D&D 5E What is your least favorite class in 5E?

[Mind of tempest]

The way that 5e sets up classes and subclass, ranger can't be placed into any other class. It has too many abilities to be covered by subclass alone.

it feels less like a class and more three different classes subclasses duck taped together.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Bard.

If you're picking a CLASS, and you drop the first two letters, you end up with a Bard.

Did you know that Bard is an palindrome for drab? And it's an anagram for "This class makes you a lesser person if you play it, if that was possible."

To recap- I would not say that the Bard is the absolute worst thing in D&D. But I would say that it is in the top 1.

 

[Maxperson]

Bard.

If you're picking a CLASS, and you drop the first two letters, you end up with a Bard.

Did you know that Bard is an palindrome for drab? And it's an anagram for "This class makes you a lesser person if you play it, if that was possible."

To recap- I would not say that the Bard is the absolute worst thing in D&D. But I would say that it is in the top 1.

Brad is also an anagram. Never trust anyone named Brad.

 

[Maxperson]

it feels less like a class and more three different classes subclasses duck taped together.

That describes the fighter class, too. Wildly different subclasses there. At least the ranger subclasses fit ranger fairly well. eldritch knight just doesn't say fighter at all.

 

[Mind of tempest]

That describes the fighter class, too. Wildly different subclasses there. At least the ranger subclasses fit ranger fairly well. eldritch knight just doesn't say fighter at all.

true but the fighter was always broad, eldrich knight is trying to be the arcane half caster and failing.

 

[Maxperson]

true but the fighter was always broad, eldrich knight is trying to be the arcane half caster and failing.

Fighter never included magic. Fighter/magic user multiclasses is what the eldritch knight is trying to be. It really needed to be its own subclass or a subclass of wizard, which has included some fighting ability in the past.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Fighter never included magic. Fighter/magic user multiclasses is what the eldritch knight is trying to be. It really needed to be its own subclass or a subclass of wizard, which has included some fighting ability in the past.

no full class so it can just eat all those ideas as the wizard is too full at it is.

 

[grimslade]

The way that 5e sets up classes and subclass, ranger can't be placed into any other class. It has too many abilities to be covered by subclass alone.

But what of those abilities scream 'Ranger'? I loved my ranger in 1E because he was a fighter, but better. The character type is iconic. The character mechanics are mushy at best. The community has more consensus on psionics than the ranger, but it sits in the PHB, taking of page space. What abilities are definitive to the ranger? The base class is rogue abilities with a fighting style. Natural explorer could be background ribbons, rather than class abilities. Ranger is better accomplished through multiclassing. The class is a mess and WotC agrees. The constant flow of subclasses and class tweaks in Tasha's are half measures at best. The class needs an overhaul and I do not see it happening before an edition change.

 

[Greg K]

I voted Artificer, Barbarian, Cleric, Monk, and Sorcerer. The Monk, actually, takes the #1 spot. The Cleric is close behind at #2 (edit: with the Artificer), and Barbarian and Sorcerer tie for the third spot (as my dislike is more related to the subclasses). I am pretty disappointed with the Paladin and Ranger as well.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I voted Bard, Monk, and Sorcerer.

I've noted in this thread how I would prefer for Bards to be Half-Casters, similar to the Artificer class. I just feel that they don't fulfill their thematic role as well as they should, and are just a huge mess class-wise that can't decide if it wants to be a Swashbuckling Sword-Dancer or Poem-Chanting Skald.

Monk is just the most thematically-restrictive class in the game, and is so tied to its source material that it feels very out of place in 5e, where other classes have largely dumped their cultural baggage and expanded from their restrictive traditional niches. The Monk has failed to evolved, even as basically every other class in D&D 5e has.

Sorcerer because of its thematic and mechanical overlap with the Warlock, the PHB and XGtE subclasses not getting automatically known spell lists, their use of Spell Slots instead of Spell Points, and their restrictive metamagics (them only having 1 unique spell on their spell list doesn't help, either).

I'm also very surprised that a lot of people are saying Artificer, especially by giving the "they don't fit into most settings" complaint. I mean, Alchemists have a thematic place in pretty much every setting. The class is pretty setting specific, but there are a ton of settings that have lore-justifications for having the class (Church of Gond and Lantan in FR, Tinker Gnomes in Dragonlance and Spelljammer, Fleshmancy in Ravenloft, Sigil and Mechanus in Planescape, Izzet and Simic Guilds in Ravnica, Purphoros followers in Theros, Gunmakers in Exandria, etc). I can see why they wouldn't necessarily fit in Dark Sun and maybe Greyhawk, but they do certainly fit into the vast majority of popular D&D worlds.