D&D 5E Worst Classes Level 1.

[Flamestrike]

So basically you and @dnd4vr aren't actually disagreeing that much; you just require a bit more player creativity to get there.

When Thokk wants to "know the secret inner rites of a foreign alien religion" it seems he would rule the religion check is just a straight int check to see if he can recall the knowledge - if yes then justify it by saying Thokk used to sit at the feet of the tribal shaman as the shaman spouted stories of weird and alien religions.

It seems you, on the other hand, would require Thokk's player to come up with the reason (such as - that he sat at the feet of the tribal shaman...) - so has a chance at knowing this bit of religious knowledge (and any future one too - as the justification continues).

So other than a bit more player creativity required for one of the methods - they're pretty much the same.

More or less.

My method encourages the player to engage with the story (his own backstory) and the environment. The player tells me what he is doing, and I determine if a check is warranted, needed or permitted based on that narration from the player.

I loathe it when a player tells me 'I perception check the room' or 'I stealth down the hallway' and then rolls. Narrate your action, and then I'm the one that tells you if you need to make a check, and what the DC is if so.

 

[Flamestrike]

As just mentioned, Guidance alone makes them pretty good at 1st

Depends on when you allow Guidance. The Druids character doesnt know when a an allied creature is 'making a skill check'. I personally only allow it for clutch checks, or when its obvious someone is in need of guidance in a chancy task (disarming a trap, escaping a grapple etc).

 

[Flamestrike]

Guidance is so useful that Clerics and Druids avoid worst class just by having it.

It boosts you in exploration and social pillars by itself.

Its a bit iffy in the Social pillar. Having a caster spam a spell on the party face in front of an NPC might have the exact opposite effects to helping the check!

 

[Mort]

Depends on when you allow Guidance. The Druids character doesnt know when a an allied creature is 'making a skill check'. I personally only allow it for clutch checks, or when its obvious someone is in need of guidance in a chancy task (disarming a trap, escaping a grapple etc).

Those situations are more than worth it!

And you can plan ahead with guidance - up to one minute. So with Clerics and Druids, asking them to wish you luck actually works!

 

[Flamestrike]

Those situations are more than worth it!

And you can plan ahead with guidance - up to one minute. So with Clerics and Druids, asking them to wish you luck actually works!

I had a Paladin of Bane who refused Guidance from the party Druid.

He was a heathen after all.

 

[Zardnaar]

Or the DM doesnt let the Barbarian roll that Religion check in the first place.

Thokk the barbarian from the Outlands of Hyboria doesnt get a check to know the inner workings of the Church of Torm. Egbert the Wise, Acoloyte of the Seven Heavens, gets a check.

It's a judgement call depending on player background, skills and class. I dont always allow checks for some PCs to do some tasks, and I certainly dont allow all PCs to make a check. The PC with the highest bonus can attempt the check (or alternatively the PCs can nominate one of their members to do so).

If he or she doesnt know/ cant do the task, and he's the best in the party at that task, no-one else can do it either.

I ran an Egyptian themed game.
We had a couple of foreign PCs. The DCs for the locals were lower and/or they had advantage on the roll.

Thokk would have DC 15 or 20 vs the locals 10.

 

[Zardnaar]

In my experience as a player/ DM for 40 odd years, the overwhelming context of 1st level adventuring is 'enter dungeon, slay kobolds/ goblins (and maybe some skeletons), defeat the Kobold/ Goblin king, maybe face an Ogre in there somewhere' and hopefully survive.

This seems to be largely the same format used in most adventures published so far as well.

Nothing wrong with 'only being good at combat' at 1st level. In fact, a lot of people are rating the Fighter very high at 1st level, and that's literally all the Fighter can do.

Fighter can heal itself. Also at level 1 the difference between proficient and not proficient is minimal.

Fighters also SAD so they can easily have a 14 tertrtiary stat. They won't be that much worse than whoever else with default array.

Good at fighting, heals itself, good AC ok at skills.

 

[Undrave]

Fighter can heal itself. Also at level 1 the difference between proficient and not proficient is minimal.

Fighters also SAD so they can easily have a 14 tertrtiary stat. They won't be that much worse than whoever else with default array.

Good at fighting, heals itself, good AC ok at skills.

So... how would we rate all the PHB classes at first level?

• Fighter, Cleric and Rogue
• Barbarian and Wizard
• Paladin and Bard
• Druid
• Ranger and Monk
• Sorcerer
• Warlock

Something like that?

 

[Zardnaar]

So... how would we rate all the PHB classes at first level?

• Fighter, Cleric and Rogue
• Barbarian and Wizard
• Paladin and Bard
• Druid
• Ranger and Monk
• Sorcerer
• Warlock

Something like that?

Probably not to far off. I confused the artificer as well would put them at the top or with wizard.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No class that gets it's subclass at level 1 should be towards the bottom. You get extra features right from the start, many of which are pretty good. I gave some examples of the level 1 sorcerer above. If you want another, myself as a level 1 shadow sorcerer was significantly more effective at stealth and exploration than the rogue. Between stealth proficiency and minor illusion cantrip, it was no contest.

And having played wizards and sorcerers, I found the sorcerer to be better at level 1 for the reasons I gave up thread.