What build should have been good, but wasn't?

[J-H]

I'll start:

I tried a rogue who used a shield. Great for extra AC and getting up close to stab people, right?
Oops, the dragon is flying. Need to take off the shield so I can use my bow.
Oops, now I'm back in melee. Do I take a round to put my shield on since I was just using a bow?
Worse, it was on a Scout rogue for Sudden Strike, which consumes the BA for a second sneak attack, but requires that it's against a second target. Instead of shield proficiency, I needed the Mobile feat, or to just focus on archery.

It produced a very underwhelming experience for a 18th-20th level rogue in a one-shot.

[Bobthewizard]

Shields are weird in 5e. They are difficult for martial characters but great for spell casters, which is weird. Needing to use an action to remove the shield to use a decent ranged weapon and then another action to put it on just makes it too difficult. Whereas a spellcaster only needs one hand free so can always leave their shield on.

My character that I didn't feel worked was a wild magic sorcerer. I loved the character but the wild magic surges were dumb. They hardly ever happened and when they did, they usually weren't very helpful, more neutral at best on average.

On the other side, a shepherd druid worked too well in tier 2. Every fight was either a cakewalk or a TPK depending if she had a level 3+ spell slot left. The other PCs barely mattered.

[Skrum]

Shields are weird in 5e. They are difficult for martial characters but great for spell casters, which is weird. Needing to use an action to remove the shield to use a decent ranged weapon and then another action to put it on just makes it too difficult. Whereas a spellcaster only needs one hand free so can always leave their shield on.

This is exactly why I never go out of my way to make sure I have a ranged weapon on melee builds. Highly likely the ranged weapon is terrible anyway (yeah I'm not putting points in dex if I'm wearing heavy armor). I think it's much more useful to get a mobility option - boots of speed are the gold standard, but the elven racial teleport is great, a gish with misty step/thunderstep, etc. In an actual combat, I'd rather spend my action dashing than making a super underwhelming ranged attack 19 times out of 20.

As for the OP question -
Hexblades, and warlocks in general. They're super fun through level 5. Starting at 6 though (approximately), they just don't have the juice. Not enough spell slots, too fragile, lackluster damage. It's impossible to not think "why didn't I play a different gish option."

[Kurald Galain]

Hexblades, and warlocks in general. They're super fun through level 5. Starting at 6 though (approximately), they just don't have the juice. Not enough spell slots, too fragile, lackluster damage. It's impossible to not think "why didn't I play a different gish option."

That is my experience as well.

And in addition to that, they often don't get a short rest when they want to (because a short rest takes an hour and the party often doesn't have time for that).

[Psyren]

Spores Druid is hands down my vote for most frustrating design in 5e. It wants so badly to be a melee druid alternative to Moon but every one of its features fights against you at that objective.

[Unoriginal]

I'll start:

I tried a rogue who used a shield. Great for extra AC and getting up close to stab people, right?
Oops, the dragon is flying. Need to take off the shield so I can use my bow.
Oops, now I'm back in melee. Do I take a round to put my shield on since I was just using a bow?
Worse, it was on a Scout rogue for Sudden Strike, which consumes the BA for a second sneak attack, but requires that it's against a second target. Instead of shield proficiency, I needed the Mobile feat, or to just focus on archery.

It produced a very underwhelming experience for a 18th-20th level rogue in a one-shot.

How I would have done this:

Rogue Scout with shield+ Sharpshooter + using daggers.

One level of Fighter to have both the shield proficiency and the Thrown Weapon Fighting fighting style.

[RSP]

Hexblades, and warlocks in general. They're super fun through level 5. Starting at 6 though (approximately), they just don't have the juice. Not enough spell slots, too fragile, lackluster damage. It's impossible to not think "why didn't I play a different gish option."

That is my experience as well.

And in addition to that, they often don't get a short rest when they want to (because a short rest takes an hour and the party often doesn't have time for that).

I’ll third this, but only for Hexblade Bladelocks builds that try to be in melee. And they can go a bit deeper into T2 than 6, but they do start feeling the “glass” part of “glass cannon” rather quickly.

[Sorinth]

I'd second Spore druid. Great concept, the abilities are unique and interesting, but they just fall flat because there's too many conflicts. The other notable one for me would be Assassin Rogue, the abilities are usable too infrequently, giving something less powerful then an auto-crit but that would be useable all/most of the time would've been a better decision.

[Psyren]

I'll start:

I tried a rogue who used a shield. Great for extra AC and getting up close to stab people, right?
Oops, the dragon is flying. Need to take off the shield so I can use my bow.
Oops, now I'm back in melee. Do I take a round to put my shield on since I was just using a bow?
Worse, it was on a Scout rogue for Sudden Strike, which consumes the BA for a second sneak attack, but requires that it's against a second target. Instead of shield proficiency, I needed the Mobile feat, or to just focus on archery.

It produced a very underwhelming experience for a 18th-20th level rogue in a one-shot.

I'd argue that by 18th level your melee character should have a way to stay in melee with a flying enemy without constant bow swappage. Even something as simple as dropping one of your Expertises into Athletics + Reliable Talent and using the "Climb Onto Enemy" rule from the DMG would do the trick with a dragon.

As for the OP question -
Hexblades, and warlocks in general. They're super fun through level 5. Starting at 6 though (approximately), they just don't have the juice. Not enough spell slots, too fragile, lackluster damage. It's impossible to not think "why didn't I play a different gish option."

I disagree with this, Hexblade 20 is fine and as a gish is at least on par with if not better than most martials. Sure, its subclass features at 6+ are subpar - but you're still continuing to get invocations, pact boons, higher spells, and even feats by sticking it out. I'm not saying a straight-classed Hexblade is better than multiclassing, but it's not bad either.

[RSP]

I disagree with this, Hexblade 20 is fine and as a gish is at least on par with if not better than most martials. Sure, its subclass features at 6+ are subpar - but you're still continuing to get invocations, pact boons, higher spells, and even feats by sticking it out. I'm not saying a straight-classed Hexblade is better than multiclassing, but it's not bad either.

I haven’t played strictly level 20, but the Hexblade has next to no real defensive capabilities. Armor of Hexes isn’t anything particularly good or reliable: being in melee usually entails bigger threats than a single hit/round. Even then, it still only ever applies to one enemy at a time, and 1 min max every SR. Plus, even when it does actually come into play, it’s still just 50/50 whether it actually helps.

And all that takes up your Reaction.

They just don’t hold up as a d8 melee combatant as their abilities don’t actually do much for survivability. Lots of ways to produce offense; but just no defense.

[LibraryOgre]

How I would have done this:

Rogue Scout with shield+ Sharpshooter + using daggers.

One level of Fighter to have both the shield proficiency and the Thrown Weapon Fighting fighting style.

A couple other suggestions:

1) Hand axe. Same range, better damage (d6 slashing v. d4 piercing), can be done with strength.
2) Sling. Same damage, better range.

[Psyren]

I haven’t played strictly level 20, but the Hexblade has next to no real defensive capabilities. Armor of Hexes isn’t anything particularly good or reliable: being in melee usually entails bigger threats than a single hit/round. Even then, it still only ever applies to one enemy at a time, and 1 min max every SR. Plus, even when it does actually come into play, it’s still just 50/50 whether it actually helps.

And all that takes up your Reaction.

They just don’t hold up as a d8 melee combatant as their abilities don’t actually do much for survivability. Lots of ways to produce offense; but just no defense.

They get medium armor and shields; that's all you need to be a competitive frontliner, even before tricks like Darkness+Devil's Sight or buffs like Agathys. They're also perfectly viable from range due to EB whenever the front line might be especially dangerous for some reason.

Again, forget about the subclass features at 6 and higher; what really matters past 1st-level are your invocations and scaling spellcasting.

[Potato_Priest]

A couple other suggestions:

1) Hand axe. Same range, better damage (d6 slashing v. d4 piercing), can be done with strength.
2) Sling. Same damage, better range.

RAW I don't think you can use a sling with a shield (more than once) since you need a free hand to reload the sling (the rule is described in the Ammunition property text). I personally have always allowed it though as it's a real historical fighting style.

Going by strict RAW, throwing daggers is unfortunately the best this shield rogue could do. An arcane trickster rogue could always fall back on a damage cantrip as a ranged option to go with the shield.

[Skrum]

They get medium armor and shields; that's all you need to be a competitive frontliner, even before tricks like Darkness+Devil's Sight or buffs like Agathys. They're also perfectly viable from range due to EB whenever the front line might be especially dangerous for some reason.

Yeah....no. It's not. And 3 people in this very thread are saying "warlocks are fragile." Maybe it's *your* table that's the outlier.

==============

Nother small callout for the OP, Hunger of Hadar. Not to say it can't work, it definitely can, but IME it's pretty situational. Larger area, and enemies just walk out of it. Smaller area, and you might hamper the team as much as you harm the enemies. Very cool spell, but it's really hard to find the right time to use it.

[LibraryOgre]

Just to be salty:

Any Strength-based build. Why be Strength based when you can use Dex and double dip offense AND defense?

[Skrum]

Just to be salty:

Any Strength-based build. Why be Strength based when you can use Dex and double dip offense AND defense?

I'll make the case -
Dex is generally lower AC (especially because dex can't always use a shield)

Dex is also boring. Sharpshooter is a great mechanical feat, but it's boring as hell. Positioning barely matter at all; seeing the tiniest sliver of an enemy is all that matters.

Dex is pigeonholed into using sharpshooter too. Str has more options

Athletics >>>>> Acrobatics

While I'm mildly negative on the flanking variant rule, it does make str and melee a lot more attractive. Getting advantage essentially ALL the time does a lot to boost melee builds (yes, it also makes melee more dangerous, but on net it absolutely helps players more than monsters)

[Sigreid]

This is exactly why I never go out of my way to make sure I have a ranged weapon on melee builds. Highly likely the ranged weapon is terrible anyway (yeah I'm not putting points in dex if I'm wearing heavy armor). I think it's much more useful to get a mobility option - boots of speed are the gold standard, but the elven racial teleport is great, a gish with misty step/thunderstep, etc. In an actual combat, I'd rather spend my action dashing than making a super underwhelming ranged attack 19 times out of 20.

As for the OP question -
Hexblades, and warlocks in general. They're super fun through level 5. Starting at 6 though (approximately), they just don't have the juice. Not enough spell slots, too fragile, lackluster damage. It's impossible to not think "why didn't I play a different gish option."

There's always throwing axes and javelins if you want to be primarily melee but want to be able to do something at a reasonable range without dropping your shiield..

[Psyren]

Yeah....no. It's not. And 3 people in this very thread are saying "warlocks are fragile." Maybe it's *your* table that's the outlier.

Are Clerics and Valor Bards "fragile" at your tables too? d8 HD, medium armor, shields? Never mind the fact that Hexblades are even more SAD than those two.

[Skrum]

Are Clerics and Valor Bards "fragile" at your tables too? d8 HD, medium armor, shields? Never mind the fact that Hexblades are even more SAD than those two.

Valor's got some moves, especially if they can pick up the shield spell. They, unlike warlocks, can boost their AC in a pretty cost-efficient way.

Cleric CAN melee (or engage primarily in melee, like with spirit guardians), if they're built for it.

Simply having 18 AC does not make you equipped for melee combat. Which is at the core of why hexblade warlock struggles at it.

[Psyren]

Valor's got some moves, especially if they can pick up the shield spell. They, unlike warlocks, can boost their AC in a pretty cost-efficient way.

Cleric CAN melee (or engage primarily in melee, like with spirit guardians), if they're built for it.

Simply having 18 AC does not make you equipped for melee combat. Which is at the core of why hexblade warlock struggles at it.

19 AC with half-plate actually. And again, if you're really playing at such a lethal table (I have never seen anyone describe 18-19 AC as low in 5e), use Darkness + Devil's Sight for perma-dodge and perma-advantage.

[JLandan]

How I would have done this:

Rogue Scout with shield+ Sharpshooter + using daggers.

One level of Fighter to have both the shield proficiency and the Thrown Weapon Fighting fighting style.

RAW doesn't allow for daggers with Sharpshooter, nor handaxes, light hammers, spears or tridents. The Sharpshooter features are only good with ranged weapons, not melee weapons with the Thrown property (which allows ranged attacks but does not change the melee weapon into a ranged weapon).

Many DMs don't quibble over this, but it is not RAW.

[Inquisitor]

I'll make the case -
Dex is generally lower AC (especially because dex can't always use a shield)

Dex is also boring. Sharpshooter is a great mechanical feat, but it's boring as hell. Positioning barely matter at all; seeing the tiniest sliver of an enemy is all that matters.

Dex is pigeonholed into using sharpshooter too. Str has more options

Athletics >>>>> Acrobatics

While I'm mildly negative on the flanking variant rule, it does make str and melee a lot more attractive. Getting advantage essentially ALL the time does a lot to boost melee builds (yes, it also makes melee more dangerous, but on net it absolutely helps players more than monsters)

Without DM (or other PC) help around movement a lot of Str based buids can find themselves doing nearly nothing for a lot of combats. We houserule the ability to draw as many weapons as characters have attacks, so that makes throwing javelins (often at disadvantage) less worse. Paladins are usually OK since you can always cast a spell on round 1 and your mount should be able to get you where you need to be by round 2. Otherwise, without winged boots, flying carpet, boots of speed, ... or some other party member using the opportunity cost to help out there's no way Str based martials are as consistently good as Dex based martials by mid-game.

...and then we get into benefits to Stealth, Initiative, and Saving throws.

However, I agree that Dex based is pretty boring. I actually find the XBE feat the worst offender in this regard; at least if you had to think about pulling your rapier when enemies got in your grill it would be a meaningful choice in combat. With XBE, no worries, no decisions, just keep shooting.

That said, I'd agree with Bobthewizard that the only character that didn't work (because it worked too well) as a DM was a Shepherd Druid in tier 2. Provided they build around keeping concentration up, there aren't a lot of weaknesses.

[Theodoxus]

Man, I'd love to play a Zealot Barbarian at Skrum's table. Low AC for ALL the love, die, get rezzed, jump back into the fray. Rinse and repeat. Tom Cruise ain't got nothing on my guy!

To the OP's point, any build can fail if it's in the wrong game, so it's a little hard to point to any specific build that will fail 100% of the time. 5E is pretty stout when it comes to trying to break builds...

[Skrum]

19 AC with half-plate actually. And again, if you're really playing at such a lethal table (I have never seen anyone describe 18-19 AC as low in 5e), use Darkness + Devil's Sight for perma-dodge and perma-advantage.

OK so I will cede some ground here and specify my gripe -

True, 19 AC + darkness (or even better, shadow of moil) is a serviceable defense. It'll work. But some considerations
- it takes concentration to maintain, and warlocks don't have proficiency with Con checks. This means they essentially must take either war caster or eldritch mind. Both are good, but it narrows what else the warlock can do (and hexblade warlock is very short on invocations, especially if they want to support EB for a ranged option)
- it's fragile. Even with advantage on con checks, dropping the spell is gonna happen, and because of the warlock's incredibly limited spell slots, that's devastating
- yeah, lack of spell slots. Hexblade gets shield, but they do not have the slots to actually use it. If they want to cast the spell that actually makes them good (darkness or shadow of moil) and fight in two combats, that's both of their slots. Better hope you don't drop it, or have it dispelled, or fight 3 times because...
- without that spell active, warlock is a notably substandard combatant. This to me is just factual; no great offensive ability, mediocre defense, no mobility, no support

Hexblade isn't a non-functioning build. It's just a disappointingly weak one. Fragile, on multiple axis.

I played a fighter 3 warlock 7 for a long time. Lotta fun, good character, but after 37 games I know what meleelock has to offer. In the game he died, he straight-up wouldn't have if he'd been a fighter 5 sorcerer 5 concentrating on haste instead of shadow of moil.

[Crusher]

That is my experience as well.

And in addition to that, they often don't get a short rest when they want to (because a short rest takes an hour and the party often doesn't have time for that).

Yeah. IMO, Warlocks are quite well balanced for that mythical campaign in which the party consistently gets 2-3 fights per short rest and takes a couple short rests for every long rest. Unfortunately, many, perhaps even most, campaigns don't follow that guideline (I'm playing in a campaign right now with the party as a troop of pit fighters with the cadence between weekly pit fights and then various external drama. We're level 5 and I don't think we've had a short rest yet during the campaign). From what I've been in and run, it ends up compressed somewhat from that. Fewer but also bigger fights are the norm, with fewer short rests. The Warlocks end up relatively resource disadvantaged. I sort of hoped this disconnect would be something they address in the new books.

Spores Druid is hands down my vote for most frustrating design in 5e. It wants so badly to be a melee druid alternative to Moon but every one of its features fights against you at that objective.

vHuman Spore Druid with Polearm Master feat (and the DM not blocking you from going Qstaff+shield) is a powerful tier 1 melee combatant and remains respectable into tier 2. They stop hitting hard if the monsters go after them and burn away their temp hp, but if the monsters go after them they're tanky at low levels so its not necessarily a bad thing overall.

They rapidly get left in the dust after level 6 or 8, but they remain at least a credible melee threat afterwards while still being a full caster. Their real problem, imo, other than melee damage that barely scales at all from level 2 to level 20, is at higher tiers you need some real help from the DM to not have terrible AC for a front-liner. So while in theory you're tanky with +40 temp HP or whatever, the monsters should be hitting pretty hard and with that AC they're probably going to hit you a lot.

Just to be salty:

Any Strength-based build. Why be Strength based when you can use Dex and double dip offense AND defense?

Totally agree with this. STR is easily the stat done the most dirty in 5e. One could argue for INT, but INT as a *stat* is totally fine. The problem isn't with INT itself, its that they made too many classes CHR-based and not enough of them INT-based.

[stoutstien]

Another vote for spore druids but id add mastermind and scout rogue, PHB beast master, and arcane Archer. They all just miss the mark so hard it's impressive.

There are worse options for sure but those aren't annoying to use

[Psyren]

vHuman Spore Druid with Polearm Master feat (and the DM not blocking you from going Qstaff+shield) is a powerful tier 1 melee combatant and remains respectable into tier 2. They stop hitting hard if the monsters go after them and burn away their temp hp, but if the monsters go after them they're tanky at low levels so its not necessarily a bad thing overall.

They rapidly get left in the dust after level 6 or 8, but they remain at least a credible melee threat afterwards while still being a full caster. Their real problem, imo, other than melee damage that barely scales at all from level 2 to level 20, is at higher tiers you need some real help from the DM to not have terrible AC for a front-liner. So while in theory you're tanky with +40 temp HP or whatever, the monsters should be hitting pretty hard and with that AC they're probably going to hit you a lot.

I'm not saying they're useless - yes, you're still a full caster and thus quite powerful. But past low levels, you might as well be a Land or Stars druid if all you're going to be is a slightly sturdier full caster who is better off avoiding melee. Thus the subclass just feels like wasted potential.

[Schwann145]

Barbarian.
•Forced to be a Str class, yet somehow they also made them MAD.
•Everything they do is tied to a LR resource that they never have very much of.
•The Rage bonuses are disappointing:
-The bonus damage is very anemic.
-The DR has pretty strong diminishing returns for everyone that isn't Bear.
-Advantage on Str checks is very niche, by design.
•Reckless Attack makes you more vulnerable than it helps you (no benefit on off-turns).
•Brutal Critical might be the most disappointing ability in the entire game.
•Primal Champion is a disappointing capstone when you consider magic items can make your Str much higher and since you're MAD you're unlikely to see your scores go above 20 anyway.

If I must specify a "build," then any dual-wielding Barbarian build. Adding Rage damage to off-hand attacks should feel great. But since dual-wielding is so disappointing, and there are other, better ways to get a bonus-action attack, and the Rage bonus damage is so small, the whole thing just ends up a massive disappointment.

[KorvinStarmast]

War domain cleric.

One of the players in our first campaign built a war domain cleric, and while he really enjoyed the Tier 1 and the beginning of Tier 2, he retired the character at level 7. Between his character concept and war cleric features, he felt it had gone as far as it could go.

-The bonus damage is very anemic.
-The DR has pretty strong diminishing returns for everyone that isn't Bear.

Amen to both. I think that the rage bonus damage ought to equal proficiency bonus. The DR (which when psychic damage shows up takes some barbarians by surprise) is great on bear and on big fights with mooks. Higher tier threats have a wider variety of damage types...

I have noticed that some players have to be coaxed into using the Totem Warrior features like speak with animals, or later Commune with nature. A couple of the better players that I DM get way more out of those features than the "hit it with a stick" players do.

[Hairfish]

Barbarian.
-Advantage on Str checks is very niche, by design.
•Reckless Attack makes you more vulnerable than it helps you (no benefit on off-turns).

If advantage on grappling and shoving is niche, then call me a crack addict.

Reckless Attack isn't meant to be used all the time; it's at its best when you either have a method at hand to negate enemy advantage and/or when the enemy is already going to get advantage. "Is it bad if I use it willy-nilly instead of strategically" is perhaps not a great metric. By that rationale, Fireball is a terrible spell.