D&D 5E Re-Noobed Class Advice?

[FormerlyHemlock]

I've been gone a looong time. I've been playing from the early 80's, but I've been gone from RPG's since 4th hit the shelves.

Kicking around giving 5th a whirl. I just need a quick hand getting back into the game.

What's the current thought on classes? Are the ones in the PHB fine, or should I go with the revised ones from UA? I see a revised Ranger class, and was/is there a problem with the Druid?

The "problem" with the druid is that it's too awesome! Seriously, if you have even the slightest inclination towards tree-huggery, try a Moon Druid. They're tremendously versatile and fun. They can do everything from turning into a spider to sniff out an enemy stronghold, to turning into an Earth Elemental to tunnel under the dungeon, to crowd control by laying down a Spike Growth right on top of an enemy (who will have to take 8d4 damage with no save even just to get out), to conjuring up a bunch of cobras or crocodiles with Conjure Animals, to making the whole party almost undetectable when sneaking via Pass Without Trace. (If there's any chance at all of getting a surprise round, Pass Without Trace will make that a near-certainty. Ideal for dungeon-delving and stronghold-raiding.)

There's a "problem" with the land druid in comparison in that they're not quite as awesome as the Moon Druid--they still have all of the base druid awesomeness of good spells and wildshape, but their subclass features are merely good instead of terrific. (Specifically, a Land Druid can wildshape into a combat form, but cannot do so as a bonus action, and doesn't get the higher-level forms like Giant Crocodiles and Air Elementals. Wild shaping into a Giant Toad is still free HP though and free restraining.)

The other, small problem with druids is that they are weak on ranged firepower, so you want someone else in your party who is strong at ranged combat.

 

[Vymair]

PHB classes are for the most part fine. We've played most all of them and have liked them. The one that stands out is the Beastmaster Ranger from the PHB, I'd avoid that one.

 

[Gadget]

I'd add my recommendation that the Way of Four Elements Monk and Beastmaster Ranger seem to get a lot of flack for being not quite up to snuff, even if you are into the flavor of these sub classes. That being said, a lot of this depends on the group and play style of your particular game. I don't feel the imbalance is as bad as things have been in past editions, unless you are in the most min/max of groups.

Also the Wild Magic Sorcerer can be problematic, depending on your DM and play style. Moon Druids have real tanking potential that can outshine the party from lvl 2-4 or so.

 

[rgoodbb]

While it is true that some classes have been branded weaker than others. I think it is fair to say that the majority of this weakness refers to the combat portion of things only. If that’s all you are interested in, fair play, and take that advice. I have no issue of you being warned of it.

Combat however, is only one of the three pillars of adventure that D&D is based around, and in my opinion, the least interesting. Don’t get me wrong, I still really enjoy combat, but the interesting thing I have found out about me, is the more I play, the more that Exploration and Social Interaction have become more important to me and also to the folks I play with.

Now. I have played alongside a Beast Master Ranger and she adored her pet and loved playing her character and I would not want her to not play that. I have also played with a 4 Elements Monk who had a blast (sorry) being the last air-bender. And while I have not seen the Wild Sorcerer in play yet, I have two experienced fellow players who want to play it as their next PC for the wackiness of it.

The key here is enjoyment. If you get this purely from combat, great. (BTW, none of those players felt horrendously weak in combat either). They maybe did less damage than others but it did not put them off their own characters one bit. As I said, the key is enjoyment and what pillar/s stimulates you.

In my opinion, the Beast Master may offer more opportunity in flavour than the hunter, as may the Wild sorcerer over the Draconic, as may the 4 Elements Monk over the Open Hand. That is subjective of course.

It saddens me to see advice on weak PC’s from just one tier of play that might put new starters off the PC/concept they might wish to play. As long as they don’t feel outdone by their fellow players, it’s all good.

Sadly I have read enough posts about these weak classes that it has actually made me avoid wanting to play them or even consider them when rolling up a new PC, which is of course, now I think about it, quite silly.

Anyway Next PC: The Funky Monkey:
Multiclass 4EMonk/Beast Master Ranger with Kung-Fu Panda as their side kick!

That sounds groovy, interesting, and enjoyable and has great roleplaying flavour/potential in my mind. Not optimal combat-wise? Pfffff. I don’t give a monkeys! I’m having fun.

Whatever you decide to play, I hope you really enjoy it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What's the current thought on classes?

The classes are prettymuch back to normal, 'normal' being roughly centered on 2e AD&D.

Spellcasting is no longer a matter of /either/ preparing spells into slots on a 1:1 basis or casting spells known spontaneously using slots. Instead, the classes that prepare spells /also/ cast them spontaneously using their slots. Best of both worlds. In addition, most caster get at-will cantrips, including combat-effective ones on par with basic weapon combat. So, best of three worlds.

All classes get at least a taste of spellcasting, too. Even the barbarian has a sub-class that can use a few rituals.

Oh, right, rituals were a 4e thing that let you cast non-combat spells without consuming slots, at all. 5e has kept that as well. Best of four worlds, I guess.

The Ranger and Sorcerer are arguably not the most successful implementations, but it's more a matter of concept (or lack thereof). The Sorcerer's schtick in 3e, as you know, was spontaneous casting. Now everyone does that, so it was given some rather anemic-feeling (JMHO) implementation of meta-magic as it's thing.

Depending on how you felt about the fighter in 2e vs 3e you may find the 5e version delightful or mildly disappointing. It gets real multiple attacks/round again.

The Cleric isn't quite as wide-open as the specialty priest in 2e. The rogue retains Sneak Attack from 3e and makes it more broadly applicable - and brings back an echo of the 1e Assassin as a sub-class.

The Paladin has been branched out from just LG.

The Bard is much-improved, though. It's a full caster, 9th level spells and everything though limited by spells known rather than prepped, and adequate healer/buffer and can be very good at skills or modestly good at weapons.

The Druid was my favorite 1e class, and it became broken in 3e and was dismembered in 4e, the 5e version is back to the classic vision, shape-changing, spellcasting, healling/buffing, call lightning, it's all there.

The 3e PrCs, the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are also back as sub-classes.

The Warlock is a little like the 4e version as well as reflecting the original, so might be a tad unfamiliar, heck, depending on when you left 3e, you might have missed it. In 3e it's schtick was at-will casting, and now prettymuch everyone has that, so instead it's got short-rest (1hr) recharge casting, prettymuch to itself.

The Artificer and Psionics have each gotten a full-class UA treatment. The latter as the 'Mystic' which is pretty different from any prior version of Psionics.

Other classes not in the 3e PH1 were left out. So no Scout or Knight (though they've each gotten a UA treatment as a sub-class) or Beguiler or Factotum or whatever...

Are the ones in the PHB fine, or should I go with the revised ones from UA? I see a revised Ranger class, and was/is there a problem with the Druid?

The Ranger was the only class 'revised,' and isn't much worth a look whether you never cared for it or were a big fan (anything in between, it's up to you which version you like). ;P

As I intimated above, as a fan of the 1e Druid, I find the 5e version the truest to it I've seen, 2e version not excepted.