D&D 5E The classes that nobody wants to play

[Ninja-radish]

Depends on what you want to be. A sorcerer makes the best enchanter/enchantress IMO.

High Charisma Base and proficiency in deception and persuasion and intimidation. Subtle Spell + Suggestion and being able to cast that combination 4 times in a day if needed. Can also use enhance ability to get advantage on charisma checks. All this can be done by level 3.

Does a wizard or warlock or bard make a better enchanter and if so at what level do they overtake the sorcerer?

Well, the knocks on Sorcerer are the limited spell list, and that bloodlines actually don't change the base class much at all. That's why nobody in my group has even considered playing a Sorcerer. I can't speak to their ability as enchanters specifically.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well, the knocks on Sorcerer are the limited spell list, and that bloodlines actually don't change the base class much at all. That's why nobody in my group has even considered playing a Sorcerer. I can't speak to their ability as enchanters specifically.

THere are a handful of spells that are better than the others so a Sorcerer picking them+ metamagic makes them the best at whatever focus they do. Proficient in con saves as well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think that there has never been a better time to play a fighter if you are concerned about the "what does the fighter do when out of combat" issue. With the backgrounds you can easily create a well rounded fighter.

Pretty close, anyway. Even when the fighter wasn't languishing in Tier 5, it had little to do in the other two pillars based on its class abilities. Adding Feats potentially helped a bit ( but, Tier 5), adding Backgrounds to go with them helped more, and while 5e had retained both, it dropped Themes and made feats 'bigger,' so harder to spare one early on.

But, all that's something anyone could do, in addition to taking a class with more exploration and/or social functionality than the fighter.

So, 'best' is debatable, but even granted, it'd be 'best of a bad lot.'

 

[Ancalagon]

Pretty close, anyway. Even when the fighter wasn't languishing in Tier 5, it had little to do in the other two pillars based on its class abilities. Adding Feats potentially helped a bit ( but, Tier 5), adding Backgrounds to go with them helped more, and while 5e had retained both, it dropped Themes and made feats 'bigger,' so harder to spare one early on.

But, all that's something anyone could do, in addition to taking a class with more exploration and/or social functionality than the fighter.

So, 'best' is debatable, but even granted, it'd be 'best of a bad lot.'

We probably should do another thread here, but "tier 5", does this even apply in 5e?

 

[Tony Vargas]

We probably should do another thread here, but "tier 5", does this even apply in 5e?

That threads been done, I think. But I did say "even when it hasn't been Tier 5," which could be taken to include 5e as well as 4e, even though the fighter was stripped down and casters built back up in this last rev roll.

That said, I do think the Tiers are valid in 5e, in spite of WotCs determination to cicumscribe the use of the word. They're primarily a measure of relative versatility, and, now with spontaneous & ritual casting, the prepped casters are more Tier 1 than ever, even as BA lowers the bar for broad-based adequacy enough that Tiers 5 & 6 arguably can't exist anymore.

 

[Ninja-radish]

That threads been done, I think. But I did say "even when it hasn't been Tier 5," which could be taken to include 5e as well as 4e, even though the fighter was stripped down and casters built back up in this last rev roll.

That said, I do think the Tiers are valid in 5e, in spite of WotCs determination to cicumscribe the use of the word. They're primarily a measure of relative versatility, and, now with spontaneous & ritual casting, the prepped casters are more Tier 1 than ever, even as BA lowers the bar for broad-based adequacy enough that Tiers 5 & 6 arguably can't exist anymore.

The bigger problem with Fighters is they're not even that great at their main function: combat. Paladins are better combatants and more versatile. Rangers are really close to Fighters in combat, AND they're a ton more versatile.

 

[CTurbo]

The bigger problem with Fighters is they're not even that great at their main function: combat. Paladins are better combatants and more versatile. Rangers are really close to Fighters in combat, AND they're a ton more versatile.

Hmm... I disagree. I think Fighters make good fighters.

 

[Jester David]

After multiple campaigns (one extended, two mini campaigns, and a single one-shot) we've seen every class played at my table except the wizard.

The thing is, we've played a lot of PF/3e as well. So some of the classes are getting played because they weren't played in that edition either and the players want to try something new. "I've never played a barbarian before". That it's a new edition doesn't really factor in...
And 3/4 of my table decide on their class based on the character concept they want to play rather than looking at the actual mechanics of the class and evaluating what's better or worse. "I want to play a character that does X. What class lets me do that? Okay, I'll play that class..."

 

[gyor]

I'm surprised by Monk, the Monk seems pretty cool in 5e.

 

[Seramus]

but "tier 5", does this even apply in 5e?

5E definitely has tiers, but the gap between martial and spellcasters is much smaller than it was in 3E, especially with the concentration mechanic. So that's a welcome change from the days of CoDzilla.