D&D 5E Worst Classes Level 1.

[FrogReaver]

I quoted you about a reference you made for Cleric (see below), so why I are you bringing up Barbarian?

I thought that was self explanatory. You listed Barbarians as good at exploration despite them not actually having exploration related abilities. I thought that was associated with them having a +2 Dex mod - which turns out is incorrect.

But why are Barbarians decent at exploration? Because of their skill selection mostly. I am not saying they have to be, but with typical skills like Athletics, Nature, Perception, and/or Stealth, they can do well in the exploration pillar IME.

I'm struggling to see how having a class skill list more geared to exploration is enough to put the Barbarian at a +1 compared to the cleric at 0.

Maybe it would help if I listed all the clerics exploration benefits.

1. Purify Food and Drink (Ritual)
2. Detect Poison and Disease (Ritual)
3. Detect Evil and Good (Ritual)
4. Detect Magic (Ritual)

5. Create or Destory Water
6. Cure Wounds (can heal damage from traps)

High Wisdom and good Dex gives clerics good:
Stealth
Medicine
Perception
Survival

All of which are useful in the exploration game. A Clerics class skill list isn't tuned for exploration but just as many skills come from background. I'm just not seeing an overall justification for rating the barbarian higher than them at exploration.

 

[Minigiant]

15/14 is 16/16 as long as you have a +2/+1 race. So you admit that a monk with 16/16 is better than the ranger?

The 16/16 monk does have better better melee attack & damage, and AC.

The 16/16 ranger has better HP, ranged attack & damage, exploration, and social.

But that'sthe whole point of the monk, isn't it. It's great if you have optimal stats. In 3E, it was tied tied with Pally as the biggest MAD class.

 

[FrogReaver]

The 16/16 monk does have better better melee attack & damage, and AC.

Not just better damage, significantly better damage. 30% better to be exact.

The 16/16 ranger has better HP, ranged attack & damage,

Agreed, better hp. 33% more hp. He uses a d8 vs d6 ranged weapon. That's 15% better ranged damage (But also much more difficult to swap between ranged and melee combat as drawing 2 shortswords takes 2 rules under without an action.)

exploration, and social.

AC's can be equal so for sake of comparison that's the simplest. That means 2 skills vs 3 skills and 1 at disadvantage. That comes out even. The rest of the rangers benefits are ribbons and aren't big enough to make a difference.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I thought that was self explanatory. You listed Barbarians as good at exploration despite them not actually having exploration related abilities. I thought that was associated with them having a +2 Dex mod - which turns out is incorrect.



I'm struggling to see how having a class skill list more geared to exploration is enough to put the Barbarian at a +1 compared to the cleric at 0.

Maybe it would help if I listed all the clerics exploration benefits.

1. Purify Food and Drink (Ritual)
2. Detect Poison and Disease (Ritual)
3. Detect Evil and Good (Ritual)
4. Detect Magic (Ritual)

5. Create or Destory Water
6. Cure Wounds (can heal damage from traps)

High Wisdom and good Dex gives clerics good:
Stealth
Medicine
Perception
Survival

All of which are useful in the exploration game. A Clerics class skill list isn't tuned for exploration but just as many skills come from background. I'm just not seeing an overall justification for rating the barbarian higher than them at exploration.

I didn't say Clerics can't be good at it (if you read the entire post), more that if they tend to focus on one pillar or the other and don't often excel at more than one pillar at level 1. Such a cleric with that sort of prepared list would be good at some aspects of exploration, sure, but wouldn't be as good at filling other typical roles. In the same light, the other poor exploration classes I listed (Paladin, Sorcerer, and Warlock) could be good if they had the proper background skills and put emphasis on the right ability scores, but they often don't IME.

Also, I left background out of that analysis because it is focused purely on the classes and what they offer by way of features, skills, etc. Barbarians rate higher than Clerics in general IMO because Barbarians also have CON saves, which helps against natural threats and enduring the elements, as well as having a class skill list more geared towards exploration.

Again, it comes down to personal experience and/or preferences and how you build the character at level 1. They can all be fun, but the biggest mistake is when the player fails to make the proper choices and can't do what they want. THAT is when a character fails to be fun IMO, regardless of class.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't say Clerics can't be good at it (if you read the entire post), more that if they tend to focus on one pillar or the other and don't often excel at more than one pillar at level 1. Such a cleric with that sort of prepared list would be good at some aspects of exploration, sure, but wouldn't be as good at filling other typical roles. In the same light, the other poor exploration classes I listed (Paladin, Sorcerer, and Warlock) could be good if they had the proper background skills and put emphasis on the right ability scores, but they often don't IME.

Also, I left background out of that analysis because it is focused purely on the classes and what they offer by way of features, skills, etc. Barbarians rate higher than Clerics in general IMO because Barbarians also have CON saves, which helps against natural threats and enduring the elements, as well as having a class skill list more geared towards exploration.

Again, it comes down to personal experience and/or preferences and how you build the character at level 1. They can all be fun, but the biggest mistake is when the player fails to make the proper choices and can't do what they want. THAT is when a character fails to be fun IMO, regardless of class.

I'm in disbelief that you are arguing the Barbarian deserves to be rated higher at exploration than the cleric.

 

[Iry]

Because of their skill selection mostly. I am not saying they have to be, but with typical skills like Athletics, Nature, Perception, and/or Stealth, they can do well in the exploration pillar IME.

Anyone can have those skills thanks to backgrounds, and the barbarian has no real incentive to pump wisdom unless they are a niche eagle barb. That's why I rate barbarian so low.

 

[FrogReaver]

Also, I left background out of that analysis because it is focused purely on the classes and what they offer by way of features, skills, etc.

Which was a bad decision on your part IMO. Ignoring backgrounds is ignoring a significant subset of characters that are made for a given class.

 

[FrogReaver]

Anyone can have those skills thanks to backgrounds, and the barbarian has no real incentive to pump wisdom unless they are a niche eagle barb. That's why I rate barbarian so low.

Yep, a cleric with 16 wisdom is likely going to have a better perception and survival than a barbarian (if not better at least equivalent)

 

[FrogReaver]

I am not saying they have to be, but with typical skills like Athletics, Nature, Perception, and/or Stealth, they can do well in the exploration pillar IME.

Of note: Stealth isn't a skill on the Barbarian class skills list.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Which was a bad decision on your part IMO. Ignoring backgrounds is ignoring a significant subset of characters that are made for a given class.

That's your prerogative of course, but I disagree. With backgrounds, any class be decent at pillars where the class lacks. The focus is on classes.

If you want a Cleric who is better at exploration, play a Druid.