D&D 5E Best designed classes in 5e

[FormerlyHemlock]

That does not match my experience; sounds like you tend to have groups with a lot of combat optimization going for them, and need to up your hard fights a few percentages to rebalance to compensate. A medium fight that doesn't consume any resources is just... unusual.

Note that I didn't say all of my players run strong parties. It varies. Some of my players like being gonzo, and others simply don't grok the idea of reconnaissance or tactics. Others are quite good at tactics.

But Saelorn's experience clearly comes in the context of a strong party.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Some games have done that. 13A, for instance, has a 'full heal up' instead of a 'long rest' that just happens after so many encounters or at a set point in the adventure. Players can 'take a campaign loss' - which could well be as bad as the princess getting sacrificed or whatever - if they need an early rest. Some FATE games take a more story-driven approach to pacing. But, in D&D, with managing resources traditionally a significant aspect of play, the decision to rest is something players tend to want (to at least believe) to be theirs to make.

I'm not suggesting tying anything on-screen to the metagame. Player characters can clearly observe themselves and how much time it takes to regain spells, so it would be (IMO) hideously inappropriate to tie their spell recovery rate to metagame concerns. I'm speaking purely of offscreen concerns for which all outcomes are equally appropriate from an in-game perspective: you have no idea when the cult is planning to sacrifice the princess, so when you show up, "already dead" is just as plausible as "still alive."

Rests don't take much table time, so I don't see how that eliminates the issue.

Maybe I failed to make it clear, but this is why I mentioned random encounters. Rests can trigger random encounters, which eat up table time, which is bad because table time is the actual resource you're spending to keep the princess alive.

Without the metagame-based time constaint in play, random encounters are just free XP, not a meaningful constraint on resting.

The encounter guidelines aren't that dependable, sure. If it takes 'gimmicking' to render a medium fight medium, so be it. Gimmick away.

Why bother? Just let it be Deadly. It's not like players care what label you slap on the fight.

But in context of the conversation with Saelorn, the point is that the fights in question were not written to be deadly or in any other way non-chumpy.

 

[Raith5]

In my experience the best in class would be the cleric. I think the cleric is really well designed with different domains playing so differently.

I think the worst is probably the fighter (though I havent seen an EK in action). I think the fighter is more boring than the Paladin and Barbarian and less influential in combat.

I have to say that I like Paladins, though the smite is OP and I dislike that Paladins have to choose between this emblematic aspect of their class and casting spells to help the party. I think our Paladin has cast like 2 spells in the last 5 levels. Every time he crits he cant help himself.

Rogues seem cool and Bard are as annoying as usual.

 

[mflayermonk]

I think that the only three classes (IMO) that, maybe, didn't meet their design goals are the Ranger, Sorcerer, and Druid. But, and this is a strength of 5e, they are all still very good classes.

I think the Ranger and Druid aren't problems of class design, but are problems of the way encounters are designed. I've run some adapted 1e mods and many of the Ranger and Druid's abilities came in very handy.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

This isn't a thread about favorite classes. This is a thread about best designed classes, and the Paladin class is designed inconsistently with the rest of the game. Its design is directly at odds with the guiding principles behind class design and the entire spellcasting mechanic.

This strikes me as just a wee bit hyperbolic, considering the paladin uses exactly the same spell system as every other class -- save the warlock. You want a class that's "at odds" with the spellcasting mechanic, start there.

Preference is subjective. Quality is significantly less-so.

The diverse opinions we see here, expressed by people who presumptively were competent to read and understand the thread's title, stand as evidence to the contrary.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'm not suggesting tying anything on-screen to the metagame. Player characters can clearly observe themselves and how much time it takes to regain spells, so it would be (IMO) hideously inappropriate to tie their spell recovery rate to metagame concerns. I'm speaking purely of offscreen concerns for which all outcomes are equally appropriate from an in-game perspective: you have no idea when the cult is planning to sacrifice the princess, so when you show up, "already dead" is just as plausible as "still alive."

I don't see any reason to tie it to a metagame clock rather than an in-game clock. Even if the characters don't know exactly when the princess is going to be sacrificed, they know generally that wasting time is a bad thing.

One thing I sometimes do is have what might be called a "consequences track" rather than a binary win/lose deadline. Like, recently, a pack of girallons snatched the party's traveling companion, who is a friendly giant bee. The PCs rescued her before the girallons killed her... but not before they pulled off her wings.

And it doesn't actually have to be a close deadline all the time, either. When the party fighter was captured by yuan-ti, they tried to turn him into a broodguard. The PCs didn't know that he was resisting the serum and that even if he wasn't, the process still takes days. So there was a great sense of urgency. (They also didn't know what else the yuan-ti might get up to if they gave them extra time.)

Without the metagame-based time constaint in play, random encounters are just free XP, not a meaningful constraint on resting.

Well, if they're dangerous enough to be a potential resource drain, they're also a potential resource drain. And if they're not dangerous enough to be a potential resource drain, then should you really be awarding any XP for them?

Also, costing metagame time is a cost regardless of whether you tie in-game events to the metagame clock. Players generally want to reach the climax of the adventure. Dawdle too much, and they might have to go home for the night, and wait until the next session in a week or two to see what happens.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't see any reason to tie it to a metagame clock rather than an in-game clock. Even if the characters don't know exactly when the princess is going to be sacrificed, they know generally that wasting time is a bad thing.

If you tie it to an in-game clock, you have two additional problems:

(1) You have to somehow convey the status of that offscreen, in-game clock to the players at all times, perhaps through e.g. a magic item that lets them spy on the cultists, or a defector from the cultists who lets them know what the calendar schedule for sacrifices is like;

(2) You have to align gameplay to the in-game clock, but that doesn't make your metagame time constraints disappear, and now you have to satisfy TWO sets of constraints instead of one. If the evening ends, but there is still time on the in-game clock remaining, you have to delay resolution of the story until the in-game clock runs out EVEN THOUGH THAT CLOCK WAS ARBITRARILY DERIVED IN THE FIRST PLACE. You're spending the evening without a climax or a clear win/lose condition, and you're doing it for no particular reason. Depending upon how often you game with this particular group, and how busy your various lives are, that might potentially mean that you NEVER get closure on this particular adventure--next time you find time to get together, everyone may want to play different characters entirely instead of resuming the interrupted story arc from eight weeks ago.

Also, costing metagame time is a cost regardless of whether you tie in-game events to the metagame clock. Players generally want to reach the climax of the adventure. Dawdle too much, and they might have to go home for the night, and wait until the next session in a week or two to see what happens.

Precisely. In the absence of a compelling in-game reason to prefer a particular timeframe, why not simply align the failure condition to the metagame constraints so that you NEVER have to "wait until the next session... to see what happens?" Why not just make "ran out of time" the same thing as "you lose this time"?

It's not appropriate for all adventures, but I see definite potential for using it in certain kinds of episodic adventures, especially with new players and busy players. Especially busy, new players who have five kids under the age of ten, for whom scheduling even a single game session can sometimes take six weeks.

 

[Paul Smart]

Ok, lets do this one class at a time. First up, Barbarian. Is it mechanically well designed? Does it have a good story behind it? Why or Why not?

 

[Paul Smart]

I like the concept but like you said, unless you open up the spell list, the spell restrictions knock it down a grade for me. I think the emphasis on doing damage with evocation spells was too restricting. The first and second level evocation list doesn't seem any better than plain weapon attacks. I'm not going to get excited about finally getting to cast an 8d6 fireball at 13th level, 8 levels after full casters, when I can make three weapon attacks every turn. I'd rather have spells that give me some sort of help in melee like Mirror Image. Also, Arcane Charge, which seems like it should be the signature EK move, shows up very late. I think it should be a 7th level ability once you get access to 2nd level spells. An EK that had a 1/3 progression through Warlock instead of Wizard would be cool! Get a pact weapon. Use War Magic to cast Eldritch Blast and then make a bonus weapon attack. Hex your opponent's strength for disadvantage against your grapple checks. Cloak yourself in darkness. So many possibilities there.

I never thought of using an EK with the warlock list, but the more I look at the idea the more I like it. Very interesting and cool.

 

[Gadget]

I would define 'best designed' as evoking the traditional story and flavor of the class Archetype very well with functional and/or elegant mechanics.

As such,

- I think Paladin stands high on that list, 5mwd complaints notwithstanding.

- Warlock might be awarded the most innovative design, but I think there are some interactions between the patrons and pact boons that are kind of wonky, as well as some invocations that less well designed.

- Fighter comes close, but MM's complaints about blandness are on target, and the Eldritch Knight seems to be lacking. Personally, I feel that the evocation school is a mistake; too little too late. As a fighter, the EK should be sticking the pointy end in the other guy for HP attrition, blasting kind of competes with that. Also, with the EK's slow spell advancement, by the time they get evocation spells the usefulness is doubtful. Abjuration and Transmutation are, IMHO, a better fit for enhancing the EK's fighting ability and keeping the theme of a warrior who uses magic to enhance and supplement his fighting ability.

- Cleric is solid, though more customization of abilities and spells through domain choice would be welcome.

- Wizard is very solid, just that some sub-classes don't hold up as well when compared to others.

- Rogue is also solid, just not as flashy as others. There may be some issues with Assassin, not sure.

- Monk is probably as good as it has ever been, with the blight of the Wo4E being the thing that takes it from the top of the list. To be fair, tWo4E sub-class is probably a more difficult and ambitious concept to incorporate into D&D.

- Sorcerer, has some problems, not the least of which is the lack of a clear mechanical focus & niche

- Bard, different than past iterations, but past iterations (with the possible exception of 4e and the pseudo-prestige class of 1e), were notoriously weak or lacking. Still not sure if it meets exceptions or story theme, but solid.

- Ranger, lacking focus, but with some bright spots. Probably trying to do too much with sub classes, perhaps needs a Hunter's Mark ability that is more like the Paladin's smite in implementation rather than a spell. Knowing all Ranger spells (once again, like a paladin) wouldn't hurt either. This isn't even getting into the whole spell-less/Pet identity issues.

- Druid. I like the idea of the traditional Druid class, but with a more flexible domain system on the cleric and spell list that is not as unique as it once was, combined with the Land Circle pilfering from the wizard list, it feels like a green wizard more than anything. Then there is the Moon Druid- interesting design, not sure about though.

- Barbarian. Okay design. Could see it as a sub-class of fighter. Totem Warrior goes further afield than the traditional 'berserker' theme, and may get into design space more preferable for a Druid/Shaman, but interesting nonetheless.