D&D 5E What class do you think people argue about the most?

[James Gasik]

Fighter then Wizard as the argument of "What can a base PC with no additional skill investment do VS What can a base PC with no additional skill investment but has spells do" stays heated.

Monk next as Monks both doesn't hit the top of the charts at any role AND not supporting modern tropes means people fight over the inclusion of powerful modern mystical martial arts aspects (elemetal bending, ki blasts, mind powers, suped up martial arts, action movie brawling)

No one argues about Rangers. Everyone agrees that D&D does them wrong mechanically and a exploration pillar mechanic is missing.

"Beastmaster sucks"
"Yeah Beastmaster sucks
"Where is the Aragorn parts?"
"Yes, were are they. Where's healing plants and crystal balls?"
"Why can't ranger craft potions?"
"I know, right!. Dumb."
"The mechanic for a ghillie suit is butt"
"Complete butt"
"Only one arrow spell?"
"Freaking wizards get everything"

That's not an argument.

Well the last Ranger thread had an argument, where no one could agree on what Rangers should be about.

 

[Minigiant]

Well the last Ranger thread had an argument, where no one could agree on what Rangers should be about.

I don't think there was much argument on the ranger and more disagreement on how to implement it (whether to create a new subsystem, enhance the exploration pillar, buff skills, or just buff ranger magic)

It's far different from fighter, wizard, monk, or even warlord and psion discussion.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't think there was much argument on the ranger and more disagreement on how to implement it (whether to create a new subsystem, enhance the exploration pillar, buff skills, or just buff ranger magic)

It's far different from fighter, wizard, monk, or even warlord and psion discussion.

Yeah it was more ‘we agree these are the general components of a ranger, we disagree on what specifically are the most important to focus on’ although IIRC there was a clear three emergent headrunners in the poll, it’s the secondary factors that are most quibbled over

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Fighter then Wizard as the argument of "What can a base PC with no additional skill investment do VS What can a base PC with no additional skill investment but has spells do" stays heated.

Monk next as Monks both doesn't hit the top of the charts at any role AND not supporting modern tropes means people fight over the inclusion of powerful modern mystical martial arts aspects (elemetal bending, ki blasts, mind powers, suped up martial arts, action movie brawling)

No one argues about Rangers. Everyone agrees that D&D does them wrong mechanically and a exploration pillar mechanic is missing.

"Beastmaster sucks"
"Yeah Beastmaster sucks
"Where is the Aragorn parts?"
"Yes, were are they. Where's healing plants and crystal balls?"
"Why can't ranger craft potions?"
"I know, right!. Dumb."
"The mechanic for a ghillie suit is butt"
"Complete butt"
"Only one arrow spell?"
"Freaking wizards get everything"

That's not an argument.

Yeah, completely agreed. Overall this poll seems to be split between actually things people argue about (like Fighter) and things people just recognize as being Not Very Good without much argument.

Ranger, Monk, and to a certain extent Sorcerer and Warlock, are understood to be underpowered. But those positions aren't particularly controversial. "The Fighter is weak compared to every other class," on the other hand, is legit something a fair chunk of fans believe, and also something a fair chunk will vociferously deny and repudiate. THAT'S an argument.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, completely agreed. Overall this poll seems to be split between actually things people argue about (like Fighter) and things people just recognize as being Not Very Good without much argument.

Ranger, Monk, and to a certain extent Sorcerer and Warlock, are understood to be underpowered. But those positions aren't particularly controversial. "The Fighter is weak compared to every other class," on the other hand, is legit something a fair chunk of fans believe, and also something a fair chunk will vociferously deny and repudiate. THAT'S an argument.

I don't know, the reason I even felt the need to make this poll is because Monk defenders are just as stalwart as Fighter defenders, and maybe more so.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't know, the reason I even felt the need to make this poll is because Monk defenders are just as stalwart as Fighter defenders, and maybe more so.

So the main take-away from this poll is that if we make the Monk a subclass of Fighter, we could eliminate almost half of all arguments about classes!

 

[Mind of tempest]

I don't know, the reason I even felt the need to make this poll is because Monk defenders are just as stalwart as Fighter defenders, and maybe more so.

I never get people who say monk is fine it sucks at being its inspirations and is badly built what is there to defend other than that it should exist?

 

[CreamCloud0]

So the main take-away from this poll is that if we make the Monk a subclass of Fighter, we could eliminate almost half of all arguments about classes!

Half the existing arguments are about the fighter being made to try support too many different concepts

 

[Mind of tempest]

So the main take-away from this poll is that if we make the Monk a subclass of Fighter, we could eliminate almost half of all arguments about classes!

that would multiply the number of arguments in mere minutes.

 

[CleverNickName]

Half the existing arguments are about the fighter being made to try support too many different concepts

that would multiply the number of arguments in mere minutes.

Nope, the poll doesn't lie. It's pretty clear that if we eliminate the Monk, we eliminate 43% of the arguments! And I assume that a good portion of arguments about the Fighter involve whether or not the Monk should be a Fighter subclass, so that's easily another 10% or so!

(I'm kidding, folks. Sheesh.)