Hi all, new to posting, long time lurker and my INITIAL exposure to D&D was likely a bit over 35 years ago. Yes, the red book and there were only 3 books TOTAL when I began, some came long after. I digress, however, because I wanted to toss out the notion that no class or subclass is actually "broken" but some are much more suited to situations than others.
Having only recently come back, I have a HE Valor Bard in one campaign and an Open Hand Monk (Air Genasi) in another. I have read numerous threads on different builds and subclassings and multi-classing and all, and I find that ANY of the base rule setups seem viable to play, if you are actually getting in to this to ROLE-PLAY. Yes, it's easy to see where certain setups can really outperform another in a situation, but if you have a good DM, isn't it entirely likely you will encounter both sides of that coin during your adventure? That moment where your Valor Bard steps in and with a few deft songs/attacks/spells entirely turns the battle and saves the day. Later on, you face a situation where holding the horses is his best use, because his skills/spells are useless in this one, and a Lore Bard would really shine.
I'm more saying that my personal feel is that each build, from race/class to subclass or multi-class should be more about what THAT character would want or do in the situation than number crunching to find the best mathematical route. I will use my Monk as an example, primarily because he's the character that has begun to run himself, taking me along for the ride. This comes from his personality, which I fleshed out, and the situations and events he's been exposed to in our adventures. He started off Agnostic, having studied the Gods and finding none of them appealing. He went the way of the Open Hand as that was what appealed to him most, face-to-face combat. An event in our game (I died and was revivified, using a scroll "given" to us by a re-emerging Goddess) has impacted him to the point where he now worships this new deity (albeit awkwardly and in truly strange ways, due to having never done this before) It has also given him pause, in that he now wonders if perhaps Priesthood is in his future (Multi to Cleric) or he might wish to enhance his combat skills, to better champion his Lady's cause (Rogue Multi) Both class ideas are more from what HE would think than what I would. To help the group, the Cleric idea is likely best, to fill gaps. The Rogue benefits would also reap rewards in shortening our fights. In either case, I find myself torn and waiting now, for what will take place to help Shinn (my Monk) decide what course he will take. By letting the character take over, following the personality I have given him and how he would react to what the DM throws at us, I am having a TON of fun and more enjoying the stresses of character building, because I am just clicking the options my Monk would choose. He has already done things I didn't want him to, but it simple made sense that HE would do this (ie: follow a God) when I was 1000% against him having a deity.
I think, what I am saying, mostly is that instead of looking at different options, skills, spells, subclasses (and so on) as being something "broken" in the rules, maybe open our horizons and see them as more options, allowing more TRUE RP opportunities, for folks. I see a lot on the Monk saying the 4 Elements is "broken" Maybe it isn't. Maybe it's an option there for someone, whose character's personality has always been fascinated by the elements and thus follows that path. Instead of saying it's broken because the other Traditions all have "better" overall perks and applications, it's a chance for the character to follow the path of their dream, taking the player along for the ride. I think there is never anything really broken in a true RP world, only options that are less effective or efficient than others.
A brief, to describe and show why I LOVE when people RP to form, instead of using their own knowledge and sense, was a moment during a dungeon crawl I threw together for my adult kids and their others (our D&D group, usually my son DM's, but wanted to play, so I ran a hacker dungeon for them) They had opened several doors already, my daughter's boyfriend, a Dragonborn Barbarian, opening most of them. My daughter's character, a Gnome Wizard, obsessed with books, was growing impatient as they hadn't yet found any. As such, she ran up to a door and flung it open, crying "Books!' as she did so. We all looked at her, and she said "I know this is a TERRIBLE idea, but she would do that." A case of her (player) KNOWING this action is a really bad idea, goes through with it, because the character would. For the record, she took 3 crossbow bolts as a result and very nearly died. She also received an inspiration, for RPing her character true to form, knowing it could well have been that character's final move.
So....is anything actually broken, or does everything have it's place?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I would certainly say things are broken- maybe not to the point of unplayability, but everything is definitely not perfectly balanced. Ranger's features often don't come in handy, and when they do they are very underwhelming. I like the class, but I can't say that it is on the same level as most of the others.
I sort of disagree with the main argument in your post. Something doesn't have to be un mechanically powerful for it to be good to roleplay; and it is better when the mechanics actually support the RP. Take the Four Elements Monk, for example. The goal of it is basically to turn you into an Avatar character- mixing martial arts and elemental magic. But it doesn't really. You end up having to sacrifice your ki for some mediocre elemental powers. You end up not being a good monk nor a good caster.
A subclass/class doesn't have to be really powerful- it just has to be good enough to be worthwhile and support the RP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
The reason why I feel that the Ranger is underpowered is that even when its situational abilities work, they don't do that much. A ranger was one of my first characters, and even when we faced my Favored Enemy I still felt a little useless. My character was supposed to be a hardened veteran, hunting the undead for his whole life, but even when I fought them I wasn't very good. I RP'ed my character as competent, but if the mechanics don't support it, it isn't very satisfying.
It's better, but not mandatory, and the good thing is that it's already the case with most of the classes.
I firmly disagree with this. A character is not any better for being incompetent. A competent character can be just as interesting as a less powerful one. (I'm not saying that something has to be overpowered to be good, or that weak characters are bad. I'm just saying that weak character is not necessarily better to RP than a powerful one.)
It does not really matter. Technical power is not all there is, and it can be compensated in the game by the circumstances, magic items, etc.
It's annoying that people thinking that by taking a hybrid class, they will be as good as classes which are not hybrid. It would not be faire to non-hybrid if it was the case.
I say it does matter. If you are trying to RP a skilled swordsman, but you can't hit a motionless practice dummy, you aren't going to have much fun, are you?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Well, I see some who point out where certain classes/builds have much less useful utility to the others, and this is what I was talking about. You kind of need to know what classes are what to effectively RP the character. If you wanted to be the skilled swordsman, then you wouldn't pick the Ranger, but maybe the Fighter, then equip and skill him with more "Ranger" stuff. NObody is entirely dead weight on the adventure. Everyone hits the monsters sometimes, or passes a check other times and so on. I still believe that in the RP side of it, even the "weakest" class has a place for some people. It's up to the group to decide, and if one wants to play a weaker class, then the others can opt to build around that shortcoming (or grab a Bard and cover pretty much ALL the options)
I get that a few classes might always feel a bit lacking, but if you look them over and are ready to accept some shortcomings, I think every class has that special "something" they can bring. It might just take longer for others to show.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I definitely agree with Falwith, with one caveat: I think a few things are "broken," not in that they're underpowered, but in that they're overpowered at certain levels. I run most of my games at low levels, so Moon Druid is the most glaring example: I allowed it once, and it really just made the rest of the party feel like chumps.
I definitely agree with Falwith, with one caveat: I think a few things are "broken," not in that they're underpowered, but in that they're overpowered at certain levels. I run most of my games at low levels, so Moon Druid is the most glaring example: I allowed it once, and it really just made the rest of the party feel like chumps.
Eh. Druids in general are pretty well off at level 2, but the amount of HP a moon druid can have sitting around is pretty intense. As far as tactics go, did you know that a lot of effective battle forms are large instead of medium, and can therefor be surrounded by many more individuals than your average adventurer and can be locked down easier?
You will never have problems with a table of mature, "good faith" players who realize that everyone holds some responsibility for making the game fun for everyone. My group has a couple theorycrafters that love to find the best combinations of mechanics, but they're not going to bring those to the table. They will tone it down while preserving the parts they like the most.
I think the issue comes in pick-up games or AL or a group that hasn't fully gelled. People may be less invested about their character's impact on the overall game, or they think dominating an encounter will impress the others at the table.
'Broken' never lasts. You can be as broken as you like at whatever level you like, class and race dependent and all that good stuff. Fact is, if you push your DM hard enough and you start to negatively impact the game for the others in your party and your DM, it doesn't matter how broke you are, the DM can 'fix', anything you bring up. Some nice gentle fixes, other more brutal and 'do you get the point now?' style fixes.
I don't disagree with Moon Druids at level 2, but it's a realtively short term power spike, not something that breaks the whole game, and there are ways for a DM to counter this, the moon druid in Tomb of Annihilation was aghast at the way he leaked blood due to low AC...
This is one big thing that moon druids lack if we're comparing them to a different (borrowing from 4e for a moment) "defender" role since that is what moon druids essentially play out as archetypically. Unless the moon druid has bark skin going (which is concentration), CR1 beasts are generally far easier to hit than most martial classes at level 2, especially with how easy it is to pin them down. It is a lot of HP that they have, but they'll bleed it out quickly unless they want to burn spell slots on upkeep. Moon Druid is nothing but HP, and unless the character is a lizardfolk, they're going to suffer from the usual druid squishiness once they've burnt out their wildshapes.
But yes. Level 2 shouldn't last very long and at level 3 everyone gets another hit dice and the classes that aren't level 1 or 2 archetype pick will now choose their archetype. Additionally, non-moon-druids are better able to utilize their newly gained level 2 spell slots inside of combat, and if they are circle of the land, will have a tier of their auto-prepared list unlocked.
I agree and disagree with the TO at the same time.
I think there is merit in knowing and exploring what is "broken". Because if know the mechanical optimal spells, etc. you are not gonna be disapointed if you expect something great and then fall short because your mighty dragon's breath hardly deals damage and is always resisted because your CON sucks. I often choose non-optimal choices and of course my chars sometimes act foolishly (despite me as a player knowing better) but imo it is a better experience if you go there knowingly ;-)
Moreover, sometimes it might also be a good idea to rebrand certain classes to have a mechanical sound class with "cool" options in contrast to have the "right" class with poor synergies. That way it doesn't feel bad to "go RP". Classes are mostly game mechanics and I don't see any reason why someone couldn't (role)play a drunken master with the "open hand subclass". The problem with "bad" traits is that they come up rarely and then don't do much (that's why the are usually bad ;-)) and there is only so much the DM can do to mitigate that (without it appearing obviously staged).
At the same time, I would encourage my players to not just go optimal choices for the sake of it.
This is a sure fire way to make things even worse. Ideally you should steer players away from subpar subclasses and try to match their theme to a different more workable subclass (UA Dragon monk is 100x better as an avatar stand in than 4 Elements). OR do some homework to see what homebrew solutions for the subclass others have come up with. Start low and progress up as adding feels better than taking away.
The game itself was NOT designed with magic items in mind and handing out rare items is a sure fire way to break something FAST
2. RP and Optimizing cannot co-exist: i.e. a less competent character is a more interesting one
This is just wrong....some of the best RP can happen if you build your character to do something well. IMO its much more likely to be a fun time for everyone if you are actually good at what you are suppose to do. Purposeful dropping of core stats is a much bigger sin than min/maxing.
Being an 8 INT wizard is a laugh for a one shot at best.
3. Pick what you want...the game is balanced enough to support it!
While I wish this was true there are definitely trap options in some classes. Sorcerer is the worst offender and if you pick certain metamagic you will may never even use it due to its irrelevant nature in the game.
I take this rule of thumb: If a feature forces the DM to create very abstract situations to make your skill useful OR the skill literally impacts every encounter design...its a bad skill and should likely be better designed.
This can be from either side of it: Flight at 1st level breaks most modules as a lot of traps, dungeons, situations are set up with flight not considered. Favored Enemy may never even come up depending on choices made. These are things are can break balance by forcing the DM to include specific counters or shoehorn in more abstract choices.
Favored Enemy should be something the ranger and DM talk about to make relevant to the game...you just deciding that giants are your favored enemy but the campaign is set in Hell....well thats not gonna end well.
Work with the DM to decide if something will work or not. If you are both new give it a shot but have a short threshold for change.
3. Pick what you want...the game is balanced enough to support it!
While I wish this was true there are definitely trap options in some classes. Sorcerer is the worst offender and if you pick certain metamagic you will may never even use it due to its irrelevant nature in the game.
I take this rule of thumb: If a feature forces the DM to create very abstract situations to make your skill useful OR the skill literally impacts every encounter design...its a bad skill and should likely be better designed.
This can be from either side of it: Flight at 1st level breaks most modules as a lot of traps, dungeons, situations are set up with flight not considered. Favored Enemy may never even come up depending on choices made. These are things are can break balance by forcing the DM to include specific counters or shoehorn in more abstract choices.
Favored Enemy should be something the ranger and DM talk about to make relevant to the game...you just deciding that giants are your favored enemy but the campaign is set in Hell....well thats not gonna end well.
Work with the DM to decide if something will work or not. If you are both new give it a shot but have a short threshold for change.
No, there are no traps. I can't think of a single metamagic, or feat, that doesn't have a use. They won't all be useful in every situation, but it's also up to the DM and the player to get creative. DMs should tailor games to the capabilities of the PCs so none of the players feel left out. This is Game Mastering 101. The same can, and should, also be said of rangers and their class features. Having a dialogue back and forth is always a good idea. I think every player should have a rapport with their DM. But players can, absolutely, pick whatever they want.
Flight can be a game-changer during outdoor encounters, sure. They're out of reach of melee, but they're also sitting ducks against ranged attacks because they can't take cover. And I don't think it's that game-breaking in a dungeon. Most early ones don't have very high ceilings. Any flight speed is useless underneath 8-foot ceilings, and if they can skip a pit trap they probably could have conquered it anyway by another means.
3. Pick what you want...the game is balanced enough to support it!
While I wish this was true there are definitely trap options in some classes. Sorcerer is the worst offender and if you pick certain metamagic you will may never even use it due to its irrelevant nature in the game.
I take this rule of thumb: If a feature forces the DM to create very abstract situations to make your skill useful OR the skill literally impacts every encounter design...its a bad skill and should likely be better designed.
This can be from either side of it: Flight at 1st level breaks most modules as a lot of traps, dungeons, situations are set up with flight not considered. Favored Enemy may never even come up depending on choices made. These are things are can break balance by forcing the DM to include specific counters or shoehorn in more abstract choices.
Favored Enemy should be something the ranger and DM talk about to make relevant to the game...you just deciding that giants are your favored enemy but the campaign is set in Hell....well thats not gonna end well.
Work with the DM to decide if something will work or not. If you are both new give it a shot but have a short threshold for change.
No, there are no traps. I can't think of a single metamagic, or feat, that doesn't have a use. They won't all be useful in every situation, but it's also up to the DM and the player to get creative. DMs should tailor games to the capabilities of the PCs so none of the players feel left out. This is Game Mastering 101. The same can, and should, also be said of rangers and their class features. Having a dialogue back and forth is always a good idea. I think every player should have a rapport with their DM. But players can, absolutely, pick whatever they want.
Flight can be a game-changer during outdoor encounters, sure. They're out of reach of melee, but they're also sitting ducks against ranged attacks because they can't take cover. And I don't think it's that game-breaking in a dungeon. Most early ones don't have very high ceilings. Any flight speed is useless underneath 8-foot ceilings, and if they can skip a pit trap they probably could have conquered it anyway by another means.
Grappler is a prime example. It is terrible and should never be chosen as nothing about the feat has any benefit that can't already be done.
PHB Beastmaster is another example. It is strictly inferior to the new options and should never be chosen.
Purple Dragon Knight is a trash tier pick that can be fulfilled 100x better with the new superiority dice options, Psi knight, or generally 10 different builds that are strictly better in every conceivable way.
Subtle metamagic, if the Xanathar rules on material components/foci is used, is so niche as to be barely useful in the vast majority of situations. Distant spell is strictly worse than the other available options.
I could keep going but its pretty obvious that there are examples of just "bad" choices in the game that offers other options close enough in theme/mechanics that are just strictly better that you as a DM should be steering people away from these choices OR have enough of an understanding to make changes to make these more applicable to the game.
The idea that full free choice without discussions about potential mechanical ramifications of said choice is doing an active disservice to your players.
There is a balance to the game and understanding it and using it is a key part of being a DM.
Now if I had an experienced player that knew what they were getting into that is a completely different situation. The above statements mostly refer to new players. Experienced players who understand the system and pick this for a challenge is a different beast and I would feel more confident in their ability to maximize the use of the subpar elements into a more enjoyable experience.
Overall I hate the attitude that you must except any player concept with open arms because its your job as the DM to "make it work". No....your fun is just as important and forcing a DM, particularly a new one, to "make it work" with a shitty subclass, out of the norm solution (flight), or incompatible builds (dumping CON completely) then you are just robbing the fun from the DM to pay your players...this is poor form.
There is a reason flight is banned in Adventure League and its mostly to do with the fact that it forces a particular set of encounters (Dungeons with low ceilings, ranged enemies, etc...) that forces a particular playstyle to be hoisted on the entire party due to a single players choice.
This is what I want to avoid as a DM as a single choice by a single player makes large implications for everyone.
3. Pick what you want...the game is balanced enough to support it!
While I wish this was true there are definitely trap options in some classes. Sorcerer is the worst offender and if you pick certain metamagic you will may never even use it due to its irrelevant nature in the game.
I take this rule of thumb: If a feature forces the DM to create very abstract situations to make your skill useful OR the skill literally impacts every encounter design...its a bad skill and should likely be better designed.
This can be from either side of it: Flight at 1st level breaks most modules as a lot of traps, dungeons, situations are set up with flight not considered. Favored Enemy may never even come up depending on choices made. These are things are can break balance by forcing the DM to include specific counters or shoehorn in more abstract choices.
Favored Enemy should be something the ranger and DM talk about to make relevant to the game...you just deciding that giants are your favored enemy but the campaign is set in Hell....well thats not gonna end well.
Work with the DM to decide if something will work or not. If you are both new give it a shot but have a short threshold for change.
No, there are no traps. I can't think of a single metamagic, or feat, that doesn't have a use. They won't all be useful in every situation, but it's also up to the DM and the player to get creative. DMs should tailor games to the capabilities of the PCs so none of the players feel left out. This is Game Mastering 101. The same can, and should, also be said of rangers and their class features. Having a dialogue back and forth is always a good idea. I think every player should have a rapport with their DM. But players can, absolutely, pick whatever they want.
Flight can be a game-changer during outdoor encounters, sure. They're out of reach of melee, but they're also sitting ducks against ranged attacks because they can't take cover. And I don't think it's that game-breaking in a dungeon. Most early ones don't have very high ceilings. Any flight speed is useless underneath 8-foot ceilings, and if they can skip a pit trap they probably could have conquered it anyway by another means.
Grappler is a prime example. It is terrible and should never be chosen as nothing about the feat has any benefit that can't already be done.
PHB Beastmaster is another example. It is strictly inferior to the new options and should never be chosen.
Purple Dragon Knight is a trash tier pick that can be fulfilled 100x better with the new superiority dice options, Psi knight, or generally 10 different builds that are strictly better in every conceivable way.
Subtle metamagic, if the Xanathar rules on material components/foci is used, is so niche as to be barely useful in the vast majority of situations. Distant spell is strictly worse than the other available options.
I could keep going but its pretty obvious that there are examples of just "bad" choices in the game that offers other options close enough in theme/mechanics that are just strictly better that you as a DM should be steering people away from these choices OR have enough of an understanding to make changes to make these more applicable to the game.
The idea that full free choice without discussions about potential mechanical ramifications of said choice is doing an active disservice to your players.
There is a balance to the game and understanding it and using it is a key part of being a DM.
Now if I had an experienced player that knew what they were getting into that is a completely different situation. The above statements mostly refer to new players. Experienced players who understand the system and pick this for a challenge is a different beast and I would feel more confident in their ability to maximize the use of the subpar elements into a more enjoyable experience.
Overall I hate the attitude that you must except any player concept with open arms because its your job as the DM to "make it work". No....your fun is just as important and forcing a DM, particularly a new one, to "make it work" with a shitty subclass, out of the norm solution (flight), or incompatible builds (dumping CON completely) then you are just robbing the fun from the DM to pay your players...this is poor form.
There is a reason flight is banned in Adventure League and its mostly to do with the fact that it forces a particular set of encounters (Dungeons with low ceilings, ranged enemies, etc...) that forces a particular playstyle to be hoisted on the entire party due to a single players choice.
This is what I want to avoid as a DM as a single choice by a single player makes large implications for everyone.
Wrong on all counts. And those are hills I will die on. I've seen high-level beast masters. They're amazing.
Grappler works. Purple Dragon Knight is a support archetype (and a pretty darn good one) and Subtle metamagic isn't something you use with material components anyway. You don't need Xanathar's to tell you not to. It's a great metamagic for the social pillar, and with their high Charisma I don't see how it's a bad pick. blindness/deafness, charm person, and misty step are all valid picks. And if you are using Xanathar's, mind spike and thunder step are solid picks, too. Just take a look and see how many of their spells don't have a material component cost.
Overall I hate the attitude that you must except any player concept with open arms because its your job as the DM to "make it work". No....your fun is just as important and forcing a DM, particularly a new one, to "make it work" with a shitty subclass, out of the norm solution (flight), or incompatible builds (dumping CON completely) then you are just robbing the fun from the DM to pay your players...this is poor form.
No-one suggested that, ever, you are the only suggesting creating totally incompetent builds. Also, not all DMs are as intolerant as you are with character concepts. And as a DM, I find it more fun to have characters that I can play with in terms of role than having to step around egotistical killing machines interested only in being "the best" whatever that means.
In the end, it's a collaborative game, and the people that I've found the less collaborative in 42+ years of D&D are powergamers who are only interested in showing that their build "rules", and rule-lawyer for hours to make it work, and to twist situations in the world so that it works to the advantage of their build. Because these people are not interesting in playing with the others, they are just interested in playing over the others.
So, as a DM, if someone comes with a flawed character concept that is not optimised and that the player will enjoy playing, I don't care if it's one of the sub-classes that "should never be chosen". This is a very short--sighted assessment because if I know that the player will enjoy playing it, I will make damn sure that he will and I will enjoy much more making him having fun playing him than constantly managing the expectations of the powergamer who thinks he is owed everything because he has "the build".
"Optimized" does not mean they will be poor RP'ers or they are trying to "bend the rules to their favor".
To some extent if they understand the game well enough that they can do what they want to do well and are not a dick about it then what does it matter?
There are times when it can become disruptive I agree....see a min/maxed flying race creature with a long distance attack. (Aarokocra Dex Fighter with Longbow) As it forces you to make encounters very similar to balance things. (Small rooms with low ceilings or long distance ranged enemies).
This is also why I hate rolling for stats as it tends to create too much discrepancy between PCs.
What is more disruptive in my mind is the player who does not know the system, refuses to learn, and comes in with a concept that provides 0 help to the group as a whole.
Playing an already underperforming class/subclass combo on top of not knowing the rules of the game, in my experience, tends to come hand in hand. Overall it ends up being a frustrating time for all involved. Generally if someone wants to play an underperforming subclass and is also new I tend to have a talk with them on what they want from the experience and see if we can't find something a bit more productive.
I hate seeing people pick feats/subclasses/spells that are disappointing or underperform as I feel it diminishes their experience.
I would straight up rather change the grappler feat if someone wanted to use it rather than just let them have the as written version because it is so objectively terrible. I will do that work to make sure their experience is better.
Extremely weak and extremely powerful characters should be discussed in a session zero. Most DM's hate having to change their adventures if a powergamer is in it, and resent that player. I personally wouldn't want to have to change my adventure for a extremely weak character either- sure, meme builds like Int-dumping Wizards can be fun for a one-shot, but I don't want to change a whole campaign around a single player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Extremely weak and extremely powerful characters should be discussed in a session zero. Most DM's hate having to change their adventures if a powergamer is in it, and resent that player. I personally wouldn't want to have to change my adventure for a extremely weak character either- sure, meme builds like Int-dumping Wizards can be fun for a one-shot, but I don't want to change a whole campaign around a single player.
Yeah this is the best approach I agree. I would do the tuning/changing/suggestions at a session 0.
People underestimate how much a purposefully bad character can affect a game. It is just as bad or worse to have a super underperforming character as it is to have a hyper optimized one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi all, new to posting, long time lurker and my INITIAL exposure to D&D was likely a bit over 35 years ago. Yes, the red book and there were only 3 books TOTAL when I began, some came long after. I digress, however, because I wanted to toss out the notion that no class or subclass is actually "broken" but some are much more suited to situations than others.
Having only recently come back, I have a HE Valor Bard in one campaign and an Open Hand Monk (Air Genasi) in another. I have read numerous threads on different builds and subclassings and multi-classing and all, and I find that ANY of the base rule setups seem viable to play, if you are actually getting in to this to ROLE-PLAY. Yes, it's easy to see where certain setups can really outperform another in a situation, but if you have a good DM, isn't it entirely likely you will encounter both sides of that coin during your adventure? That moment where your Valor Bard steps in and with a few deft songs/attacks/spells entirely turns the battle and saves the day. Later on, you face a situation where holding the horses is his best use, because his skills/spells are useless in this one, and a Lore Bard would really shine.
I'm more saying that my personal feel is that each build, from race/class to subclass or multi-class should be more about what THAT character would want or do in the situation than number crunching to find the best mathematical route. I will use my Monk as an example, primarily because he's the character that has begun to run himself, taking me along for the ride. This comes from his personality, which I fleshed out, and the situations and events he's been exposed to in our adventures. He started off Agnostic, having studied the Gods and finding none of them appealing. He went the way of the Open Hand as that was what appealed to him most, face-to-face combat. An event in our game (I died and was revivified, using a scroll "given" to us by a re-emerging Goddess) has impacted him to the point where he now worships this new deity (albeit awkwardly and in truly strange ways, due to having never done this before) It has also given him pause, in that he now wonders if perhaps Priesthood is in his future (Multi to Cleric) or he might wish to enhance his combat skills, to better champion his Lady's cause (Rogue Multi) Both class ideas are more from what HE would think than what I would. To help the group, the Cleric idea is likely best, to fill gaps. The Rogue benefits would also reap rewards in shortening our fights. In either case, I find myself torn and waiting now, for what will take place to help Shinn (my Monk) decide what course he will take. By letting the character take over, following the personality I have given him and how he would react to what the DM throws at us, I am having a TON of fun and more enjoying the stresses of character building, because I am just clicking the options my Monk would choose. He has already done things I didn't want him to, but it simple made sense that HE would do this (ie: follow a God) when I was 1000% against him having a deity.
I think, what I am saying, mostly is that instead of looking at different options, skills, spells, subclasses (and so on) as being something "broken" in the rules, maybe open our horizons and see them as more options, allowing more TRUE RP opportunities, for folks. I see a lot on the Monk saying the 4 Elements is "broken" Maybe it isn't. Maybe it's an option there for someone, whose character's personality has always been fascinated by the elements and thus follows that path. Instead of saying it's broken because the other Traditions all have "better" overall perks and applications, it's a chance for the character to follow the path of their dream, taking the player along for the ride. I think there is never anything really broken in a true RP world, only options that are less effective or efficient than others.
A brief, to describe and show why I LOVE when people RP to form, instead of using their own knowledge and sense, was a moment during a dungeon crawl I threw together for my adult kids and their others (our D&D group, usually my son DM's, but wanted to play, so I ran a hacker dungeon for them) They had opened several doors already, my daughter's boyfriend, a Dragonborn Barbarian, opening most of them. My daughter's character, a Gnome Wizard, obsessed with books, was growing impatient as they hadn't yet found any. As such, she ran up to a door and flung it open, crying "Books!' as she did so. We all looked at her, and she said "I know this is a TERRIBLE idea, but she would do that." A case of her (player) KNOWING this action is a really bad idea, goes through with it, because the character would. For the record, she took 3 crossbow bolts as a result and very nearly died. She also received an inspiration, for RPing her character true to form, knowing it could well have been that character's final move.
So....is anything actually broken, or does everything have it's place?
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I would certainly say things are broken- maybe not to the point of unplayability, but everything is definitely not perfectly balanced. Ranger's features often don't come in handy, and when they do they are very underwhelming. I like the class, but I can't say that it is on the same level as most of the others.
I sort of disagree with the main argument in your post. Something doesn't have to be un mechanically powerful for it to be good to roleplay; and it is better when the mechanics actually support the RP. Take the Four Elements Monk, for example. The goal of it is basically to turn you into an Avatar character- mixing martial arts and elemental magic. But it doesn't really. You end up having to sacrifice your ki for some mediocre elemental powers. You end up not being a good monk nor a good caster.
A subclass/class doesn't have to be really powerful- it just has to be good enough to be worthwhile and support the RP.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
You can certainly make the argument that 5e is well-enough balanced that nothing in it should be considered broken. At the moment, I think I'd agree!
But don't confuse that for the argument that "broken" does not and cannot exist.
The reason why I feel that the Ranger is underpowered is that even when its situational abilities work, they don't do that much. A ranger was one of my first characters, and even when we faced my Favored Enemy I still felt a little useless. My character was supposed to be a hardened veteran, hunting the undead for his whole life, but even when I fought them I wasn't very good. I RP'ed my character as competent, but if the mechanics don't support it, it isn't very satisfying.
I firmly disagree with this. A character is not any better for being incompetent. A competent character can be just as interesting as a less powerful one. (I'm not saying that something has to be overpowered to be good, or that weak characters are bad. I'm just saying that weak character is not necessarily better to RP than a powerful one.)
I say it does matter. If you are trying to RP a skilled swordsman, but you can't hit a motionless practice dummy, you aren't going to have much fun, are you?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Well, I see some who point out where certain classes/builds have much less useful utility to the others, and this is what I was talking about. You kind of need to know what classes are what to effectively RP the character. If you wanted to be the skilled swordsman, then you wouldn't pick the Ranger, but maybe the Fighter, then equip and skill him with more "Ranger" stuff. NObody is entirely dead weight on the adventure. Everyone hits the monsters sometimes, or passes a check other times and so on. I still believe that in the RP side of it, even the "weakest" class has a place for some people. It's up to the group to decide, and if one wants to play a weaker class, then the others can opt to build around that shortcoming (or grab a Bard and cover pretty much ALL the options)
I get that a few classes might always feel a bit lacking, but if you look them over and are ready to accept some shortcomings, I think every class has that special "something" they can bring. It might just take longer for others to show.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I definitely agree with Falwith, with one caveat: I think a few things are "broken," not in that they're underpowered, but in that they're overpowered at certain levels. I run most of my games at low levels, so Moon Druid is the most glaring example: I allowed it once, and it really just made the rest of the party feel like chumps.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Eh. Druids in general are pretty well off at level 2, but the amount of HP a moon druid can have sitting around is pretty intense. As far as tactics go, did you know that a lot of effective battle forms are large instead of medium, and can therefor be surrounded by many more individuals than your average adventurer and can be locked down easier?
You will never have problems with a table of mature, "good faith" players who realize that everyone holds some responsibility for making the game fun for everyone. My group has a couple theorycrafters that love to find the best combinations of mechanics, but they're not going to bring those to the table. They will tone it down while preserving the parts they like the most.
I think the issue comes in pick-up games or AL or a group that hasn't fully gelled. People may be less invested about their character's impact on the overall game, or they think dominating an encounter will impress the others at the table.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
'Broken' never lasts. You can be as broken as you like at whatever level you like, class and race dependent and all that good stuff. Fact is, if you push your DM hard enough and you start to negatively impact the game for the others in your party and your DM, it doesn't matter how broke you are, the DM can 'fix', anything you bring up. Some nice gentle fixes, other more brutal and 'do you get the point now?' style fixes.
This is one big thing that moon druids lack if we're comparing them to a different (borrowing from 4e for a moment) "defender" role since that is what moon druids essentially play out as archetypically. Unless the moon druid has bark skin going (which is concentration), CR1 beasts are generally far easier to hit than most martial classes at level 2, especially with how easy it is to pin them down. It is a lot of HP that they have, but they'll bleed it out quickly unless they want to burn spell slots on upkeep. Moon Druid is nothing but HP, and unless the character is a lizardfolk, they're going to suffer from the usual druid squishiness once they've burnt out their wildshapes.
But yes. Level 2 shouldn't last very long and at level 3 everyone gets another hit dice and the classes that aren't level 1 or 2 archetype pick will now choose their archetype. Additionally, non-moon-druids are better able to utilize their newly gained level 2 spell slots inside of combat, and if they are circle of the land, will have a tier of their auto-prepared list unlocked.
I agree and disagree with the TO at the same time.
I think there is merit in knowing and exploring what is "broken". Because if know the mechanical optimal spells, etc. you are not gonna be disapointed if you expect something great and then fall short because your mighty dragon's breath hardly deals damage and is always resisted because your CON sucks. I often choose non-optimal choices and of course my chars sometimes act foolishly (despite me as a player knowing better) but imo it is a better experience if you go there knowingly ;-)
Moreover, sometimes it might also be a good idea to rebrand certain classes to have a mechanical sound class with "cool" options in contrast to have the "right" class with poor synergies. That way it doesn't feel bad to "go RP". Classes are mostly game mechanics and I don't see any reason why someone couldn't (role)play a drunken master with the "open hand subclass". The problem with "bad" traits is that they come up rarely and then don't do much (that's why the are usually bad ;-)) and there is only so much the DM can do to mitigate that (without it appearing obviously staged).
At the same time, I would encourage my players to not just go optimal choices for the sake of it.
Some bad ideas I've seen in this thread
1. Use magic items to balance a game
This is a sure fire way to make things even worse. Ideally you should steer players away from subpar subclasses and try to match their theme to a different more workable subclass (UA Dragon monk is 100x better as an avatar stand in than 4 Elements). OR do some homework to see what homebrew solutions for the subclass others have come up with. Start low and progress up as adding feels better than taking away.
The game itself was NOT designed with magic items in mind and handing out rare items is a sure fire way to break something FAST
2. RP and Optimizing cannot co-exist: i.e. a less competent character is a more interesting one
This is just wrong....some of the best RP can happen if you build your character to do something well. IMO its much more likely to be a fun time for everyone if you are actually good at what you are suppose to do. Purposeful dropping of core stats is a much bigger sin than min/maxing.
Being an 8 INT wizard is a laugh for a one shot at best.
3. Pick what you want...the game is balanced enough to support it!
While I wish this was true there are definitely trap options in some classes. Sorcerer is the worst offender and if you pick certain metamagic you will may never even use it due to its irrelevant nature in the game.
I take this rule of thumb: If a feature forces the DM to create very abstract situations to make your skill useful OR the skill literally impacts every encounter design...its a bad skill and should likely be better designed.
This can be from either side of it: Flight at 1st level breaks most modules as a lot of traps, dungeons, situations are set up with flight not considered. Favored Enemy may never even come up depending on choices made. These are things are can break balance by forcing the DM to include specific counters or shoehorn in more abstract choices.
Favored Enemy should be something the ranger and DM talk about to make relevant to the game...you just deciding that giants are your favored enemy but the campaign is set in Hell....well thats not gonna end well.
Work with the DM to decide if something will work or not. If you are both new give it a shot but have a short threshold for change.
No, there are no traps. I can't think of a single metamagic, or feat, that doesn't have a use. They won't all be useful in every situation, but it's also up to the DM and the player to get creative. DMs should tailor games to the capabilities of the PCs so none of the players feel left out. This is Game Mastering 101. The same can, and should, also be said of rangers and their class features. Having a dialogue back and forth is always a good idea. I think every player should have a rapport with their DM. But players can, absolutely, pick whatever they want.
Flight can be a game-changer during outdoor encounters, sure. They're out of reach of melee, but they're also sitting ducks against ranged attacks because they can't take cover. And I don't think it's that game-breaking in a dungeon. Most early ones don't have very high ceilings. Any flight speed is useless underneath 8-foot ceilings, and if they can skip a pit trap they probably could have conquered it anyway by another means.
Grappler is a prime example. It is terrible and should never be chosen as nothing about the feat has any benefit that can't already be done.
PHB Beastmaster is another example. It is strictly inferior to the new options and should never be chosen.
Purple Dragon Knight is a trash tier pick that can be fulfilled 100x better with the new superiority dice options, Psi knight, or generally 10 different builds that are strictly better in every conceivable way.
Subtle metamagic, if the Xanathar rules on material components/foci is used, is so niche as to be barely useful in the vast majority of situations. Distant spell is strictly worse than the other available options.
I could keep going but its pretty obvious that there are examples of just "bad" choices in the game that offers other options close enough in theme/mechanics that are just strictly better that you as a DM should be steering people away from these choices OR have enough of an understanding to make changes to make these more applicable to the game.
The idea that full free choice without discussions about potential mechanical ramifications of said choice is doing an active disservice to your players.
There is a balance to the game and understanding it and using it is a key part of being a DM.
Now if I had an experienced player that knew what they were getting into that is a completely different situation. The above statements mostly refer to new players. Experienced players who understand the system and pick this for a challenge is a different beast and I would feel more confident in their ability to maximize the use of the subpar elements into a more enjoyable experience.
Overall I hate the attitude that you must except any player concept with open arms because its your job as the DM to "make it work". No....your fun is just as important and forcing a DM, particularly a new one, to "make it work" with a shitty subclass, out of the norm solution (flight), or incompatible builds (dumping CON completely) then you are just robbing the fun from the DM to pay your players...this is poor form.
There is a reason flight is banned in Adventure League and its mostly to do with the fact that it forces a particular set of encounters (Dungeons with low ceilings, ranged enemies, etc...) that forces a particular playstyle to be hoisted on the entire party due to a single players choice.
This is what I want to avoid as a DM as a single choice by a single player makes large implications for everyone.
Wrong on all counts. And those are hills I will die on. I've seen high-level beast masters. They're amazing.
Grappler works. Purple Dragon Knight is a support archetype (and a pretty darn good one) and Subtle metamagic isn't something you use with material components anyway. You don't need Xanathar's to tell you not to. It's a great metamagic for the social pillar, and with their high Charisma I don't see how it's a bad pick. blindness/deafness, charm person, and misty step are all valid picks. And if you are using Xanathar's, mind spike and thunder step are solid picks, too. Just take a look and see how many of their spells don't have a material component cost.
The only thing broken is Feats.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Why so?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
"Optimized" does not mean they will be poor RP'ers or they are trying to "bend the rules to their favor".
To some extent if they understand the game well enough that they can do what they want to do well and are not a dick about it then what does it matter?
There are times when it can become disruptive I agree....see a min/maxed flying race creature with a long distance attack. (Aarokocra Dex Fighter with Longbow) As it forces you to make encounters very similar to balance things. (Small rooms with low ceilings or long distance ranged enemies).
This is also why I hate rolling for stats as it tends to create too much discrepancy between PCs.
What is more disruptive in my mind is the player who does not know the system, refuses to learn, and comes in with a concept that provides 0 help to the group as a whole.
Playing an already underperforming class/subclass combo on top of not knowing the rules of the game, in my experience, tends to come hand in hand. Overall it ends up being a frustrating time for all involved. Generally if someone wants to play an underperforming subclass and is also new I tend to have a talk with them on what they want from the experience and see if we can't find something a bit more productive.
I hate seeing people pick feats/subclasses/spells that are disappointing or underperform as I feel it diminishes their experience.
I would straight up rather change the grappler feat if someone wanted to use it rather than just let them have the as written version because it is so objectively terrible. I will do that work to make sure their experience is better.
Extremely weak and extremely powerful characters should be discussed in a session zero. Most DM's hate having to change their adventures if a powergamer is in it, and resent that player. I personally wouldn't want to have to change my adventure for a extremely weak character either- sure, meme builds like Int-dumping Wizards can be fun for a one-shot, but I don't want to change a whole campaign around a single player.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Yeah this is the best approach I agree. I would do the tuning/changing/suggestions at a session 0.
People underestimate how much a purposefully bad character can affect a game. It is just as bad or worse to have a super underperforming character as it is to have a hyper optimized one.