Four Underrated 5e Subclasses

[MrStabby]

I think that there are a number of underrated subclasses in the game. I am not saying that these are considered the worst... nor am I saying that they should be considered the best. Rather, I think that these are options that fade out of peoples minds when making new characters but can actually be quite powerful. Yeah, its all a bi subjective and I won't say that it doesn't depend on the DM, but these are my to4 for underrated classes.

They are the Fiend Pact Warlock. The Circle of Dreams Druid. Way of the Shadow Monk and the Enchanter Wizard.


Fiend Pact Warlock
The fiend pact warlock is an interesting option in that it is a really powerful generalist able to perform really well in a lot of different roles. It comes with a great spell list that would be good on a lot of classes but is especially nice on the warlock. The thing that this gives that other subclasses do less well is access to good non-concentration spells. Command is an all time great spell and it scales decently with spell level and it also sidesteps some immunities that your other warlock control spells might run into. Fireball is a classic powerful spell and gives the warlock concentration free efficient area damage. Blindness/deafness is a bit niche, but again scales well with level and is concentration free control. The benefits of these spells start to be felt a bit more at higher levels where you get 3 spells per short rest (+invocations) so having a goood base on nonconcentration options becomes even more valuable.

These spells also not only are good additions, but they work well together. It isn't like they all target wisdom saves or constitution saves. As a subclass it gets a spell list that can pick out weak points... and if you do want wisdom saves then spells like fear are on the core warlock spell list.

If we broaden the view to look at spells like wall of fire (that does need conentration) we also get nice interactions with the eldritch blast invocations than move people about. I would also note that hallow can be a very powerful out of combat spell.

Whist the Fiend Pact might be weaker on some of the spells used for the social element of the game - like enchantments or illusions, it is still a warlock and a primary stat of Charisma lets it play a full role in the social pillar. And for exploration/utility the warlock can be the best ritual caster in the game



The abilities are not at all bad either but they can often quiely fly under the radar. The srength of the pact is in small situational bonusses that happen frequently enough to be very relevant but not so often that people assume they will always be there.

Dark One's Blessing is a nice source of temp HP and it comes on a casting class that a) is more damage focussed than most, and b) can pull out higher level spell slots to get some temp HP whenneeded to survive. This is the kind of subtle ability tha can save the party healer a few actions and some spell slots over the course of the day - not bad given how highly action surge is rated.

Dark one's own luck is another subtle ability. A D10 to a roll is not insignificant and this powers every single pillar of the game. You are the best at that crucial high stakes skill check, the one person to make that crucial save. Even in combat it is a beast: you are one of the best counterspell users in the game thanks to this and getting your level 3+ spells back on a short rest. You are one of the best controllers as you can deploy your hypnotic patterns before enemies scatter and before your teammates so they can know who to target thanks to using it to boost initiative... and if you need to you can use it to keep concentration up on a key spell. This ability should almost always be used and with a good role it should have a big impact... and it comes back on a short rest so you should get to use it multiple times per day. Worst case scenario, you use it to pass some death saves. It isn't a glamourous ability but just one of these little lubricants that really helps the character along.

Level 10 gives more of the same type of ability. Resistance shouldn't be underestimated. Shifting resistance even more so. You might protect against fire when going up against a red dragon or against piercing to storm a castle against a hail of arrows. Or if you are taking a climb up a mountainside you might appreciate some protection from a fall and pick bludgeoning damage. This also synergises with a couple of key features. Firstly, it makes it a lot harder to flub a concetration save when 40 damage is needed for the DC to beat 10. Secondly the temp hit points from Dark One's Blessing will go a lot further. Being able to change it on a short rest is really flexible and if combined with a little divination or scouting (say with an invisible familliar) should give you a lot of use from the ability.

Level 14 is a bit of a change with Hurl Through Hell. Whilst most of the other abilities are great in a subtle kind of way, this one is flashy. 10d10 damage with no save (so no magic resistance, no legendary resistance to stop it) and the hard to resist Psychic type is good. This is also one of the few inescapable control effects in the game - like Otto's Irresistable Dance you can be certain of one turn of absense of your number 1 threat. And if it is a solo monster, it can expect an array of readied attacks on its return.

I realise calling this an underrated class is maybe jarring to some. With just the PHB it was probably thought to be the strongest warlock as well as the go-to class for a lot of multiclass concepts like a level of fighter dip on a blade pact or some barbarian to make temp HP go further. Now with the hexblade, celestial, genie and undead warlocks geting more of the spotlight it is easy to forget that this is actually a pretty good option.



Circle of Dreams Druid

The circle of dreams also seems to have his a bit of a popularity problem, mostly by being slightly overshadowed by the Shepherd druid in the same book. In this case I feel "not number 1" means "almost totally forgotten". The druid chassis is very strong anyway so any subclass will have a good start here but there are a lot of really good elements to the class as well.

Balm of the summer court from 2nd level is good. Free healing is nice. Free healing as a bonus action even more so. Big healing when you need it is great. Uncounterable by counterspell is better still. At a range of 120ft it is even more awesome. No SVM components so you can use it underwater, with your hands tied, gagged, in a silence spell just fine. Just popping your allies back up as a bonus action is great but this is so much more than healing word as it lets you cast other spells on the same turn - if you need to pick up a comrade it is likely that foregoing a spell to turn the battle round is a pretty high cost. As you get more spell slots the benefits of this ability not being a spell get more and more powerful.

Hearth of Moonlight and shadow is a bit situational, but given the druid has just picked up conjure animals the previous level the character wont be hurting for power. Setting up a forward observation post is someimes useful and sometimes it is just a Leomund's Tiny Hut. Personally I would say this is a better version of tiny hut - you forgo protection for discretion which is probably a good thing at higher levels where enemies are smart enough to get reinforcements/flood the area where you rest etc., though others might disagree.

Level 10 gives Hidden Paths: a limited use teleport ability. Once again a bonus action with all that entails. This ability is awesome. Firstly, bonus action teleport is a level 2 spell under normal conditions so 5 exra level 2 spells per day + a spell known is very solid as an ability. 60ft range is better than Misty Step as is the ability to take others with you. Just as it was important with Balm of the Summer Court, the non-spell aspect of the ability is also important. This is an ability that gets more important in extremis and things like countermagic are bad news. More proactively it lets you position yourself well for casting some spells or for getting away after casting some close range spells... or you could find yourself surrounded by enemies, cast Maelstrom and then teleport out with your buddy before either of you need to make a save.

At level 14 you get walker in Dreams. Initially I was underwhelmend by this (and Ok it still isn't one of the all time great abilities) but it isn't bad. Effectively another high(ish) level spell slot and three more spells known. At level 14 the 50 GP cost of the Teleportation Circle spell isn't much, so not needing the components is less of a big deal - but creation of a permenant teleportation circle during downtime becomes a lot cheaper.

I think that this circle relies on its level 10 abiliy for a lot of its power whereas some other druids get their major tier 2 power up at 6th level. With a lot of games at levels 6 to 9 this might make the circle unatractive. That said, a strong team focussed subclass on a strong class is a good option.




School of Enchantment Wizard

A theme of these is that they are subclasses that get multiple valuable abilities that compliment each other well. They fill in gaps providing versatility or they work well together. Subclasses with a small number of exceptional abilities are a bit more attention grabbing and less prone to being underrated. I see the Enchantment wizard in a similar way - no great abilities but a strong cumulative effect of multiple good ones.

Kicking things off at level two is the ability to more easily add enchantment spells to your spellbook. THis is probably a small consideration but I think enchantment does pretty well out of this. There are a lot of enchantmen spells that are great spells and you want... but might not be the first pick of that level. It isn't your shield, mage armour, wall of force, force cage first pick type spell but the very solid hold person, hold monster, synaptic static, mass suggestion, feeblemind etc.. Its just gold, but it can save quite a bit and from an early level as well.

The main level 2 ability is hypnotic gaze. On a basic level, this looks bad. Trading turns with an enemy provided they failing a wisdom save doesn't look a huge advantage but if you already are concentrating on a spell or adding value to the battle in other ways it is pretty good. It is nearly at will - if the effect end on that creature you can't use it again on that creature for a while but you can still use it more broadly. Really the terrifying thing about this ability is its range. As a wizard the idea of staying within 5ft of your enemy should scare you. Even this needn't be an issue - your enemy sorcerer would probably prefer you to be further away and the same for enemy archers. As long as you consider this to be part of a toolbox of effects not a go-to ability for every enemy it is surprisingly effective...

Which takes us to the level 6 ability. This is where the enchanter elements start working together. Here, as a reaction, you can divert an attack made against you if the attacker fails a wisdom save. Decent wisdom saves are common, so it isn't a panacaea, but enemies that attack tend to have lower wisdom than those that cast spells forcing saves. This extra degree of resiliance and defense just helps with hypnotic gaze to make being close a little less terrifying... and worst case, sometimes you might want to have your famailliar take one for the team. Honestly, whilst sometimes this can divert an attack to one of your enemies, you can still get good value diverting attacks to your high AC high HP allies.

The combination of these can save a lot of spell slots. Fewer castings of shield. A decent at-will control option. It adds up to a lot of extra resources for those tough fights. To be clear, you need excellent judgement and some supportive allies to add this playstyle to your character but it can be very effective.

Level 10 builds on this theme by letting you get even more value out of your enchantment spells. Twinning them rarely truely doubles their power but it is still a major boost. 3rd level hold person from a 2nd level slot? Twinned dominate person as a way to kick off hostilities? A devistating feeblemind destroying much of an encounter at once? Twinned hold monster to let the party do epic damage before they can recover? There are so many options. And of course you can afford to have a good selecion of enchantment spells thanks to the reduced cost of adding them to your spell book.

Level 14 is another strong ability. A lot of wizard 14 abilities are good, but this is one of the best. Of course if there is no social pillar in your game it is useless but the ability to wipe memories and to charm friends an enemies alike without reprcussion is amazing. For heists, diplomacy, spying or just for slightly creepy fun this is an awesome ability. If nothing else a great way to run a shell game. In combat its uses are limited (although if you did want to weave your way through a passageway of traps and have the persuing guard forget your route it might have some application, if a bit contrived.

Whilst I think I wanted to talk about classes generally without "builds" I think that there are a few things of note here. One is the optons that might come from the race rules in Tasha's guide, because these can have a pretty proound impact. The above paragraphs hint at the enchanter wizard having some good defensive tools and some rewards for getting up close and there are some options that can help, especially if you can make the stats line up well. Tortle gets you an OK AC of 17, making getting close... less suicidal (not a huge saving over mage armour though). Mountain dwarf, in addition to great stats, can give you medium armour which is pretty big (and with magic armour this can really matter).

Tahsa's also gives us the Fey Touched half feat. Command and Dissonent whispers are both excelent choices for control spells that can be twinned with your level 10 ability. With arcane recovery and winned enchantment you can keep up a strong barrage of control from your level 1 slots even whilst concentrating on other spells.

Finally, there are some of the other options out there for expanding the spell list. Your spell slot efficinecy is so high that you can start to take a broader base of options. Mark of healing halfling from Eberron is a decent example - you can use your preserved spell slots for any healing needed, aura of vitality and hypnotic gaze can see you locking down key enemies and healing allies at the same time.





Way Shadow Monk

This is another "not terrible" subclass that I feel gets a bit of a bad rap. Again, I don't think many people think it is bad, but many don't think it good either. My impression of the time when content was PHB only was that there was about a 65%/35% split between the open hand and the shadow monk respectively as to which was better. I think that this subclass has a lot of underesimated features.

At level 3 it gets spells. Noteably it gets these at the same level a full caster would and it gets a good selection. Minor illusion is fun and can be very effective. But the other sells are specifically awesome.

Silence and darkness are both great for shutting down casters. The key thing here is that for a lot of other potential users of these spells, they get shut down also - i.e. if you are able to cast these you are probably needing to cast spells to be effective. The shadow monk doesn't. They don't need to see their target, they don't need to be able to speak. And pass without trace is one of the most powerful level 2 spells out there for getting the whole party past combat. This is a powerful set of starting abilities, assuming that the DM does more than throw bags of meat at you as enemies. And if you play Tasha's optional rules these spells come with a free puch to the face as a bonus action.

Level 6 is where this gets fun, and where I think most people would see the main attraction. Shadowstep as an at-will teleport (in low light) is cool enough, but giving advantage is a nice bonus. I see this as part of a bit of a fork in character playstyle. If you are in bright daylight, you are probably outside. If you are outside then you can probably engage from a distance effectively with ranged weapons (and monks typically being dex based do just fine here, especially if you can pick up a bow proficiency) and your superior speed. If you are inside then it is probably dim enough to teleport. If your DM tries to catch you out by being outside but with narrower lines of sight, then you are in a place where running up walls will be awesome.

For me this ability just plays into the rest of the class so well. Your darkness/Silence spells need to be well placed and this supports that. Your stunning strike ability needs to hit the right targets and this supports that.

At 11th level you can turn invisible when in dim light or darkness... this is something both underrated and overrated. Between things that can't see you in the dark anyway and the fact that any advantage you can get on attacks from invisibility you could get from shadowstep under the same conditions anyway makes some of it a bit redundant. On the other hand, at will invisibility is so powerful for exploration, infiltration and various other activities. Add on that you can cast pass without trace and the potential for silliness becomes great. Of interest are the things that you can do without breaking invisibility - not just walking past, but doing things like laying caltrops, setting tripwires, tying sentries boot laces together, picking pockets, setting fire to a wizards spellbook, setting fire to a wizards tower (as long as a spell isn't used to strat the fire), applying pig fat to a staircase then ringing an alarm at the bottom... Maybe raw power isn't everything with this ability but the potential for fun is great.

And at 17 you get opportunist... a frankly dull ability that gives you an extra attack for sticking around. It isn't worthless, but if you are using it it means that you are probably not getting great value from your mobility (as others could hit that target).

[sayaijin]

Two of those subclasses are actually very highly rated by the Dungeon Dudes. They did a series ranking every pre-Tasha's subclass:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQMqiULo_05Pf9RknbcprM6tJwOcxO6N4

[T.G. Oskar]

I'll stand for the Oath of the Crown as underrated.

Though it's hard to debate the worst Paladin Oath when the class itself is superb, most people dismiss the Crown Paladin. Maybe it's because of its mundane higher-level abilities (advantage vs. paralysis and stun, rather than immunity? Cover allies only 5 ft. away? Resistance to non-magical physical damage as part of a capstone? No aura?), or the fact that one of its class features is done better by another Oath (Divine Allegiance, which is supplanted badly by the Oath of Redemption's Aura of the Guardian), or that it lacks any source of offensive boost or amazing defenses through its class features (see: Devotion's Sacred Weapon, Ancients' Aura of Warding, Vengeance's Vow of Enmity. Conquest's Guided Strike + Scornful Rebuke, Redemption's Rebuke the Violent + Protective Spirit). However, what it has is cleanly on it's first few levels.

For starters, it has some of the best Channel Divinity options around. I already mentioned Devotion's Sacred Weapon (excellent as an accuracy boost to make GWF a viable damage option), Vengeance's Vow of Enmity (ditto, though through advantage), Conquest's Guided Strike (even better, as it can ensure one hit lands, therefore mixing it massively with a Divine Smite for good measure) and Redemption's Rebuke the Violent (return all damage dealt as radiant damage, with Wis save for half), but the other options can be lacking. Ancients' Channel Divinity options are pretty lackluster (IMO - Nature's Wrath can be replaced by a spell that you have permanently prepared at the very same level, and while Turn the Faithless is a solid option, any damage breaks the effect), Vengeance's Abjure Enemy only works on one creature, doesn't work against creatures immune to frightened and is generally less useful than Vow of Enmity in the first place, and Watcher's... Watcher's Will takes an action to grant advantage against admittedly brutal saves, which can work well with your Aura of Protection but only as much as their saves are good. Crown's Champion's Challenge is one of the best "aggro" pull moves you can use, and Turn the Tide is an excellent emergency heal, making both viable options. (Granted - Redemption and Glory have also great CDs.)

Then, consider the spell list. Vengeance has great spells (Hunter's Mark, Haste), and so does Glory (Guiding Bolt, Haste again), but only Crown has a spell list that includes arguably the most useful spell a Paladin can cast - Spirit Guardians. This is in addition to automatic Aura of Vitality and Warding Bond (which, until Tasha's, wasn't part of the Paladin's spell list - another great spell that's non-concentration and provides insane protection, and you also happen to get Guardian of Faith, which is an impressive non-concentration CC spell for the admittedly limited 4th level Paladin spell list).

Finally, although the capstone may seem a bit weak, it provides advantage on Wisdom saving throws (again - Glory's first CD ability does that + Intelligence AND Charisma, but most mental spells affect Wisdom exclusively) alongside the resistance to non-magical physical damage, and all of that for 1 hour. (IMO, only Redemption's capstone is better, because it's active at all times and provides resistance to everything + retributive damage, and arguably Glory's capstone because it allows automatic hits once per turn - which also includes automatic Opportunity Attacks! - and saving throw rerolls.)

I get that what makes Crown so underrated is that it faces some fierce competition, but most lists have it way down in consideration, without realizing they can be absurdly good tanks. (Tell me that Spirit Guardians on a Paladin isn't a solid idea, and then add Sentinel and maybe Polearm Master on top of that.)

[Witty Username]

I Feel like the Hunter Ranger is under rated.
First, it has a lot of options to customize a character for a purpose. I like Colossus Slayer personally, but Giant killer is a great option for a melee focused ranger that is more defensive and Horde breaker is great if you want to make fighting multiple enemies your thing.
Also, the features are not bad, even the 15th level features are good, even if the rogue gets them sooner.
I feel like it gets overlooked now because it doesn't get additional spells, and by people dismissing the ranger out of hand.


I feel like the Way of Shadow is often overrated personally, I agree it can do cool things but it doesn't help with some of monks more fundamental problems of damage, survivability and rampant Ki use.

[cyberfunkr]

I think people underrate the Enchantment Wizard because they are playing them wrong. Specifically, the 2nd level Hypnotic Gaze.

Every write up I see talks about "why would a squishy wizard want to be within 5ft of an enemy?" They don't! But they can certainly be within 5ft of average citizens they need to bypass...

"Hello, mister jailer. I need you to just sit there for a moment while my friends let someone out of their cell."

"Hello, guard. Can you hand me the keys to my cell. Now just wait while I unlock it and let all my friends out. Awesome. now my Fighter friend is going to move you into the cell since you have a movement of zero yourself. Now we just relock the door. Toodles!"

"Greetings, person we need to take into custody. Let my strong Barbarian carry your incapacitated body back to where you belong while I whistle a tune next to him for the trip."

"Your Majesty... Please don't get up while my friends search your room for that item we need. Or since we're pals, you can just tell us where to look and we'll be on our way."

The victim only gets one saving throw. After that, all the wizard needs to do is spend an action every round until the mission is accomplished.

Other bonuses:

* It's not a concentration ability so you can keep concentration on a spell you already had up
* Unlike Friends and Charm Person, there is no clause about knowing they were charmed, nor auto agro when it's over.
* There is no limit to the number of times a day you can do this. Just work your way from one victim to the next.
* Not a spell so no material components needed. So even stripped naked, you can work your mojo.

[JellyPooga]

I agree with Witty Username that Hunter Ranger is underrated. The Ranger as a whole gets kind of slated for being underwhelming after about 5th level, but the Hunter...well, it's pretty solid. Ok, so it doesn't get anything particularly unique and suffers a little of the "nothing new after tier 1" syndrome the base class does, but it does a good job of being a fighting focused kind of guy. Horde Breaker + Hunters Mark = a lot of dead mook-squad, or if you're more into single target action, there's an option for that too.

My vote for underrated subclass is the Thief Rogue. I think many people look at the 9th and 13th level subclass features and brush it aside as being situational, GM-dependent and/or weak. Yes, Thief's Reflexes is perhaps one of the most powerful features in the game, but it comes on late. Where Thief really goes under the radar is in underestimating just how amazing Fast Hands really is. It's not just being able to utilise equipment as a bonus action, it's being able to Use and Object and that's no small thing. Fast Hands lets you rope, throw and brand them all in one turn, so to speak, which is much more fun and efficient than just trying to brand them twice a turn. Not to mention the other possibilities of terrain and furniture.

[luuma]

Frankly I agree with the whole thread lol - i was under the impression fiend was the standard phb warlock and remained the best til hexblade came along.

I've seen people really sleeping on Conjuration wizard too. RAW, you can create literally anything, including usable material components with a GP value, or finely crafted mixed media stuff like keys, camping stoves, or mobile phones.

The only restriction is "you must have seen the item before" - so, head to a jewellers, and pirate their stock.

[Chronic]

Way of the 4 elements is one of the better monk subclass in my opinion.
It does fail to deliver the avatar fantasy, but it's still a monk who have access to a few very effectives tools (and many trap options).

Fist of unbroken air and water whip are two excellent options and are the bread and butter of this monk. Decent damage, capable of moving ennemies and are excellent against flyer. They target 2 different but complementary saves, since ennemies will usually be good at one but bad at the other.

He has also access to fly himself, which is very useful and fairly rare in this edition. He also has access to two wall spells and stoneskin without the component cost.
But honestly seeing the fireball being a recommanded option in most guide hurt my eyes. Sure fireball is nice, but at this level? And at that cost? Dios mio... Only if for some reason your party is sorely lacking AOE, otherwise take a utility option, you have your fists to hurt people.
In the end, it probably the most versatile monk subclass, while having options no other monk has access to. I play monk regularly and on a personal level, this is the subclass I get the most of.

[stoutstien]

I agree with most of the subclasses listed here. Hunter especially gets a bad rap but is actually solid 1-20 if just a little boring. For tables that like Using lots of minions and hordes it can be top tier. 4e monks suffer just from imagery conflicts but is really one of the more flexible traditions. First time players who read too many online forms sees a 4E nuke an enemy they are always taken back.

I would toss thief rogues, devotion pallys, and certain land druids onto any list of underrated subclasses. They have lost some luster as material has been released but they are all still top contenders IMO.

[Chronic]

I agree with most of the subclasses listed here. Hunter especially gets a bad rap but is actually solid 1-20 if just a little boring. For tables that like Using lots of minions and hordes it can be top tier.

I would toss thief rogues, devotion pallys, and certain land druids onto any list of underrated subclasses. They have lost some luster as material has been released but they are all still top contenders IMO.

Thieves rogue probably have one of the most overpowered and versatile 17th level combat feature in the game, but 17th level is so far away in most games.

[stoutstien]

Thieves rogue probably have one of the most overpowered and versatile 17th level combat feature in the game, but 17th level is so far away in most games.

True but I think everyone tends to gloss over all the other features just because they aren't as powerful as the capstone. extended movement speeds, bonus action shenanigans, advantage on stealth, and UMD is as power as your party treasury gets.
It's one of the few rogues that isn't saddled with some form of dead feature. Nothing alone has that wow factor, unless you have an artificer in the party, but it's both effective and fun.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I'd argue that Shadow Monk isn't underrated; I see it bandied about quite often, and not just for the shadow-hopping.

But thanks TG for bringing up Oath of the Crown. Pre-TCoE, it was hugely underrated. With the optional spell additions to the lists (many of which I disagree with, but that's another topic), it's become a bit more tarnished, as the truly excellent oath spells were one of the saving graces of the subclass.

Land druids are another subclass that's underrated. Is it as good as say, Moon or Shepard? No, but between "Arcane Druidic Recovery", bonus spells (with a decent chance of being non-druid spells!) and a bunch of free defensive abilities, they deserve better than to be completely forgotten.

[Deathtongue]

Land druids are another subclass that's underrated. Is it as good as say, Moon or Shepard? No, but between "Arcane Druidic Recovery", bonus spells (with a decent chance of being non-druid spells!) and a bunch of free defensive abilities, they deserve better than to be completely forgotten.I think the problem with Land Druid is that there's a real question of why you're not just playing a Wizard instead. Druid does come with some major advantages (armor, hit points, better primary stat) and the post-Xanathar's druid spell list so good that even if you don't abuse summons you will never feel deprived -- unlike the Cleric, who IMO loses a lot of their oomf in T3/T4. Regardless, the subclass features that aren't Druidic Recovery are just not very good and if you don't want the defensive advantages, healing, or select spells (like Conjure Animals, Healing Spirit, or Spike Growth) it just feels like a cut-rate wizard. Cut-rate Wizard is still an A-tier class, but I can see why people would want to play a druid subclass that's subjectively or even objectively weaker than Land.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I think the problem with Land Druid is that there's a real question of why you're not just playing a Wizard instead. Druid does come with some major advantages (armor, hit points, better primary stat) and the post-Xanathar's druid spell list so good that even if you don't abuse summons you will never feel deprived -- unlike the Cleric, who IMO loses a lot of their oomf in T3/T4. Regardless, the subclass features that aren't Druidic Recovery are just not very good and if you don't want the defensive advantages, healing, or select spells (like Conjure Animals, Healing Spirit, or Spike Growth) it just feels like a cut-rate wizard. Cut-rate Wizard is still an A-tier class, but I can see why people would want to play a druid subclass that's subjectively or even objectively weaker than Land.

Surely because they are thematically completely different. That generally matters to a lot of people when it comes to choosing a class or subclass.

[Daracaex]

The Shadow Monk would shoot way up in my book if it natively got a way to see in magical darkness. It gets the spell to activate with ki, and I'd be so much happier if it didn't blind the monk as well as anyone else. I have built a character that dipped two levels in Warlock to get Devil Sight, but that's a heck of a MAD dip just to make one of your abilities useful.

[Mitchellnotes]

I agree with pretty much everything everyone has said.

Thief's power isn't evident because it really requires understanding what you can do with object interactions. Its pretty clear with most abilities what they can be used for, but thief they just put it out there and you have to go searching for uses.

Fiend warlock has a stacked expanded spell list. The other features haven't scaled as well over time because the games design in general seems to provide for more uses of class abilities. Take the undead warlock. The undead warlock gets both the some of the features of fiends and archfey (being able to add THP and fear on hit) on a chassis that provides multiple uses per day. Archfey gets a 1 round fear/charm 1/rest and fiend gives THP but can be unreliable. However, fiends spell list is great. As said, command and blindness/deafness scale wonderfully with upcasting, being able to use fireball 2/rest at level 5 is phenomenal, and wall of fire on a class with forced movement is just great. The other fiends abilities also are pretty good, but i just think its easy to overlook the expanded lists which is why fiend isn't typically rated as high.

Lsnd druid is also a good bit underrated. Initially, i think people just loved moon druid more due to its uniqueness. Land is a great spell using druid, but now it has to compete with stars who exists in pretty much the same space. Comparatively, stars get more buffs, and land gets more spells. The issue is that druid casting tends to be very concentration heavy, so more spells may not have quite the impact as it may seem. If building a blaster druid though, its worth considering land still. I wish land provided some higher level options (maybe a transmutation or evocation option for spell levels 6-9?) That might make it stand out a bit more.

Edit: with enchantment wizard, a couple bonuses are that its abilities arent limited per total uses, just has to be a different creature. They also arent spells. If a baddy comes up to whack the wizard, attempt to hypno it, if that works, great! If that fails, misty step away. If you build around either boosting armor (dip, gith/dwarf), and/or utilizing bonus actions, it can be great. The redirecting attacks seems clunky but fun if it lines up

[Xihirli]

Another Fiend spell I think gets forgotten is Scorching Ray, often because it's very similar to Eldritch Blast. When looking at the Warlock Spell List, I'm shocked at how few of the spells scale well, and how many don't scale at all considering the Warlock is forced to upcast without using variant rules. Scorching Ray at second level is an alright spell, but as far as upcasting goes, particularly in the situations in which you'd blow spell slots on attack spells (e.g. when you have advantage), it upcasts better than any other blast, adding another ray per spell level, with each with its own chance to crit and dealing base 2d6.
It's a good spell for warlocks, especially since their fifth level spells... they're just so bad.

[Deathtongue]

Surely because they are thematically completely different. That generally matters to a lot of people when it comes to choosing a class or subclass.But even viewing things from a pure 'I don't care if wizard gets me 80% of the way there, I want to be a druid' aesthetic perspective -- that POV ALSO hurts the desirability of the Land Druid. I think the Circle of Spores and Circle of Stars druid are weaker than the Circle of Land Druid, but the former two are just more flavorful. Especially after Xanathar's, where any druid has more than enough awesome spells in the base list that the extra spells the Land Druid gets doesn't really give it as much flavor vis-a-vis the base druid class as it used to.

And even if you do want your spellcaster to be nature-flavored, Circle of the Shepherd and even Circle of the Moon just offer more raw, filthy power than the Land Druid. Land Druid is just 'extra strength Druid', but unlike other 'like the base class, but moreso' subclasses that don't really change how the class would play without a subclass such as the Lore Bard or Bear Totem Barbarian it's also not stronger than the options that do offer a distinct roleplaying direction.

[Darc_Vader]

The Shadow Monk would shoot way up in my book if it natively got a way to see in magical darkness. It gets the spell to activate with ki, and I'd be so much happier if it didn't blind the monk as well as anyone else. I have built a character that dipped two levels in Warlock to get Devil Sight, but that's a heck of a MAD dip just to make one of your abilities useful.

Or even the ability to see in normal darkness (a la Gloomstalker’s Umbral Sight). You have to spend ki on the Darkvision spell if you don’t natively have it from your race, and especially at low levels it’s a decent amount of your pool to do so.

[Deathtongue]

IMO the best wizard subclasses have abilities that synergize with the basic wizard chassis rather than trying to patch holes in its defenses or give it options other than spellcasting. Which is why I think Abjurer is heavily overrated, Bladesingers are best played as melee-focused God Wizards, and why T4 Illusionist is stronger than the Chronurgist or even the Loremaster.

To that end, the Enchanter is a huge disappointment for most of the game. Its L2 feature was... okay as a way to squeeze out some extra offense in the beginning of 5E D&D's lifespan, but post-Tasha's gives enough concentration-free options for wizards, especially higher-level wizards, to keep up the offense that it's not really worth it. The L6 feature is also dicey. It only protects against ATTACKS, only attacks within 30 feet, is gated by the 2nd-best saving throw, ties up your reaction, and is only good for one success per long rest. It's not worthless, but you will go entire workdays without using this feature even if you want to.

The L14 feature, unlike literally every other wizard subclass's feature, is a pure roleplaying feature. It does nothing to help you win combat. And the roleplaying benefit isn't even that good unless A) you are inclined to play your wizard as a manipulative bully or even outright evil and B) your DM plays along with your cunning plan to break the emperor's mind for your benefit, which a lot of them won't either for person or genre consistency reasons. This should've been a level 2 feature, back when not catching smoke from the town guard or bandit chief would actually swing the arc of the campaign. Late T3 or T4? Unless you're the kind of adventurer who's okay with stomping rats in basements and stopping local piracy as an all-powerful archmage the people you would use this on (high priests, demigods, great khans, etc.) have too many gameplay (Mind Blink, Legendary Resistance, etc.) and in-narrative defenses (suspicious praetorian guard, daily Divination sessions, etc.) to make this stick.

That said, its L10 feature is OMG good. If all you can do is get some free Twin Spell spice with already banger spells like Suggestion, Enemies Abound, Irresistible Dance, Charm Monster, etc. it's still worth the price of admission. Which is more than I can say for Transmuter or Conjuration. But unlike the Evoker or Graviturgist, it's underrated for a reason.

[Ir0ns0ul]

Always thought Enchanter was considered top tier by the common knowledge.

At some point Charm immunity can be a problem, but at lower levels it is definitely on pair with everything besides Diviner / Chronurgy.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Regardless, the subclass features that aren't Druidic Recovery are just not very good and if you don't want the defensive advantages, healing, or select spells (like Conjure Animals, Healing Spirit, or Spike Growth) it just feels like a cut-rate wizard. Cut-rate Wizard is still an A-tier class,

Hmm...I don't agree. A Land Druid is very effective, especially against opponents that have a druidical bent.

A bonus Druid Cantrip, post Xanathar's is a tremendous gift.
Even if the Circle spells mainly consist of druidical mainstays, it frees up one's 'Spell Preparation slots" which enables the character to utilize the Druid Class' large spell list to the fullest extent allowed.

Land's Stride at 6th level, remakes the Land Druid as being immune to the Plant Growth spell.

The extra summoning/ Temp HP that a Shepherd Druid offers is rendered moot if the Shepherd Druid and their summons are trapped in an overgrown area affected by a Plant Growth spell.

The Land Druid moves unhindered through the difficult terrain and can set the overgrown vegetation on fire.

Perhaps, being in California, I have the Dixie Fire on my mind...but trapping opposing Druids of other Druidical Circles and burning them and their summons to death, (or making the other Druid flee)...strikes me as usefully powerful.

Nature's Ward on the surface seems limited, until one realizes that Druid's do not have the Magic Circle spell on their spell list. Which means a Druid has to negotiate/trick/Incapacitate Hags and other Magic using Fey before using Planar Binding on the creature.

Being immune to the Charm and Frightening of Fey and Elementals goes a long way to making this a much easier process.

While, I'm sure being immune to Poison, the Poisoned Condition, and Disease seems boring to many....it is very useful,
(about as boring as a 10% Compound Interest rate),.....
.......over the long haul...the dividends these immunities pay, are substantial.

Nature's Sanctuary, by virtue of this clause:
"The creature is aware of this effect before it makes its attack against you."

Is a resourceless, situation dependent, crowd control....and again Land Druids are very effective against other druidical themed foes.



And even if you do want your spellcaster to be nature-flavored, Circle of the Shepherd and even Circle of the Moon just offer more raw, filthy power than the Land Druid. Land Druid is just 'extra strength Druid',

Circle of the Shepherd is just an 'extra strength Druid' as well, with a Darth Sidious like obsession with 'Infinite Power', and an unexplained facility with fiddling with nature totems.

I know plenty of players that hold a disdainful attitude towards the Circle of the Shepherd subclass, and find the subclass to be lacking in flavor.

A Circle of Land Druid tastes like Druid Classic. 🃏

[Waazraath]

The Shadow Monk would shoot way up in my book if it natively got a way to see in magical darkness. It gets the spell to activate with ki, and I'd be so much happier if it didn't blind the monk as well as anyone else. I have built a character that dipped two levels in Warlock to get Devil Sight, but that's a heck of a MAD dip just to make one of your abilities useful.

With Tasha's you can just grab the blind fighting fighting style with a feat, or have a 1 dip in any caster class (cleric being the more obvious) and grab devil's sight with a feat.

As for the OP: I don't know if all of those are underrated, but solid analysis afaic.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'd say most of the Pre Tasha's sorcerers, particularly Draconic. Given that you can now take a couple of extra Meta-magics including one to change the damage type both versatility and firepower has been added. No, they don't have the spell selection that some of the newer subclasses have, but they are still a solid blaster based option.

[Deathtongue]

Hmm...I don't agree. A Land Druid is very effective, especially against opponents that have a druidical bentI never said that Land Druid wasn't effective. Druid spellcasting is so good that a Desert Druid having Druidic Recovery and Silence is better than every other Druid Subclass in T3+ except for Moon Druids in long workdays and Circle of the Shepherd. I just said that:

A) From a pure 'crush the monsters and make them cry' perspective, Land Druid, despite being one of the better subclasses, doesn't really do anything different from a base Wizard except have better defense and access to some (admittedly powerful) healing and summoning tricks. If that is what you want to do, awesome, BUT:

B) From a 'what does this druid subclass do, narratively speaking, differently from what druid already gives you' they're outclassed in flavor by other druid subclasses. The Land Druid's non-Druidic Recovery abilities just won't come up in typical campaigns, because Beasts and Plants are not challenging or even relevant foes for T3+ parties. And even then, the abilities are largely passive. Creatures within 30' of you being passively immune to poison and disease is better in gameplay than creating medicines that, as a bonus action after you imbibe them, cure said poison and disease but there are simply less roleplaying opportunities.

So picking Land Druid over something more narratively interesting like Circle of Spores or something more, with investment, mechanically effective like Circle of the Shepherd requires a very specific gameplan. Something like wanting to cast Spike Growth a few more times a day because your party has a Sorlock and a Graviturgist in it. So it's no wonder it's underrated.

But like I said, druid spellcasting is awesome, so (unlike the Enchanter, which I think is justifiably underrated) it's unfairly underrated. An extra Watery Sphere or Conjure Woodland Creatures wins you encounters just as surely as Unicorn Spirit or transforming into an Earth Elemental. But most people don't see it that way.



I know plenty of players that hold a disdainful attitude towards the Circle of the Shepherd subclass, and find the subclass to be lacking in flavor.

A Circle of Land Druid tastes like Druid Classic. 🃏And yet Circle of the Land has even less flavor than Circle of the Shepherd. Why should, from a narrative perspective, Circle of the Shepherd be viewed with more disdain than Circle of the Land. If the Land Spells genuinely opened up new roleplaying paths, I could see them dodging a similar judgment -- unfortunately, instead of getting spells that would genuinely shake up the roleplaying presentation of the base druid like Fabricate or Animate Dead or Flock of Familiars or Suggestion or Skill Empowerment they get stuff not out of the question for any ol' druid to be using like Stinking Cloud and Wall of Stone.

[Wraith]

I'd say this about most Cleric subclasses, to be honest.

Like your example with Dreams Druid, the fact that it's Druid of any kind makes it really, really good so it's also a case of anything but the best being worse only by the default translation of the world. The same applies to Clerics. There's room to argue which is which, but I find that Twilight and Life consistently get glowing reviews and most of the others - while still being excellent when compared to lesser classes - fade into the background.

I would also like to state my favour for the Inquisitive Rogue. It's perfectly serviceably, but it relies quite heavily on a certain type of game, one wherein a) sneak attacks are consistently effective and b) social puzzles are in abundance. Since most 5e games tend to err towards martial combat it can miss out, but in the right place it's an excellent and intelligent subclass.

[Mitchellnotes]

Which is more than I can say for Transmuter or Conjuration. But unlike the Evoker or Graviturgist, it's underrated for a reason.

The conjurer has been my favorite kind of wizard since AD&D, so i will own my bias, but, i don't think the conjurer is bad. The level 10 feature is solid (just not losing concentration is good), and the level 6 feature is fine (though it'd be better, probably overpowered, is it could be used to move enemies). The level 14 feature isn't splashy, but isn't bad either. The big issue with the subclass is the level 2 feature. It seems even more difficult to adjudicate than illusions. While the intent certainly isn't that a level 2 wizard should be able to summon a chunk of the sun, i think there are some overly criticsl views of it as well making it something range from being quite good to being worthless. My opinion is that it should be able to be usee to conjure basically any small item from the item table or any tool (barbarian breaking down a door? Have a crowbar! Wild horse? How about a saddle, etc). Is it horribly broken to use a feature that should be comparable to evoker's sculpt spells or a war wizard's two features, or a diviner just making things happen to summon a bag of ball bearings or a healers kit since using the item is a separate action (makes the thief more attractive though!)? If the table is that critical of the ability where basically all you can summon is a 3' square lump o' something, its likely better to just play another sub-class, war wizard likely being the most comparable.

[Deathtongue]

I'd say this about most Cleric subclasses, to be honest.And I'd happen to agree. From a pure narrative perspective, I think the cleric is the worst-designed class in the game. The template of the cleric class and its subclasses really, really hurt the narrative possibilities of the class. There's absolutely no reason for every cleric subclass to mechanically have the same level 1 (domain spell and perhaps some heavy armor/martial weapon spice?), 2 (channel divinity option), and 8 (cantrip/weapon attack bonus) subclass features, but they do.

Of course, no one talks about underrated cleric subclasses from a narrative perspective, since they're all pretty samey. And even from a mechanical perspective, there's Trickery and... that's about it. Even though I think that Trickery isn't as underrated as people think, from both ends.

[Nidgit]

Land Druids are fine, but they rely mostly on their Natural Recovery and Circle Spells to be good. All the other abilities range from situational to essentially useless. Moreover, the Level 10 and 14 abilities are both entirely passive- a Druid might be more resilient in select situations but they'll have a very difficult time actually leveraging that into actionable play. Beyond casting more/different spells, there's not much for a Land Druids to actually do.

Sidenote, but I'd love a heavily plant-focused Druid subclass. We've got a Shepherd's animal summons, let me go full Poison Ivy with subclass features.

[Thunderous Mojo]

A) From a pure 'crush the monsters and make them cry' perspective, Land Druid, despite being one of the better subclasses, doesn't really do anything different from a base Wizard except have better defense and access to some (admittedly powerful) healing and summoning tricks.

It seems you may be glossing over a PC potentially having a Hags Coven, bound to them in Tier 3+.

A Druid, by dint of not having the Magic Circle spell on their spell list, has to find a way..(either, through negotiation, restraints, or other creative means)...needs to find a way to secure the Hags immobility for Planar Binding.

In terms of role playing narrative, this is very different than how a Wizard's bindings feel.


The Land Druid's non-Druidic Recovery abilities just won't come up in typical campaigns, because Beasts and Plants are not challenging or even relevant foes for T3+ parties. And even then, the abilities are largely passive.

Nature's Recovery is a weak ability, based off RAW. My personal feeling is the category of Beasts should subsume the Category of Monstrosities.

Covens of Hags, and many other Fey generally stay relevant even in Tier 3+. There are CR 10+ Fey.

If your game includes elements from sources as say Monte Cook's Arcana of the Ancients, or Kobold's Press' numerous offerings of compendiums of creatures...then one might get more use out of Nature's Recovery.

My opinion of Land's Stride has improved over the years. This:
Starting at 6th level, moving through nonmagical difficult terrain costs you no extra movement.
.........Stays relevant at all levels. Terrain gets weirder and more difficult as you level in my experience. Being proficient in all movement is always useful.



Even though I think that Trickery isn't as underrated as people think, from both ends.

I agree with this, though the Twilight Sanctuary CD makes me consider removing the Concentration requirement from a Trickery Cleric's Invoke Duplicity CD.

Starting around 6th level, the Cloak of Shadows CD option is generally more useful. Invoke Duplicity is awesome in Tier 1.

[Deathtongue]

Your glossing over a PC potentially having a Hags Coven, bound to them in Tier 3+.

A Druid, by dint of not having the Magic Circle spell on their spell list, has to find a way..(either, through negotiation, restraints, or other creative means)...needs to find a way to secure the Hags immobility for Planar Binding.Feign Death has you covered. Throw some Metamagic Adept: Extend Spell action on top of that if your DM is getting on your case about spell timing.

[kazaryu]

And I'd happen to agree. From a pure narrative perspective, I think the cleric is the worst-designed class in the game. The template of the cleric class and its subclasses really, really hurt the narrative possibilities of the class. There's absolutely no reason for every cleric subclass to mechanically have the same level 1 (domain spell and perhaps some heavy armor/martial weapon spice?), 2 (channel divinity option), and 8 (cantrip/weapon attack bonus) subclass features, but they do.

Of course, no one talks about underrated cleric subclasses from a narrative perspective, since they're all pretty samey. And even from a mechanical perspective, there's Trickery and... that's about it. Even though I think that Trickery isn't as underrated as people think, from both ends.

ummm excuse me. as a cleric main i have to object.
first: at level 1 all clerics get an ability that isn't just proficiencies and domain spells. sometimes its a passive bonus (life cleric) sometimes its an active ability (trickery). other times its a reactive ability (tempest). and they are by no means 'samey'. weak, perhaps. but definitely not samey.

at level 2 they all get a channel divinity option...and sure if you say it like that. but why would you? the options are super varied. life cleric gets an AoE heal (with some unfortunate limitations). wardomain gets what is basically the ability to trun a miss into a hit. knowledge clerics get a floating skill proficiency. oh, and channel divinty comes back on a short rest.(and eventually you get multiple uses per short rest) so its not like its something that is guaranteed to come up infrequently.

then at lvl 6 they get another ability. again, sometimes passive, sometimes active or reactive (of course, sometimes it only modifies one of their other abilities). but there's also a variety of them.

lvl 8 is the first level where things are really same-y (among subclass abilities.)

and then obviously they get nothing else until lvl 17.

but lets scroll back and talk about domain spells, that you brushed over. sure, sometimes domain spells are just...free spells from the clerics spells list (life clerics ;( ). but they are often spells that clerics wouldn't ordinarily have access to. and they can radically affect how the cleric feels to play, if you let them. light clerics are almost exclusively non cleric spells. including scorching ray and fireball. you can even MC with hexblade to REALLY abuse that scorching ray. nature clerics get both spike growth and plant growth. how many of the other cleric subclasses are doing that?

heat metal, magic weapon, fabricate, animate objects. you're telling me that when you play these subclasses, you can't find a way to feel like you're playing a different subclass than other clerics? but you can do that with other classes? which ones? by these standards there isn't any class that doesn't feel 'same-y' across its subclasses.

[diplomancer]

One trend I'm seeing here, that only confuses the issue; "well, XY", X may be weak but it's still an Y" (where X is subclass and Y is a top tier class). That may be true, but it's not the subject of the post; comparing subclasses within a class is how you find out if it's a weak subclass. Saying, "well, you can still make a good character out of it" just muddles things.

[Kuulvheysoon]

And I'd happen to agree. From a pure narrative perspective, I think the cleric is the worst-designed class in the game. The template of the cleric class and its subclasses really, really hurt the narrative possibilities of the class. There's absolutely no reason for every cleric subclass to mechanically have the same level 1 (domain spell and perhaps some heavy armor/martial weapon spice?), 2 (channel divinity option), and 8 (cantrip/weapon attack bonus) subclass features, but they do.

Of course, no one talks about underrated cleric subclasses from a narrative perspective, since they're all pretty samey. And even from a mechanical perspective, there's Trickery and... that's about it. Even though I think that Trickery isn't as underrated as people think, from both ends.

By that logic, the Paladin ties for the worst-designed class in the game, then.

At 3rd level, every oath gets a list of Oath spells and a pair of Channel Divinity options (which they can only ever use 1/SR unless invest 6 levels into Cleric). At 7th level, the vast majority of them (except Crown and Vengeance) get a 10 foot aura that increases to 30 feet at 18th level. 15th level is always a defensive ability of some sort, and the capstone is always becoming an avatar of some sort, a divine being for a temporary amount of time.

I fail to see how that's any different from Cleric, yet you only complain about that.

[JellyPooga]

ummm excuse me. as a cleric main i have to object.

As a never-Cleric I agree wholehearted with this post. I almost never play Cleric, but when I do the choice of Domain/subclass is critical to the abilities and theme of the character I want to play. The diversity of options available to the Cleric is wider than just about any other Class; it just depends on how far you lean into Base-Cleric and how much influence you want from your Domain. If you don't utilise your Domain options so much I can see how they might be perceived as weak or superfluousbut that was your personal choice, not a reflection of the strength of the subclass, per se.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Feign Death has you covered. Throw some Metamagic Adept: Extend Spell action on top of that if your DM is getting on your case about spell timing.

🍻👍‼️

I also extol the virtues of weaponizing the Feign Death spell.

Using the 'Craft a Curse' option from the Bestow Curse spell, one could ask for the curse effect of: "The Subject counts as a Willing Target , for the purpose of spells and other game effects".

The above mentioned curse is certainly weaker than this standard option of:
While cursed, the target must make a Wisdom saving throw at the start of each of its turns. If it fails, it wastes its action that turn doing nothing.

Bestow Curse is a spell that I love.

[Catullus64]

An Enchantment Wizard and a Dreams Druid are going to do very well out of the foundation of being a Wizard and a Druid. Full-caster subclasses have a lot of leeway relative to non-caster subclasses in terms of power, because the underlying foundation is a big pile of spells, and spells are great.

In specific, though, I definitely agree that Enchantment Wizard is good. I played a 10th-level Enchanter for about four months of campaign once. Every subclass feature proved very useful on multiple occasions, and that was even after taking account of the fact that we spent most of that campaign dealing with magic-resistant Gnomes and Demons. Split Enchantment is particularly amazing value.

Who doesn't think that Shadows Monks are good? Their Shadow Arts are a bundle of great tricks at a cheap cost, they get the MVP cantrip of 5e, and Shadow Step is absolute nonsense in all the best ways. Cloak of Shadows and Opportunist aren't exactly game-changers, but they're still broad in application and cost nothing to use.

[Witty Username]

By that logic, the Paladin ties for the worst-designed class in the game, then.

At 3rd level, every oath gets a list of Oath spells and a pair of Channel Divinity options (which they can only ever use 1/SR unless invest 6 levels into Cleric). At 7th level, the vast majority of them (except Crown and Vengeance) get a 10 foot aura that increases to 30 feet at 18th level. 15th level is always a defensive ability of some sort, and the capstone is always becoming an avatar of some sort, a divine being for a temporary amount of time.

I fail to see how that's any different from Cleric, yet you only complain about that.

I would add to that, divine smite. All paladins get the same divine smite, radiant damage, bonus damage to evil outsiders and undead. Even Conquest and Oathbreaker. It is distracting for the more edgy of the Paladins.

[kazaryu]

As a never-Cleric I agree wholehearted with this post. I almost never play Cleric, but when I do the choice of Domain/subclass is critical to the abilities and theme of the character I want to play. The diversity of options available to the Cleric is wider than just about any other Class; it just depends on how far you lean into Base-Cleric and how much influence you want from your Domain. If you don't utilise your Domain options so much I can see how they might be perceived as weak or superfluousbut that was your personal choice, not a reflection of the strength of the subclass, per se.

well, lets be clear. death wasn't saying that clerics are weak. he was claiming that the different subclasses didn't really feel different. and listed 2 of the most diverse subclass features in order to illustrate it.

[JellyPooga]

well, lets be clear. death wasn't saying that clerics are weak. he was claiming that the different subclasses didn't really feel different. and listed 2 of the most diverse subclass features in order to illustrate it.

Oh no, don't misunderstand me. I get that no-one was saying Cleric was weak compared to other Classes or on a game/character optimisation level, I only mentioned it by way of rhetoric. I just support your statement that the Cleric subclasses create a much wider variety than Deathtongue or Wraith seem to imply. For me, the true strength of a subclass is whether or not the abilities it grants support the theme it purports to champion (e.g. does the Thief really represent the abilities you'd expect from a thief-type character?) in a way that matches the expected balance of the Class at a given level. On the surface, yes, the Cleric subclasses may look samey, but as you mentioned, even a cursory look at what they actually offer reveals the diversity within.

Saying Cleric subclasses are samey is, for me, like saying all Warlocks are the same because they all have the Invocations feature, without considering the modularity of that feature...
...and I don't even particularly like the Cleric as a Class.

[Pex]

🍻👍‼️

I also extol the virtues of weaponizing the Feign Death spell.

Using the 'Craft a Curse' option from the Bestow Curse spell, one could ask for the curse effect of: "The Subject counts as a Willing Target , for the purpose of spells and other game effects".

The above mentioned curse is certainly weaker than this standard option of:
While cursed, the target must make a Wisdom saving throw at the start of each of its turns. If it fails, it wastes its action that turn doing nothing.

Bestow Curse is a spell that I love.

I'm not sure that's really a weaker effect. One could argue it's another way of saying the subject always fails his saving throws which is way too powerful.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I'm not sure that's really a weaker effect. One could argue it's another way of saying the subject always fails his saving throws which is way too powerful.

Well, not quite - RAW, there's no way to willingly fail saving throws in 5E. It'll only effect a few spells that require willing targets, like raise dead.

[Hael]

Are we talking about what's underappreciated in the general community or amongst 'optimizers'?

AFAIK the general community rates classes like the Champion very high... So figuring out the reverse is challenging.

Amongst optimizers, there are a couple classes that I think get too little attention. One is the Graviturgist, which can do some interesting things.

Another is the long death monk..

Also the Glamour bard (which was never viewed as weak, just tends to get overshadowed by lore/eloquence in the talk of whats best).

[Gtdead]

I think that the Shadow monk is very underrated. I'm not big on monks, but this is the only subclass I was ever interested in. Advantage and stealth are kind of a big deal and shadow is all over them. Especially now with blindfight style, the management of KI becomes a lot easier. One of my favorite builds for monk is a straight archer with SS. So basically a monk with a fighter dip for example can become a close range powerattacker through SS and a bow, with permanent advantage thanks to darkness and blindfight.

This makes him good at both range and melee, it's a naturally high defense character (at least when dex saves and skirmishing are concerned, not as a tank necessarily), helps a lot with KI expenditure (no need for flurry, SS with advantage gives similar increases). The basic idea is strong, although it needs a bit of tuning and I haven't thought about it too much on account of me disliking monks.

As for the others, I don't really think they are underrated although it's hard to judge in a vacuum. Usually when I rate classes, I compare all the same level features and think about which one of them I would like to have on my character. Low level abilities are more important than higher level for obvious reasons unless they are token abilities.

Enchanter for example.. yea, I don't think any of them would compare favorably. Perhaps the lvl 14 one in a social campaign, but IMO, a lvl 14 wizard doesn't need much help in the social department. It's easier to speak through actions than trying to change the world one person at a time. However I will admit that if you want to directly charm a king, that's the way to do it.

[Wraith]

Oh no, don't misunderstand me. I get that no-one was saying Cleric was weak compared to other Classes or on a game/character optimisation level, I only mentioned it by way of rhetoric. I just support your statement that the Cleric subclasses create a much wider variety than Deathtongue or Wraith seem to imply.

My point wasn't that there isn't enough variety in Cleric subclasses, just that most of them don't seem to get used.

In my experience *most* players only look at the ones which give heavy armour access, or they optimise with Life Cleric, because they're the "best". My anecdotal observations might put me in the minority, but from what I've seen of most online communities I don't think I'm too far off. In the last 5 years since I really got into 5e from other systems, I can easily count the number of non-heavy armour, non-Life Clerics I've seen played on one hand.

Which is a shame. They're *all* good, and thematic, and interesting - which is the point of the thread :smallsmile:

[MaxWilson]

My point wasn't that there isn't enough variety in Cleric subclasses, just that most of them don't seem to get used.

In my experience *most* players only look at the ones which give heavy armour access, or they optimise with Life Cleric, because they're the "best". My anecdotal observations might put me in the minority, but from what I've seen of most online communities I don't think I'm too far off. In the last 5 years since I really got into 5e from other systems, I can easily count the number of non-heavy armour, non-Life Clerics I've seen played on one hand.

Isn't that redundant? Life Clerics get heavy armor.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I can easily count the number of non-heavy armour, non-Life Clerics I've seen played on one hand.

Yet, my experience, tells me that out of the 4 clerics I've seen played in the last 7 years, not a single one was a Life Cleric, nor a Heavy Armor user.

What you have detailed, Wraith, is a predilection for an aesthetic option within the particular gaming circle that you travel in.

[Gtdead]

My point wasn't that there isn't enough variety in Cleric subclasses, just that most of them don't seem to get used.

In my experience *most* players only look at the ones which give heavy armour access, or they optimise with Life Cleric, because they're the "best". My anecdotal observations might put me in the minority, but from what I've seen of most online communities I don't think I'm too far off. In the last 5 years since I really got into 5e from other systems, I can easily count the number of non-heavy armour, non-Life Clerics I've seen played on one hand.

Which is a shame. They're *all* good, and thematic, and interesting - which is the point of the thread :smallsmile:

Life cleric is the easy build. I don't think it's the features, more like that people don't understand the Cleric's role in the party very well. I can't tell you that it's the prevailing opinion but in this forum for example, Life Cleric is usually suggested as a dip and personally as a mostly Cleric player, not only I have never touched the subclass (although it has some neat tricks), but I even ignore Heavy Armor proficiency completely and build DEX instead. It's a deeply meta decision, with the basic premise being that no melee ever wants to attack the Cleric due to SG and strong ranged enemies are actually not that common, while spellcasters are more likely to be trouble, thus raising DEX is better against blasters.

I may consider Life in a very small party of 2 or 3, but that's that.

[Wraith]

Isn't that redundant? Life Clerics get heavy armor.

It was meant more as emphasis that Life Cleric seems especially popular even among those with the one other trait I listed, but yes I suppose you're right. Hopefully you see what I was getting at, at least.


What you have detailed, Wraith, is a predilection for an aesthetic option within the particular gaming circle that you travel in.

I disagree that mine's such a narrow viewpoint. Though I admitted that I was generalising, my sample of examples is more than just a couple of my local gaming groups; aside from the build threads in this forum and others I frequent, there's also D&D Beyond itself which says that Life Cleric has been the most popular Cleric subclass for around 3 years running, Tempest having climbed from 3rd to 2nd and the other places in the top 3 being a duel between Forge and War. (2019 (https://i.imgur.com/c2watFs.png) and 2020 (https://www.enworld.org/attachments/subclass-jpg.123911/)). All 4 of which are heavy armour Clerics, incidentally.

So you're the only person I've 'met' in ~5 years who disproportionately plays the non-top-4 subclasses? Glad to hear it, but when 52% of everyone else's Clerics created on the biggest D&D website are Life Domain, either that subclass is hideously overpowered (unlikely) or that the others are being overlooked for reasons of.... theme? Party composition? Phases of the moon? Despite all being perfectly good subclasses in their own right. Which was the point of the thread, wasn't it? :smallsmile:

[sambojin]

For Circle of Dreams, I think people underestimate the lvl2 & 6 abilities. Balm isn't magic, so you can use it in wildshape (or, you get free HP and movement, and can long-range Healing Word others or your summons or yourself. This is a "good thing"). Druids are all about Voltron'ing their abilities together, and giving you a lot of extra healing words that aren't magic is way more powerful than people realise. Leverage all your parts, rather than looking at them as singular. Such is Nature, etc etc.
Even just action casting and bonus Balming is very powerful. You'd never think it was a wasted turn when you did it. This can also be used diplomatically alongside goodberries and guidance, for people/ animals and monsters.

Try stacking Hearth with PwT. Yep, +15 party stealth to ensure a short rest happens. And you can have a perceptive familiar or yourself in a wildshape (or high-Wis caster with perception) form to take watch. You'll always see them coming, but with the smallest bit of effort, they won't see you. And it just so happens, you have short rest wildshape resources that get refreshed off this, so it's good for you and the party.

Oh, and later on at lvl10, you get free Misty Step as well. That you can use in CR1 wildshape forms, that can also fly by then. It's not super-powerful, but it is powerful. Non-magic bonus action Teleport is great, even in caster form. You can also action teleport others a bit too, even in wildshape, and you're a very ridable wildshape by then. PC catapult shots ahoy! 4-5 times a day :)
Whatever, you can Balm them next turn if problems persist, you are the doctor.

The lvl14 "yeah, let's go back to town" ability really is just a nicety, but depending on the adventure/ campaign, can sort some problems that druids usually couldn't that easily for free. And if you're not done, Scry those problems away, to work out what you've got to do, so you can go back to base after a few more rests. Level 5 spells for free is not a usual thing. A nicety, but a very nice one of them. Why ever get stuck in a campaign, when you have the inbuilt ability to let the DM move it forward narratively without it being out-of-character?


For Land druids, even having one or two either useful or "would have prepared it anyway" spells on your land-type list is equivalent to an ASI or druid level (or two) of extra spell prep. And an extra cantrip for theming, utility or optimisation. This is on top of the already amazing spell preparation you have. You really can transform day to day, from having a broad spectrum of slot usage, to deciding "all the good lvl2+3 spells, screw lvl1 other than Goodberry" whenever you want. You can also theme yourself all the easier because of it. Natural Recovery simply reinforces this (really well) on what sort of stuff you do each day, and even if it's not optimal, you can always do so much of it that it's very thematic. Chuck wildshape and familiars in there too, alongside crappy "must prep first" ritual casting, and you can not only play how you want to play, you can play very "Landy" as well. But not feel weak because of it.

Cleric domains have a bit of this as well, especially on spell prep decisions, but their basic list is more "generic". The domain spells and divinity adds the flavour. Whereas with Lands, it's the land-type spells and slot recovery that give you the freedom to really RP your character with your daily spell prep, summon types, wildshape forms and familiars from your basic chassis reinforcing this extra heavily, without it making you feel or play as a weak character. You're not trapped in by it, regardless of adventure or campaign, but you can do it how you perceive it, as your character would do it. Fire based spells on an Arctic Druid? Yeah, fire's actually pretty important in the freezing cold. So are plants and animals and healing....

Both are very underrated (I rate Land as higher than Moon in tier 2+, and Dreams as around the same as Moon. Maybe a touch lower, but I've never played one. There's some pretty amazing possibilities there though, even as a super-moving free-HP-for-self heal-bot lockdown artist that can still kick heads in a bit).

[Bosh]

It's a sub-set of a sub-class but wolf barbarians are incredibly powerful in a melee heavy party. Radiating constant advantage whenever raging is something that a lot of rogues, paladins, fighters, and other would drool all over. Often my wolf barbarian would be more useful as an advantage generator than everything else he did COMBINED. Except for tiger barbarians (which do suck) the other totem barbarian abilities are also very interesting and flavorful but bearbarians get all the love.

A lot of other overlooked subclasses do very well with the right multiclass. For example fiend warlock/barbarians work well since barbarians get more mileage out of temporary hit points. Fiend warlock with a barbarian dip is just about the old melee warlock I can think of that isn't actively sabotaging itself by not taking hexblade.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

My point wasn't that there isn't enough variety in Cleric subclasses, just that most of them don't seem to get used.

In my experience *most* players only look at the ones which give heavy armour access, or they optimise with Life Cleric, because they're the "best". My anecdotal observations might put me in the minority, but from what I've seen of most online communities I don't think I'm too far off. In the last 5 years since I really got into 5e from other systems, I can easily count the number of non-heavy armour, non-Life Clerics I've seen played on one hand.

Which is a shame. They're *all* good, and thematic, and interesting - which is the point of the thread :smallsmile:

That's interesting. I'm trying to think back in our group, and in 5 campaigns we've had 3 to my recollection: Light, Death, and Trickery. I wonder why your players tend to like Heavy Armor. I mean it's one AC point, requires a higher stat investment (unless you're a Dwarf) 15 str vs 14 dex to fully benefit and doesn't work well with stealth. I played the Light because I liked the blaster aspect of it and I didn't have to get stuck as 'the healer', the Death guy is into role playing and the Trickery guy was attracted to the great spell list and the Loki vibe.
Pertinent to the thread, they were all good characters, obviously based on a solid base class. However, the subclass abilities and spells were used effectively and regularly as well.
I think Clerics are one of those classes where some players look at one subclass ability, whether it's armor or the channel divinity option or whatever and make a decision if it's decent based on that, which seems rather misguided.

[MaxWilson]

It's a sub-set of a sub-class but wolf barbarians are incredibly powerful in a melee heavy party. Radiating constant advantage whenever raging is something that a lot of rogues, paladins, fighters, and other would drool all over.

Wolf is overrated. In a melee-heavy party, there are plenty of people who could knock a target prone for advantage anyway. (Including conjured animals.)

A lot of melee Fighters effectively do radiate approximately constant advantage. Shove prone + attack twice at advantage (Extra Attack + PAM bonus attack) + retreat 20' + get a reaction attack when or if the enemy Dashes into your melee range infatuation of giving up is a nice attack routine which just happens to give advantage to other melee attackers at the same time.

[JellyPooga]

Wolf is overrated. In a melee-heavy party, there are plenty of people who could knock a target prone for advantage anyway. (Including conjured animals.)

A lot of melee Fighters effectively do radiate approximately constant advantage. Shove prone + attack twice at advantage (Extra Attack + PAM bonus attack) + retreat 20' + get a reaction attack when or if the enemy Dashes into your melee range infatuation of giving up is a nice attack routine which just happens to give advantage to other melee attackers at the same time.

I disagree. Granting Advantage just for standing next to a foe is signifiantly better than A) giving up attacks to knock prone B) risking failure to generate said advantage and C) a condition rectified at basically zero cost on the foes turn. A melee guy taking the opportunity to knock a powerful foe down is a good tactic if you can get it to stick and capitalise on it with e.g. grappling too, but is usually going to be a waste of resources against weaker foes. Wolf Totem not only takes any risk and resource cost out of the equation, but also serves to enhance melee against mook squads and other weaker foes you might not want to bother with the "full routine", so to speak, while simultaneously putting the Barbarian in a position to capitalise on their role as a damage sponge.

[stoutstien]

Wolf is overrated. In a melee-heavy party, there are plenty of people who could knock a target prone for advantage anyway. (Including conjured animals.)

A lot of melee Fighters effectively do radiate approximately constant advantage. Shove prone + attack twice at advantage (Extra Attack + PAM bonus attack) + retreat 20' + get a reaction attack when or if the enemy Dashes into your melee range infatuation of giving up is a nice attack routine which just happens to give advantage to other melee attackers at the same time.

I mostly agree but wolf can work well with some parties. Prone's adv only works with attacks made within 5ft but the wolf totem is just melee attacks full stop as long as you are within 5ft. Not amazing but gives them a solid C rating at least.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I disagree that mine's such a narrow viewpoint. Though I admitted that I was generalising, my sample of examples is more than just a couple of my local gaming groups; aside from the build threads in this forum and others I frequent, there's also D&D Beyond itself which says that Life Cleric has been the most popular Cleric subclass for around 3 years running, Tempest having climbed from 3rd to 2nd and the other places in the top 3 being a duel between Forge and War. (2019 (https://i.imgur.com/c2watFs.png) and 2020 (https://www.enworld.org/attachments/subclass-jpg.123911/)). All 4 of which are heavy armour Clerics, incidentally.


A large Set is still a Set. Most of D&D's player base, (as indicated by sales numbers), seems to be based in North America and Europe.

Sales Numbers are only indicative of the play habits of a select group, as people share books, and pirated information and free versions of the rules are easily available.

We simply don't have good data on those groups that are out there playing with 'Free' D&D materials.

While D&D Beyond has a sizable number of users, the population of D&D players that uses D&D Beyond is only a fraction of the total D&D playing population.

Just as there are general demographic correlations between, for example, College American Football fans....the same is going to be true for DDB.

Even the most casual glance at D&D Beyond's Subclass Popularity statistics reveals that free options, (the subclass options that are not shielded by a Paywall), are consistently, the most popular options.

There is nothing in the data available to us, (the readers of this MSG board), that demonstrates a causal relationship between Heavy Armor Proficiency and how popular a particular cleric subclass is.

Now, IF ,(in the spirit of a Thought Experiment), we accept your premise that "Most People select their Cleric subclass based off if the subclass grants Heavy Armor Proficiency"...to me that would indicate that most players, do not have much system mastery, if such a premise is true.

The AC difference between Heavy Armor and shield versus Medium Armor and Shield is 1 point of AC in favor of Heavy Armor.

The opportunity costs involved in having the Strength/Race or other feature that allows effective use of Heavy Armor, probably outweigh the AC bonus.

If your hypothesis is true, then the 'Wisdom of the Masses' is a delusion.

Politely, I don't believe that your hypothesis, that Heavy Armor Proficiency is the central factor that drives a cleric subclass' popularity level, is sound.

[Bosh]

I mostly agree but wolf can work well with some parties. Prone's adv only works with attacks made within 5ft but the wolf totem is just melee attacks full stop as long as you are within 5ft. Not amazing but gives them a solid C rating at least.

A bit of an extreme example but once played in a party of:
-Paladin
-War domain cleric
-Melee rogue
-My wolf barbarian

In that party my advantage aura was sometimes more valuable in a fight than everything else my PC did combined.

[Selrahc]

So you're the only person I've 'met' in ~5 years who disproportionately plays the non-top-4 subclasses? Glad to hear it, but when 52% of everyone else's Clerics created on the biggest D&D website are Life Domain, either that subclass is hideously overpowered (unlikely) or that the others are being overlooked for reasons of.... theme? Party composition? Phases of the moon? Despite all being perfectly good subclasses in their own right. Which was the point of the thread, wasn't it? :smallsmile:

The 2019 data has had some sort of data correction done, most likely to remove free users. Because as you can see from the 2020 data, when you include the free users, the free subclasses get about 45-60% of players in EVERY class. (Except Druid, which probably speaks to both how unpopular Druid is with more casual players, and how popular Circle of the Moon is)

EDIT: Oh, yeah. It says that the 2019 data is looking at just players with all content unlocked.

[Sception]

I've played a couple shadow monks in 5e, and the lack of non-ki using offensive options really hurts them. Yeah, you can make darkness, but you can't see in it. yeah, you can teleport in dim light, but only if you can see where you're going, which means you cant teleport in the darkness you can make. yeah you get advantage on one attack when you teleport, but you're giving up 1 to 2 attacks by teleporting, so that's not even fully refunding the offense you gave up by teleporting in the first place. Yes, pass without trace is a fantastic, arguably even broken utility spell, and silence can be quite strong in the right situation, but other characters can access these spells earlier and cast them using less harshly limited resources.

Shadow monk is definitely one of the better monks, especially in the rare exploration based game that puts way more emphasis than usual on infiltration and way less emphasis than usual on combat. But like the vast majority of Monk subclasses in 5e they're way too MAD and have way too many of their abilities, including virtually all of their offensive power, tied to way too few ki points, especially at the early levels that see the most play. They're kind of ok at level one, where a bonus action attack in and of itself is enough to hang in there, but by the time your cool shadow stuff starts kicking in you just aren't doing enough with your actions to keep up, at least not without a fair bit of DM improvisation to help you out.

IME shadow monk has a reputation for being one of the less bad subclasses of a class that's pretty bad overall, and imo that's neither under nor over rating them.

...

I will second the person who brought up crown paladins. Access to spirit guardians alone is a strong mark in their favor. They also had access to warding bond which was a significant bonus before Tasha's Cauldron gave it to all paladins, and still is in games that don't use the expanded spell lists from Tasha's. The level 7 ability, while not as good as the mercy paladin's version of the same feature, is still pretty solid for tanky paladin builds. Their CDs are a bit lackluster, but the aoe heal one has its uses, particularly since it's only a bonus action to activate it, making it similar in utility to Mass Healing Word, which clerics don't see until two levels later.

Crown isn't the strongest paladin oath, probably not even top 5, but they're not as bad as people make them out to be. Not by half. Definitely underrated.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I've played a couple shadow monks in 5e, and the lack of non-ki using offensive options really hurts them. Yeah, you can make darkness, but you can't see in it. yeah, you can teleport in dim light, but only if you can see where you're going, which means you cant teleport in the darkness you can make. yeah you get advantage on one attack when you teleport, but you're giving up 1 to 2 attacks by teleporting, so that's not even fully refunding the offense you gave up by teleporting in the first place. Yes, pass without trace is a fantastic, arguably even broken utility spell, and silence can be quite strong in the right situation, but other characters can access these spells earlier and cast them using less harshly limited resources.

Shadow monk is definitely one of the better monks, especially in the rare exploration based game that puts way more emphasis than usual on infiltration and way less emphasis than usual on combat. But like the vast majority of Monk subclasses in 5e they're way too MAD and have way too many of their abilities, including virtually all of their offensive power, tied to way too few ki points, especially at the early levels that see the most play. They're kind of ok at level one, where a bonus action attack in and of itself is enough to hang in there, but by the time your cool shadow stuff starts kicking in you just aren't doing enough with your actions to keep up, at least not without a fair bit of DM improvisation to help you out.

IME shadow monk has a reputation for being one of the less bad subclasses of a class that's pretty bad overall, and imo that's neither under nor over rating them.

...

I will second the person who brought up crown paladins. Access to spirit guardians alone is a strong mark in their favor. They also had access to warding bond which was a significant bonus before Tasha's Cauldron gave it to all paladins, and still is in games that don't use the expanded spell lists from Tasha's. The level 7 ability, while not as good as the mercy paladin's version of the same feature, is still pretty solid for tanky paladin builds. Their CDs are a bit lackluster, but the aoe heal one has its uses, particularly since it's only a bonus action to activate it, making it similar in utility to Mass Healing Word, which clerics don't see until two levels later.

Crown isn't the strongest paladin oath, probably not even top 5, but they're not as bad as people make them out to be. Not by half. Definitely underrated.

Your second paragraph pretty accurately describes our group, which is likely part of the reason why the Shadow Monk was pretty good in our first 5e game, Out of the Abyss. The fact the whole thing was in the dark and a lot of the dungeons had significant terrain in them (partly added by me) didn't hurt. We didn't have a rogue, so the SM was effectively the scout as well. For sure in a stand up fight the Paladin was doing more damage, but there were often times where the Monk could get where he needed to go sooner, and was effective as a result.

[T.G. Oskar]

I've played a couple shadow monks in 5e, and the lack of non-ki using offensive options really hurts them. Yeah, you can make darkness, but you can't see in it. yeah, you can teleport in dim light, but only if you can see where you're going, which means you cant teleport in the darkness you can make. yeah you get advantage on one attack when you teleport, but you're giving up 1 to 2 attacks by teleporting, so that's not even fully refunding the offense you gave up by teleporting in the first place. Yes, pass without trace is a fantastic, arguably even broken utility spell, and silence can be quite strong in the right situation, but other characters can access these spells earlier and cast them using less harshly limited resources.

Shadow monk is definitely one of the better monks, especially in the rare exploration based game that puts way more emphasis than usual on infiltration and way less emphasis than usual on combat. But like the vast majority of Monk subclasses in 5e they're way too MAD and have way too many of their abilities, including virtually all of their offensive power, tied to way too few ki points, especially at the early levels that see the most play. They're kind of ok at level one, where a bonus action attack in and of itself is enough to hang in there, but by the time your cool shadow stuff starts kicking in you just aren't doing enough with your actions to keep up, at least not without a fair bit of DM improvisation to help you out.

IME shadow monk has a reputation for being one of the less bad subclasses of a class that's pretty bad overall, and imo that's neither under nor over rating them.

I've played a Shadow Monk, but I made the specific decision of multiclassing into Rogue, and I feel this subclass does best when you do so.

For starters, the Shadow Arts do well with stealth killing. Darkness might not help you with offense, but is a superb escape tactic since your enemies won't see either (barring demons, devils and other creatures that can see in magical darkness, as well as creatures with a form of blindsense). Pass without Trace becomes downright invisibility if you combine it with Expertise in Stealth, not to mention Cunning Action to Hide. Silence lets you cross unheard, which with your huge Stealth bonus implies that no one can hear you approach - least of all the mage, who'll suddenly realize is largely unable to escape from the stealthy killer behind it. (Note that Misty Step has a verbal component.) About the only power that might not see a lot of synergy from multiclassing is Darkvision, but that's mostly a corrective power for most of the races that lack natural darkvision anyways. (And you can use it to buff allies, for one.)

Shadow Step giving you advantage on the first melee attack allows you to surprise the opponent with Sneak Attack, while following with a second attack thanks to Extra Attack. Thanks to TCoE, you can choose to make this attack with a weapon such as a Rapier, or spend more Ki to ensure the attack lands - and do note that you can combine that Sneak Attack with a Stunning Strike. Conversely, you can use it to reposition and attack an enemy fighting an ally of yours, which also triggers Sneak Attack.

Cloak of Shadows allows you to become invisible provided you're not in an area of bright light, a tactic you can exploit by then attacking at range - and with Dedicated Weapon, you can easily make your shortbow (a weapon with which both Rogues and Monks are proficient with). Sure, it requires an action (and consumes no Ki, therefore no use of Ki-Powered Attack), but you can use it before combat, or as part of a Disengage (thanks to, again, Cunning Action) to escape from multiple opponents. It's an interesting tactic to move between hiding spots, making you harder to pin down.

Finally, Opportunist lets you spend your reaction to attack on another creature's turn - but since it's technically your turn, it means you can trigger Sneak Attack once again. Do note that you can't do it with unarmed strikes, since they're not Finesse weapons, but you can do it with a dagger or shortsword you might be using in the first place.

...Alright, so this shows that you're relying a bit more on the good stuff from Rogue than the stuff from Monk, but I still say that Shadow Monk sets up a lot of opportunities that Rogues would simply love to have - flexibility with hiding spots, independence in the use of Sneak Attack, ability to trigger SA more than once in a round, etc. Do note that this also adds to the Monk's Stunning Strike (great for disabling), Unarmored Defense (no need to wear armor unless a better option is around), Deflect Missiles (use your reaction to make a ranged attack that can potentially deal more damage, and if the stars align also trigger Sneak Attack), Extra Attack (two chances to trigger Sneak Attack) and Martial Arts itself (meaning your shortsword will deal more damage, and you'll be able to make more attacks through bonus actions). Rogue also makes Step of the Wind slightly redundant, letting you focus on using your Ki for other things such as Flurry of Blows or Patient Defense.

It's a bit of a shame that the subclass can only come to its full potential if you multiclass, but it's not that bad per se, particularly if you know how to combine Silence with Stunning Strike. (Remember that Silence requires an action to cast, and uses Ki? Trigger Ki-Fueled Attack with Stunning Strike against a mage. That doesn't need levels of Rogue at all, though it does need TCoE.)

[MaxWilson]

I disagree. Granting Advantage just for standing next to a foe is signifiantly better than A) giving up attacks to knock prone B) risking failure to generate said advantage and C) a condition rectified at basically zero cost on the foes turn. A melee guy taking the opportunity to knock a powerful foe down is a good tactic if you can get it to stick and capitalise on it with e.g. grappling too, but is usually going to be a waste of resources against weaker foes. Wolf Totem not only takes any risk and resource cost out of the equation, but also serves to enhance melee against mook squads and other weaker foes you might not want to bother with the "full routine", so to speak, while simultaneously putting the Barbarian in a position to capitalise on their role as a damage sponge.

You're only counting half the benefit. Knocking prone costs the enemy action economy as well granting advantage. Therefore (C) is wrong. It typically costs the enemy a full round of attacks to stand up and Dash to a new target, hardly "zero cost". It's even more costly of course if someone grapples them while they're prone instead of kiting.

Wolf Totem doesn't eat enemy movement or impose disadvantage on opportunity attacks, ergo doesn't eat enemy action economy.

[Corran]

It's a bit of a shame that the subclass can only come to its full potential if you multiclass, but it's not that bad per se, particularly if you know how to combine Silence with Stunning Strike. (Remember that Silence requires an action to cast, and uses Ki? Trigger Ki-Fueled Attack with Stunning Strike against a mage. That doesn't need levels of Rogue at all, though it does need TCoE.)
Sentinel would work nicely here. Assuming ideal conditions (ie dim light), use action to cast silence on the mage, use bpnus action to shadow step next to them, and on their turn if they try to flee (sileced so cannot teleport, sentinal so disengage does not work) they provoke an OA attack which we'll roll with advantage (thanks to shadow stepping on our turn). Not the greatest feat for a stat and feat starved class, but if you are going for a mage killer you could do a lot worse.


Their CDs are a bit lackluster, but the aoe heal one has its uses, particularly since it's only a bonus action to activate it, making it similar in utility to Mass Healing Word, which clerics don't see until two levels later.
I like their CD.Heck, before conquest paladins were a thing it was my favourite CD. It still might be actually. It has a lot of potential, given the right party or the right encounter. If you are rolling a crown paladin and joining a random party, chances are that you probably wont need to use it, like ever, and it's going to look like a wasted feature. But with the right party (several squishies), the right build (very good effective AC), and the right DM (who uses monsters that attack the vulnerable pc's), well, it wont solve your problems, but it will be one of the things you'll be happy you can rely on. And every now and then there might be an encounter where you really need it to maintain a tactical advantage.

[Sception]

Shadow monk does multiclass ok with rogue, and sneak attack in particular can partially redress some of the shadow monk's issues, but both the monk half and the rogue suffer pretty significant trade-offs in the process. The biggest problem with monks, arguably even greater than their difficulty making effective use of equipment both mundane and magical, is that way too many of their abilities are tied to ki points, which they get way too few of, especially at the levels that see the most play. Multiclassing means getting even fewer ki points, making it even harder to use the few decent features that monks in general and shadow monks in particular do have access to.

Rogues, on the other hand, are on the weaker end of classes themselves in terms of combat effectiveness - not a huge problem, imo they pull of the gimmick of compensating for below average combat ability with above average non-combat utility better than monks do - but the combat effectiveness they do have relies heavily on sneak attack, which only barely manages to keep pace in the damage department for single classed rogues. Multiclassing means delaying sneak attack progression, and you can only delay that progression so much before your 'one good hit' per turn isn't actually all that good anymore.

You also end up with just a ton of pressure on your bonus actions. bonus action attack (for free, or double for ki), bonus action dodge (for ki), bonus action teleport-that-grants-advantage-on-an-attack (free, but requires dim light or darkness-that-you-can-see-through), and bonus action hide/dash/disengage (free), are all very solid options. Well, apart from the double attack for ki, one unarmed attack is just not good enough to spend ki on, but yeah, the rest are all solid options that are great to have and feel cool to use. These are, imo, the abilities that make rogues and shadow monks fun to play, regardless of how weak they may or may not be, but the more of these abilities you have, the less use you'll get out of each one.

Multiclass rogue/shadow monks can get to an ok place, but requires a lot of finely tuned balancing of your progression. In the best case you're probably not going to be better off overall than a pure rogue, and in the worst case you can easily end up worse off than a pure shadow monk. And there are a lot of options in the game for a spooky, gishy, shadow magic warrior these days that Shadow Monk, multiclass or otherwise, has a hard time competing with. Regardless of multiclassing, the same or substantially similar character concept can probably be better and more easily implemented as a gloomstalker or fey wanderer ranger; hexblade warlock; eldritch knight fighter; arcane trickster, soulknife, or phantom rogue; whisper or swords bard; bladesinger wizard; oathbreaker or vengeance dexadin; twilight cleric; or some multiclass of the above with each other or with shadow or aberrant sorcerer. Or, if wildmonte is available, you could go with my personal favorite shadow warrior: a dex-leaning echo knight with the echo manifestation re-flavored to be your own independently animated shadow. The latter even has an alternative resource-free teleportation ability, one that takes a bit more set up but has fewer caveats than the shadow monk's.

None of these options does exactly the things a shadow monk can do, but they can all convey the same sort of shadow warrior feel while providing an overall significantly stronger and less limiting package, one where your character mechanics feel like they're working with you as the player rather than against you.

....

Again, that's not to say shadow monks are terrible, especially relative to most other monks, or that you can't have fun playing them. Just that, imo, the general estimation of their power and abilities is pretty much right on the money, neither under nor over estimating them. Unlike most other monks, which I feel are often over-estimated. Yes, even 4 elements monk, commonly understood to be terrible, is generally worse than its already bad reputation lets on imo.

[JellyPooga]

You're only counting half the benefit. Knocking prone costs the enemy action economy as well granting advantage. Therefore (C) is wrong. It typically costs the enemy a full round of attacks to stand up and Dash to a new target, hardly "zero cost". It's even more costly of course if someone grapples them while they're prone instead of kiting.

Wolf Totem doesn't eat enemy movement or impose disadvantage on opportunity attacks, ergo doesn't eat enemy action economy.

Kiting is frequently either impossible or inefficient in itself. PC's are often the slowest thing on a given battlefield and anywhere indoors usually has a limited battlefield. In addition, as a Barbarian you (usually) *want* to be hit; it's part of your purpose on the battlefield. If you're kiting, you're giving the enemy the option of who they want to attack. Wolf Totem does not face these issues.

[T.G. Oskar]

Shadow monk does multiclass ok with rogue, and sneak attack in particular can partially redress some of the shadow monk's issues, but both the monk half and the rogue suffer pretty significant trade-offs in the process. The biggest problem with monks, arguably even greater than their difficulty making effective use of equipment both mundane and magical, is that way too many of their abilities are tied to ki points, which they get way too few of, especially at the levels that see the most play. Multiclassing means getting even fewer ki points, making it even harder to use the few decent features that monks in general and shadow monks in particular do have access to.

I should dissent on "way too many of their abilities". Focusing strictly on Shadow Monks, these are the abilities that consume Ki:

Flurry of Blows
Patient Defense
Step of the Wind
Deflect Missiles (only when trying to make a counterattack with the caught missile)
Stunning Strike
Diamond Soul (only for the save reroll)
Empty Body
Shadow Arts


That's seven out of 19 base class features, and 1 out of 4 subclass features. That's not "way too many", unless you discount the features that are passives: Martial Arts has an active trait but most of what it does is improve your unarmed strikes; Unarmored Defense is meant to compensate for lack of armor proficiency; Unarmored Movement merely increases speed until 9th level where you can walk through liquids and walls; Extra Attack merely adds an...extra attack on your Attack action, Ki-Empowered Strikes is basically a modification to Martial Arts, Evasion negates damage only if you succeed on a Dex save, Purity of Body grants immunities, Tongue of the Sun and Moon makes learning languages inconsequential (as long as it's a spoken language) and Timeless Body is mostly a ribbon ability. About the only non-Ki feature that requires an action is Stillness of Mind.

However, do note that most of the features you'll be expected to use don't require Ki to activate. Martial Arts still gives you the ability to make a bonus action attack (hence, making two attacks straight from 1st level) without spending Ki, and Deflect Missiles doesn't require you to spend Ki to return the projectile attack - the reaction covers for the damage reduction specifically.

What I notice is that your evaluation of Monk echoes the one from 3.x - too many passives that make no sense to each other. And that, to an extent, is true - there's a lot of ribbon abilities there that remain only for the grace of being sacred cows. (I mean, they lack Telepathy, but...) That said, they're definitely an improvement to the 3.x Monk, since Martial Arts and the way Move and Action work in 5e make for a much more effective mobile skirmisher, which was the purpose of the Monk in the first place. It's just that it's hard to make sense of a Monk when it has the ability to speak all languages but no focus on social skills (no class-based proficiency in Deception, Intimidation or Persuasion, no reason why to use Charisma or apply Wisdom to Charisma checks as the Fey Wanderer Ranger does), or immunity to diseases when they're less lethal than their previous incarnations. (Poisons are still a pain, though). The big change here is the use of Ki, which arguably powers up most of the cool active abilities, such as Flurry of Blows or Stunning Strike. (I'm deliberately ignoring Empty Body because it's too late to be acquired.) That's the point I can give you - early on, you get too few uses of Ki to justify using all those cool abilities, but by the time you reach 10th level, you should get more than enough, because Ki abilities recharge on a short rest - barring having no actual short rests, the Monk should do pretty well. (Also note that, if all you have is one big battle, then going nova with your Ki is the ideal move.)

Now, when you factor Shadow Monk into the equation, you get only one more feature (which is itself split into four different abilities, as you get to replicate one cantrip and four spells) which consumes Ki, and its consumption is 2 points - again, harsh at first, but by 10th level you get more than enough uses, even factoring using Flurry of Blows and Stunning Strike. The other abilities you get require no Ki whatsoever, and are arguably just as good if not better than Shadow Arts themselves (barring Minor Illusion which is an awesome cantrip).


Rogues, on the other hand, are on the weaker end of classes themselves in terms of combat effectiveness - not a huge problem, imo they pull of the gimmick of compensating for below average combat ability with above average non-combat utility better than monks do - but the combat effectiveness they do have relies heavily on sneak attack, which only barely manages to keep pace in the damage department for single classed rogues. Multiclassing means delaying sneak attack progression, and you can only delay that progression so much before your 'one good hit' per turn isn't actually all that good anymore.

That's not really a Monk OR Rogue problem, that's a Multiclass problem. Effective multiclassing involves knowing what you're losing from multiclassing vs. what you gain, and when you should do it. Going with the Rogue/Shadow Monk build, it's effective straight from level 5, turning even better by level 8. Rogues depend greatly on Sneak Attack while Monks depend greatly on Stunning Strike and multiple attacks with weapons that hit harder as you gain levels - though you delay your progression in unarmed strikes/monk weapons for 3 levels, you end up with the ability to deal far more damage than an 8th level Rogue, as you lose 2 dice of Sneak Attack to gain an Extra Attack on top of your bonus action attacks. The first 2 levels of Rogue add a lot of utility to the Monk if it intends to work as a skill-monkey, in particular Expertise, in addition to Sneak Attack. If your intention is to add skill utility to the Monk because your build demands it, then the loss of 2 points of Ki and delayed access to Extra Attack, Stunning Strike and an ASI might not seem too much compared to freeing Disengage and Dodge from Ki use, increasing your overall damage output and having more skills overall. (Conversely, two levels of Monk on a Rogue delay one die of Sneak Attack and an ASI for an effective melee weapon and no armor requirement at all times and the ability to use Dodge as a bonus action.) If you feel those sacrifices don't justify the benefits you acquire, then why multiclass in the first place?

The thing I mentioned is that Shadow Monk thrives with a few levels of Rogue for a few reasons, in particular since it gives ways to enable advantage on your attacks, which is a main requirement for Sneak Attack; conversely, you add some damage to your combat routine, which already has up to four attacks and Stunning Strikes galore. It thrives because of the synergies, in the same way a Paladin and a Warlock thrive because of Hexblade and Cha-casting synergies: Hexblade Warlock gives the Paladin two great cantrips from the start, up to two slots you can use for Smites, and the potential for invocations that you can use for just about everything. This is the kind of synergy you get from Shadow Monk and Rogue levels. I think you do agree on this when you say:


Multiclass rogue/shadow monks can get to an ok place, but requires a lot of finely tuned balancing of your progression.

I just don't agree with


In the best case you're probably not going to be better off overall than a pure rogue, and in the worst case you can easily end up worse off than a pure shadow monk.

...because the whole purpose of the multiclass is to enable certain things on your build. If you have a clear idea where to build (stop at 10th level, for example), you can choose how many levels of both classes to use (hence, fine-tuning) to maximize the potential of the build itself. I definitely think that a Shadow Monk that can add some Sneak Attack damage to its full attack routine (complete with Extra Attack for additional chances to trigger that SA), or a Rogue that can fight impressively well solo end up better overall.


You also end up with just a ton of pressure on your bonus actions. bonus action attack (for free, or double for ki), bonus action dodge (for ki), bonus action teleport-that-grants-advantage-on-an-attack (free, but requires dim light or darkness-that-you-can-see-through), and bonus action hide/dash/disengage (free), are all very solid options. Well, apart from the double attack for ki, one unarmed attack is just not good enough to spend ki on, but yeah, the rest are all solid options that are great to have and feel cool to use. These are, imo, the abilities that make rogues and shadow monks fun to play, regardless of how weak they may or may not be, but the more of these abilities you have, the less use you'll get out of each one.

Consider that not all abilities have to be used at once. Though anecdotical example, a lot of my uses of Cunning Action are for Hide, because I often make ranged attacks. I only engage in melee when I know enemies are approaching or when I know I can go for the kill, and I use the bonus action attack or Flurry of Blows depending on how badly I want them killed. I rarely use Dodge, Disengage or Dash, because I don't intend to fight up close, don't intend to be surrounded, and don't intend to approach them that fast if I can take them from a distance. However, out of combat, Dash suddenly sounds a lot more useful, except when crossing a chasm while on dim light - in which the teleport suddenly becomes once again useful. Indeed, you get a lot of pressure on your bonus actions, but that only applies if you have the chance to activate them all. It's not "less use" but "which action is most useful at this moment?"

Now, I do agree with your final statement that Shadow Monks aren't as underrated as one might imagine, but the way you present them does set them up as underperforming. They're right on the money and they can be played while having fun. I just sense that your issue is with Monks in general, and not the subclass in particular - specially when you compare it to outright broken class/subclass combinations (Hexblade? Bladesinger? Vengeance Paladin, really?)

[Sception]

That's seven out of 19 base class features, and 1 out of 4 subclass features. That's not "way too many", unless you discount the features that are passives:

Several of the passives /can/ be discounted, since they only exist to not-even-fully mitigate the onerous restrictions of the monk class. Unarmored Defense heaps a huge amount of extra unnecessary MADness on the character to only partially mitigate the monk's not just lack of armor proficiencies, but inability to wear armor even if they get the proficiencies elsewhere. You can package Unarmored Defense and the restriction against armor together into a single feature that is, at best, a nothing ability, but will very often just amount to a penalty.

Likewise with the Ki Empowered Strikes. It's a crutch to make up for how much the class forces you to rely on unarmed attacks, and how badly those unarmed attacks are penalized by the monster resistances that are becoming increasingly prominent by those levels, something magic weapons are supposed to eventually allow martial PCs to overcome regardless. The feature doesn't even fully make up for the way monk features end up dividing their offence between weapon and unarmed attacks, which reduces the utility they get out of the weapons they can use, not to mention the lack of mechanical support for unarmed strikes in the game in terms of feats and magic items.

As for Martial Arts, any character can make a bonus action attacks at level one via two weapon fighting to get basically what a monk gets out of martial arts without even cluttering up their character sheet with a class feature. Most don't, because other ways of fighting are just better mechanically in 5e. Martial arts, as an ability, is all style, no substance, and mechanically is more a hindrance than a boon. It's not 'improving your unarmed strikes' because without martial arts you wouldn't be using unarmed strikes in the first place.


Monk does get some "real" abilities that don't rely on ki and aren't just tricky ways of describing a penalty as though it were a bonus. Unarmored movement, deflect missles, extra attack, evasion, etc. These aren't nothing abilities.
Most of them are pretty cool and some of them are even pretty effective. However several of these are either non-unique (extra attack, evasion), or pretty situational (deflect missles, slow fall), or restricted to levels that just don't see much play (anything past level 11 really).

Plus, these are generally passive, defensive, or reactive abilities. If a monk is actually *doing* something on their turn beyond playing at being a rogue without sneak attack, then they're generally burning key to do it, and the ki just doesn't last long enough for that, not at the levels that matter most.

Maybe if they had 'stances' where you could spend a ki point for a bonus that lasted the entire combat, like how spellcasters can use concentration spells to stretch out their spell slots? Or maybe if flurry of blows wasn't a ki thing, and the monk instead just got to make more bonus action attacks as they leveled. Maybe those attacks could be made with monk weapons as well, so you could actually use magic items. Maybe a monk should be allowed to wear armor and unarmored defense should just be a backup feature like barbarians. Maybe dash and disengage as bonus actions shouldn't cost ki - they don't for rogues and that doesn't break the game. Maybe the attack part of deflect missiles shouldn't require ki - it's already burning a reaction on a pretty situational defensive ability anyway. Maybe stunning strike should be based on your attack stat DC instead of forcing more madness onto a character who already needs a lot of dex and wis and maybe even strength too if they want to be able to shove or grapple. Maybe 4 elements and Shadow monks should have had their own spell slots like eldritch knight and arcane tricksters do instead of piling extra pressure on the already overburdened ki resource. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

So many maybes with the monk.



That's not really a Monk OR Rogue problem, that's a Multiclass problem.

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, merely to point out that multiclassing rogue doesn't 'fix' the problems with shadow monk. In fact, it makes some key problems worse, if you'll pardon the pun.

....

Again, I want to stress that I'm NOT saying shadow monks or shadow monk rogues are unplayable, or terrible. Just that I think their reputation as a fairly sub par build mechanically - but one that is still pretty fun to play, and significantly less bad than most other subclasses* - is a fair an accurate assessment of them.


* Shadow Monk was the ~least~ bad Monk, by a wide margin, until Tasha's, which finally introduced the actually halfway decent Mercy Monk. Tasha could have brought us two halfway decent monks if the community hadn't thrown a fit over the astral monk. Kind of off topic, but that is an inherent problem with 5e's class/subclass system, in that it encourages people to compare subclasses of the same class to each other, instead of comparing them to all the other builds in the game. Crown paladins get called weak because they're on the lower end of paladins, even though that still puts them at a good place as perfectly effective characters overall. And people look at the playtest Astral Monk and think it's way too strong because it's significantly better than open fist or drunken master or any number of the other positively awful monk subclasses, so it gets nerfed into the ground in the published release to join them as a build that nobody should ever play.

Honestly, at this point I'm starting to feel that open playtesting via unearthed arcana does more harm than good.

[Tanarii]

What makes you think Fiend Way of Shadow are underrated? They were all popular with players IMC. Fiend was the top Warlock choice, and Shadow was at least as popular as Open Hand, if not more so.

Without double checking, I'd guess Enchanter was in the top 1/2 of Wizard picks. Evoker and illusionist were by far the top picks popular, but it wasn't fairly infrequent like Transmuter or Necromancer. (Although my rule on no evil characters was probably the biggest blocker for Necromancers).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

What makes you think Fiend Way of Shadow are underrated? They were all popular with players IMC. Fiend was the top Warlock choice, and Shadow was at least as popular as Open Hand, if not more so.

Without double checking, I'd guess Enchanter was in the top 1/2 of Wizard picks. Evoker and illusionist were by far the top picks popular, but it wasn't fairly infrequent like Transmuter or Necromancer. (Although my rule on no evil characters was probably the biggest blocker for Necromancers).

And this is another example of the difficulty of a thread like this. It's difficult to define 'underrated'. What might be underrated by one group can be quite popular with another... which I suppose is the definition of underrated. If everyone thought something was bad and nobody played it, then it's probably just bad. The bit of the discussion focused on Clerics is probably highlighted this as well as anything.

I put a suggestion in early on that I thought Dragon Sorc was still a solid blaster option, despite some of the new subclasses. I'd say it's actually improved with access to a feat that gets 2 more metamagic options, one of those providing an ability to alter the damage type. Anyway, I got no feedback, so what does the forum think? Is Dragon Sorc still a viable option (underrated), or is it now clearly bad?

[stoutstien]

And this is another example of the difficulty of a thread like this. It's difficult to define 'underrated'. What might be underrated by one group can be quite popular with another... which I suppose is the definition of underrated. If everyone thought something was bad and nobody played it, then it's probably just bad. The bit of the discussion focused on Clerics is probably highlighted this as well as anything.

I put a suggestion in early on that I thought Dragon Sorc was still a solid blaster option, despite some of the new subclasses. I'd say it's actually improved with access to a feat that gets 2 more metamagic options, one of those providing an ability to alter the damage type. Anyway, I got no feedback, so what does the forum think? Is Dragon Sorc still a viable option (underrated), or is it now clearly bad?
It's fine but not really a blaster. It has more mobility and defensive features than offense. It's still the tankest sorcerer even with what clockwork being to the table.

[Tanarii]

And this is another example of the difficulty of a thread like this. It's difficult to define 'underrated'. What might be underrated by one group can be quite popular with another... which I suppose is the definition of underrated. If everyone thought something was bad and nobody played it, then it's probably just bad. The bit of the discussion focused on Clerics is probably highlighted this as well as anything.
One possibility I could see that wasn't just an impression would be if the subclasses were rated low in many different online guides or something. Personally I've found they seem to be more theorycraft than reality at the table, including in terms of non-internet popularity or perceptions about a class/subclass. But that'd certainly explain a idea that they're somehow underrated.

Similarly I'd never take my impression of this or any other forum as consensus/popularity on a class or subclass being over or underrated. We're all seriously plugged in it affects our views strongly. And IMX the majority of gamers aren't. For example, I've heard utter disgust expressed at the idea of participating in or even reading forum threads or watching detailed videos about TTRPG gaming more times than I can count. We're ... not well regarded :smallamused:

[5eNeedsDarksun]

One possibility I could see that wasn't just an impression would be if the subclasses were rated low in many different online guides or something. Personally I've found they seem to be more theorycraft than reality at the table, including in terms of non-internet popularity or perceptions about a class/subclass. But that'd certainly explain a idea that they're somehow underrated.

Similarly I'd never take my impression of this or any other forum as consensus/popularity on a class or subclass being over or underrated. We're all seriously plugged in it affects our views strongly. And IMX the majority of gamers aren't. For example, I've heard utter disgust expressed at the idea of participating in or even reading forum threads or watching detailed videos about TTRPG gaming more times than I can count. We're ... not well regarded :smallamused:

I think you make a good point regarding theorycrafting. A lot of the time these 'builds' seem to focus on 1 or 2 aspects of a character, as opposed to looking more broadly. I'm sort of rephrasing what I said in regards to Clerics here, but I think this is one of the reasons people have such diverse views on which subclasses are 'good' for them. Clerics are a very well balanced class, but if a player is just looking for healing ability, or armor, or spell selection, or channel divinity, etc they are going to come to different conclusions about what is decent.

[Pex]

Alchemist gets flak as the weakest Artificer subclass, but that doesn't match with Forum logic. People here like to say the ability to fly is so powerful it's nearly game breaking, especially at low level. The Alchemist can do that at 3rd level. He can have anyone in the party fly whenever he wants. His Experimental Elixir allows for flight. His first one is random, so he may not get it. However, he can expend a 1st level spell slot to create another one, and he can choose which one he wants. He can choose to make the flight potion, for free, using only a 1st level spell slot. He casts Fly using a 1st level spell slot. The flight speed is only 10 ft, but it's still flight.

I like the Alchemist. It is the support subclass of Artificer, and the support it provides works well. It's decent enough as a combatant when he needs to be. He has his spells, and he can buff his Cantrip attack. Even if accepting Alchemist is the weakest Artificer subclass, it is by no means a poor one.

[Sception]

I like the Alchemist. It is the support subclass of Artificer, and the support it provides works well. It's decent enough as a combatant when he needs to be. He has his spells, and he can buff his Cantrip attack. Even if accepting Alchemist is the weakest Artificer subclass, it is by no means a poor one.

The flying potion is decent, but the speed is very slow, the duration is limited, and as a half caster the alchemist can only do this a couple times a day at the lowest levels, and that's eating all their spell slots, leaving only rather underwhelming cantrips for their actions. By the time the alchemist has enough spell slots to use this regularly, other casters have access to the much superior fly spell.

Artificer isn't a terrible chassis, so long as your DM isn't so free with magic items that your infusions become redundant, but it has an obvious and critical weakness in terms of not really giving you enough useful to do with your own turn, since as a half caster your spell slots just don't last long enough to use them freely like a full caster can be doing by early mid levels. That's fine at like levels 1 & 2 when basic weapon attacks are enough, but if most of your turns still consist of throwing out an attack cantrip (short of agonizing eldritch blast) or a single vanilla light crossbow bolt at like levels 4 and 5 that's really starting to hurt. Theoretically your class doesn't have to provide the answer here if your subclass is picking up the slack, as the other artificer subclasses do with varying success, but alchemist really drops the ball here. Alchemical savant just doesn't go far enough. Maybe if it also let you affect an additional target with artificer cantrips, or turned single target artificer attack cantrips into small aoe bursts? I don't know.

As is, the additional support an alchemist offers to other party members just isn't enough to make up for the lack of ability to contribute directly. Other support classes, including other artificers, are providing equivalent or even better support while still having useful turns of their own. What it really comes down to is that the alchemist feels like a subclass designed for a for a full caster, not a half caster like the artificer. Or for a Ranger, or some other class with extra attack. Something with a more rhobust core chassis that wasn't depending on subclass for round by round functionality. I personally have to agree with the consensus that it's not just the worst alchemist subclass, it's one of the worst subclasses in the game.

[Segev]

Shadow Monk with even one level of rogue is a lot of fun in the right campaign. Pass without Trace is something a number of classes could add to the mix, but it does mean the whole party now has stealth as an option. Even the guy with disadvantage from heavy armor is still likely getting in the teens!

The rogue dip for expertise in stealth does mean your shadow monk has the run of any place he wants. Especially once he gets Shadow Step: look through keyholes or under doors with darkvision and you don't even need to pick locks. But you still can, if the place is too brightly lit.

The ability to cast Darkvision with a short rest resource is a great enabler for a party that has night-blind PCs. It lasts 8 hours! Pity it still is the weakest form of Darkvision any race could get; I think it should be at least as good as the Twilight Cleric's feature, since it costs a second level spell slot. And yes, in a pay where all the creatures are darkvision capable, that spell is useless. But it is interesting for those who could possibly need it that the shadow monk could give it to them over breakfast and not be down any ki by the time they head out for the day!

[Corran]

Shadow Monk with even one level of rogue is a lot of fun in the right campaign.
...

The rogue dip for expertise in stealth does mean your shadow monk has the run of any place he wants.
If you are going for one rogue level why stop there and not go for a second to get cunning action? Hiding in our own darkness helps us stay close to the enemies (instead of using darkness to hit and run), which can benefit the party if they are set up for it, while also dealing with our poor defenses (mediocre effective AC and poor/mediocre concentration, mediocre effective hp). The second benefit of cunning action being that if we want to risk defensivelly, we could position ourselves (with a little cooperation from allies/inititive) to attempt stunning stike OA's against enemies in that darknes (ideally maxed wisdom which we might want to prioritize if we can pick EA early; can we do it at level 1 with Tasha's custom race options?). And a third potential benefit keying off cunning action when in darkness, comes from having BB (again, easy to get from elf or halelf), by attacking with our action a target that will have to move (again, need a bit of cooperation from allies/initiative here but it's not difficult to get), since we can now hide only with our bonus action.

Stealth expertise also becomes more important if hiding during fights, since you cannot have PWT up the same time you have darkness up. And hiding during fights becomes more tempting if you can do it with just a bonus action and if your action and potentially your reaction can profit from you being hidden, which they can.

I was thinking of such a build just yesterday, basically trying to figure out if rogue 2 would be worth it as a dip for a shadow monk. Not sure yet, but I would definitely not stop at rogue 1 if I end up dipping.

[Tanarii]

I can see Way if Shadow being less popular if the DM doesn't enforce the requirement to not be clearly seen to hide. If they do, darkness, full cover, being a wood elf or halfling, or Skulker becomes much more important. So a shadow monks ability to generate their own darkness when needed is gold.

[Segev]

If you are going for one rogue level why stop there and not go for a second to get cunning action? Hiding in our own darkness helps us stay close to the enemies (instead of using darkness to hit and run), which can benefit the party if they are set up for it, while also dealing with our poor defenses (mediocre effective AC and poor/mediocre concentration, mediocre effective hp). The second benefit of cunning action being that if we want to risk defensivelly, we could position ourselves (with a little cooperation from allies/inititive) to attempt stunning stike OA's against enemies in that darknes (ideally maxed wisdom which we might want to prioritize if we can pick EA early; can we do it at level 1 with Tasha's custom race options?). And a third potential benefit keying off cunning action when in darkness, comes from having BB (again, easy to get from elf or halelf), by attacking with our action a target that will have to move (again, need a bit of cooperation from allies/initiative here but it's not difficult to get), since we can now hide only with our bonus action.

Stealth expertise also becomes more important if hiding during fights, since you cannot have PWT up the same time you have darkness up. And hiding during fights becomes more tempting if you can do it with just a bonus action and if your action and potentially your reaction can profit from you being hidden, which they can.

I was thinking of such a build just yesterday, basically trying to figure out if rogue 2 would be worth it as a dip for a shadow monk. Not sure yet, but I would definitely not stop at rogue 1 if I end up dipping.

Each level of monk, I've wanted something from the next more than I've wanted cunning action, in my case. I wanted Shadow Monk itself, then I wanted the feat, then I wanted the extra attack and stunning strike, then I wanted shadow step. I do eventually want cunning action to bonus-action hide; I've felt that pinch a couple of times. Maybe next level; while I can see the mechanical benefits of Evasion and Stillness of Mind, they're not nearly as _exciting_ as the new opportunities other levels have opened up. More ki is tempting, making the triple of those features and one more ki a competitor, but I think I'm looking towards my multiclass subclass features, next.

(This character actually is PROBABLY going Ranger for reasons that I wouldn't normally recommend as part of the shadow monk/rogue combo.)

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Each level of monk, I've wanted something from the next more than I've wanted cunning action, in my case. I wanted Shadow Monk itself, then I wanted the feat, then I wanted the extra attack and stunning strike, then I wanted shadow step. I do eventually want cunning action to bonus-action hide; I've felt that pinch a couple of times. Maybe next level; while I can see the mechanical benefits of Evasion and Stillness of Mind, they're not nearly as _exciting_ as the new opportunities other levels have opened up. More ki is tempting, making the triple of those features and one more ki a competitor, but I think I'm looking towards my multiclass subclass features, next.

(This character actually is PROBABLY going Ranger for reasons that I wouldn't normally recommend as part of the shadow monk/rogue combo.)

I was playing a Barbarian 6/ Rogue 1 who had the Eagle 3 ability and was kind of running across the same thing. I already had opponents at disadvantage to opportunity attacks and could dash as a BA, so using my bonus action to either hide or disengage seemed like not much of an upgrade for a full level investment. I guess I kind of see Cunning Action as a bit of an overrated ability partly because Rogue 2 gets nothing else and partly because it uses a bonus action and 90% of the time enemies are probably going to be able to attack another party member even if you successfully us it.

[Segev]

I was playing a Barbarian 6/ Rogue 1 who had the Eagle 3 ability and was kind of running across the same thing. I already had opponents at disadvantage to opportunity attacks and could dash as a BA, so using my bonus action to either hide or disengage seemed like not much of an upgrade for a full level investment. I guess I kind of see Cunning Action as a bit of an overrated ability partly because Rogue 2 gets nothing else and partly because it uses a bonus action and 90% of the time enemies are probably going to be able to attack another party member even if you successfully us it.

It is interesting that several Rogue and Rogue Subclass features talk about "you can use your Cunning Action to..." as if that's somehow different than saying "You can [do this] as a bonus action." Makes me wonder if there was at some point in development an intention that "Cunning Action" either change its action type or otherwise have a tie-in that made it important you were using that and not, say, Step of the Wind or a Berserker's extra bonus action attack.

Maybe a higher-level Rogue feature that read something like, "Use of your Cunning Action no longer requires your bonus action. You may only use your Cunning Action once on each of your turns." Essentially making Cunning Action an extra bonus action with a small collection of things you could do with it.

[luuma]

The flying potion is decent, but the speed is very slow, the duration is limited, and as a half caster the alchemist can only do this a couple times a day at the lowest levels, and that's eating all their spell slots, leaving only rather underwhelming cantrips for their actions. By the time the alchemist has enough spell slots to use this regularly, other casters have access to the much superior fly spell.

Artificer isn't a terrible chassis, so long as your DM isn't so free with magic items that your infusions become redundant, but it has an obvious and critical weakness in terms of not really giving you enough useful to do with your own turn, since as a half caster your spell slots just don't last long enough to use them freely like a full caster can be doing by early mid levels. That's fine at like levels 1 & 2 when basic weapon attacks are enough, but if most of your turns still consist of throwing out an attack cantrip (short of agonizing eldritch blast) or a single vanilla light crossbow bolt at like levels 4 and 5 that's really starting to hurt. Theoretically your class doesn't have to provide the answer here if your subclass is picking up the slack, as the other artificer subclasses do with varying success, but alchemist really drops the ball here. Alchemical savant just doesn't go far enough. Maybe if it also let you affect an additional target with artificer cantrips, or turned single target artificer attack cantrips into small aoe bursts? I don't know.

As is, the additional support an alchemist offers to other party members just isn't enough to make up for the lack of ability to contribute directly. Other support classes, including other artificers, are providing equivalent or even better support while still having useful turns of their own. What it really comes down to is that the alchemist feels like a subclass designed for a for a full caster, not a half caster like the artificer. Or for a Ranger, or some other class with extra attack. Something with a more rhobust core chassis that wasn't depending on subclass for round by round functionality. I personally have to agree with the consensus that it's not just the worst alchemist subclass, it's one of the worst subclasses in the game.

I reckon it's underrated.

I think Artificer's chassis stacks up well, and I think Alchemist artificer feels bad but does a lot. It's so weirdly weak that it forces you to stop thinking about them as an individual damage source and start thinking of them as Master Blaster from Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. You are not the damage source, you're the brains behind it, improving it. Your action is trash so others' actions are gold.

Unlike the other half-casters, Artificers can donate their fighting style to others. Their fighting style is Enhanced Weapon - an unconditional magical +1/+1 to weapon attacks, and they can hand it it to the party member who is best able to exploit it. And then they do it again: they can use Repeating Shot, which is even stronger; or they can choose to give someone Enhanced Defense; or just summon a homunculus that can follow your commands as long as it can hear you, with no further restrictions. Infuse Item is a monstrous feature, but doesn't exactly make the Artificer do the damage themselves. You are the brains behind it.

In much the same vein, half the Alchemist elixirs absolutely slap, and are an incredible way to spend any unused 1st level slots. Boldness is extremely solid. The 10 foot flying speed is gold in tandem with +10ft speed from longstrider, and therefore great on monks. The Alter Self thing then makes those monks overpowered. At 9th level, the elixirs pop 10 thp on top too. The value is off the charts - these features have no concentration, great durations, and can be activated by anyone. Obviously the other artificer pets are far better than your homunculus, but when you have several elixirs on the go, it doesn't feel so bad. Each morning, you can kit a party out with all your spell slots and your fighting styles, and then head off into town to do whatever you like. No other subclass has this many benefits that work while they're AWOL - hop into a rope trick or a bag of holding and let the big guys do the work for you.

The ****ty 5th level int feature scrapes the bottom of the martial power curve even if it's allowed to spam green-flame blade, but even without extra attack, the 6th level and 7th level features are Excellent and carry the class pretty sturdily - especially compared to the core ranger. And once again, it's still got a niche, and a powerful one too. It's Master Blaster.

It's unrivalled when it comes to helping tanks. At 6th level, your barbarian is given a +1 magic war pick that blinds attackers, +1 magic armor, a +1 magic shield that pushes foes away, and some potions for 20ft flying speed another +1 AC or a +2.5 bonus to saves and attack rolls. Then the artificer pumps them full of its wide stock of 10hp healing words and casts enlarge/reduce. Get the wizard to cast haste on the monstrosity you have made. Has science gone too far?


It is interesting that several Rogue and Rogue Subclass features talk about "you can use your Cunning Action to..." as if that's somehow different than saying "You can [do this] as a bonus action." Makes me wonder if there was at some point in development an intention that "Cunning Action" either change its action type or otherwise have a tie-in that made it important you were using that and not, say, Step of the Wind or a Berserker's extra bonus action attack.

IIRC, it was simply that the bonus action didn't used to be a limited resource - you could cunning action then step of the wind then rage on a single turn.

[stoutstien]

I reckon it's underrated.

I think Artificer's chassis stacks up well, and I think Alchemist artificer feels bad but does a lot. It's so weirdly weak that it forces you to stop thinking about them as an individual damage source and start thinking of them as Master Blaster from Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. You are not the damage source, you're the brains behind it, improving it. Your action is trash so others' actions are gold.

Unlike the other half-casters, Artificers can donate their fighting style to others. Their fighting style is Enhanced Weapon - an unconditional magical +1/+1 to weapon attacks, and they can hand it it to the party member who is best able to exploit it. And then they do it again: they can use Repeating Shot, which is even stronger; or they can choose to give someone Enhanced Defense; or just summon a homunculus that can follow your commands as long as it can hear you, with no further restrictions. Infuse Item is a monstrous feature, but doesn't exactly make the Artificer do the damage themselves. You are the brains behind it.

In much the same vein, half the Alchemist elixirs absolutely slap, and are an incredible way to spend any unused 1st level slots. Boldness is extremely solid. The 10 foot flying speed is gold in tandem with +10ft speed from longstrider, and therefore great on monks. The Alter Self thing then makes those monks overpowered. At 9th level, the elixirs pop 10 thp on top too. The value is off the charts - these features have no concentration, great durations, and can be activated by anyone. Obviously the other artificer pets are far better than your homunculus, but when you have several elixirs on the go, it doesn't feel so bad. Each morning, you can kit a party out with all your spell slots and your fighting styles, and then head off into town to do whatever you like. No other subclass has this many benefits that work while they're AWOL - hop into a rope trick or a bag of holding and let the big guys do the work for you.

The ****ty 5th level int feature scrapes the bottom of the martial power curve even if it's allowed to spam green-flame blade, but even without extra attack, the 6th level and 7th level features are Excellent and carry the class pretty sturdily - especially compared to the core ranger. And once again, it's still got a niche, and a powerful one too. It's Master Blaster.

It's unrivalled when it comes to helping tanks. At 6th level, your barbarian is given a +1 magic war pick that blinds attackers, +1 magic armor, a +1 magic shield that pushes foes away, and some potions for 20ft flying speed another +1 AC or a +2.5 bonus to saves and attack rolls. Then the artificer pumps them full of its wide stock of 10hp healing words and casts enlarge/reduce. Get the wizard to cast haste on the monstrosity you have made. Has science gone too far?



IIRC, it was simply that the bonus action didn't used to be a limited resource - you could cunning action then step of the wind then rage on a single turn.

The alchemist EEs suffer from action economy more than anything else. No idea why they decided giving it to a conscious ally would be too powerful. It's a serviceable subclass but has yay near miss feeling that lingers for a long time.

[Hytheter]

It is interesting that several Rogue and Rogue Subclass features talk about "you can use your Cunning Action to..." as if that's somehow different than saying "You can [do this] as a bonus action." Makes me wonder if there was at some point in development an intention that "Cunning Action" either change its action type or otherwise have a tie-in that made it important you were using that and not, say, Step of the Wind or a Berserker's extra bonus action attack.

Yeah, I find that curious as well, but my leading hypothesis is that Cunning Action predates formal Bonus Actions in the design.

[JellyPooga]

I guess I kind of see Cunning Action as a bit of an overrated ability partly because Rogue 2 gets nothing else and partly because it uses a bonus action and 90% of the time enemies are probably going to be able to attack another party member even if you successfully us it.

The thing with Cunning Action is that it's not limited by uses per long/short rest and it's versatile. Using Dash or Disengage to run away or kite is kind of the expected norm, but they can equally be used more aggressively; e.g . Disengaging from a weaker or less critical foe to engage another, using Dash to compensate the halved speed when you Grapple a foe or to close distance with a foe at extreme range.

In isolation, i's easily one of the more powerful lvl.2 abilities available. If you have another feature or spell that duplicates it's effects (such as Eagle Totem 3), then of course you're not going to see as much benefit, but that doesn't take away from just how useful CA is alone.

[Waazraath]

The alchemist EEs suffer from action economy more than anything else. No idea why they decided giving it to a conscious ally would be too powerful. It's a serviceable subclass but has yay near miss feeling that lingers for a long time.

I think it's especially a problem when you compare it to other subclasses. The alchimist base class is really solid imo. And the EE can give interesting effects and options. But in combat, even with a Homonculus Servant that you can command to attack as a bonus action and with your +int to damage when casting a spell, your damage is quite low when compared to an Armorer or Battle Smith with CBE/SS (or PAM/GWM for the latter). The fact that the alchemist is a bit stronger healer and buffer doesn't compensate imo. Weapon using Arteficers have the added advantage that they don't need to cast spells in combat to be effective, leaving more slots available for utility.

[Pex]

I think it's especially a problem when you compare it to other subclasses. The alchimist base class is really solid imo. And the EE can give interesting effects and options. But in combat, even with a Homonculus Servant that you can command to attack as a bonus action and with your +int to damage when casting a spell, your damage is quite low when compared to an Armorer or Battle Smith with CBE/SS (or PAM/GWM for the latter). The fact that the alchemist is a bit stronger healer and buffer doesn't compensate imo. Weapon using Arteficers have the added advantage that they don't need to cast spells in combat to be effective, leaving more slots available for utility.

But that's an Artificer with a specific feat. The Alchemist has more freedom to take any feat or not at all. Weapon using Artificer may deal more damage, but Alchemist Cantrip damage is good enough. It doesn't have to be the most damage ever. As a support class, 1d4 + 10 healing from a Healing Word is phenomenal. As I said, it may be the weakest Artificer subclass, but it's not a poor one.

[Waazraath]

But that's an Artificer with a specific feat. The Alchemist has more freedom to take any feat or not at all. Weapon using Artificer may deal more damage, but Alchemist Cantrip damage is good enough. It doesn't have to be the most damage ever. As a support class, 1d4 + 10 healing from a Healing Word is phenomenal. As I said, it may be the weakest Artificer subclass, but it's not a poor one.

True. On the other hand, the chasis of the subclasses with extra attack makes it possible to have a quite high dpr optimization. But that's the ceiling, if you compare an Alchimist with (for instance) a Battlesmith sword & board that relies on the pet for a bonus attack, the difference isn't that big anymore. Maybe fairer as well, cause feats are officially still an optional rule.

[Sception]

Each morning, you can kit a party out with all your spell slots and your fighting styles, and then head off into town to do whatever you like. No other subclass has this many benefits that work while they're AWOL - hop into a rope trick or a bag of holding and let the big guys do the work for you.

"You're basically helping out just as much if you stay home" is maybe not the endorsement you think it is. :p

But seriously, though, I just can't agree that a slightly above average first level spell (the alchemists potions are good, but are they /that/ much better than bless?) on a half caster chassis is impressive enough support to justify a subclass that does so little on its own turns. The alchemist's party support just isn't enough better than that of any other artificer, let alone that offered by support-leaning bards, clerics, druids, paladins, or wizards, for the argument to convince me.

[noob]

Any ranger subclass that is not the super awesome sneaking subclass is underrated probably.

[Sception]

Any ranger subclass that is not the super awesome sneaking subclass is underrated probably.

This is probably true.

People hate on the ranger because it has some terrible features that just don't do anything, features that thematically should be the heart and soul of the class. "Favored Enemy is useless? Natural Explorer is a Ribbon? But those are, thematically, what the Ranger is all about! If those features suck, the entire class must suck!"

Except that none of those features actively make the class worse, so you can ignore them entirely, and if you do just ignore the bad stuff then there's still a perfectly functional class underneath. Decent HP, solid equipment and skill proficiencies, archery combat style (ie the best one), extra attack, and half caster slot progression with a handful of actually pretty solid spells available, including hunter's mark (one of the better personal damage buffs) and pass without trace (one of the best party utility buffs, by itself the main saving grace of the entire shadow monk subclass), combine to make for a perfectly functional, if perhaps not exciting, character before you even bother to lay subclass features on top. It's no Paladin, which hurts the Rangers reputation further since, as the only other PHB half caster, that's the natural point of comparison. But judged on its own merits the Ranger is, at worst, a solid base class merely disguised as a bad one.

As such, any ranger subclass without super obvious strengths is going to be underrated just because the Ranger class as a whole is.

[Segev]

This is probably true.

People hate on the ranger because it has some terrible features that just don't do anything, features that thematically should be the heart and soul of the class. "Favored Enemy is useless? Natural Explorer is a Ribbon? But those are, thematically, what the Ranger is all about! If those features suck, the entire class must suck!"

Except that none of those features actively make the class worse, so you can ignore them entirely, and if you do just ignore the bad stuff then there's still a perfectly functional class underneath. Decent HP, solid equipment and skill proficiencies, archery combat style (ie the best one), extra attack, and half caster slot progression with a handful of actually pretty solid spells available, including hunter's mark (one of the better personal damage buffs) and pass without trace (one of the best party utility buffs, by itself the main saving grace of the entire shadow monk subclass), combine to make for a perfectly functional, if perhaps not exciting, character before you even bother to lay subclass features on top. It's no Paladin, which hurts the Rangers reputation further since, as the only other PHB half caster, that's the natural point of comparison. But judged on its own merits the Ranger is, at worst, a solid base class merely disguised as a bad one.

As such, any ranger subclass without super obvious strengths is going to be underrated just because the Ranger class as a whole is.

Eh, not quite. I mean, you're not wrong about those features not actively hurting the class, but you're ignoring that they're the only thing the class gets.

Yes, yes, the class gets martial weapon proficiency, good armor proficiency, and a good HD. It even has not-terrible skill proficiency options. But at first level, if you ignore Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy as "these don't do anything useful," you've got a class that is literally just numbers at level 1. Zero (interesting/useful) features.

When LEVEL 1 is a "dead level," that's a problem in class design.

[Sception]

Eh, not quite. I mean, you're not wrong about those features not actively hurting the class, but you're ignoring that they're the only thing the class gets.

Yes, yes, the class gets martial weapon proficiency, good armor proficiency, and a good HD. It even has not-terrible skill proficiency options. But at first level, if you ignore Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy as "these don't do anything useful," you've got a class that is literally just numbers at level 1. Zero (interesting/useful) features.

When LEVEL 1 is a "dead level," that's a problem in class design.

The only extra feature a paladin gets at this level is 5 points of lay on hands. That's hardly all that impressive, but nobody complains about paladins. Not every class needs to be turbo front loaded. d10 hit points, medium armor, longbow proficiency, and an extra skill proficiency (including class skill access to perception and stealth) is perfectly sufficient to see you through the single session it takes to get to level 2, and level 2 adds archery style and first level spells, including hunter's mark, at which point you really can't say the ranger is suffering.

Dull? Boring? Sure. It's far from an exciting chassis. But it's not dying for subclasses to pick up the slack mechanically, certainly not to the same level that Monk or Artificer is.

[Segev]

5 hp of healing actually does something and feels like you're being a mix of divine and warrior.

Even when natural explorer is useful, it removes the aspect of the game the ranger is supposed to shine in from actually taking up any spotlight at all. Favored Enemy is going to take a bespoke quest to make useful at all, and even then the advantage and the language are things other classes can do without need for the feature. It doesn't feel like being e Ranger contributed to it.

Ribbons should be showy if they're not effective. Ranger features at level one are either neither, or are self-negating as points of interest.

This is a problem.

[stoutstien]

Ranger suffers on the backside of the class more than the first 8-10 levels. Not alone on that regard but it does lead to the bulk of them feeling underwhelming.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Ranger 1 isn't too bad if it's your first level.

Multiclassing into Ranger hurts, though.

[Sception]

natural explorer...

Favored Enemy...

This is exactly my point. A few very prominent and very disappointing features are acting as camouflage, disguising a core class chasis that is, at worst, /fine/. If you just pretend those features aren't there at all - which you can do, this isn't like 1st level monk features that are actively making your character worse via restrictions on the equipment you're allowed to use even if you pick up the proficiencies from somewhere else, then what you're left with is a bit bland and flavorless, but not actively bad mechanically.

Medium armor proficiency, longbow proficiency, d10 hit die, 3 skill proficiencies instead of the usual 2, with stealth and perception as class skills, and half caster spell slots with a handful of decent spells to cast with them including Hunter's Mark and Pass Without Trace, adds up to a functional character for the duration of most campaigns. ie, levels 1 to usually around 10, based on the preponderance of published 1st party adventure paths. Are they a bit below par at first level? Sure, but first level is at most a session, and most full casters are going to spend most of that session shooting light crossbows or using basic attack cantrips, a ranger with medium armor and a long bow is going to look just fine next to that. Are they a bit lackluster in the 11+ range? Sure, but so are a lot of other classes, and almost nobody cares because almost nobody plays at those levels. For the bulk of time your campaign is going to be running, base core ranger can be carrying a character just fine before you even get to subclass features. Not great, not fantastic, I'm not claiming rangers are undiscovered gems or anything, just that their actual performance is way better than the common perception.

Once you do get into subclasses, Gloomstalker is obviously the best, and the things it does are (ironically) showy enough that pretty much everyone acknowledges them as good. On the far opposite end, the PHB version of the beastmaster, while not completely terrible in terms of the raw numbers, trips and falls on its face so hard in terms of basic play experience that it deserves the hate it gets.

But near about every other ranger subclass is at least a solid 'OK', which ime is a fair bit better than they're typically given credit for.

[Segev]

This is exactly my point. A few very prominent and very disappointing features are acting as camouflage, disguising a core class chasis that is, at worst, /fine/. If you just pretend those features aren't there at all - which you can do, this isn't like 1st level monk features that are actively making your character worse via restrictions on the equipment you're allowed to use even if you pick up the proficiencies from somewhere else, then what you're left with is a bit bland and flavorless, but not actively bad mechanically.

Medium armor proficiency, longbow proficiency, d10 hit die, 3 skill proficiencies instead of the usual 2, with stealth and perception as class skills, and half caster spell slots with a handful of decent spells to cast with them including Hunter's Mark and Pass Without Trace, adds up to a functional character for the duration of most campaigns. ie, levels 1 to usually around 10, based on the preponderance of published 1st party adventure paths. Are they a bit below par at first level? Sure, but first level is at most a session, and most full casters are going to spend most of that session shooting light crossbows or using basic attack cantrips, a ranger with medium armor and a long bow is going to look just fine next to that. Are they a bit lackluster in the 11+ range? Sure, but so are a lot of other classes, and almost nobody cares because almost nobody plays at those levels. For the bulk of time your campaign is going to be running, base core ranger can be carrying a character just fine before you even get to subclass features. Not great, not fantastic, I'm not claiming rangers are undiscovered gems or anything, just that their actual performance is way better than the common perception.

Once you do get into subclasses, Gloomstalker is obviously the best, and the things it does are (ironically) showy enough that pretty much everyone acknowledges them as good. On the far opposite end, the PHB version of the beastmaster, while not completely terrible in terms of the raw numbers, trips and falls on its face so hard in terms of basic play experience that it deserves the hate it gets.

But near about every other ranger subclass is at least a solid 'OK', which ime is a fair bit better than they're typically given credit for.

"If you ignore the fact that they don't have features at level 1, they're fine," is not a very good argument.

[KorvinStarmast]

Once you do get into subclasses, Gloomstalker is obviously the best, and the things it does are (ironically) showy enough that pretty much everyone acknowledges them as good. I've played Gloomstalker and Hunter, both are solid. Then again, my DM's include exploration and wilderness encounters a lot; a heck of a team asset. I may be playing a Horizon walker soon, we'll see.

IMO, beast master could use the love artificer got (use a bonus action to get your pet to attack) and resummoning taking less than all freaking day ... but that's a separate topic. (Damage bonus to favored enemy based on proficiency level ought to have been default, but that's my TSR-era ranger brain working and this is WoTC rangers).

[Segev]

I've played Gloomstalker and Hunter, both are solid. Then again, my DM's include exploration and wilderness encounters a lot; a heck of a team asset.

When I ran ToA, I tried to make wilderness stuff fun, and I think I largely succeeded as the players enjoyed the game up until the eponymous Tomb. However, the ranger - with a Favored Terrain of "jungle" - merely obviated the actual wilderness challenges. He never got to do anything active to solve a problem; there just wasn't a problem to solve.

What does your DM do differently that I could incorporate to try to make the Ranger feel more like a star, and more like he's DOING something, when and if I ever run another game?

[KorvinStarmast]

What does your DM do differently that I could incorporate to try to make the Ranger feel more like a star, and more like he's DOING something, when and if I ever run another game? I have no idea what he did differently than you, since I've not played in your game.

It was still possible to get lost since if the weather was bad he often applied disadvantage to my nav checks, and, he did not let on that we were lost until I made a successful navigation/survival check1. We got lost a few times. Hex crawl is not everyone's cup of tea but we enjoyed it.

The other thing was that getting lost cost us a precious resource: bug repellent. We kept track of how much of that we had, since bugs are an environmental hazard. Not sure if you did that. He also made us keep track of water collection. Again, some people get bored with that, but that kind of "outdoor survival" stuff is part of the charm of a hex crawl.

Lastly, I think he upped the chances of an encounter if we just followed a river, but I can't be sure of that. It might have just been the way the dice fell, but it seemed to me that we ran into more stuff when we followed a river line.

The most important then he did was NOT give us level appropriate encounters. We had to decide "parley, fight, or flee" each time. Very much old school hex crawl style there.

1 By the way, something in the rules that too many playgrounders seem to overlook: DM applies adv/disadv that is situationally appropriate. See Chapter 7. See Chapter 1.
Don't go and look for a rule that allows you to be a DM. (OK, I'll stop with that rant, it never goes well)

[Segev]

I have no idea what he did differently than you, since I've not played in your game.

It was still possible to get lost since if the weather was bad he often applied disadvantage to my nav checks, and, he did not let on that we were lost until I made a successful navigation/survival check1. We got lost a few times. Hex crawl is not everyone's cup of tea but we enjoyed it.

The other thing was that getting lost cost us a precious resource: bug repellent. We kept track of how much of that we had, since bugs are an environmental hazard. Not sure if you did that. He also made us keep track of water collection. Again, some people get bored with that, but that kind of "outdoor survival" stuff is part of the charm of a hex crawl.

Lastly, I think he upped the chances of an encounter if we just followed a river, but I can't be sure of that. It might have just been the way the dice fell, but it seemed to me that we ran into more stuff when we followed a river line.

The most important then he did was NOT give us level appropriate encounters. We had to decide "parley, fight, or flee" each time. Very much old school hex crawl style there.

1 By the way, something in the rules that too many playgrounders seem to overlook: DM applies adv/disadv that is situationally appropriate. See Chapter 7. See Chapter 1.
Don't go and look for a rule that allows you to be a DM. (OK, I'll stop with that rant, it never goes well)

Was the terrain not your favored terrain? It's supposed to be impossible for you to get lost in your favored terrain. Or am I missing something, still?

[KorvinStarmast]

Was the terrain not your favored terrain? It's supposed to be impossible for you to get lost in your favored terrain. Or am I missing something, still? I think that you are missing something. I had expertise in Survival checks. My favored terrain was forest. (Ranger was from the southern Sword coast area, south of Baldur's gate). The DM ruled that jungle and forest were close enough. That did not guarantee success, but the success rate was pretty high. That said, some areas were more "swamp" than forest so I didn't have any advantage there.

But as I look at Natural explorer, I note that if I had been back home I could not have gotten lost - in Chult's jungles he had me make those survival checks with expertise. I think that because of how that module was written, in terms of the emphasis on how to run the adventure to see if people got lost, that's why he ran it that way. (I often got help from our guide, or I helped her, so it wasn't that often that we didn't make the check with advantage).

Maybe that was the subtle distinction?

He treated it as a Survival check with expertise, not as a "you can't get lost" thing. Which for that module made sense since my Ranger was from the sword coast.
If my PC had been from Chult he would have probably done it differently.

[Tanarii]

I played a Hunter and a Beastmasters, and I never felt Favored Enemy or Natural Explorer were a ribbon. I could have used the revised Explorer applying the Natural Explorer non-expertise abilities in all natural terrains though. Certainly I didn't feel that not getting lost automatically was somehow obviating anything. The times it came up (which admittedly wasn't often), it felt great to not have to make checks.

[Sception]

"If you ignore the fact that they don't have features at level 1, they're fine," is not a very good argument.

Medium armor and martial weapon proficiencies are not nothing. D10 hit die is not nothing. 3 skill proficiencies is not nothing. There are classes that get less than that at level 1. Ranger's on the low end at level 1 sure, but not the worst, and level 2 is at most a session away. 'Bad for dipping into other classes' is not the same as 'bad'.

[JellyPooga]

Medium armor and martial weapon proficiencies are not nothing. D10 hit die is not nothing. 3 skill proficiencies is not nothing. There are classes that get less than that at level 1. Ranger's on the low end at level 1 sure, but not the worst, and level 2 is at most a session away. 'Bad for dipping into other classes' is not the same as 'bad'.

For more or less the same reasons, I consider Ranger one of the more interesting low-level classes to play. Ok, so level 1 can feel a little lacklustre, but you have some solid advantages and as soon as lvl.2 hits, you have spellcasting, which in itself grants some variety and even (roughly) unique opportunities and that really only grows as you settle in to tier 1. After Tier 2 is when Ranger really even starts looking bad, per se, by comparison to many (most?) other classes. Focusing in on whether Natural Explorer and Favoured Enemy are doing the class a disservice, let alone their job, is a bit of a mistake; much of what makes an individual Ranger fun and interesting to play comes from the choices they're able to make with regard to subclass and style and not their core features, which are solid for what they do, if somewhat bland.

[Pex]

I think Paladin has it the worst at being 1st level. No spells. No smiting. Doesn't even have a fighting style yet like Fighter. He's bored and cannot wait for 2nd level. Warlock isn't happy either not having invocations and only one spell slot, but at least he can do something with the magic he does have and his Patron gives him a Cool Thing.

[luuma]

The problem with Ranger isn't at 1st, it's really at 6th and 10th imo. Favored Enemy is a nice ribbon and I like it, and it's treated as such. Natural explorer is not a ribbon, it's weighted like a full feature, but it scales oddly.

Their first level feature starts out strong, and gets entire levels of progression devoted to it. 1st-4th level campaigns hardly move anywhere - you're essentially stuck in one corner of the continent, in a single natural explorer environment, moving from place to place and always gaining its benefits. Natural explorer basically works 100% of the time.

5th-9th level campaigns start moving around a fair bit. Not much at first, but you'll generally roam over a wider range of environments - maybe 2 or 3 terrain types. Your 6th level feature gives you one extra terrain, but at higher levels, as players roam about more and more, you roam through unfavoured terrains more and more often. So natural explorer works like 80% of the time now.

The amount of benefit you get from natural explorer scales in reverse. You get a near-universal benefit at 1st, and then it falls off as your campaign starts roaming around at 6th onwards. Your entire 6th level feature is essentially dedicated to retaining the same thing you already got at 1st level. By higher levels, you're on limbo or in a spaceship some nonsense, and natural explorer does nothing without DM intervention. Meanwhile, artificer got another magic sword, and paladin got the best aura in the entire game.

Also, as Segev/korvin allude to, it's a common complaint that Rangers are so good at navigating that it isn't fun for them. The benefit of Natural Explorer is so gigantic that it basically means that overworld travel doesn't happen.

[Tanarii]

Their first level feature starts out strong, and gets entire levels of progression devoted to it. 1st-4th level campaigns hardly move anywhere - you're essentially stuck in one corner of the continent, in a single natural explorer environment, moving from place to place and always gaining its benefits. Natural explorer basically works 100% of the time.

5th-9th level campaigns start moving around a fair bit. Not much at first, but you'll generally roam over a wider range of environments - maybe 2 or 3 terrain types. Your 6th level feature gives you one extra terrain, but at higher levels, as players roam about more and more, you roam through unfavoured terrains more and more often. So natural explorer works like 80% of the time now. Taking FR the North, where a lot of early WotC adventure paths were set:
Primarily Forest and Swamp (Moors) and Coast, a few mountains internal and ringed by mountains and plains and ocean. If you cross those mountains, Arctic and Desert. You've got 3 main terrains to worry about right off the bat, but other than mountains you probably won't see more than 4. OTOH choosing between coastal, swamp and forest is kind of a touch choice. But each one added is meaningful and adds capabilities you didn't have before, filling in one of the primary terrains.

Chult has Forest (jungle), with scattered coastal and mountains. In that case, IIRC by the time you hit 10 the adventure is coming to a close. In this case, it's diminishing returns, you start with Forest and that's almost everything, then you fill in some minor missing pieces.

Out of the abyss ... does it even have terrain other than under dark?



Also, as Segev/korvin allude to, it's a common complaint that Rangers are so good at navigating that it isn't fun for them. The benefit of Natural Explorer is so gigantic that it basically means that overworld travel doesn't happen.This still doesn't make sense to me. "Getting lost and gathering resources and being unable to hide while moving at normal speed and being unable to navigate and scout (or do anything else while scouting) have been removed or made easier." How does this make overland journeys not happen? They just got considerably less likely to kill the PCs, and it's all due to me the Ranger! But exploration is still a thing.

I mean, if there's no chance of wandering monsters and the DM is drawing the map for the players and time doesn't matter, I can see that point of view. But any DM running things that way was probably already hand waving overland travel.

[Segev]

When only the one-every-few-days random encounters have any impact, travel becomes a non-issue. Yes, the Ranger is useful. the trouble is that he is useful whether he plays or not, because there is no interaction with the game rules from him beyond "I negate the rules."

If Fighters had a feature that made it so that they automatically win combats when they roll initiative, and the fight is over at that point, they would be amazingly powerful...but combat just got removed from the game, so they feel like they're doing less. The whole thing they're there for is combat, and they don't actually play that part of the game: they remove it.

[Tanarii]

When only the one-every-few-days random encounters have any impact, travel becomes a non-issue.
Thats a problem with your encounter chances then. 15% every hour should be more than that.
(And if you're traveling in a less dangerous area than that, with only "level appropriate" encounters ... yes, travel should become a non-issue that you handwave past.)

And yes, she gets to negate some of the rules. She also get additional capabilities, like navigating or tracking or foraging while scouting, or moving stealthily while the party moves at full speed. Both of which make her an excellent point man. All that is what makes them feel awesome.

[Sorinth]

When only the one-every-few-days random encounters have any impact, travel becomes a non-issue. Yes, the Ranger is useful. the trouble is that he is useful whether he plays or not, because there is no interaction with the game rules from him beyond "I negate the rules."

If Fighters had a feature that made it so that they automatically win combats when they roll initiative, and the fight is over at that point, they would be amazingly powerful...but combat just got removed from the game, so they feel like they're doing less. The whole thing they're there for is combat, and they don't actually play that part of the game: they remove it.

The only rule they actually negate is the getting lost. If not getting lost negates the entire Exploration pillar of your game that seems like a problem with your game not the class.

[Zuras]

I’m not sure any of the four subclasses called out by the OP underrated at all—the title states the argument rather more strongly than the post itself. Overshadowed, underutilized, underappreciated, sure—I’ll buy those arguments. I honestly have never seen anyone at my tables playing one asked if they felt those subclasses were underpowered, which they *will* do if someone shows up with a Berserker Barbarian, Beastmaster Ranger or Purple Dragon Knight. At most, they will ask the Fiendlocks “do you have trouble with fire resistance a lot?”

Quite honestly, it’s much harder for me to recall the subclasses of any of the Wizards I’ve played with or DMed for than any of the other spellcasters. The Diviners and Necromancers stand out, because Portent is very interactive with the rest of the party, and Necromancers are always annoying the DM trying to push the limits of what is socially acceptable (both in-game and out) regarding hordes of undead servitors. All the others are just a vague sea of tropes. Not that any of them seemed bad in the least, they are all just relatively subtle and situational—abjurer for example is great, but still being up after a couple of hits/AoEs is much more noticeable to the wizard player than the rest of the party. Contrast that with most of the cleric subclasses, which generally have showy, interactive and thematic Channel Divinity and other subclass options.

Tempest Clerics blowing away entire encounters with maxed Thunderwaves or Shatters is the most obvious, but Light, Grave, War, Death and Forge are all either showy or interactive—the Rogue remembers when the cleric turned his rolled 2 into a hit, or gave the big bad vulnerability to his sneak attack and generated massive damage. Compare something like sculpt spell, which is super useful in combat but still puts the focus on the fireball or cone of cold the Invoker cast, not the ability. Most of the handiest other subclass abilities are similarly protective in nature (the end up conserving the wizard or party’s HP) or arrive at 10th level or higher. They just aren’t as memorable to the rest of the party.

Dreams and Land druids are in the same boat. Dreams druid is a solid caster druid, but nobody else is really going to notice your excellent action economy when healing with Balm of the Summer Court while still casting a spell or firing another lighting bolt with Call Lightning—they’re just going to mentally file it under “druid doing druid stuff”. Similarly, most of the key benefits of Land Druid (not discussed by the OP but brought up later in the thread) are really only felt by someone who’s played another druid class and felt the pinch of more limited prepared spell slots and cantrips. Heck, the Land Druid player is the only one who notices Natural Recovery (nobody else even *knows* when a spell you cast later in the adventuring day is a recovered slot, they’re just thinking “Druid’s still doing druid stuff”).

Overall, I would have to say that only the Enchanter is really overlooked because people may incorrectly underrate its features. Dreams druid is understood to be “caster druid with added healing”, and I think is rated appropriately as such. It’s less popular than some other options (improved Wild Shape, improved summoning) because it’s less flashy and the advantage in action economy requires some system mastery or actual play experience to appreciate. Fiendlocks just aren’t the new hotness now, since Hexblades got published. I don’t think Shadow Monks have ever been under-rated—everyone basically agrees the subclass lets you be a ninja but sacrifices a bit of raw combat power compared to Open Hand for stealth.

[Segev]

Thats a problem with your encounter chances then. 15% every hour should be more than that.
(And if you're traveling in a less dangerous area than that, with only "level appropriate" encounters ... yes, travel should become a non-issue that you handwave past.)

And yes, she gets to negate some of the rules. She also get additional capabilities, like navigating or tracking or foraging while scouting, or moving stealthily while the party moves at full speed. Both of which make her an excellent point man. All that is what makes them feel awesome.

All of those "additional capabilities" don't actually let her do anything on screen. They just eliminate other parts of the game, as she now guarantees there's enough food without having to actually do anything on screen to do so.

And where are you getting 15% per hour of an encounter? Admittedly, I am referencing one specific published module, but it was a relatively small chance every 1/3 of a day in Tomb of Annihiliation during the Chult-exploration section.

[Tanarii]

All of those "additional capabilities" don't actually let her do anything on screen. They just eliminate other parts of the game, as she now guarantees there's enough food without having to actually do anything on screen to do so.Yes. They do. The ability to move at normal speed while using Stealth and both Navigate and retain Passive Perception at the same time makes Rangers excellent forward scouts in their favored terrain. That's something that directly translates into an advantage in dangerous areas, affecting "on screen" action in a big way, that no other class can do. And it's solely due to the Natural Explorer feature.


And where are you getting 15% per hour of an encounter? Admittedly, I am referencing one specific published module, but it was a relatively small chance every 1/3 of a day in Tomb of Annihiliation during the Chult-exploration section.
DMG for the % and once an hour to once every four hours.

I thought ToA jungles were supposed to be dangerous, especially the infested areas. I'm shocked it was every 8 hours. That's pitifully low for dangerous wilderness. Is it because there's no attempt to make encounters level appropriate? And to be clear, ToA is exactly the kind of place I'm thinking is worth screen time during wilderness exploration. Traveling down the roads of the north from one town to another? Not worth "on screen" time. Off the beaten path in dangerous wilderness like Chult or back areas of the North? Definitely.

[Segev]

ToA, run a bit harsher than the RAW called butjharsherping several days' encounters on single days, is what made me realize how lame he Ranger's feature is. The Ranger had Jungle as his favored terrain. It made the travel inconsequential and lack any resource attrition. By the RAW, encounters are to be checked for once for morning, once for afternoon, and once for night. I forget the exact odds for each time, but it was rare for more than one to show up per day and not uncimmon for none to show up on a given day.

[Tanarii]

ToA, run a bit harsher than the RAW called butjharsherping several days' encounters on single days, is what made me realize how lame he Ranger's feature is. The Ranger had Jungle as his favored terrain. It made the travel inconsequential and lack any resource attrition. By the RAW, encounters are to be checked for once for morning, once for afternoon, and once for night. I forget the exact odds for each time, but it was rare for more than one to show up per day and not uncimmon for none to show up on a given day.
I'd think 5e fully healing up on a long rest makes that fairly inconsequential for resource attrition. Out of the Abyss drew similar complaints.

[Witty Username]

I would recommend random encounters by hour for travel, and by 10 minute intervals for dungeons. And that is just to counter the healing do to short rests.
If you are trying to maintain tension anyway.

[Sorinth]

ToA, run a bit harsher than the RAW called butjharsherping several days' encounters on single days, is what made me realize how lame he Ranger's feature is. The Ranger had Jungle as his favored terrain. It made the travel inconsequential and lack any resource attrition. By the RAW, encounters are to be checked for once for morning, once for afternoon, and once for night. I forget the exact odds for each time, but it was rare for more than one to show up per day and not uncimmon for none to show up on a given day.

What resource attrition were you expecting to see if there was 0-1 encounter a day?

[Segev]

What resource attrition were you expecting to see if there was 0-1 encounter a day?

Food. Water. Other environmental hazards. Things the Ranger might then have to actually lead some hunting or the like on screen to restore. Sadly, he just can find plenty of food while foraging, unless I arbitrarily decide there's none to find, which makes hunting for it also pointless.

[Tanarii]

Food. Water. Other environmental hazards. Things the Ranger might then have to actually lead some hunting or the like on screen to restore. Sadly, he just can find plenty of food while foraging, unless I arbitrarily decide there's none to find, which makes hunting for it also pointless.
I highly recommend you check out Mutant Year Zero and Forbidden Lands RPGs by Fria Ligan (Free League Publishing). They're standalone, not 5e mods. But they have some really good exploration and resource game structures I think you'd enjoy.

[Segev]

I highly recommend you check out Mutant Year Zero and Forbidden Lands RPGs by Fria Ligan (Free League Publishing). They're standalone, not 5e mods. But they have some really good exploration and resource game structures I think you'd enjoy.

Thanks; I will see about looking into them. Sadly, I'm not running any games any time soon, but it's always good to learn of new resources.

[Sorinth]

Food. Water. Other environmental hazards. Things the Ranger might then have to actually lead some hunting or the like on screen to restore. Sadly, he just can find plenty of food while foraging, unless I arbitrarily decide there's none to find, which makes hunting for it also pointless.

The Ranger merely doubles how much food/water they find, they still need to make the survival check and so would get the same on screen time as any other character. And from memory (Could be wrong) I think in ToA there wouldn't be any fresh water to find as you have to use rain catchers. That said "bad" water is plentiful and Purifying it is a ritual spell on the Cleric list so it's not the Ranger that would be problematic in that case.

Similarly Rangers don't have anything special to avoid environmental hazards beyond the groups speed isn't reduced for difficult terrain. They still need to make whatever survival/perception checks to avoid environmental hazards like any other PC would. And it's worth noting that the Ranger can't forage for food/water while also navigating for the group. So they need to decide whether to help avoid environmental hazards or forage.

I'll also mention Outlander since I think people often treat that as automatic finding food/water for 6 people and I'm not sure that's really true. The way I always read it is that the "provided the land offers" refers to a successful Survival check to forage. If you succeed rather then rolling 1d6+Wis to determine how much is found, you simply get 6 (12 as a Ranger). But if you fail you still get 0.


Finally nothing stops you from having a on-screen encounters during foraging. You don't simply find X lbs of food, you find a wild animal that you then have to fight in combat. You find fresh water but there's a crocodile/alligator hiding waiting for something to approach the water. Even if you do want to skip over and hand out food/water you can still create encounters since foraging is likely to attract attention from other denizens. Maybe a lizardman hunting party sees your successful hunt and decides to stalk you.


Honestly the biggest problems in dealing with food/water attrition isn't the Ranger it's the Cleric/Druid who can purify or create food/water or use goodberry. The Ranger still participates as any other PC would he just gets bigger rewards for doing so. I get the feeling even if there wasn't a Ranger in the party you would have found the attrition/exploration lacking.

[Segev]

The Ranger merely doubles how much food/water they find, they still need to make the survival check and so would get the same on screen time as any other character. And from memory (Could be wrong) I think in ToA there wouldn't be any fresh water to find as you have to use rain catchers. That said "bad" water is plentiful and Purifying it is a ritual spell on the Cleric list so it's not the Ranger that would be problematic in that case.

Similarly Rangers don't have anything special to avoid environmental hazards beyond the groups speed isn't reduced for difficult terrain. They still need to make whatever survival/perception checks to avoid environmental hazards like any other PC would. And it's worth noting that the Ranger can't forage for food/water while also navigating for the group. So they need to decide whether to help avoid environmental hazards or forage.

I'll also mention Outlander since I think people often treat that as automatic finding food/water for 6 people and I'm not sure that's really true. The way I always read it is that the "provided the land offers" refers to a successful Survival check to forage. If you succeed rather then rolling 1d6+Wis to determine how much is found, you simply get 6 (12 as a Ranger). But if you fail you still get 0.


Finally nothing stops you from having a on-screen encounters during foraging. You don't simply find X lbs of food, you find a wild animal that you then have to fight in combat. You find fresh water but there's a crocodile/alligator hiding waiting for something to approach the water. Even if you do want to skip over and hand out food/water you can still create encounters since foraging is likely to attract attention from other denizens. Maybe a lizardman hunting party sees your successful hunt and decides to stalk you.


Honestly the biggest problems in dealing with food/water attrition isn't the Ranger it's the Cleric/Druid who can purify or create food/water or use goodberry. The Ranger still participates as any other PC would he just gets bigger rewards for doing so. I get the feeling even if there wasn't a Ranger in the party you would have found the attrition/exploration lacking.
Sure. My issue was more that the way the ranger's powers over this work, they don't feel like they're doing much, so much as just being a talisman the party holds up to have things go easier for them.

It could just be that I sucked at running it.

[Sorinth]

Sure. My issue was more that the way the ranger's powers over this work, they don't feel like they're doing much, so much as just being a talisman the party holds up to have things go easier for them.

It could just be that I sucked at running it.

I would hesitate to say anyone sucked at running it since the whole thing is skippable by design. The designers intentionally made it easy to ignore and there are plenty of ways to render it irrelevant so that groups that don't find attrition fun can easily ignore it. I don't think Ranger quite fits that bill of rendering it irrelevant since they still participate in the system, whereas Cleric/Druid are far worse offenders who take it out of the DMs hand by using spells to hand wave it all away.

If you are looking for tips/advice on how to make things more interesting for the exploration pillar I would suggest we start another thread and not derail this one any further.

[MaxWilson]

If Fighters had a feature that made it so that they automatically win combats when they roll initiative, and the fight is over at that point, they would be amazingly powerful...but combat just got removed from the game, so they feel like they're doing less. The whole thing they're there for is combat, and they don't actually play that part of the game: they remove it.

And that's why wizards hate and refuse to learn Forcecage, because everyone hates an auto-win button for their PC. Right?

[Segev]

And that's why wizards hate and refuse to learn Forcecage, because everyone hates an auto-win button for their PC. Right?

There's a difference between an auto-win button that you push on screen to win the fight quickly, and an ability to simply say the fights never happen because you have it.

There's a difference between Saitama of One Punch Man showing up in front of the super-scary monster, the monster showing off how powerful it is to no avail, and him winning with one awesome, well-illustrated punch...and an anime where monsters show up, almost start boasting about how powerful they are, but then see the character and decide to walk off-screen again, while the rest of the ensemble actually does interesting things.

[diplomancer]

And that's why wizards hate and refuse to learn Forcecage, because everyone hates an auto-win button for their PC. Right?

Main reason why I didn't get Wall of Force with Magical Secrets at level 10 was "this sounds boring".

[Warder]

And that's why wizards hate and refuse to learn Forcecage, because everyone hates an auto-win button for their PC. Right?

I think part of being a full caster is realizing that you have the power to make the game far less fun and interesting for the rest of the party, and avoid making those choices. If your rogue really really loves scouting, maybe not replace him with Find Familiar. If your paladin is super excited about being a knight in shining armor, maybe not insist on polymorphing her into a giant ape. And if your DM spends a lot of time constructing tactically interesting battles for the group to enjoy, maybe not drop Forcecage on them.

Well, at least that's how I play the game. The last time I played a wizard I took none of those spells!

[PhantomSoul]

I think part of being a full caster is realizing that you have the power to make the game far less fun and interesting for the rest of the party, and avoid making those choices. If your rogue really really loves scouting, maybe not replace him with Find Familiar. If your paladin is super excited about being a knight in shining armor, maybe not insist on polymorphing her into a giant ape. And if your DM spends a lot of time constructing tactically interesting battles for the group to enjoy, maybe not drop Forcecage on them.

Well, at least that's how I play the game. The last time I played a wizard I took none of those spells!

Yeah, I have (lots of) spells I've just ignored exist or have relegated to not-always-optimal roles. I already feel that the martials get a raw deal overall even without using the full potential or bloat of a spellcaster (in this case, especially wizards).

[Segev]

If your rogue really really loves scouting, maybe not replace him with Find Familiar.

I dunno. It strikes me that the familiar isn't going to replace the dedicated scout. I am playing the stealthmeister of the party in my Saturday game. The party Fighter, due to various things, has what amounts to a familiar in terms of scouting capability. Frequently, the familiar and my character both go out, and it's my character (shadow monk, pass without trace) that really helps the familiar stay well-hidden. Only once has the familiar been able to scout something I couldn't. And we found a solution to that for the next time we scouted something similar.

My PC is just better at everything a scout needs to do, except for the fact that the familiar is semi-disposable. Fortunately, my PC is good enough that he's almost impossible to pin down to even try to kill.

[Tanarii]

If Ranger Natural Explorer worked in all natural terrain (per the old UA revised Ranger), IMO it'd be a required dip for any scout. The faster movement while stealthing and ability to do something while looking for danger (especially navigating or tracking) are invaluable.

[Segev]

If Ranger Natural Explorer worked in all natural terrain (per the old UA revised Ranger), IMO it'd be a required dip for any scout. The faster movement while stealthing and ability to do something while looking for danger (especially navigating or tracking) are invaluable.

Well, we shall see. Or I shall. I've taken a level of Ranger with both Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer as-written in the PHB, for the fey and the setting's equivalent of the feywild, respectively. I trust the DM to be able to do interesting thigns with this, or at least to let me change it out if these things prove to be truly not of use nor fun. I'm hoping to be proven wrong about them being less-than-useful features. I like the flavor of them, and this fits my character, so here's hoping it turns out I'm wrong and these are amazingly fun. There's potential for that here. :)

[MaxWilson]

I dunno. It strikes me that the familiar isn't going to replace the dedicated scout. I am playing the stealthmeister of the party in my Saturday game. The party Fighter, due to various things, has what amounts to a familiar in terms of scouting capability. Frequently, the familiar and my character both go out, and it's my character (shadow monk, pass without trace) that really helps the familiar stay well-hidden. Only once has the familiar been able to scout something I couldn't. And we found a solution to that for the next time we scouted something similar.

My PC is just better at everything a scout needs to do, except for the fact that the familiar is semi-disposable. Fortunately, my PC is good enough that he's almost impossible to pin down to even try to kill.

Pass Without Trace is more of an auto-win button at stealth/recon than Natural Explorer is at exploration. And yet you're having fun with it.

I think the "auto-win" explanation for why Natural Explorer is disliked is a red herring. The problem isn't that the Ranger "cannot become lost" and finds additional food, which somehow bypasses the Exploration mini-game. No, the real problem is that there isn't much of an Exploration mini-game in the first place, unless a DM invents one (probably inspired by Gygaxian game structures).

[Segev]

Pass Without Trace is more of an auto-win button at stealth/recon than Natural Explorer is at exploration. And yet you're having fun with it.

I think the "auto-win" explanation for why Natural Explorer is disliked is a red herring. The problem isn't that the Ranger "cannot become lost" and finds additional food, which somehow bypasses the Exploration mini-game. No, the real problem is that there isn't much of an Exploration mini-game in the first place, unless a DM invents one (probably inspired by Gygaxian game structures).

The difference is that pass without trace doesn't obviate the need to play it out. What is there to do to play out the Natural Explorer-granted automatic stuff? It is fun and challenging to maneuver around and avoid auto-negating stealth by stepping into lines of sight, and you still have to navigate the environment. Do you work out an entire dungeon crawl through every forest and hillside and run every foraging as a dungeon-delve to find food? Typically not. This is an issue with the exploration pillar in general, but the challenge, if any, comes from resource management and attrition; hard choices having to be made between pressing on or turning back, stopping and desperately looking for supplies, or whatnot. When Ranger's ability reads, "Nah, you always have enough and don't need to worry about any of the stuff that would make your trip unpredictable," it just means you don't touch that part of the game.

Like I said, I hope to be proven wrong in the game with this very character: he just took his first level of Ranger and has Natural Explorer. Already, due to the special terrain he chose, everything that could make him become lost is magical, so that's one aspect of Natural Explorer I've willingly given up. But I am hopeful that the adventuring dangers of the feywild will let me make use of the features rather than just being things that are ignored because I have them.

I know I couldn't figure out how to make any of the "find what you need" nor "find your way" stuff engaging enough to be worth spending table-time on, unless my players really wanted the DM to narrate specifically what the ranger finds with every roll. :smallyuk: I don't think that'd have been an improvement.

Admittedly, the ranger player didn't seem t omind. So maybe I'm just worried about nothing, and it's totally fine that the exploration pillar is a nonissue that the only thing they can do is make it more of a nonissue with. Or maybe I'm wrong and it is an issue and I just ran it very badly; I never claimed to be a good DM. Here's hoping I find out I'm wrong and how now that I'm playing a Ranger with these features.

[MaxWilson]

The difference is that pass without trace doesn't obviate the need to play it out. What is there to do to play out the Natural Explorer-granted automatic stuff?

You're making my point for me--what is there to do to play out Exploration even without Natural Explorer?

If a DM invents enough game structure to make hexcrawling fun, it's not going to suddenly become unfun because Natural Explorer prevents you from getting lost. (See Tanari'i's posts.) But those game structures aren't taught by 5E's PHB, and IIRC are barely touched on by the DMG, so by default people don't do them unless they learned from another source like Gygaxian-era D&D.

The problem with Ranger features isn't the auto-win, such as it is. It's that they exist in a vacuum. To provide satisfying play, first provide game structures (e.g. rules for tracking, including recognizing what monsters inhabit an area from their spoor), then integrate class features with those game structures. That's why even the non-auto-win Natural Explorer features such as effective Expertise on ability checks are still unsatisfying, and it's why "while tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area" gets ignored instead of praised as a recon superpower--nobody can say how "tracking" works in the first place!

[Segev]

You're making my point for me--what is there to do to play out Exploration even without Natural Explorer?

Let me just accept your point as a premise here: if there's nothing to do to play out Exploration with or without a ranger, and the ranger's big and impressive class feature is about making Exploration better, that's...a non-feature, isn't it?

"The Clown has the ability, thanks to his Circus Maximus ability, to automatically get votes in the local elections for the position of dog catcher!" is awfully powerful...if elections for dog catcher are relevant to the game, but if the game you're playing is D&D 5e as it stands....

[Warder]

I dunno. It strikes me that the familiar isn't going to replace the dedicated scout. I am playing the stealthmeister of the party in my Saturday game. The party Fighter, due to various things, has what amounts to a familiar in terms of scouting capability. Frequently, the familiar and my character both go out, and it's my character (shadow monk, pass without trace) that really helps the familiar stay well-hidden. Only once has the familiar been able to scout something I couldn't. And we found a solution to that for the next time we scouted something similar.

My PC is just better at everything a scout needs to do, except for the fact that the familiar is semi-disposable. Fortunately, my PC is good enough that he's almost impossible to pin down to even try to kill.

Yeah, I'm not saying "don't pick Find Familiar (or polymorph, or forcecage, etc...)", just to use the vast power of a full spellcaster responsibly and try not to step on anyone's toes. If Find Familiar lets you be a sidekick to the party rogue as they go out on a stealth excursion, that's great. If the rogue wants to go scouting and you say "it's safer if I send my familiar instead", well, poor rogue.

[MaxWilson]

Let me just accept your point as a premise here: if there's nothing to do to play out Exploration with or without a ranger, and the ranger's big and impressive class feature is about making Exploration better, that's...a non-feature, isn't it?

Yes. It's unsatisfying because it's disconnected from play.