D&D 5E Worst Classes Level 1.

[FrogReaver]

The only time you are gated out of making an ability check in 5e is when the task is impossible to fail or impossible to succeed.
DMG 237

Not nearly impossible. Straight up impossible.

0.0000001% chances fall in that impossible category as well. There’s no other way for it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Listen, telling me I'm doing it wrong when I'm the one showing you the rules is not going to convince me.

Luckily, you can play your way and gatekeep your players from making checks based on their ability scores, and I'll let mine play with the freedom to try to do things when they want to.

you are reading the rules very wrong. See next post for details

 

[FrogReaver]

Pg. 174-175 of the PHB.

Page 174:
View attachment 123260

and page 175:
View attachment 123261

There you go.

Of course do it the way you want, but that is not according to the RAW. I don't have any issue with it, but you asked for the rules.

the veryfirst sentence you highlighted above if read independently with absolutely no context leads to your conclusion. In context it’s talking about about the specific instance of a check already being asked for. Which is a far cry different from establishing whether to ask for a check in the first place.

 

[FrogReaver]

Cute argument, but what has it to do with the worst level 1 classes?

Not much.

As a gentle suggestion: Someone is wrong on the internet, you made your case, either let it rest or argue about it in a thread it is on topic for?

---

An interesting distinction between monks and rogues is that the rogue;s 13.5 damage is mire reliable. While sneak attack sometimes fails to be triggered (ready an action!), in melee you get 2 attempts to deal 1d6 of it.

At 60% accuracy, the rogue gets .6*(10)+.1*3.5 + .84*3.5+.07*3.5=9.535 DPR.

The monk gets .6*(13)+.05*4.5+.05*3.5=8.2 DPR.


The 0.5 point gap, a mere 4% based on "everything hits" becomes a 1.3 point gap, or 16%, after accounting for misses.

And expertise is better utility than "I can fight naked" usually.

Also of note is that the rogue only needs about a 55% rate of sneak attack opportunities before he starts outdamaging the monk. At 90% rate of sneak attack opportunities the rogue does 9.2 DPR. That's still significantly better.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

Classes rely on archetypes. Many really start at 2nd. Or 3rd level. Why classes feel incomplete.

I agree.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

The level 1 Ranger just gets ribbons. Even its favored terrain thing is effectively ribbon because it turns challenges into a narrative description. "So you go into the marsh and have no problem finding your way, or finding food, because of the Ranger, and you come out four days later having done nothing exciting. Time to go into the dungeon now!"

Isn't that the one of the best possible abilities: it might not add to combat prowess, but it sames real-world time, which allows you to accomplish more during the session. Excellent ability from where I'm standing.

 

[Eltab]

This works great!

... In 4e edition.

Unless you have a V-Human with Sentinel, the tank can't 'punish' the enemy for hitting you, AT ALL, and you can't give your friend Advantage by just standing there.

You aren't thinking like a Warlord.
If you down the Tank's foe, move around/behind the next foe so he is Flanked when the Tank moves up. If you hit the Tank's foe and he is still up (or if you miss), finish your move behind that foe for Flanking.

 

[Undrave]

Not a bad list. I rate Cleric low myself, but as we all know a lot is a matter of the the build and preferences on play style and goal of the build.

I rate it high because you got survivability in the form of access to Chainmail and shields, and utility in the form of rituals and the Guidance cantrip. Plus they get their domain at level 1 so it's a bit more... exciting. And you can get healing with one of your two spells, or Bless or Inflict Wounds, both top notch spells.

Isn't that the one of the best possible abilities: it might not add to combat prowess, but it sames real-world time, which allows you to accomplish more during the session. Excellent ability from where I'm standing.

Yeah but you might as well not be there and hire an NPC Ranger. It's not a 'button' to push, so to speak, because it doesn't ask you to make any sort of decision. You're barely involved.

You aren't thinking like a Warlord.
If you down the Tank's foe, move around/behind the next foe so he is Flanked when the Tank moves up. If you hit the Tank's foe and he is still up (or if you miss), finish your move behind that foe for Flanking.

Flanking is an optional rule in 5e.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Nor have I ever asserted that position - it's not a position I would assert. I don't believe most players are mechanically competent enough to make an informed decision like that (the booing may commence now). You've confused me with someone with stronger opinions on Monks generally.

You have my apologies for misrepresenting your position. Again the intention was for a humorous post, alas I rolled poorly, on my Performance check. Need to boost my CHA score at the next opportunity.

On Feb 5, 2020, in a thread entitled: [Poll] Are any of the base classes too Weak, you, Ruin Explorer did write,the following:
The cold fact is that in most editions where they've appeared, Monks have been mechanically pretty awful, so what you're proving is that the people you've played with have enjoyed the hell of terribly-designed classes. Which I'm sure is true, I too have seen pretty awful character classes provide fun, but it utterly invalidates any claim that they are mechanically fine on that basis.

Re smiling faces, my own experience is that upbeat and generally positive players tend to be far more willing to select mechanically dubious classes, and far less upset when they can't perform mechanically.

I inferred too much from past words, or just plain misunderstood. Mea Culpa.

 

[Todd Roybark]

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!

It depends on how elaborate you deem the verbal component for Guidance is.
I have been engaged in many a conversation where a participant makes a religious exclamation like “God Willing” and so forth........this could very well be the verbal component of the Guidance spell.

Artificers and Druids having only 2 Cantrips at 1st level is somewhat lackluster...especially for the Druid.

Luckily 200 XP later the Druid and Artificer gets much better.
I’m curious, has anyone not advanced to 2nd level by the end of the first adventure in 5e?