D&D 5E (2024) The 4 Classes I Would Not Play 1-20 In 5.5

[THEMNGMNT]

Well, okay. I've DM'd 5.14 campaigns from 1-12, 1-20, and 1-12 (again). Have not played any 5.24 yet but have plans to do that in 2026. But I think it's a very hot take that Wizard is unplayable without multiclassing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well, okay. I've DM'd 5.14 campaigns from 1-12, 1-20, and 1-12 (again). Have not played any 5.24 yet but have plans to do that in 2026. But I think it's a very hot take that Wizard is unplayable without multiclassing.

I don't think its unplayable just power crept out at levels that matter. And it's mote DM/campaign dependent.

 

[Distracted DM]

I'd be neat to have a VTT-supported version of the game with all the best versions of each class. The A5E Berserker (Barbarian rename, not a subclass) is insanely good.

I also think the Tales of the Valiant has a better take on the Ranger than 2024, though the A5E Ranger is also pretty neat in that it's a pure Martial with a 3rd Caster subclass.

A5E berserker is so good it's really not in the same class as any other class, from what I can tell- but I've been disagreed with on that point (some say it's the fighter).

 

[Retros_x]

hm for me fun to play depends on quite different indicators than the ones you state and honestly up until now every class I tried out was fun to play enough for me to not wanting to stop playing them. Maybe I am easy to please, I don't know. But stuff like "The Barbarian still is focused on melee" - yeah thats the appeal? Swing axes screaming while being covered in blood. Or Wizards are now worse than sorceres or warlocks? Not a single time in my campaign I would think "ah it stops being fun because there is another class that could be mathematically better than me". I think "yes, I am a mighty wizard and now I can turn into a cloud!"

Class balance realls has no impact on my campaign enjoyment. I played a single class ranger to level 12 with 2014 rules where he was even weaker than in 24 - and I had a blast. I never felt ineffective or if I could not contribute.

 

[Bae'zel]

I would only play a Wizard in D&D if I got a promise from the DM that I could regularly find new spells, even if just scrolls or through downtime. Without that guarantee, I’d pick something else for sure.

Rogue? Only if I knew that the campaign had some serious Urban settings to play in. And a Thieves Guild to partner up with.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Well its an improvement over 2014. There's only 4 classes i wouldn't play 1-20.

Theses clases are.

1. Barbarian
The Barbarian has been a bit of a one trick pony since 3.0. It has been buffed in 5.5. However its still focused on melee and it has weak defenses eg wisdom saves. At higher levels there's just to many saves targeting them with DCs 17-25. Berzerker and Zealot are a bit better but still. Fighters/Monks/Paladins are more appealing.

2. Ranger.
We all know the various issues with Ranger. I just don't see to much point in staying single classed after level 5. They're quite good tier 1. There's a couple of very narrow builds that are a maybe. And they fall off level 10 or 11.

3. Rogue. Good at skills. New fighters and Bards hell even start clerics/druids/warlocks step on the rogues toes to much. Espicially at lower levels. Haven't been seeing to many rogues rolled up even in 5.0 last one was around Covid. They're the Gnomes of 5E.

4. Wizard. This one's mostly due to buffs to Warlocks and Sorcerers. Plus competition from every other primary spellcaster. Level 10× they're great but that's to long to wait. Warlock has it other way around front loaded falls off level 12+. Getting extra spells is also campaign and DM dependent. Otherwise Sorcerer knows more spells now. Saving throws are another issue. Intelligence saves are so rare you might not even use one. Wisdom is a tertiary stat a best for wizards. In effect you have no great saves.

I would agree with the ranger assessment but not with the others.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would only play a Wizard in D&D if I got a promise from the DM that I could regularly find new spells, even if just scrolls or through downtime. Without that guarantee, I’d pick something else for sure.

Rogue? Only if I knew that the campaign had some serious Urban settings to play in. And a Thieves Guild to partner up with.

Yeah that's the bg one. DM and campaign dependent.

I'll supply some scores. Spells etc but it's not an all you can earn buffet.

Probably more than most WotC adventures.

 

[Bae'zel]

I'll supply some scores. Spells etc but it's not an all you can earn buffet.

At the very least, as a DM, I'd offer downtime activities to let the Wizard study or research sources of spells.

Maybe even weave a "Mage's Guild" or "Occultist Society" into the campaign setting that the Wizard could be part of, granting some guaranteed benefits as long as they do their part (ie, follow adventure hooks or side quests supplied by said Guild).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I appreciate Zardnaar sharing his list, but I think (based only on observation) that he is missing a fundamental point.

The majority (whether it's slight or vast) of players don't choose their class based solely on the concern of "is this is the most powerful class I can play from levels 1-20?"

Put another way, players often have their own idiosyncratic reasons for choosing classes.

Here would be my list for how I choose (and exclude) classes:

1. To start with, I almost always think of a character concept first, and then figure out how I can make the character concept work using the class framework. What class is "close enough" to the idea in my head?

2. For that reason, I usually start with the concept, and then see if I can single-class (either with or without feats) or if I have to multiclass to make the concept work.

3. However, I do have some general rules that I've noticed I tend to follow in terms of picking classes:

A. No bards, obviously.
B. Also, I hate playing spellcasters. The one exception is Warlocks. So in addition to no bards, I'd add no sorcerers and no wizards. I might play a druid or cleric, but probably not.

That's five classes out. Six if you count the artificer, but you shouldn't.

C. From the classes that are left, I have a preference for martials that don't cast spells or have very limited spellcasting. Monks, Rogues, and Fighters.
D. I've never really like any of the Barbarian archetypes presented ... probably a holdover from 1e. So then Ranger and Paladin. And then Barbarian.

And that's it. It's not really about power, it's about preference. If I had to rank the classes, I'd rank them in order:
Monk
Warlock
Fighter/Rogue
Ranger
Paladin
Barbarian
Druid
Cleric

And I don't like playing the other classes. Why? Because I'm me.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

Yeah that's the bg one. DM and campaign dependent.

I'll supply some scores. Spells etc but it's not an all you can earn buffet.

Probably more than most WotC adventures.

Every class can have some heavy "DM and Campaign" dependencies as can multiclassing. There may be limits on using spells from other books. There may be limits on particular subclasses. Are we playing a dungeon heavy campaign, one with a lot of cross-country travel/hexcrawling, or a social-heavy single-city campaign?

We don't play the game in a vacuum so analyzing classes purely on white-room math is kind of a pointless exercise.