D&D 5E Worst Classes Level 1.

[Flamestrike]

Show me. Remember, they don't get Ki until level 2. From lookng at it, they can do exactly what any other PC proficient with short swords can do.

2 attacks, one doing 1d8+Dex (usually +3), the other doing 1d4+Dex (+3).

Thats quite good.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sorcerer level 1 is pretty bad

They get a choice of 4 cantrips, plus good face skills. It's a matter of having something interesting to do, not doing the most damage.

 

[Flamestrike]

Sleep + Inflict Wounds is insane. Automatic critical inflict wounds.

If you hit with it. You have advantage of course.

And then that's you for the day with both slots gone.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Funny... I always find that the worst 1st level class is always the one played by the worst player. Regardless of the class played.

You all seem to have the same group of best case scenario players who always make the best decision at the best time every single time and thus comparing stuff like "max damage" seems to be important. Weird.

At least in my case at my tables, the players are instead all roleplaying through most of the session that even if they have that one combat before it ends, it's so isolated and such a specific scenario that I don't even notice if one class was "better" than another. And then at the end of that first session they level up to 2 and I never get a chance to get irritated by 1st level classes again.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If you hit with it. You have advantage of course.

And then that's you for the day with both slots gone.

It's what I was saying - doing awesome damage once is much more interesting than doing slightly better damage on each attack.

 

[DND_Reborn]

As the title says. We ran level 1 the other day and I noticed the artificer basically stunk.

No sneak attack, didn't deal much damage no spells except cantrips. Probably level up near the start of next session.

The Sorcerer was also a big pile of meh.

Fighters at least deal decent damage and can heal themselves 1/shirt rest. Probably one of the better level 1 classes tbh.

I guess it depends on what makes a character interesting to you. I've found all classes can be fun at Level 1 really, it just depends on what you want to focus on. Of course depending skill selection, background choice, and were you put your typical ability scores, I have found (for the most part)

Barbarian -- Good combat, decent exploration, poor social (2,1,0)
Bard -- Decent combat, decent exploration, good social (1,1,2)
Cleric -- Decent combat, poor exploration, decent social (1,0,1)
Druid -- Decent combat, good exploration, decent social (1,2,1)
Fighter -- Good combat, decent exploration, poor social (2,1,0)
Monk -- Decent combat, decent exploration, decent social (1,1,1)
Paladin -- Good combat, poor exploration, decent social (2,0,1)
Ranger -- Good combat, good exploration, poor social (2,2,0)
Rogue -- Good combat, good exploration, good social (focus is usually in one and the others are decent) (2,1,1 in some combination)
Sorcerer -- Decent combat, poor exploration, good social (1,0,2)
Warlock -- Decent combat, poor exploration, good social (1,0,2)
Wizard -- Decent combat, decent exploration, decent social (versatile spell choice allows focus) (2,1,1)

So, I have found Clerics tend to be the most one-dimensional at level 1, focusing on one of the three pillars.
For myself, Druids, Rangers, Rogues, and Wizards tend to be the most enjoyable.

But, it will vary according to your desires and exactly how you build your PC. I think it is only really disappointing if you want to be good at one aspect, but failed to build for it.

EDIT: Just to clarify, this is in respect to level 1 only.

Also, at our table level 5 is the rebuilding level. It is the only time you can tweak your character, including scraping it completely and making a whole new level 5 PC for the remainder of the campaign.

 

[NotAYakk]

The thing is, my model of Monk1 played very similsr to Fighter1, but the fighter was more than twice as tough.

That is a noticable gap.

Monk's fun stuff is missing at 1. The one thing they get is "competent in combat while naked".

Fighters get "competent in combat and second wind".

Paladins get lay on hands and evil-dar.

Rangers get ribbons, I mean favored foe/terrain.

Rogue gets expertise, and competent in combat.

Barbarians get Rage.

Wizards get spellcasting, arcane recovery, and extra spells known, and weak combat.

Sorcerers get spellcasting, extra spells known, weak combat and bloodline feature.

Bards get spellcasting, weak combat and daily inspuration.

Druids get spellcasting, weak combat and wildshape.

Clerics get spellcasting, weak combat, and domain feature and extra spells known.

Warlocks get pact spellcasting, weak combat, and pact feature.

Artificer gets spellcasting, weak.combat, a ribbon.

All spellcasters get cantrips at level 1.

Barbarian tendency to not be a dex build means their unarmored defence is a ribbon to me.

 

[fearsomepirate]

1st level monk. The extra offense is nice, but at level 1, they have mediocre AC & HP and tend to go down pretty easily unless you min-max. Every other melee class starts at 16-18 AC and 12 hp with no more than 14s in two key stats, and can therefore get there with any race. IME it takes a pretty good player to not get his monk killed early on, more so than other classes, and you have to minmax your stats & race.

Sure, you can do like the rogue and avoid melee, but the rogue's offense bonus works at range, and yours doesn't.

 

[Flamestrike]

It's what I was saying - doing awesome damage once is much more interesting than doing slightly better damage on each attack.

I beg to differ. While spending the whole dungeon pinging cantrips is better than plinking with a crossbow, I'd rather do 2 big things (change the course of 2 encounters), rather than 1 really big thing in the 1 encounter.

 

[Flamestrike]

1st level monk. The extra offense is nice, but at level 1, they have mediocre AC & HP and tend to go down pretty easily unless you min-max. Every other melee class starts at 16-18 AC and 12 hp with no more than 14s in two key stats, and can therefore get there with any race. IME it takes a pretty good player to not get his monk killed early on, more so than other classes, and you have to minmax your stats & race.

Sure, you can do like the rogue and avoid melee, but the rogue's offense bonus works at range, and yours doesn't.

AC 16 with point buy is as good as a Fighter with chainmail and a greatsword. Its perfctly acceptable at 1st level.

And rogues tend to be better in melee than at long range. Its often harder getting sneak attack in at range than in melee (although the new Aim ability in UA helps with that).