.

The versatility metric suggested in the OP is bad because the classes don't have the same design goals. The thread should be renamed "the least versatile class in 5th edition" to be justified...

KorvinStarmast

2018-04-12, 10:35 AM

Wild Magic Sorcerer sounds like a fun class to play, but it is given almost not treatment in the OP's anlaysis.

2D8HP

2018-04-12, 10:36 AM

Got a chuckle from me.

He's not joking.....

Indeed I wasn't, for the reasons @Willie the Duck articulated.

I really do like to pare down options and resources for me to keep track of, and keep my need to look at a Character Record Sheet snd/or rules down, and one players "broken" is anothers "good".

Also, if I was joking I would've probably used more capital letters, and exclamation points in that post.

NOT THAT I EVER AM SO TWISTED AS TO COMMIT SUCH A VILE ACT AS SARCASM IN OTHER THREADS!!!

PhoenixPhyre

2018-04-12, 10:43 AM

All of these "what's the best/worst X" discussions suffer from the same flaw.

Best/worst at what?

Good and bad are only meaningful when discussing fitness for a purpose. And since people use the same classes, feats, spells, and other game elements for different purposes, there isn't a best or worst. There's only a best/worst for a particular purpose.

Daphne

2018-04-12, 10:51 AM

Best/worst at what?

I am also looking at a particularly narrow metric here of versatility. I class is well designed if it supports more mechanical replay-ability and diversity in how it can be taken. It is poorly designed if it pushes you into just one style of play. I am aware that maybe this isn't the best metric and some people might suggest "fun" or other aspects of a class as a better measure. I rejected that as it limited my scope to put in a title and description that would wind people up, despite it being a better idea. Some classes do get more options but the sharp drop off in effectiveness you get if you actually do use those options kind of makes them feel limited.

OP clearly defined what he was talking about.

KorvinStarmast

2018-04-12, 10:58 AM

OP clearly defined what he was talking about. Indeed, and if we go back a few posts someone pointed out that the title didn't match the OP very well. The suggestion was ...
The thread should be renamed "the least versatile class in 5th edition" to be justified... by Pelle.
I agree with Pelle. Make the title fit the content. "Worst design" is too broad as a title ... and borders on trolling. :smallbiggrin: (Although I don't think that was the author's intention, as the issue of a post being a wind up (troll) was addressed in the text).

2D8HP

2018-04-12, 11:11 AM

OP clearly defined what he was talking about.

Well since I really don't grok what "mechanical replay-ability and diversity in how it can be taken" means, nope it's not clear to me.

I'm guessing amount of "crunch" options?

Since a big portion of the PHB is spells, and IIRC Wizards get more spells, I suppose Wizards are most versatile.

Clerics potentially have more deities than Wizards have schools, so there's that.

I, however play the same three subclasses (Champion, Swashbuckler, and Thief, in that order, with a rare one level dip into Barbarian), and the same races (human, wood elf, and half elf, in that order, with one high elf).

It's backgrounds that I most swap around.

Nifft

2018-04-12, 11:15 AM

Wild Magic Sorcerer sounds like a fun class to play, but it is given almost not treatment in the OP's anlaysis.

It's fun for other people far away from my table to play, and then they post about how they TPK'd their party hilariously.

If my PCs were TPK'd by that class it would suddenly stop being hilarious.

Sigreid

2018-04-12, 11:22 AM

That's what's often missing in these conversations. When I build a character his or her background is huge.

Pex

2018-04-12, 11:27 AM

He's not joking. If you are looking for a PC who's rule-based abilities simply work and get out of the way for you to look to solve everything except enemy hit points with things-not-on-the-character-sheet, the Champion Fighter without feats is the way to do it.

The Champion Fighter is quite well designed, because its design goal was to be simple to play for new players or people like 2D8HP.

The versatility metric suggested in the OP is bad because the classes don't have the same design goals. The thread should be renamed "the least versatile class in 5th edition" to be justified...

It's why I like sorcerer. I wouldn't object to sorcerer being given more spells known, but I don't care I can't switch spells from day to day. Even playing as a wizard or cleric I tend to prepare the same spells every day anyway. It is very rare that I change my spells. I can't do everything and don't try to. I choose what I want to do and be done with it. The only reason I'll play a wizard over a sorcerer is because I'm in the mood to play the wizard's class features that campaign and vice versa for sorcerer over a wizard. The ability to change spells each day is nice but never a selling point for me since I rarely do. With that out of the question, the difference between sorcerer and wizard depends solely on my mood at the moment of character choice.

Daphne

2018-04-12, 11:37 AM

It's why I like sorcerer. I wouldn't object to sorcerer being given more spells known, but I don't care I can't switch spells from day to day. Even playing as a wizard or cleric I tend to prepare the same spells every day anyway. It is very rare that I change my spells.

It's the same for me, but I do think Sorcerers don't get enough spells (at low levels), as I usually feel like I couldn't pick every spell I wanted.

Willie the Duck

2018-04-12, 11:46 AM

Well since I really don't grok what "mechanical replay-ability and diversity in how it can be taken" means, nope it's not clear to me.

I'm guessing amount of "crunch" options?

Yes and no. The idea is that you can play the same class multiple times in a row and make the experience different (in a mechanical way. Obviously you can have two different characters with differing personalities or demographics). Barbarians... well, you can theoretically have a rapier wielding barbarian or the like, and some barbarians chuck javelins at a distance while others are proud of their bowmanship, but honestly, you build a barbarian to run up and hit people with big-honkin' weapons. Fighters are more varied-some will be Dex based while others are Strength. The fighting style mechanism actively conspires to differentiate an archer fighter from a polearm fighter from a sword-and-shield fighter (although my favorite, the champion with defensive style and even Dex and Str makes a good 'everyman,' that's me actively resisting specialization). A cleric--each domain is a decidedly different play experience, especially if you decide to/not to focus on spells or weapons or cantrips or whatnot. As you said, wizards yes are very much a launching platform for their spells, so the spells make the character (again, mechanically).

Asmotherion

2018-04-12, 11:58 AM

MrStabby

2018-04-12, 12:20 PM

Wild Magic Sorcerer sounds like a fun class to play, but it is given almost not treatment in the OP's anlaysis.

A valid point, although i am not looking at fun it is true that wild magic does play very differently from a draconic sorcerer and this difference could have been discussed more. Although calling what a wrote an analysis is maybe too generous - I wouldn't go past reasoned opinion.

The Champion Fighter is quite well designed, because its design goal was to be simple to play for new players or people like 2D8HP.

The versatility metric suggested in the OP is bad because the classes don't have the same design goals. The thread should be renamed "the least versatile class in 5th edition" to be justified...

Well I am not looking so much at versatility as differences between different members of the same class. If one class can do everything well (at the same time) then it is versatile. Different members of the class are not very distinct from each other if they can all do the same.

That's what's often missing in these conversations. When I build a character his or her background is huge.

I guess I am sorry I didn't talk enough about choice of background in my post on the diversity of classes.

Yes and no. The idea is that you can play the same class multiple times in a row and make the experience different (in a mechanical way. Obviously you can have two different characters with differing personalities or demographics). Barbarians... well, you can theoretically have a rapier wielding barbarian or the like, and some barbarians chuck javelins at a distance while others are proud of their bowmanship, but honestly, you build a barbarian to run up and hit people with big-honkin' weapons. Fighters are more varied-some will be Dex based while others are Strength. The fighting style mechanism actively conspires to differentiate an archer fighter from a polearm fighter from a sword-and-shield fighter (although my favorite, the champion with defensive style and even Dex and Str makes a good 'everyman,' that's me actively resisting specialization). A cleric--each domain is a decidedly different play experience, especially if you decide to/not to focus on spells or weapons or cantrips or whatnot. As you said, wizards yes are very much a launching platform for their spells, so the spells make the character (again, mechanically).

Ah, you get it.

Ranger.

It lacks anything that "defines" it as a class. Anyone who wants Ranger "Goodies" can get it some other way via multiclassing/dipping/spells/feats or a clever combination of the before mentioned without even touching this overall abissaly designed class.

Even their best spells are accessed by other spell lists (mostly the Druid, Wizard and Ancients Paladin).

Yeah - a different measure but I absolutely agree with you. There is really no cool core mechanic. A paladin can smite, a rogue can sneak attack, a barbarian can rage, a monk can stun... what does the Ranger do?

Nifft

2018-04-12, 12:23 PM

GlenSmash!

2018-04-12, 12:28 PM

Yes and no. The idea is that you can play the same class multiple times in a row and make the experience different (in a mechanical way. Obviously you can have two different characters with differing personalities or demographics). Barbarians... well, you can theoretically have a rapier wielding barbarian or the like, and some barbarians chuck javelins at a distance while others are proud of their bowmanship, but honestly, you build a barbarian to run up and hit people with big-honkin' weapons.

I think the Shield Master Barbarian is pretty awesome. I also really like a Grappler Barbarian with a Versatile weapon, but I know this is sub-par to the GWM+PM Barb.

nickl_2000

2018-04-12, 12:31 PM

Sigreid

2018-04-12, 12:57 PM

Ranger.

It lacks anything that "defines" it as a class. Anyone who wants Ranger "Goodies" can get it some other way via multiclassing/dipping/spells/feats or a clever combination of the before mentioned without even touching this overall abissaly designed class.

Even their best spells are accessed by other spell lists (mostly the Druid, Wizard and Ancients Paladin).

IMO, ranger would be ok if natural explorer always applied. To me what should define ranger is the ability to not just survive but thrive in any environment.

OP, I did get where you are coming from it's just that with the way 5e is designed I'd call your class 3/4 of your character from a mechanical basis. I'd also list barbarian as the least variation in how it is played. There are very few templates to how you build and play an effective barbarian.

Anonymouswizard

2018-04-12, 04:42 PM

The versatility metric suggested in the OP is bad because the classes don't have the same design goals. The thread should be renamed "the least versatile class in 5th edition" to be justified...

It's also not what people tend to use versatility to mean. It's being used to mean 'different playstyles' instead of 'problems solved'. 'The 5e class with the least versatile playstyle' might be even better.

It's why I like sorcerer. I wouldn't object to sorcerer being given more spells known, but I don't care I can't switch spells from day to day. Even playing as a wizard or cleric I tend to prepare the same spells every day anyway. It is very rare that I change my spells. I can't do everything and don't try to. I choose what I want to do and be done with it.

The Sorcerer breaks my heart. I feel like almost everything it should have been good at was stolen by another class.

I'm naturally talented at magic to an insane degree, so do I get a lot of spells known? No, in fact I get the least, and prepared casters almost always get a larger spells prepared list than I get a spells known list (the exception is Billy the 3 INT wizard, and even then not at high levels). Lord, the Paladin has theoretically broader day to day spell selection.

Do I get the most slots? No, I have the same slots as everybody else, and both the Warlock and Wizard have better spell recovery mechanisms.

Do I at least get a large spell list to pick from? No, I get a stripped down version of the Wizard list.

Do I get a bunch of effects I can apply to my spells? Yes, but they vary a lot in usefulness.

I'd love the Sorcerer and play it to bits if it got as many spells as the Bard. But it gets so few spells that once I start making one it ends up abandoned because I had to choose between interesting option and useful option.

Kane0

2018-04-12, 05:06 PM

I contend the sorcerer to be the most poorly designed.

Spell selection: Your spell list is almost the same as the Wizard's and in some aspects wierdly limited (no Named Mage spells? Why?), plus you get no unique spells. Oh and don't forget that you have the smallest number of spells known of any primary caster, less than some secondary casters even, and can only swap out one at each level if you make a mistake in your selection. But at least you get the most cantrips!

Sorcery points: OK, so you have spell slots which are a limited resource based off a long rest. Have another one, we'll call them sorcery points. We'll also throw in the ability to interchange between them, but if you make use of this feature you end up with a net loss of resources. But that's okay because at level 20 you get the ability to recover a small fraction of these during a short rest, just like the wizard does at level 2.

Metamagic: Subclass aside you get one class feature. One. Using it burns through that amazing second long rest resource pool you have to improve the effectiveness of the first. But that's not all! You get to choose an extremely small number of metamagic options that you cannot change throughout your entire career. Some these options are not very useful at all depending on your limited spell loadout, others are watered down versions of benefits other casters get for free and the rest are very powerful and thus expensive to use. But hey, play your cards right and you could be a super effective one trick pony!

Have fun!

Anonymouswizard

2018-04-12, 05:15 PM

Honestly, if I wanted to fix the Sorcerer I'd make Sorcery Points recharge on a short rest (which is what I assumed when I first saw the class), eventually give them all metamagic options. increase their spells known to the point they get about 22 spells at level 20, beef up their spell list (specifically add in a lot more support options), and let them drop a Wild Magic Surge for a Sorcery Point. Although I'd also remove the 'recover your Sorcery Points' slot on the Wild Magic table, as well as the results that can directly cause a TPK (indirectly is fine). Maybe throw in a couple more features, but honestly with more spells I don't think they need more. I'd also let Sorcery Points recover 6th, 7th, and maybe even higher level spell slots, for raw unlimited arcane power.

Deathtongue

2018-04-12, 05:36 PM

I'd say cleric is the worst designed class in the game, even worse than the ranger.

Half of the cleric abilities and stuff they get on level-ups are either in the hands of the DM or won't come up in many games. I play an Arcana Cleric in Adventurer's League and use Divine Intervention as often as possible, and it has never had more utility than an extra top-level spell slot. Channel Divinity: Turn Undead is okay when it works, but 90% of sessions I don't get to use the base ability. And cleric has many levels where the only thing they get is more Turn Undead.

The melee clerics have an identity crisis where if you invest heavily in melee abilities, you'll get screwed over as the game goes on. Unless your DM is dropping Belts of Frost Giant Strength like candy or you're one of the only people in the party with a decent melee defense, you're generally better specializing as a pure caster from level 1. Yes, this includes the Shillelagh Arcana Cleric With Booming Blade. But as a pure caster, Spiritual Weapons + (Mass) Healing Word + Spirit Guardians + Bless are so good that they muscle out most of your other spells. So unless you're a Light Cleric you'll be doing the same two or three things over and over and OVER. unless you want to waste time with suboptimal actions like

Their spell list also has some puzzing gaps in it that don't make sense from a thematic sense. They don't get Sunbeam, but druids and wizards do? They don't get the demon-summoning spells despite it being a staple of (DM and AP, of course) NPC clerics? They get Divination but not Contact Other Plane? It only makes sense from a strict game-balance perspective, not from an aesthetically pleasing combination, unlike the Druid.

The cleric is hyped as the go-to healer, regardless of subclass, but they're noticeably inferior to the task compared to vanilla druids and paladins, let alone specialized builds.

I mean, the class isn't all bad. I am looking forward to reaching level 17 as an Arcana Cleric (that level is a huge game-changer) and Tempest/Light Cleric are serviceable as pure blasters, especially if your DM lets you abuse Contagion/Conjure Celestial. Badly-designed does not equal weak.

But like with the sorcerer, the entire design of the class fights against you unless you play your character in a certain way. And unlike the sorcerer, there are fewer ways for the cleric to move off of the beaten path even in the hands of a skilled player. Sorcerer can pull off some unusual tricks like Sorceradin or Stealthy Spells In Town Guy (subtle spell) or even the whole business of Divine Sorcerer.

Daphne

2018-04-12, 05:48 PM

I contend the sorcerer to be the most poorly designed.

And I have to agree

Spell selection: Your spell list is almost the same as the Wizard's and in some aspects wierdly limited (no Named Mage spells? Why?), plus you get no unique spells. Oh and don't forget that you have the smallest number of spells known of any primary caster, less than some secondary casters even, and can only swap out one at each level if you make a mistake in your selection. But at least you get the most cantrips!

Another thing about the spell list that also bothers me is the fact it does not match the flavor or theme of some Origins, only Divine Soul avoided this issue by being able to choose spells rom the Cleric List.

We'll also throw in the ability to interchange between them, but if you make use of this feature you end up with a net loss of resources.

This is really a flaw on the class design, Flexible Casting becomes a trap option. I didn't notice this issue for a very long time.

the rest are very powerful and thus expensive to use.

I hate the fact that the class' defining feature can be used only once a day when you get it.

Pex

2018-04-12, 07:10 PM

I've had no issues using metamagic. I'm partial to Twin and Subtle, but every once in a while I'll regret not having Empower. :smallamused:

sophontteks

2018-04-13, 08:41 AM

While there is not much for variety in monk builds, their ability to run up walls, across water, and down pits at-will has strong implications both in and out of battle. It allows them to tackle problems from many different angles.

ruy343

2018-04-13, 10:19 AM

OK, understanding that your metric of "good design" is a class's ability to be played as a variety of different characters within the same scaffold, I have some responses:

Monks are often viewed as being same-y because on paper, (because of the ability to perform stunning strike), and they do all share a wide plethora of abilities. However, a great deal of versatility is availabile to monks between the subclasses, with 4-elements monks taking the cake for different options available to them. I know that others are gonna jump on the hate train for this, but you've got to consider the subclass-that-shall-not-be-named, because it's actually viable, and can be great fun (never underestimate the ability to cast Gaseous Form on yourself for a few Ki points, for example). Naturally, 4-elements could be re-designed, but that's a topic for another time.

You also talk about wizards like there's only a handful of options that are viable (you mentioned Diviner, war magic, etc). Have you ever tried to play a Conjurer or a Transmuter? Sure, their abilities don't directly translate into combat prowess, but wizards don't have to be AoE damage dealers, and can in fact be a great asset to the team without doing much damage at all!

As an aside, if you're looking for a game system where any character can be anything, perhaps you should look outside of D&D. I highly suggest you take a look at the WOIN O.L.D. system, which allows for a more organic character generation system, free from "classes" which bottleneck you into one playstyle.

rbstr

2018-04-13, 10:53 AM

I think most of the 5e classes are pretty well designed at their base. Some subclasses are a bit wonky but overall they did a good job.

The biggest exception I've got is the Ranger. Now it's effective enough and its subclasses, except the the beastmaster, are all pretty good, but the base class features just aren't there. In particular the Favored Enemy and Terrain are over complicated and too situational. They also need to have more combat-centric feature at level 1...Fighters get a style and second wind, Paladins get lay on hands, pretty much everyone gets something that helps them fight except Rangers who get this tracking bonus thing.

A tertiary thing is that, IMO, the Ranger blasting spells like Lightning Arrow shouldn't require concentration.

Potato_Priest

2018-04-13, 12:04 PM

I have a different metric of worst class than the OP (for me it’s the one that is the least fun to play) and that goes to the warlock hands down. Warlocks have a tiny number of spells known from the smallest full caster list in the game, and they are exceedingly reliant on the very boring eldritch blast cantrip for offense in combat. They’re pretty mechanically sound, but for me they’re incredibly boring to play.

sophontteks

2018-04-13, 10:00 PM

Ogre Mage

2018-04-13, 10:11 PM

The ranger was the only one so bad they had to release a revised version.

mgshamster

2018-04-14, 09:45 AM

The ranger was the only one so bad they had to release a revised version.

And even then, it wasn't bad. It was just not well liked.

KorvinStarmast

2018-04-14, 09:59 AM

1. They are either getting an invisible shapeshifting familiar who may give spell resistance, or they are getting a buttload of cantrips. That alone is a ton of flexibility. Nope, that's the variant familiar from the MM (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/101243/22566), not the one summoned by the spell. (Then again, the DM can rule otherwise, and it probably doesn't break the game).
I agree on the cantrips thing with pact of tome. Dyndrilliac had a neat post of a Sorc 1 Warlock 12 MC that had a boat load of flexibility.
2. The spells they get are strong, always at max level, and the limited slots regen on a short rest. Taking an hour break is not hard to do.
Depends on the table/DM.

3. Their main attack cantrip is a solid piece of bread and butter that can have significant additional effects tacked on. Yeah, it has some nice option.

4. Eldritch invocations are no joke. Basically an additional feat list. Hmm. Some are low level spells cast at will. (My feylock had speak with animals at will ... fun and useful, both)

5. Charisma based spellcasting makes the class good at social encounters. Yeah.

6. Archtype features are no joke either. Like fiendish getting health on kill and 10d10 Hurl through hell. At level 14.

The only way they are limited is if they are put in situations where they can't short rest, which shouldn't be often. They should be able to cast a max level spell every encounter at least on top of their extensive other features. As designed, if you consider the design framework of about 6 encounters and 2 short rests per day, they fit in pretty well.

sophontteks

2018-04-14, 10:18 AM

MrStabby

2018-04-14, 12:04 PM

Warlocks aren't bad.
1. They are either getting an invisible shapeshifting familiar who may give spell resistance, or they are getting a buttload of cantrips. That alone is a ton of flexibility.
2. The spells they get are strong, always at max level, and the limited slots regen on a short rest. Taking an hour break is not hard to do.
3. Their main attack cantrip is a solid piece of bread and butter that can have significant additional effects tacked on.
4. Eldritch invocations are no joke. Basically an additional feat list.
5. Charisma based spellcasting makes the class good at social encounters.
6. Archtype features are no joke either. Like fiendish getting health on kill and 10d10 Hurl through hell.

The only way they are limited is if they are put in situations where they can't short rest, which shouldn't be often. They should be able to cast a max level spell every encounter at least on top of their extensive other features.

Yeah, I wasn't saying that Warlocks were bad - just that they generally played pretty much the same in practice. Almost all the PHB warlocks I have seen are flinging eldritch blasts turn after turn and using whatever spells can efficiently be used from their highest level spell slot. Having access to dissonant whispers isn't worth much at level 10 when there are better uses from a level 5 spell slot.

But to address your points - warlocks are very limited at times even when they get access to short rests. There are fights you can win easily - extra power makes no meaningful difference. There are those that are hard and ability to freely use more spells is useful but not super game changing. There are those that are very deadly where average power doesn't matter - it is the maximum spell power you can output in the fight that matters and it matters a great deal. It is the difference between survival and death. Warlocks being limited to a small fraction of their daily powers at once is actually very limiting.

JakOfAllTirades

2018-04-14, 12:58 PM

Yeah, I wasn't saying that Warlocks were bad - just that they generally played pretty much the same in practice. Almost all the PHB warlocks I have seen are flinging eldritch blasts turn after turn and using whatever spells can efficiently be used from their highest level spell slot. Having access to dissonant whispers isn't worth much at level 10 when there are better uses from a level 5 spell slot.

But to address your points - warlocks are very limited at times even when they get access to short rests. There are fights you can win easily - extra power makes no meaningful difference. There are those that are hard and ability to freely use more spells is useful but not super game changing. There are those that are very deadly where average power doesn't matter - it is the maximum spell power you can output in the fight that matters and it matters a great deal. It is the difference between survival and death. Warlocks being limited to a small fraction of their daily powers at once is actually very limiting.

I agree with all of the above, and I don't think any discussion of the Warlock's shortcomings is complete without mentioning the awful way Pact Magic and Mystic Arcana deal with upcasting, or fail to. The former are always upcast, whether it makes sense or not, and the latter can't be upcast.

Nor can Mystic Arcana be swapped out upon leveling up; an option available to most other casters. There's no reason for this restriction; Pact magic spells and invocations get the benefit of this feature, so why should Mystic Arcana be any different?

The Warlock is saddled with a number of limitations other full casters don't have deal with, apparently for the sake of making them "different." It really just makes them inferior and needlessly difficult to play.

The Ranger isn't the only class that needs to be revised: the Warlock should be next. Please!

Nifft

2018-04-14, 01:10 PM

The Ranger isn't the only class that needs to be revised: the Warlock should be next. Please!

Yeah the Warlock also wants a re-write.

It's so close to being a really great class.

MrStabby

2018-04-14, 02:44 PM

The Ranger isn't the only class that needs to be revised: the Warlock should be next. Please!

I think the ranger could do with a re-write. To my mind it is somewhere in between as bad as people claim and the "not as bad as people claim" crowd thing.

The problem is that it is so obviously comparable to the Paladin and fails to measure up in almost every way. Just looking through the levels:

Paladin gets at first level proficiency in all weapons and armour, ranger gets proficiency in some. Paladin gets lay on hands - a great healing ability and an extra resource. The ability to heal, cure disease and neutralise poison is like having three more spells known. They also get divine sense, a useful ability for identifying shape-changing fiends. Rangers get better at remembering stuff about a small subset of creatures. And tracking them. Oh and get get better at walking between the interesting places.

From level 2, Paladin will almost always have more spells prepared for the same level, can change spells on a rest and has a choice of more spells to chose from. Paladins have a better spell list (although to be fair there are some solid ranger spells as well). Even the better ranger spells the paladin can pick up next level anyway.

Level 3 the archetypes kick in. Paladin gets domain spells - an extra two per level and gets a channel divinity option. Quality does depend on archetype chosen but this is a pretty strong level. Ranger archetypes is potentially pretty powerful to be fair, or would be with better support. With Xanthar's guide you can get a whole d6 extra damage from an archetype through to the very decent "immunity to darkvision" ability.

Level 5 brings more spells for the paladin. Up to six more spells prepared than the ranger.

Level 6 the paladin gets her Aura - a true game changing ability. The ranger gets better at walking places again and remembering stuff about some enemies.

Level 7 there is an archetype feature (usually an aura again), from as weak as preventing being charmed, to the totally ridiculous oath of conquest ability or the Oath of Ancients resistance to spells. Likewise the ranger gets archetype options as well. Like the paladin these are situationally useful - a nice perk for the otherwise underwhelming beastmaster and some nice abilities for most of the other archetypes. On average though not matching up to the paladin auras - if nothing else the ability to impact more than one creature is pretty awesome.

It's all ok for the ranger though as level 8 provides that unique and powerful ranger ability. You become even better at walking places.

Level nine is where those nice level 3 spells kick in. Aura of vitality, Crusader's mantle, elemental weapon are all nice for the paladin and pretty great spells. The ranger specific spells are the disappointing lightning arrow, the "let's pretend it is OK conjure barrage" and then fire arrows - 12d6 fire damage for an action and a level 3 spell looks kind of OK, but not so much when spread over 6 turns and requires hitting each time. Not a great use of concentration. About the best you can say is that you get conjure animals to replace the druid when he is playing with level 5 spells instead (unless the druid isn't bored of the spell and just used their level five slot to be twice as effective as you with their action).

Level 10 is relatively weak for the paladin but immunity to fear is still nice. If you are playing oath of conquest it is still really nice to help your fear spells. Ranger instead can use a minute of their time to hide. I guess it is nice for a class that doesn't get minor illusion to put in place something to hide behind or access to the invisibility spell. But hey - a tenth level ability to take ten rounds to do what other classes can do in a fraction of the time is still better than nothing.

Level 11 is the big step up in power for classes - paladin gets a nice d8 bonus damage to each attack, and radiant as well which does all kinds of nice things to a number of undead. At two attacks, a bonus action and possibly a reaction attack each turn this stacks up pretty nicely. The ranger boost comes through their archetype once again- some of these abilities are genuinely pretty good and would have been cool, useful and very thematic at lower levels. And all of them are more situational than just doing a nice load of extra radiant damage every single hit.

I am going to stop here as beyond this it just gets even more depressing for the ranger. You can hide as a bonus action, like the rogue's cunning action but 12 levels later, without an option for expertise and without the disengage or dash options. I guess they didn't want the Ranger to be able to be used as a mobile hit and run style character. Really not it's style. At 18th level, where spells like wish are in play and meteor swarm is an example of a great source of damage you get to know the location of invisible creatures - unless they don't want you to and chose to hide. Meanwhile the paladin gets (again better spells) cleansing touch, a monumental capstone, a great increase in aura, and nice abilities like permanent protection from good and evil spells, resistance to death, free reaction attacks and so on. (to be fair steel wind strike and swift quiver at level 17 is good... at two spells per day (not that destructive wave or circle of power are bad)

The ranger is a class that might look interesting just it looks pretty underwhelming when stacked up against a comparable class. Of course it may be that the Paladin is over-endowed with awesome features.

Tanarii

2018-04-14, 03:20 PM

I've always viewed Sorc as the worst designed class, and Warlcok as the best. That's definitely true if viewed from a replay-ability point of view.

Morty

2018-04-14, 03:27 PM

Based on personal experience, I'd say rogues aren't very well designed. They've got a broad selection of skills outside of combat, but in combat... they're laser-focused on sneak attacks. Decision-making boils down to one question - "can I sneak attack"? If not, you make sure you can sneak attack. It's effective, but hopelessly dull.

The subclasses I also found underwhelming. I considered Inquisitive, before realizing its abilities are very situational, except for Insightful Fighting, which is of questionable value given all the other ways to get sneak attack. Scout, which I settled on eventually, just gave me some proficiencies and... a way to run away from enemies better. After which point the next ability would kick in at level 9.

Samayu

2018-04-14, 04:22 PM

This isn't the same definition of versatility as the OP, but I loved playing my monk due to its versatility. I could spend ki for a bonus attack, dodge, disengage or dash, as needed. I could prone, push or deny reactions. Unarmored movement, slow fall and wall-running. I had many options, and I could do things that nobody else could.

As a wizard, my spell book was thick. I had lots of different kinds of spells. Exploring a castle today? I'll prepare Knock. But as a sorcerer, I know only a limited number of spells. I can't afford to waste a known spell on a situational utility spell like Knock. The cool thing was that I could cast any spell I knew. Unfortunately, a sorcerer's known spells tend to be limited to the all-around best ones on the list. I think that fits the OP's definition of a bad class.

mephnick

2018-04-14, 04:35 PM

sophontteks

2018-04-14, 04:54 PM

I think the worst designed class is the Bard, so there.

I think it's a mess thematically and an affront to tradition. It's a full caster with a spell list whose focus is too narrow, which is alleviated by unfairly stealing other class's abilities before they get them causing friction at the table. Bardic Inspiration was implemented the most boring way possible and leads to it (IME) being forgotten completely in the moment. The Bard was the Arcane Half-Caster the game is missing and they ****ed it up.

Don't @ me.

True, they are only good because they are full casters (which makes them of course really good, one of the best.) I thought it was a cop out to avoid making such a versitile class.

However, all my objections are wiped away with the Glamour bard archtype. Linking performance to an enhanced charm, commanding enemies, battlefield control on inspiration, and no borrowing to be good like the lore college. I have a glamour bard and its just great. A social god.

Ivellius

2018-04-14, 10:34 PM

I think the worst designed class is the Bard, so there.

I think it's a mess thematically and an affront to tradition. It's a full caster with a spell list whose focus is too narrow, which is alleviated by unfairly stealing other class's abilities before they get them causing friction at the table. Bardic Inspiration was implemented the most boring way possible and leads to it (IME) being forgotten completely in the moment. The Bard was the Arcane Half-Caster the game is missing and they ****ed it up.

Don't @ me.

You're right about the Bard. I do like Bardic Inspiration, actually (though it's not super-interesting), but this class in general is poorly designed. People like it because it's a full caster, but its class options are very limited and need to be fairly narrow from a power perspective because of both the limited number and what they actually are.

sophontteks

2018-04-14, 11:03 PM

You're right about the Bard. I do like Bardic Inspiration, actually (though it's not super-interesting), but this class in general is poorly designed. People like it because it's a full caster, but it's class options are very limited and need to be fairly narrow from a power perspective because of both the limited number and what they actually are.
What do you mean? Full caster cha-based skill monkey limited?

Ivellius

2018-04-14, 11:50 PM

What do you mean? Full caster cha-based skill monkey limited?

No, the class options themselves are pretty bland because there are only 3 of them, and the class chassis itself has a lot of the power budget, given that it's a full caster and contains Bardic Inspiration. Thematically, I reckon you could also make a case that bards are much narrower than a lot of the other classes.

danpit2991

2018-04-15, 01:32 AM

Good breakdown.

Personally, to me any class that focuses on charisma already wins pretty big. Warlocks can compete with the best of them for the role of party face if they really focus on it. And at the very least their ability to intimidate/deceive will be very strong.

Long rest/short rest is DM dependent. But I feel that it would be hard for a DM to really punish a short rest though and it sure isn't breaking immersion either. If anything, denying the players a short rest is immersion-breaking. We take a break for an hour. How many times would a party take such a break in a day? They aren't machines. Killing is serious exhausting work. Such rests should happen all the time.

Compare to a long rest. This involves building a fire, temporary shelter, setting watch, removing armor, and remaining in the same place 8 times longer then a short rest. A long rest is a legitimate struggle to pull off and a huge risk.

For the warlock, his spellcasting is limitless. He just needs to catch his breath. And those few spells he can cast are all max level. Meanwhile the other casters only have a few max level spells to last the entire day, or longer. Reasonably the warlock should be casting more high level spells the most other casters, allowing him to bring out the big guns with little consequence every encounter.

As a player I would challenge the DM to give a good reason why the party cant take short rests between big fights. If the party was really pushed that hard, they should all be facing exhaustion checks.

Yeah, I wasn't saying that Warlocks were bad - just that they generally played pretty much the same in practice. Almost all the PHB warlocks I have seen are flinging eldritch blasts turn after turn and using whatever spells can efficiently be used from their highest level spell slot. Having access to dissonant whispers isn't worth much at level 10 when there are better uses from a level 5 spell slot.

But to address your points - warlocks are very limited at times even when they get access to short rests. There are fights you can win easily - extra power makes no meaningful difference. There are those that are hard and ability to freely use more spells is useful but not super game changing. There are those that are very deadly where average power doesn't matter - it is the maximum spell power you can output in the fight that matters and it matters a great deal. It is the difference between survival and death. Warlocks being limited to a small fraction of their daily powers at once is actually very limiting.

warlocks get my vote for "worst design" because imo they need too much home brew to be or seem to be as good as the other "full"casters
at my table we have solved the problem by having warlocks use spell points that refresh on a short rest this eliminates the "only 2 slots not going to waste it on a minor spell" problem and invocations that use slots become 1/lr spell like abilities that dont use slots and 99% of the Problems go away and makes it IMO actually playable

sophontteks

2018-04-15, 03:34 AM

No, the class options themselves are pretty bland because there are only 3 of them, and the class chassis itself has a lot of the power budget, given that it's a full caster and contains Bardic Inspiration. Thematically, I reckon you could also make a case that bards are much narrower than a lot of the other classes.
You mean the class features outside of the casting?
Most of the bards strongest flavor is in their achtypes, which was a problem when they only had two options (espesially since Lore was much better then Valor) but with the new material out having their strongest options tied to archtypes has made them one of the more versitile classes.

College of whispers, college of blades, and the college of glamour are all viable and their features significantly impact playstyle. Each also changes how inspiration is used and what their role is in the team.

I'm playing Glamour right now and the class features it receives are some of the strongest of any artype across all the classes. It comes complete with an enhanced performance which a juiced up consequence-free charm, a battlefield-reshaping use of inspiration, bonus action command every round, and a beefed up sanctuary.

Tanarii

2018-04-15, 09:14 AM

warlocks get my vote for "worst design" because imo they need too much home brew to be or seem to be as good as the other "full"casters
at my table we have solved the problem by having warlocks use spell points that refresh on a short rest this eliminates the "only 2 slots not going to waste it on a minor spell" problem and invocations that use slots become 1/lr spell like abilities that dont use slots and 99% of the Problems go away and makes it IMO actually playable
This all too common "fix" turns Warlocks from a top Tier class into OP.

Sahe

2018-04-15, 09:25 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2018-04-15, 09:27 AM

This all too common "fix" turns Warlocks from a top Tier class into OP.

Agreed. I had a 1-20 warlock who did very well, despite only rarely using EB. His go-to was telekinesis once we got to those levels. Throwing people off buildings changes fights real well.

The druid, despite being a full caster, was much less effective.

MrStabby

2018-04-15, 09:42 AM

This all too common "fix" turns Warlocks from a top Tier class into OP.

I see this quite a bit, although not so much usually with warlock. Sorcerer is the worst - an exceptionally powerful class constrained only by the spells known to it, and then people try an implement homebrew "fixes" that remove this restriction. Totally unneeded and takes an already powerful class over the top.

No, the class options themselves are pretty bland because there are only 3 of them, and the class chassis itself has a lot of the power budget, given that it's a full caster and contains Bardic Inspiration. Thematically, I reckon you could also make a case that bards are much narrower than a lot of the other classes.
I think it works pretty well. I have been able to build a lot of different types of character this way. I think that there are somethings that could be improved. Bardic inspiration and magical secrets are the core of the class identity and it is possible to not get magical secrets until level 10. I think giving the iconic abilities a little earlier would be better and give more of a chance to determine the flavour of bard to build.

I like bardic inspiration as a tool. It gives a nice support ability, a class unique use of a bonus action.

You're right about the Bard. I do like Bardic Inspiration, actually (though it's not super-interesting), but this class in general is poorly designed. People like it because it's a full caster, but its class options are very limited and need to be fairly narrow from a power perspective because of both the limited number and what they actually are.

I find the opposite of this - the power of the bardic inspiration is in the ability to enhance and support other classes. You are as flexible as the party you are with. I also think that the inspiration is about the right level - frequently usable, quickly gets to short rest uses and the bonus action means it can run alongside your main abilities.

sophontteks

2018-04-15, 09:44 AM

Tiefling warlock's darkness plus fiendish sight is powerful in its own right. Not many things can see through magic darkness.
No, I don't really understand how the warlock is weak.

I agree with bardic inspiration being pretty good. People also enjoy rolling extra die at the table. Giving players a free die they can use is a good way to make friends with everybody. Though early on the guidance cantrip is a bit better out of combat.

At level 1-2 I'm using most my die on the party leader to help vs. traps and perception. Or I give it to the scout in case they roll low on stealth. Its nice security for them early on. By level 3 it probably won't see any use. Glamour bards use inspiration to give temp hp to the entire party with a free evasion dash. It kinda blows regular inspiration out of the water.

EDIT: Someone has to mention this. Jack of all trades is a ridiculously strong ability. Its not skill checks. Its ability checks.
Half my profeciency to initiative? Yes please.
Half my profeciency to a strength check? Sure.

Tanarii

2018-04-15, 10:31 AM

I see this quite a bit, although not so much usually with warlock. Sorcerer is the worst - an exceptionally powerful class constrained only by the spells known to it, and then people try an implement homebrew "fixes" that remove this restriction. Totally unneeded and takes an already powerful class over the top.It is important to note there's a pretty huge disparity between "poorly designed" and power.

I think warlocks are well designed. Because they can be tuned to do a lot of interesting things, and they have an interesting and balanced spell casting mechanic that sets them apart and gives them a niche. I can totally understand how someone that doesn't like having 1 big spell per encounter as opposed to 1.5-2.5 weaker spells* would think they're poorly designed. But their power is indisputable, warlocks are fairly powerful.

I think sorcerers are fairly poorly designed, at least in the PHB. They're a little too much one trick pony, unlike the warlock. But again, they are plenty powerful.

I think Beastmaster Rangers had a few flaws with bonus action contention, but we're otherwise well designed. And Rangers in general are well designed, except that Natural explorer should work in all terrains for everything except the expertise effect. But plenty of people disagree with me on one or both of those, and the fact I need to make caveats clearly shows I don't actually think they're that well designed, and have a pro-ranger bias. :smallbiggrin: But the o.g. ranger, including the Beastmaster, is plenty powerful. The minor power ups in the revised ranger (to intuitive and beasts) weren't needed.

*in Tier 2, ie the common levels of play

Sigreid

2018-04-15, 10:47 AM

It is important to note there's a pretty huge disparity between "poorly designed" and power.

I think warlocks are well designed. Because they can be tuned to do a lot of interesting things, and they have an interesting and balanced spell casting mechanic that sets them apart and gives them a niche. I can totally understand how someone that doesn't like having 1 big spell per encounter as opposed to 1.5-2.5 weaker spells* would think they're poorly designed. But their power is indisputable, warlocks are fairly powerful.

I think sorcerers are fairly poorly designed, at least in the PHB. They're a little too much one trick pony, unlike the warlock. But again, they are plenty powerful.

I think Beastmaster Rangers had a few flaws with bonus action contention, but we're otherwise well designed. And Rangers in general are well designed, except that Natural explorer should work in all terrains for everything except the expertise effect. But plenty of people disagree with me on one or both of those, and the fact I need to make caveats clearly shows I don't actually think they're that well designed, and have a pro-ranger bias. :smallbiggrin: But the o.g. ranger, including the Beastmaster, is plenty powerful. The minor power ups in the revised ranger (to intuitive and beasts) weren't needed.

*in Tier 2, ie the common levels of play

At our table we let the natural explorer work in all environments. While they are capable combatants, a reasonable argument can be made that you really bring them along to keep everyone alive no matter where the DM puts you.

Tanarii

2018-04-15, 10:56 AM

At our table we let the natural explorer work in all environments. While they are capable combatants, a reasonable argument can be made that you really bring them along to keep everyone alive no matter where the DM puts you.
Absolutely, that's their Schtick. Survivalist/Scout. The change to make all the special bulletpoints of Natural explorer work in all terrains was one of the more inspired changes of the revised ranger. Especially if you get a DM that thinks in terms of micro terrains (patches of terrain a few miles across) instead of kingdom or continent level terrain.

I didn't like that they yanked the pseudo-expertise from it. Personally I'm of too minds on that one. I'm not sure if allows it in all natural terrains would be balanced, or if that portion of natural explorer (and none of the others) should remain as a terrain specific feature. I'm inclined to think the latter, since it broadly applies. Otoh most Rangers I see only have 1-3 Int/Wis proficiencies anyway, so it's basically balanced as expertise already.

Sigreid

2018-04-15, 11:04 AM

Absolutely, that's their Schtick. Survivalist/Scout. The change to make all the special bulletpoints of Natural explorer work in all terrains was one of the more inspired changes of the revised ranger. Especially if you get a DM that thinks in terms of micro terrains (patches of terrain a few miles across) instead of kingdom or continent level terrain.

I didn't like that they yanked the pseudo-expertise from it. Personally I'm of too minds on that one. I'm not sure if allows it in all natural terrains would be balanced, or if that portion of natural explorer (and none of the others) should remain as a terrain specific feature. I'm inclined to think the latter, since it broadly applies. Otoh most Rangers I see only have 1-3 Int/Wis proficiencies anyway, so it's basically balanced as expertise already.

I would just allow the expertise. I don't see it as game breaking and it lets them feel special at what they do.

danpit2991

2018-04-15, 01:29 PM

This all too common "fix" turns Warlocks from a top Tier class into OP.

haven't noticed any OP ness in play just more flexibility with casting. im sure that someone has don all the math and comparisons

that "show" how OP this is but math theory and actual play are different , the math "shows that warlocks are perfectly balanced but in actual play they are (in my and many others opinion) incredibly underwhelming. to often theory and practice are all to different

Tanarii

2018-04-15, 01:43 PM

haven't noticed any OP ness in play just more flexibility with casting. im sure that someone has don all the math and comparisons

that "show" how OP this is but math theory and actual play are different , the math "shows that warlocks are perfectly balanced but in actual play they are (in my and many others opinion) incredibly underwhelming. to often theory and practice are all to different
In theory, they would be balanced against each other, because spell points.

But in practice, spell points are already an OP option. There's no way that can't be worse for a class that uses fewer slots at max power.

Edit: and in practice, warlocks are anything but underwhelming, unless your DM makes short rests difficult.

I mean, Sorcerers aren't underwhelming. Rangers aren't underwhelming. Just because you or I don't like the design choices made for various classes doesn't make them underwhelming on the power front.

Whereas you've taken a class with above average power, in practice, and given it more.

(I take "worst designed" to be an opinion, not metric thing. Unlike power.)

MrStabby

2018-04-15, 01:52 PM

In theory, they would be balanced against each other, because spell points.

But in practice, spell points are already an OP option. There's no way that can't be worse for a class that uses fewer slots at max power.

Edit: and in practice, warlocks are anything but underwhelming, unless your DM makes short rests difficult.

I mean, Sorcerers aren't underwhelming. Rangers aren't underwhelming. Just because you or I don't like the design choices made for various classes doesn't make them underwhelming on the power front.

(I take "worst designed" to be an opinion, not metric thing. Unlike power.)

I would say power is just as much an opinion as anything else. If there was only one encounter type, one save type one damage type, one status effect no out of combat abilities and a whole load of other restrictions then it might be possible to objectively say one thing is better than another if there was a nice simple scale that everything could be measured on.

As for warlocks being underwhelming when short rests are difficult - it isn't short rests that are the problem but long rests. If the game has enough long rests that other casters in combat are using levelled spells rather than cantrips for most of the time then a warlock is pretty sucky. As long as long rests are sufficiently infrequent and with enough challenging encounters between them to deplete resources then warlocks are OK.

Potato_Priest

2018-04-15, 02:13 PM

The beast master ranger may be adequately powerful, but I'd argue that it's still poorly designed, or at least poorly advertised.

I've seen it on multiple occasions: someone (most likely to be a new player) picks the beast master ranger expecting to become a team of man and beast fighting together, and is profoundly disappointed when it doesn't happen. They then often decide to reroll with a new class or subclass within a few sessions. It might help if the beast master wasn't advertised like it is in the description of the subclass and the italicized text at the beginning of the ranger class, but really the more accurate description of "a ranger who has a pet they occasionally use for scouting and utility" isn't generally what most people want from the class either.

Regardless of how powerful the beast master ranger is it doesn't do what most players want and expect it to do, making the game less fun for them, and that is bad design.

Tanarii

2018-04-15, 03:09 PM

I've seen it on multiple occasions: someone (most likely to be a new player) picks the beast master ranger expecting to become a team of man and beast fighting together, and is profoundly disappointed when it doesn't happen. They then often decide to reroll with a new class or subclass within a few sessions. It might help if the beast master wasn't advertised like it is in the description of the subclass and the italicized text at the beginning of the ranger class, but really the more accurate description of "a ranger who has a pet they occasionally use for scouting and utility" isn't generally what most people want from the class either.
I played a Beastmaster for a while. The PC and Companion were very much a team in combat. OTOH it wasn't an primary archer ranger or TWF ranger, the latter because the animal attacking doesn't trigger TWF. But it works great as a team taking up two spaces for tactical blocking, and being in two places for possible OAs.

The revised Beastmaster only really makes two major changes: tougher companions (especially with ASIs), and enabling TWF Rangers. They get the same number of attacks and still take up two spaces on the battlefield.

MrStabby

2018-04-15, 05:45 PM

I find it difficult to judge the beastmaster. On the one hand i never want to play one - when I consider which classes i might consider it is never really on the list. On the other hand i don't get the attraction of the fluff part either - guy whose special thing is actually someone else just doesn't appeal to me. The execution would be perfect and i still wouldn't like it so I tend to hold back judgement.

The core ranger elements I do see the attraction in and i could get building that character, but I always feel i could build a scout/druid/fighter that would fill the role of the ranger better.

Rebonack

2018-04-15, 07:33 PM

In theory, they would be balanced against each other, because spell points.

But in practice, spell points are already an OP option. There's no way that can't be worse for a class that uses fewer slots at max power.

Edit: and in practice, warlocks are anything but underwhelming, unless your DM makes short rests difficult.

Warlocks are balanced with other full casters provided they get two short rests per day and all of their spells cast aren't wasting any spell levels. This is a fact. The math has been done plenty of times. If a level 9 Warlock is dropping nothing but Synaptic Static then all is well. But if they burn a spell slot on Shield? Well, suddenly they're falling far behind on the power curve. Allowing a Warlock to run off spell-points insures that they get the same mileage out of each short rest regardless of which spells the situation calls for.

Using spellpoints does make the Warlock more powerful. Flexibility IS a type of power, after all. But more importantly, it makes them feel less punishing, if that's the right word. It feels really bad to burn a fifth level spell slot on a third or second level spell. And each time that happens, they're getting thrown further out of tempo with the long-rest full casters. Spellpoints amends that issue and keeps them on-par with the long-resters.

And as far as personal anecdotes go, I've had experience with both spell slot and spell point Warlocks. The difference basically came down to the ability to plop a level 1 Hex after expending the big guns as something to fall back on. It was hardly 'OP' or 'game breaking' by any means.

sophontteks

2018-04-15, 11:39 PM

That would be true if warlocks, like other full casters, rely entirely on their spells. I mean, excepting the broken multiclassing dip to warlock, the warlock uniquely has a cantrip that hits on par with martial classes at range and pushes opponents back and into AOEs and off cliffs.

Then they have invocations for the utility but the bottom line is, they are not a utility class. They are a dps class with social and scouting abilities. If they have the utility of a wizard, why play a wizard?

Tanarii

2018-04-16, 08:02 AM

But if they burn a spell slot on Shield?Warlocks don't get Shield. Their spell list is made with an eye to either being out of combat casts with a SR before you need to cast again (note Warlocks excel in this situation), being upcastable, or being swapped out for higher level slots.

Using spellpoints does make the Warlock more powerful. Flexibility IS a type of power, after all. But more importantly, it makes them feel less punishing, if that's the right word. It feels really bad to burn a fifth level spell slot on a third or second level spell.Yes it does make them more powerful. And why on earth are you keeping 2nd or 3rd level spells that aren't upcastable or non-combat on your spell list? That's not their intended design. If you do so, of course you get less out of it, and allowing warlocks to do so makes them vastly more powerful. As you note.

And as far as personal anecdotes go, I've had experience with both spell slot and spell point Warlocks. The difference basically came down to the ability to plop a level 1 Hex after expending the big guns as something to fall back on. It was hardly 'OP' or 'game breaking' by any means.Yes. It is. It's not intended that high level warlocks should be able to easily 'break off' level 1 Hex-sized chunks of their spell slots so they don't have to worry about concentration to get Hex all day long.

MrStabby

2018-04-16, 08:17 AM

"not intended" is not the same thing as broken or overpowered. The designers did intend it to work a certain way. It is fine to think that way is a mistake.

I think the big drawback with warlocks is that they have so little thematic consistency. At one level they cast a certain spell, the next they forget it. Each spell level feels like a whole new spell list rather than building on what is already there.

Spell points make a warlock a little more powerful but a lot more fun. In terms of not creating something overpowered I would be more comfortable adding spell points to a warlock than adding more spells known to a sorcerer. Having played both the sorcerer is a lot more powerful and flexible in what it can achieve.

Dr. Cliché

2018-04-16, 10:12 AM

Personally I think Moon Druids are up there as the worst designed, or at least worst explained.

Your main subclass feature is 100% dependent on seeing the right beasts. Your power is all over the place. And most importantly, the rules for how it works are so darn confusing there isn't a good answer to anything related to it.

The answer to at least 95% of the questions about a Moon Druid is "Ask your DM"

All that being said, I'm playing a Moon Druid and like the class quite a bit.

The thing that I dislike about Moon Druid is that animal forms don't scale. So if I want to be a wolf-themed Moon Druid, I have wolves, dire wolves and then I either pick a different animal or else use ones that have become outclassed. Might have been nice if we could turn into Monstrosities instead of Elementals (so we could use stuff like Winter Wolves). Or if there were some more generic animal templates that scaled with level.

Transformation in general is also weird in 5e. It seems like we're possessing animals, rather than turning

The Sorcerer breaks my heart. I feel like almost everything it should have been good at was stolen by another class.

I'm naturally talented at magic to an insane degree, so do I get a lot of spells known? No, in fact I get the least, and prepared casters almost always get a larger spells prepared list than I get a spells known list (the exception is Billy the 3 INT wizard, and even then not at high levels). Lord, the Paladin has theoretically broader day to day spell selection.

Do I get the most slots? No, I have the same slots as everybody else, and both the Warlock and Wizard have better spell recovery mechanisms.

Do I at least get a large spell list to pick from? No, I get a stripped down version of the Wizard list.

Do I get a bunch of effects I can apply to my spells? Yes, but they vary a lot in usefulness.

I'd love the Sorcerer and play it to bits if it got as many spells as the Bard. But it gets so few spells that once I start making one it ends up abandoned because I had to choose between interesting option and useful option.

So much this. I really want to like the sorcerer, but playing one just makes me regret picking it over Warlock or Wizard.

Zippdementia

2018-04-16, 11:12 AM

Classes are just a way to get the job done and inform you on how that happens (ie. Wizards use spells to change the game rules, barbarians place themselves in tough positions in battle and try to rack up kills, monks stun lock, etc.) No class is good or bad because hopefully your DnD game isn't just a board game where its stats versus stats. Hopefully there's also villains that frighten the players, difficult moral decisions that challenge them, and epic situations they can talk about for years to come.

In 3.5, good and bad was much easier to define because of the huge variance in bonuses. But with bonded accuracy, the game has changed quite a bit. A +2 bonus to a weapon is pretty massive now. As such, differences between classes have become more about window dressing and less about overall effectiveness.

In terms of versatility, you definitely are gong to get more out of the magic casting classes because that's what magic is: versatile. You will get less out of the pure hitters, like certain fighter builds, barbarians, and monks, because they have the main tactic of running in and hitting stuff. They don't have other options. So I think OP called it pretty good by his own definition. I just wonder if the question has much value in DnD 5, in that I'm not really sure it is something that needs to be "fixed"

PhoenixPhyre

2018-04-16, 11:15 AM

In terms of versatility, you definitely are gong to get more out of the magic casting classes because that's what magic is: versatile. You will get less out of the pure hitters, like certain fighter builds, barbarians, and monks, because they have the main tactic of running in and hitting stuff. They don't have other options. So I think OP called it pretty good by his own definition. I just wonder if the question has much value in DnD 5, in that I'm not really sure it is something that needs to be "fixed"

They don't have other mechanically defined options, but 5e's philosophy is fiction first, not mechanics first. Mechanics are there to support the game interface, not to dictate what the fiction can be.

Just because some people don't like using their words and instead want to use the rules as weapons doesn't make it right

Pex

2018-04-16, 12:21 PM

They don't have other mechanically defined options, but 5e's philosophy is fiction first, not mechanics first. Mechanics are there to support the game interface, not to dictate what the fiction can be.

Just because some people don't like using their words and instead want to use the rules as weapons doesn't make it right

Wielding a Rulesword, a Ruleshield, and have the Ruleslawyer feat means I deal 1d8 + 1d6 + ST + Proficiency damage while resistant to flamewar, thank you very much.

Nifft

2018-04-16, 12:24 PM

Wielding a Rulesword, a Ruleshield, and have the Ruleslawyer feat means I deal 1d8 + 1d6 + ST + Proficiency damage while resistant to flamewar, thank you very much.

Found the Rulescarred Berserker.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-04-16, 12:28 PM

Wielding a Rulesword, a Ruleshield, and have the Ruleslawyer feat means I deal 1d8 + 1d6 + ST + Proficiency damage while resistant to flamewar, thank you very much.

Found the Rulescarred Berserker.

Doesn't that build suffer a crippling vulnerability to thrown-book type damage?

Tanarii

2018-04-16, 01:36 PM

"not intended" is not the same thing as broken or overpowered. The designers did intend it to work a certain way. It is fine to think that way is a mistake.
The logic applied is inevitably "the warlock intentionally doesnt work like the other full spellcasters, but I refuse to accept that and want it to work like them."

It's not fine to call it a mistake that it's intentionally different from other casters, because thats what distinguishes the Warlock class.

danpit2991

2018-04-16, 01:37 PM

In theory, they would be balanced against each other, because spell points.

snipped
(I take "worst designed" to be an opinion, not metric thing. Unlike power.)

snipped

As for warlocks being underwhelming when short rests are difficult - it isn't short rests that are the problem but long rests. If the game has enough long rests that other casters in combat are using levelled spells rather than cantrips for most of the time then a warlock is pretty sucky. As long as long rests are sufficiently infrequent and with enough challenging encounters between them to deplete resources then warlocks are OK.

exactly it is my opinion that warlocks lag behind in play due to the lack of casting versatility because of limited slots, power wise the math adds up to balance, but in play the feel is that they are underwhelming compared to other casters who have far more slots sure yours are max level but for most of your time you have 2 slots (6 with 2s/r) but it still comes out to 2 slots per encounter and that IMOfeels weak and underwhelming ,especially since a warlock is supposed to be a caster and often the most effective thing you can do is EB spam in that case you might as well have been a EK with a bow and got more slots to use...im not saying that i haven't had fun with warlock i was just forced to adjust my view on their "role" once i did that and realized that they did better as a "5th man" supporting the primary caster,tank ect and focused on the social pillar did the warlock become a reasonably fulfilling character to play, still had to use spellpoints to make that happen though

Rebonack

2018-04-18, 11:54 AM

Warlocks don't get Shield. Their spell list is made with an eye to either being out of combat casts with a SR before you need to cast again (note Warlocks excel in this situation), being upcastable, or being swapped out for higher level slots.

Hexblade gets it. And it was chosen as the example simply to provide an extreme edge-case of what I'm talking about. Warlocks are balanced around the assumption that they will get two short rests worth of max level spell usage to come up to par with the long-rest full casters. Casting utility/defensive spells that don't scale breaks that assumption. And a pretty big chunk of the Warlock spell list is filled with spells that don't scale. I'm still absolutely baffled why signature spells like Hunger of Hadar don't have any upcast scaling to speak of. Having to constantly swap out spells that lag behind leaves their already pretty threadbare spell list desperately thin.

That's part of the problem, I think. Warlock doesn't need spell points so much as they need a spell list that actually interacts with their core feature. But adding upcast options and new spells all over the place requires far more work than using the spellpoint variant with them. As a result, many tables go with the spellpoint option.

Yes it does make them more powerful. And why on earth are you keeping 2nd or 3rd level spells that aren't upcastable or non-combat on your spell list? That's not their intended design. If you do so, of course you get less out of it, and allowing warlocks to do so makes them vastly more powerful. As you note.

Because certain spells better represent a given Warlock's patron than others. And being 'forced' to swap them out because Wizards didn't have the foresight to realize that a class that automatically upcasts all spells would need a list full of spells that can be upcast is pretty not-fun. It feels like you're playing a Pokemon instead of a person.

Yes. It is. It's not intended that high level warlocks should be able to easily 'break off' level 1 Hex-sized chunks of their spell slots so they don't have to worry about concentration to get Hex all day long.

I think we may be operating under different definitions of what 'game breaking' and 'vastly more powerful' consists of. I would consider nonsense like the Coffee Sorlock to be game breaking. A Warlock who poaches three to four levels in Sorcerer and flattens everything with Quickened Agonizing Eldritch Blasts is vastly more powerful. Both of those are pretty likely to make other players feel trivialized, which is ultimately what 'balance' in D&D is striving to avoid.

Do you have table experience with a spellpoint variant Warlock? Did other players express concern over the Warlock being able to cast an extra Misty Step before taking a short rest?

Submortimer

2018-04-18, 06:55 PM

It is my personal belief that, for 5e, sorcerer was a total mistake.

1. The sorcerer lost its most unique mechanic, that of being able to freely cast whatever spells it knew as needed. Since that is the baseline style of casting in 5e, the sorcerer lost its niche.

2. The game has, effectively, 6 full casters: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, Warlock (kind of. It still gets 9th level spells), and wizard. Of those, 2 are wisdom, 3 are charisma, and 1 is intelligence. There should have been one less charisma class, and one more intelligence class.

3. The wizard can do all of the best things a sorcerer can do in terms of spells, and then some. Sure, no Metamagic, but plenty of other fantastic abilities and ritual casting makes them arguably much more valuable to general play.

My thought? They should have dropped the sorcerer, and replaced it with the Psionicist. Specifically made it use spell points (pp), made it an Int class, and had it simply imitate spell effects. You could even keep Metamagic and whatnot. The big crux would have been the inclusion of Psionic specific spells.

Kane0

2018-04-18, 07:49 PM

-Snip-

Or alternatively, kept the 'lock as an in Int caster and given the Sorc DMG spell points by default.

Tanarii

2018-04-18, 08:21 PM

Or alternatively, kept the 'lock as an in Int caster and given the Sorc DMG spell points by default.
Yeah that's the path I would have gone. Sorcs could have happily been moved into psionics old niche of point based spell casting. With a bit less "scary mind powers" feels.

Of course, they'd have to sacrifice something for the gain in power.

Ganymede

2018-04-18, 08:23 PM

Tanarii

2018-04-18, 08:26 PM

It makes the ranger, a class with ostensibly the same chassis, look ridiculous.
Yeah, but Rangers can be effective stealthers and ranged attackers! Clearly that makes up for everything.

Obviously in the right kind of campaign, it does. But Most campaigns appear to be based around the idea that melee and ranged are about the same effectiveness.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-04-18, 08:29 PM

Yeah, but Rangers can be effective stealthers and ranged attackers! Clearly that makes up for everything.

Obviously in the right kind of campaign, it does. But Most campaigns appear to be based around the idea that melee and ranged are about the same effectiveness.

Doing some vague preparation to run Out of the Abyss has given me more appreciation for the ranger's skillset than I had before. I still don't think the class is interesting, but that adventure becomes much easier to run with an Underdark ranger in the party. That's probably its greatest virtue as a class - that it makes a lot of what the DM has to do easier.

Garfunion

2018-04-18, 09:11 PM

The sorcerer is probably the worst design class in my opinion. Many of the caster classes can perform the same tricks that a sorcerer can do. Leaving the sorcerer feeling extremely lackluster.

mgshamster

2018-04-18, 10:50 PM

I feel like trying to determine which class is the worst designed is like trying to figure out which mile marker on the freeway is the longest by measuring them in millimeters.

Sure, you can technically claim that the mile at marker 18 isn't actually a mile and is measurably longer than the mile at marker 28. But they're close enough for all practical purposes.

Kane0

2018-04-18, 11:16 PM

When I read 'class design', I posted in consideration of elegance and function rather than mechanical power and versatility. Granted it's just as an inaccurate and subjective a metric as the others, but still.

Edit: Frenzy barbarian deserves special mention though. You can weaken and eventually kill yourself by using your signature class feature, are encouraged to do so, and introducing feats into your game renders the benefits redundant. That is a failure of game design.

mephnick

2018-04-19, 01:01 AM

Zalabim

2018-04-19, 03:26 AM

I think Beastmaster Rangers had a few flaws with bonus action contention, but we're otherwise well designed. And Rangers in general are well designed, except that Natural explorer should work in all terrains for everything except the expertise effect. But plenty of people disagree with me on one or both of those, and the fact I need to make caveats clearly shows I don't actually think they're that well designed, and have a pro-ranger bias. :smallbiggrin: But the o.g. ranger, including the Beastmaster, is plenty powerful. The minor power ups in the revised ranger (to intuitive and beasts) weren't needed.[/SIZE]
Switching back and forth between expertise and not is one of the most annoying parts of my ranger experience, just for the record. It's far worse when dealing with online tools than it is on actual tabletop though.

I played a Beastmaster for a while. The PC and Companion were very much a team in combat. OTOH it wasn't an primary archer ranger or TWF ranger, the latter because the animal attacking doesn't trigger TWF. But it works great as a team taking up two spaces for tactical blocking, and being in two places for possible OAs.

The revised Beastmaster only really makes two major changes: tougher companions (especially with ASIs), and enabling TWF Rangers. They get the same number of attacks and still take up two spaces on the battlefield.
The differences with Coordinated Attack instead of Extra Attack are subtle changes, but really have big implications to me. You're using your beast's reaction (aside from initiative timing issues that get in the way sometimes), so the beast conclave general only threatens one OA again, and with no extra attack as a backup, the beast conclave requires its pet to be more useful in combat. It's a more direct combat application with less elegance and subtlety.

I always thought the original Beastmaster sharing attacks with the pet felt great in terms of fighting side by side wih a companion. Revised just makes it another boring pet class with an independant animal. Poor survivability of the pet was bad design though.
The headcanon I have is that the ranger is using their action to create an opening for the beast to land an attack. It's part of the broader narrative that melee combat isn't static pieces exchanging swings with attack rolls, but that attack rolls represent the possible openings your character can take advantage of amidst the usual thrusts, guards, steps, and turns of a melee battle.

Dr. Cliché

2018-04-19, 04:06 AM

Jerrykhor

2018-04-19, 04:53 AM

I always thought the original Beastmaster sharing attacks with the pet felt great in terms of fighting side by side wih a companion. Revised just makes it another boring pet class with an independant animal. Poor survivability of the pet was bad design though.

PHB Beastmaster is simply awful. Really, why does it feel great to have a remote control pet that only does something if you press a button? How many times must you tell it to attack your enemy before it finally gets the point that this creature must be killed?

And why should you sacrifice your own attack for the pets again, when yours is usually stronger? It just makes no sense.

Then there's the 'Move stealthily at normal pace in favored terrain with only your pet'. This is the pinnacle of rubbish design. There's so many boxes to be ticked for a pointless gain. I think anyone can tell you that speed is not important when stealthing. If you have to be alone with your pet, it means you don't plan on engaging in combat, so why bring the pet again? So that it can get spotted, die and you don't get to sleep tonight?

Daphne

2018-04-19, 06:23 AM

The Paladin is definitely the worst designed class in 5th Edition.

It is utterly brimming with first-class abilities, excellent equipment options, and loads of flexibility. A paladin's presence in a group makes every encounter easier than it ordinarily would be. It makes the ranger, a class with ostensibly the same chassis, look ridiculous.

I have to agree, the Paladin gets too much stuff, especially after level 6, it's Aura after Aura. But it doesn't get much attention because most of what it gets is support oriented.

Tanarii

2018-04-19, 11:08 AM

Edit: Frenzy barbarian deserves special mention though. You can weaken and eventually kill yourself by using your signature class feature, are encouraged to do so, and introducing feats into your game renders the benefits redundant. That is a failure of game design.Point. Taking a penalty for use of a feature isn't bad, and it should be powerful if it does that. But like Warlock spell slots, for certain players it can feel a little meh if it's the only thing you get. Being made fairly redundant, or at least having most of it's benefits gained for an alternate cost, from an optional but extremely commonly used rule is definitely an issue.

I always thought the original Beastmaster sharing attacks with the pet felt great in terms of fighting side by side wih a companion. Revised just makes it another boring pet class with an independant animal. Poor survivability of the pet was bad design though.
Agreed on the shared attacks/actions thing. It really drives home the "fights as a team" aspect of the Beastmaster, as well as addressing action economy issues. It was very intuitive and made perfect sense both mechanically and in the fiction.

Unfortunately it appears many people don't agree with us. :smallyuk:

I never had a major issue with pet survivability, but I only played into Tier 2.

KorvinStarmast

2018-04-19, 11:14 AM

Edit: Frenzy barbarian deserves special mention though. You can weaken and eventually kill yourself by using your signature class feature, are encouraged to do so, and introducing feats into your game renders the benefits redundant. That is a failure of game design. I think the failure is not in the class, but in the Exhaustion condition. It should be restorable with a 2d level spell, lesser restoration. If you can cure disease, and cure being paralyzed with Lesser Restoration, then why not exhaustion. (Likewise with Paladin Lay On Hands ...)

It takes a party resource, which is fine. We ran a jungle adventure a year or so ago, in which the DM had us make exhaustion checks with some frequency, (even the unarmored monk?). Exhaustion is, quite frankly, overly penal as a condition in terms of recover. A full rest to restore one level, OK. that's good. A fifth level spell to restore one level? Really? WHy not " one level with lesser restoration, all levels with Greater Restoration?"

Have the devs answered that question?

strangebloke

2018-04-19, 11:36 AM

I'm of the opposite opinion. Original ranger completely goes against reality, verisimilitude and common sense, whilst Revised Ranger is the one that makes the concept fun and playable.

Ranger gets a bad rap. They get a lot of ribbons that don't do much, and some of their late-level features are just rogue features.

But they're actually fantastic. A hunter attack is 1d8+1d8+1d6+10+5 = 27.5, which is great damage for a half-martial for almost no resources expended, especially when they're doing that from 300 feet out. They can keep up with the attack progression of a fighter via volley and eventually swift quiver.

They get compared a lot to paladins, and paladins are great, so rangers look a little less shiny, but here's the thing: Rangers are way more flexible than paladins.

Paladin out-of-combat-utility? He has good charisma, which can be good with charisma-based skills.
Paladin at range? He can have a bow, which almost none of his base class features will work with. (devotion can enchant it, vengeance can cast hunter's mark... and that's it.)
Paladin without resources? Has his aura and his attack action. And he will run out of resources.
Paladin with a bad casting stat? His best class feature becomes a lot weaker, and a lot of his spells require saves. His other spells require concentration, which he's not great at maintaining, as someone who isn't proficient in CON saves in melle.

Ranger out-of-combat utility? Not as good as a rogue with survival, not as good as a druid with spellcasting support... but pretty good at both.
Ranger in Melee? Still gets most of her class features, except for fighting style and a few subclass abilities.
Ranger without resources? Typically has a better attack action than the paladin, and has more efficient resources to begin with.
Ranger with a bad casting stat? Who cares?

The Paladin is better than the ranger, but it isn't like the Ranger is a total pushover. In my last session the ranger had to switch to a quarterstaff and at level three she was still dealing 15-16 damage a hit.

Beastmaster is the worst subclass, admittedly, and Rangers do depend on their conclaves for power.

Dr. Cliché

2018-04-19, 11:49 AM

Beastmaster is the worst subclass, admittedly, and Rangers do depend on their conclaves for power.

I was talking specifically about the beastmaster, though. :smalltongue:

Willie the Duck

2018-04-19, 12:36 PM

I think the failure is not in the class, but in the Exhaustion condition.

Sure, I suppose, but I'd call the two inextricably comingled, at least from the berserker's direction (changing the exhaustion condition would completely restructure the berserker's power-level).

It should be restorable with a 2d level spell, lesser restoration. If you can cure disease, and cure being paralyzed with Lesser Restoration, then why not exhaustion. (Likewise with Paladin Lay On Hands ...)
It takes a party resource, which is fine.

Making the Berserker's power-level dependent on having one of two specific other classes in the party seems counter to the 5e design philosophy. As long as we are in pie-in-the-sky hypothetical-land, wouldn't it be better to just make a new precious-resource-expenditure mechanic?

Exhaustion is, quite frankly, overly penal as a condition in terms of recover. A full rest to restore one level, OK. that's good. A fifth level spell to restore one level? Really? WHy not " one level with lesser restoration, all levels with Greater Restoration?"

Have the devs answered that question?

What question? 'Exhaustion, wtf?' (or roughly that) isn't really the kind of question they answer.

mephnick

2018-04-19, 01:20 PM

The headcanon I have is that the ranger is using their action to create an opening for the beast to land an attack. It's part of the broader narrative that melee combat isn't static pieces exchanging swings with attack rolls, but that attack rolls represent the possible openings your character can take advantage of amidst the usual thrusts, guards, steps, and turns of a melee battle.

Exactly.

Agreed on the shared attacks/actions thing. It really drives home the "fights as a team" aspect of the Beastmaster, as well as addressing action economy issues. It was very intuitive and made perfect sense both mechanically and in the fiction.

Unfortunately it appears many people don't agree with us. :smallyuk:.

Many people don't seem to realize combat is an abstraction and have no imagination. It's hard when everyone else is wrong.

Tanarii

2018-04-19, 01:39 PM

What question? 'Exhaustion, wtf?' (or roughly that) isn't really the kind of question they answer.I'm dying over here. 😂

Seriously though, someone should tweet JC just like this.

Many people don't seem to realize combat is an abstraction and have no imagination. It's hard when everyone else is wrong.
Hahaha Ive said the same many times. Especially when its actually an opinion issue. 😂

Pex

2018-04-19, 06:04 PM

Exactly.

It's hard when everyone else is wrong.

I know, but I stay to impart my wisdom anyway.

mgshamster

2018-04-19, 06:05 PM

I know, but I stay to impart my wisdom anyway.

Sometimes I wish this site had a thumbs up button.

Nifft

2018-04-19, 07:13 PM

Sometimes I wish this site had a thumbs up button.

It does, it's just cleverly obfuscated.

mephnick

2018-04-19, 08:22 PM

I know, but I stay to impart my wisdom anyway.

*shakes fist*