D&D 5E Which Class is "The Best" - Your chance to VOTE!

Which Class is "The Best"?

  • Barbarian

    Votes: 7 5.6%
  • Bard

    Votes: 38 30.2%
  • Cleric

    Votes: 19 15.1%
  • Druid

    Votes: 16 12.7%
  • Fighter

    Votes: 19 15.1%
  • Monk

    Votes: 6 4.8%
  • Paladin

    Votes: 32 25.4%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 5 4.0%
  • Rogue

    Votes: 17 13.5%
  • Sorcerer

    Votes: 8 6.3%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 17 13.5%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 37 29.4%
  • Other (Artificer, etc.)

    Votes: 4 3.2%
  • None (They are ALL cool and great, right?!)

    Votes: 15 11.9%

Esker

Hero
Bards have no avenue available to them that makes them the best at fighting, exploration, or magic. The core class is built in a way that makes it one of the best classes for support, and the various subclasses allow you to either go all-in on that niche, or diversify a bit and be decent at some other things. But fundamentally, all single classed bards are either support characters first and foremost, or they are built in a way that tries not to be that and ends up being meh at a bunch of other things.

The thing is, support characters are awesome. Which is why bards and wizards are topping this poll.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




Yaarel

He Mage
in 1e at only 7th level,
I guess so much of the flavor and ‘feel’ of D&D 1e ... ignores the high level features that may or may not happen.



I had an Underdark 1e Druid, who did reach high level, and did use the wild shape on occasion for subterranean animals. But somehow it never felt like a salient part of the concept to me.

Via 1e ‘spell research’, I had a way to ‘swap in’ spells (thus choice of flavor) that was suitable for the natural life of the Underdark − and especially for the mystic element of Earth (soil, rock, metal, crystal).

Heh, lucky for the DM, my character concept didnt include metal heavy armor. The earth theme was so strong for so many levels, if I pressed for metal armor, I would probably have gotten it − or some magical way to get it − like made out of corundum-diamond adamans − rather than iron steel.



It was pretty remarkable to "shapeshift," even if only into animal forms, in 1e at only 7th level, and all Druids got it. The limitation then was by size, you could assume a form from small bird to largish animal, about double you weight - and it healed you. That's not a lot of really butch combat forms, but useful in combat for the recovered hps, and a lot of potential for scouting and getting places you normally couldn't.
In 5e, unless you go Moon, your forms are more utility than combat, so that fits, too.

I do like wild shaping. Just not for every Druid concept.

If Wildshape was a spell for a slot (like Find Familiar is), I might be happier with design.

Also, I would like different kinds of shapeshifting options. An elemental form, a special affinity for a specific element, or fluidly several elements. Humanoid forms (like Many Faces at lower level, compare Changeling). A werewolf form with an alternate form that is one specific animal, fluidly becoming that form of animal, plus medially, somewhere in between human and that animal. And so on.

Some players would rather a summon an animal or elemental, rather than become it.

A concept that is just weather magic (compare X-Men Storm) could also be cool.

I want more customizability. I think this is the issue. A class design that grants the player more customizability.



I actually appreciate that the Druid class just gets all its traditional stuff like it used to, instead of being chopped up into 3 mutually incompatible sub-classes like 4e, with shapechange in one, healing in another, and summoning in the third.

5e sub-class design is not much for blending. If something gets relegated to a sub-class, and something else to another, it's harder to combine them than to combine abilities from another class, entirely.

I totally get this. I am glad all of the 1e features are available for the 5e Druid.

I guess I wish it was more like a help-yourself all-you-can-eat pick-what-you-want smorgasbord of options, rather than a strings-attached design.



A player who wants a little bit everything (ala 1e) is a fine choice too.
 
Last edited:

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
I went with Bard. I agree with the opinions upstream about the immense versatility of the class, and I like the range of flavours available via the colleges. The power gamer in me also enjoys the College of Lore. However, the real reason I voted Bard is that most of the off-piste character concepts I've developed, most of which have needed multi-classing to flesh out fully, always seem to end up with Bard as part of the equation. It's the duct tape of character classes.
 

Undrave

Legend
Bards have no avenue available to them that makes them the best at fighting, exploration, or magic. The core class is built in a way that makes it one of the best classes for support, and the various subclasses allow you to either go all-in on that niche, or diversify a bit and be decent at some other things. But fundamentally, all single classed bards are either support characters first and foremost, or they are built in a way that tries not to be that and ends up being meh at a bunch of other things.

The thing is, support characters are awesome. Which is why bards and wizards are topping this poll.

The Bard is certainly a WAY better support class than the Cleric. The 5e Cleric feels too... selfish for some reason. Inspiration is better than Guidance and Vicious Mockery is a better combat support cantrip than anything the Cleric gets at-will.

Even the Divination Wizard is a better support >.>
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
The rules are simple. Do not argue moderation in-thread.
Mod Note:
In the past, we had a block feature such that we didn't need a forum rule about this. The feature we now have is not perfect, so we all need to make some adjustments.

You've been asked to leave a user alone. So long as they also leave you alone, this should not be a big thing to ask. Please back off.

I can leave someone alone while still quoting their posts. The 2 actions aren’t mutually exclusive

If a point is made that I wish to respond to I will do so at least until the rules are updated to disallow such activities. Doesn’t matter who said it. It’s not harassment to do so.

In fact it’s actual harassment to allow others to repeatedly tell you not to respond to a point they posted just because they dislike you.

In fact it’s actually libel to accuse someone of harassment when it’s untrue. Its also against the rules to libel other members.
 
Last edited:



Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top