D&D 5E The classes that nobody wants to play

[Azzy]

I'm surprised by Monk, the Monk seems pretty cool in 5e.

Yeah, we've got a monk player that really enjoys his monk.

 

[Ancalagon]

5E definitely has tiers, but the gap between martial and spellcasters is much smaller than it was in 3E, especially with the concentration mechanic. So that's a welcome change from the days of CoDzilla.

This is my impression too - only 1 or two subclass are "bad" enough to be problematic. I'm really not convinced that 5e has 5 (or more?) tiers and that furthermore the fighter belongs in said bottom tiers.

 

[Wuzzard]

At the games I've run I've seen most all classes played. I've not had a player play a beast master ranger, or wild sorcerer. I've had wizards, but only a few of the subtypes, mostly evokers. I've had plenty of clerics, but not all the domains. Lots of rouges, but only once an arcane trickster, and the same for eldritch night. Lots of champions and battle master. I've seen Monks of each kind, but only one of each so far. Barbarians, not sure of all paths though. Sorcerers, yes, but no wild mage. Lots of warlocks. Some players seem to only ever choose warlock, and worship Cthulhu. Plenty of druids, but always turning themselves into bears! Lots of paladins, even a fey one recently. Bards, always seem to have one in each group.


Sent from my iPad using EN World

 

[CTurbo]

I very much enjoy my Long Death Monk. He particularly excels in combat. I play him as socially awkward on purpose so he's fun in cities and towns too. I think more people should give them a chance.

 

[Jester David]

We probably should do another thread here, but "tier 5", does this even apply in 5e?

I don't think so. There's some power level variance in classes but you don't need 5/6 tiers. Just three are enough: par, above par, below par.
When you divide 5e classes up any more granular than that, the variable effect of race or good die rolls makes so much more impact than the class. And personal values and judgements come into play sooo much more often.

Even then, if you ask ten people to rank the classes from 1 to 3, you're still going to get 9 completely different rankings, and likely three different classes in the top spots.

And level range plays such a factor. A class's place in the hierarchy can change over the course of several levels.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The bigger problem with Fighters is they're not even that great at their main function: combat.

Also a subject for a different thread that's been done more than once (and tons of times in the 3.x era).

Paladins are better combatants and more versatile. Rangers are really close to Fighters in combat, AND they're a ton more versatile.

But, the fighter's thing is not combat, which, for instance would include combat spells. Rather, the 5e Fighter design goal is 'best at fighting,' and was clarified as specifically fighting with weapons and without magic. So the monk can be better than the fighter at fighting without weapons, and any given caster can be better than the fighter at fighting with magic.

Take magic out of the equation, and without Smite or Hunter's Mark, the Paladin & Ranger are no better than the fighter, in fact each has only a subset of the Combat Styles available to the Fighter. So, fighters in general can be said to be better at fighting with weapons, since they can be better archers than Paladins and better protectors than rangers.

I'm not say'n that's 'balanced' for every definition of the word, but it's consistent with design goals.

 

[Tony Vargas]

5E definitely has tiers, but the gap between martial and spellcasters is much smaller than it was in 3E

Sure, just like the Snake River canyon is a lot smaller than the Grand Canyon. Still wouldn't want to make like Eivel Kenieval with any of those gaps.

But I stand by the idea that BA oviates the lowest Tiers, as it's simply trivial for even the worst character imaginable to contribute in virtually any situation where a check might be called for.

with the concentration mechanic. So that's a welcome change from the days of CoDzilla.

Concentration is a limitation on certain spells, not very many, but some of them particularly good buff spells to drop on non-casters. So it's not that painful a limitation, and that pain isn't limited to the casters, themselves...

 

[Ninja-radish]

Also a subject for a different thread that's been done more than once (and tons of times in the 3.x era).

But, the fighter's thing is not combat, which, for instance would include combat spells. Rather, the 5e Fighter design goal is 'best at fighting,' and was clarified as specifically fighting with weapons and without magic. So the monk can be better than the fighter at fighting without weapons, and any given caster can be better than the fighter at fighting with magic.

Take magic out of the equation, and without Smite or Hunter's Mark, the Paladin & Ranger are no better than the fighter, in fact each has only a subset of the Combat Styles available to the Fighter. So, fighters in general can be said to be better at fighting with weapond, since they can be better archers than Paladins and better protectors than rangers.

I'm not say'n that's 'balanced' for every definition of the word, but it's consistent with design goals.

You're correct, the ups and downs of Fighters are a different thread altogether. I was just taking a guess as to why people might not want to play Fighters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're correct, the ups and downs of Fighters are a different thread altogether. I was just taking a guess as to why people might not want to play Fighters.

The Fighter class is the closest option D&D offers to heroes from myth/legend and traditional heroic fantasy (as opposed to Harry Potter or Twilight). Rogue is a close second, in part because the attributes of such heroes are spread out over those (and bits of other) classes. So the fighter & rogue would have to be obviously & unplayable awful not to see a lot of use, at least among new players and those who eschew system mastery.

 

[Ancalagon]

But I stand by the idea that BA oviates the lowest Tiers, as it's simply trivial for even the worst character imaginable to contribute in virtually any situation where a check might be called for.

So you are saying that

1: Fighters aren't tier 5 in 5e
AND
2: There is no tier 5 in 5e

Just trying to make sure I am understanding your position. (and BA = background?)