log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

What is your least favorite class in 5E?

  • Artificer

    Votes: 38 27.0%
  • Barbarian

    Votes: 13 9.2%
  • Bard

    Votes: 25 17.7%
  • Cleric

    Votes: 13 9.2%
  • Druid

    Votes: 11 7.8%
  • Fighter

    Votes: 7 5.0%
  • Monk

    Votes: 41 29.1%
  • Paladin

    Votes: 8 5.7%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 26 18.4%
  • Rogue

    Votes: 3 2.1%
  • Sorcerer

    Votes: 33 23.4%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 16 11.3%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 11 7.8%

  • Total voters
    141

Ogre Mage

Adventurer
What is your least favorite class in 5E?

I realize this poll topic has the potential to start a massive flame war, but I was genuinely curious about how people feel. Especially as people's opinions on this topic have lurked around several other threads -- sometimes in amusing fashion.

Feel free to explain why a certain class is your least favorite in the thread. But please, no comments like "only a wannabe Voldemort could like that class" or "only a feeblemind victim could like that class."

Please don't take it personally if you feel your favorite class is being attacked. Someone may hate a class, but that does not make it a bad class. It just is a bad fit for them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Arilyn

Hero
Monk because it's disappointing. I just don't feel it's a class that accomplishes what it sets out to do.

Cleric because the flavour is often lacklustre. Not always, but too many of the cleric subclasses are dull.
 



Ace

Adventurer
Ranger is my vote. The design isn't to my liking as I think it should have "no magic" options and frankly the subclasses aren't thrilling

I can see why people don't like bard but with sword, valor and lore colleges its easy to make something that is not a stereotypical lute plonker.
 

Ashrym

Hero
I voted cleric.

I can have fun with any class, but I have had too many DM's forcing too much because deity.

One of the reasons I like bards do much is they make a suitable alternative support class without that baggage.
 

ECMO3

Adventurer
What is your least favorite class in 5E?

I realize this poll topic has the potential to start a massive flame war, but I was genuinely curious about how people feel. Especially as people's opinions on this topic have lurked around several other threads -- sometimes in amusing fashion.

Feel free to explain why a certain class is your least favorite in the thread. But please, no comments like "only a wannabe Voldemort could like that class" or "only a feeblemind victim could like that class."

Please don't take it personally if you feel your favorite class is being attacked. Someone may hate a class, but that does not make it a bad class. It just is a bad fit for them.
I went with Bard (which is apparently the most popular choice), but I could have went Cleric or Paladin.

The reason for Bards is I don't like their spell list and as full casters that is a huge part of the class. Paladin and Cleric are just bland, they are very narrow classes in terms of role playing and there is not much breadth to them. You have a certain fundamentals that are more strongly tied to the class. Don't get me wrong you can build in breadth, as you can with any class in 5E, but it is easier to do with other classes and other classes seem to have more diversity built into the chassis and subclasses.

Best to worst classes IMO:

1. Rogue
2. Wizard
3. Ranger
4. Fighter
5. Monk
6. Sorcerer
7. Warlock
8. Artificer
9. Druid
10. Paladin
11. Cleric
12. Bard
 


ECMO3

Adventurer
I voted cleric.

I can have fun with any class, but I have had too many DM's forcing too much because deity.

One of the reasons I like bards do much is they make a suitable alternative support class without that baggage.
When I play a cleric it is usually a dip on another class and I make it a point to talk to my DM about my lukewarm relationship with my God.

The thing that gets me is D&D fiction is full of clerics that have strained relations with their gods but still get spells. Erivis Cale for example is a cleric of Mask and hates Mask. The Drizzt novels are full of clerics of Lolth that don't worship Lolth but still get spells.

That is probably easier to do storywise with a chaotic god then a lawful one -
DM: "Your God won't grant you spells if you don't worship him"
PC: "Sure he will, its chaos duh, I just go with the flow! The idea of rigid rules for worship is patently not chaotic. Us mortals are too simple minded to understand his nebulous and often random machinations anyway"
 



Wizard, Ranger, Fighter, Paladin, in basically that order.

The Wizard, despite getting some nerfs relative to its 3.x incarnation, remains an incredibly powerful class that looms large over the game. Specializing in magic means specializing in "do an incredible variety of powerful things." Having the cost of that specialty be "you can only do a few things each day" is not a cost if the Wizard has any influence over the pace of days, and most groups still have an incentive to listen to a Wizard player who wants to rest more.

The Ranger is riddled with problems, and is forced to be a spellcaster. I vastly prefer non-spellcasting but still supernatural rangers.

The Fighter is a bitter disappointment after the 4e Fighter. Particularly since it was supposed to be pulling double duty as both the 4e Fighter and the Warlord.

The Paladin is better than the Ranger because it's functional and effective, but it's still a spellcaster on a class I emphatically wish was not one.

If Ranger and Paladin were non-spellcasting classes (at least by default; I'm totally fine with a spellcasting subclass analogous to the EK), that would've given us Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue as primarily non-casters, and Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Warlock as casters--an exactly equal lineup of mostly-not-casters and mostly-casters. Throw in Warlord and Artificer as bonus classes in later supplements, and you'd keep that parity between primarily-caster and primarily-non-caster classes. You'd also get the added benefit of explaining why there isn't a divine or primal equivalent of the EK: a divine EK is a Paladin subclass, and a primal EK is a Ranger subclass.
 

Lakesidefantasy

Adventurer
Ranger is my vote. The design isn't to my liking as I think it should have "no magic" options and frankly the subclasses aren't thrilling

I can see why people don't like bard but with sword, valor and lore colleges its easy to make something that is not a stereotypical lute plonker.
You're right. I'm gonna' go back and vote for ranger.
 

Ashrym

Hero
When I play a cleric it is usually a dip on another class and I make it a point to talk to my DM about my lukewarm relationship with my God.

The thing that gets me is D&D fiction is full of clerics that have strained relations with their gods but still get spells. Erivis Cale for example is a cleric of Mask and hates Mask. The Drizzt novels are full of clerics of Lolth that don't worship Lolth but still get spells.

That is probably easier to do storywise with a chaotic god then a lawful one -
DM: "Your God won't grant you spells if you don't worship him"
PC: "Sure he will, its chaos duh, I just go with the flow! The idea of rigid rules for worship is patently not chaotic. Us mortals are too simple minded to understand his nebulous and often random machinations anyway"
It's not even a class issue. The class is fine.

It's a perception issue and how some DM apply their perception.
 


Scribe

Hero
If Ranger and Paladin were non-spellcasting classes (at least by default; I'm totally fine with a spellcasting subclass analogous to the EK), that would've given us Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue as primarily non-casters, and Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Warlock as casters--an exactly equal lineup of mostly-not-casters and mostly-casters. Throw in Warlord and Artificer as bonus classes in later supplements, and you'd keep that parity between primarily-caster and primarily-non-caster classes. You'd also get the added benefit of explaining why there isn't a divine or primal equivalent of the EK: a divine EK is a Paladin subclass, and a primal EK is a Ranger subclass.

But what about the Psion.
 


Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
I'm going to go with Sorcerer.
It is slightly redundant as an Arcane Caster
It's full on redundant as a CHA based caster.
A lot of their subclasses have problems.
A Warlock would make a better "I have magic in my blood and that causes me to have supernatural powers" character than a Sorcerer would from a mechanical standpoint (Invocations are way better than metamagic for that invoking that kind of playstyle).
And finally, the thing that puts it over the edge against lackluster classes (like the Monk): The existence of the Sorcerer, and people trying to preserve it's toes, have shot down interesting potential subclasses from UA.

That last thing is really the main reason for me. Monks might be bad, but at least they haven't stopped Barbarians and Fighters from getting their own twists on Unarmed Fighting.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top