D&D 5E Classes that pleasantly surprised you

[hawkeyefan]

The monk has really impressed me. We have an open hand monk in our party, and he is potent as hell. He's all over the battlefield, knocking folks prone or taking away reactions. I feel like they finally got the monk right. Previous editions they were not usually very viable compared to the other classes.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Oh, yes. Forgot about the bard. I never cared for them much in 2E or 3E, but the 4E and 5E bards are absolutely fantastic.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Paladin. Not that they are powerful or anything over the top, but that I was prepared to dislike them because I've never liked the 'change' of paladin stuff since 1e PHB paladins (didn't even like 1e UA paladins). with 2e, 3e, 3.x, PF, 4e...ick. None of them really gave me that "Paladin" feel. I was prepared for the worst and was pleasantly surprised at the direction paladin took for 5e. I'm not sure why, I still don't really see 5e paladins as "true paladins", but I like them. *shrug*

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[PnPgamer]

Can you open up more on your abjurer? did you multiclass for shield prof or get it from feat? or did you mean the spell?

also on topic:
I thought that druid is a cool one as you can start wild shaping starting from 2nd level. Loving it so far!

 

[Sacrosanct]

I meant the spell, sorry. AC 16 with mage armor (DEX 16), 21 when I use shield as a reaction. Even at level 4, I'm getting 11 bonus HP all the time from the abjurer's ability. With those bonus HP soak, and mage armor, I had the second best AC and second best HP of the group. As a wizard. I wasn't afraid of moving up close and using poison spray or burning hands until everything died I am looking forward to level 6 when I can use my abjurer shield to soak up an allies damage, because then the dwarf fighter will be even more of a tank. Especially with protection from evil up and running on him.

 

[Eltab]

My son's Bard got into a sticky wicket (half the enemies surrounding him all alone, his back to a lake) and got away with no HP damage at all. _Bane_ had the DM totally flustered. And he's NOT built to stand on the front line.

My Paladin was built to test a Warlord concept. It never worked out like that, but it was a excellent tank - AC 20 at L4. When I became the DM, we let new players borrow it, because I knew they would not get killed playing it.

 

[Rhenny]

I've never really been into playing fighters or barbarians in the past, and I was a little unsure if 5e fighters and the barbarian would change that.

Surprisingly, in limited playing opportunities (since I DM a lot more than I play), I had the chance to play a Battle Master Fighter (at only 3rd and 4th level), and a Barbarian at 1st through 3rd level. I really enjoyed the experiences, and felt that there were enough choices without feeling overwhelmed by choice. I found it very easy to slip into both of the characters from a roleplaying standpoint, and I certainly felt like my PC contributed to the sessions in very meaningful ways.

As I get older, I appreciate more and more the features that add flavor or give PCs more utility or a well-rounded appeal (rather than just combat mechanics). Action surge for the fighter is much more versatile than I imagined. I like the option to use it for additional movement to catch fleeing creatures, or to give my PC an extra chance to do something that really needs to be done quickly (like climbing up to reach something important before a foe gets to it, or pushing over a scaffold that has a bunch of enemies upon it). The extra strength (advantage on strength checks) also comes in handy when the barbarian is raging. Those less obvious abilities or choices are what make the game more interesting for me.

For the most part, I think many of the classes play more interestingly than they look on paper. "Cunning Action" is my all time favorite.

 

[Blue]

The only thing that really surprised me in D&D was that the Rogue deals more damage than Wizard in actual play (assuming 6-8 battles per day with 2 short rests and 1 long rest). At least in my games.

I hope that's generally true, and feel it probably is. Sure, wizards focusing on evocation can do lots of area-of-effect damage, but in general over multiple encounters in the same day they shouldn't be out-damaging others. On one side, they get a bunch of nifty utility stuff. On the other side, it comes from the same resource pool as their big gun battle stuff.

(And those not focusing on evocation should do a lot less. I'm playing an abjurer, made it 1st to 5th so far. Very few damage spells, more battlefield control and debuffs. I do less damage then anyone by a long shot, but with all the disadvantage, advantage, and denying mobility I do, players are happy with it.)

 

[Blue]

Paladin as a spellcasty class was unpleasant for me, but weirdly if they'd called them Powers instead of Spells, as in 4e, and made it a limited-spells-known class I bet I'd have been ok. As-is it just feels like a Cleric.

Pleasant surprise was Barbarian, finally awesome after 1e, 3e (ugh) and to a large extent 4e suckiness. Rogue is good too, but not as amazing.
5e Bard makes a great 'mythic' Wizard, much closer to Gandalf than Rhialto. I use it for many of my NPC wizards/sorcerers now.

Paladins have had spells since they were introduced. Well, 4e called everything powers, but it was a continuation.

Though to be honest, my 7th level oath of the ancients paladin has cast less than 5 spells his entire run besides find steed and some smite spells if he's got a bonus action (rare with polearm master). Divine Smite consumes the great majority of his slots. Let's see, he's cast Speak with Animals twice, but that Oath of Ancients not general paladin list. Maybe Bless once. Nothing that didn't feel like a green knight paladin.

 

[S'mon]

Paladins have had spells since they were introduced.

9th level in 1e is not like 2nd level in 5e.