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

What is your least favorite class in 5E?

  • Artificer

    Votes: 56 28.7%
  • Barbarian

    Votes: 17 8.7%
  • Bard

    Votes: 29 14.9%
  • Cleric

    Votes: 15 7.7%
  • Druid

    Votes: 17 8.7%
  • Fighter

    Votes: 14 7.2%
  • Monk

    Votes: 60 30.8%
  • Paladin

    Votes: 10 5.1%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 34 17.4%
  • Rogue

    Votes: 6 3.1%
  • Sorcerer

    Votes: 50 25.6%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 23 11.8%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 13 6.7%


log in or register to remove this ad



ScuroNotte

Explorer
If I don't get a ranger subclass, you don't get scout. We just have ranger and rogue base classes. And even with scout, you fail to have the ranger spells that convey a lot of the ranger flavor.
Did not say you can’t have subclass. What I said was the subclass is combat oriented.
 

Galandris

Foggy Bottom Campaign Setting Fan
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.

I think it's strange only if you consider in-universe worship to be unlike ancient worship, where the relationships with gods were seen as nearly "contractual". If you sacrifice 100 oxen and wait for the approved day to embark, you'll survive your sea travel. Even if you don't love Poseidon, just avoiding blantant hubris was enough.

Or you could have a real celestial bureaucracy. Spells are granted to you by the bureau of Annointed Clergy. Sure at some point they'll get a petition to remove you from their list coming from the bureau of Orthodoxy... current mean assessment delay is 3.7 centuries. Everything will be dealt with by the bureau of Postfuneral Evaluations anyway.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Did not say you can’t have subclass. What I said was the subclass is combat oriented.
All subclasses are combat oriented. That's not relevant. Let's look at the ranger subclasses. Hunter. Not a hunter of food like your scout, but a hunter of favored enemies(ranger themed). Beast Master(Raaaaaaanger themed). Gloom Stalker(ranger themed). Horizon Walker(planar ranger themed). Monster Slayer(ranger themed, hunter variation). Fey Wanderer(another ranger theme). Swarm Keeper(odd ranger theme).

Now let's look at scout(not ranger themed).
 

ScuroNotte

Explorer
All subclasses are combat oriented. That's not relevant. Let's look at the ranger subclasses. Hunter. Not a hunter of food like your scout, but a hunter of favored enemies(ranger themed). Beast Master(Raaaaaaanger themed). Gloom Stalker(ranger themed). Horizon Walker(planar ranger themed). Monster Slayer(ranger themed, hunter variation). Fey Wanderer(another ranger theme). Swarm Keeper(odd ranger theme).

Now let's look at scout(not ranger themed).
Ranger themed to me implies exploration and using skills to overcome nature’s dangers and obstacles, pursuing and tracking down your prey.
 

A lot of my favorite classes peaked at 4e and then took steps backwards.

I love the Artificer, even if it isn't quite right. As soon as they got rid of magical items as a commodity (despite messing it up in 5e. Consumables still annoy me for their price compared to reusable magical items) the Artificer lost something. With spells being the be all and end all of rules bending, the artificer has to be a spellcaster, but its off somewhat.

Barberian: once it was decided that barberians were the rage guy, it got its own idenity. No real complaints and really enjoy some of the new archtypes.

Bards rock :cool:...next class

Cleric suffer from the need to cover archtypes based on sphere of influence. This class peaked in 2e with specialty priests and the kits from fighters and priests of the realms for breadth of concepts. However 4e also did a great job breaking down the cleric role (aka divine role) into Cleric/Paladin/Avenger/invoker.

in 5e backgrounds help, but not quite right.

Druid: The single biggest mistake was not separating out shapeshifting as a dedicated class. It is a power that you could get 20 levels out of and not need spells, animal companions and other woodsy abilities Plus the insta heal makes it, while not as badly broken as it is in 3e, still has issues.

Druid needs to almost become an archtype for Cleric, as their isn't enough once you take out the shapeshifting, but I'd be okay with making it the dedicated shapeshifting class like it was in 4e.

Fighter: When the 4e fighter was made, a thousand spellcasters could be heard whining. Suddenly the fighter had a niche (heavy front line fighting) and it was really, really good at it as well as creating an agony of choice. While the fighter concept was still pretty generic, it roared.

But the idea that fighter was the simple class and absolute hatred of the warlord (by spellcasters), means they put the subclasses together on mechanics and not theme. It should have been broken down by knight, mercenary, soldier with a few tweaks to show the change in niche.

plus while I don't mind the Eldritch Knight and it plays well enough, the 4e Sword mage puts it to shame in concept and form.

and the raw hate of the Warlord class meant it was folded in to fighter with varying results (because spells are the main rules bender in the game and a class that can do similar stuff without magic feels unatural).

Monk: This one is a wierd one. I'd argue 5e did the class the best, but it doesn't feel so unecessary as misfiled. It either is a divine warrior (make a paladin archtype) or a martial artists (see fighter or swordmage, depending on magic levels).

Paladin: This class I really like and while there are nitpicks, it really talks the talk and walks the walk. I'd probably do a Warden Archtype here because it was one of my favorite classes.

Ranger: First of all, let me bring up a fact that just annoys me. Robin Hood (the archtype of all rangers) cannot be easily emulated using the 5e ranger. If i would redesigning it, I'd probably just fold it under rogue and give it a seeker (aka magical archer) or sniper archtype.

Animal companions should be a companion of the group, not a class feature. Fluffy the Tiger is a fighter substitute, not a 2nd character to play.

I've also played with the idea that the animal companion is treated like a weapon (but uses wisdom for hit and damage).

Rogue: I always found it hillarious that the rogue is the only class to successfully steal a fighter's niche and keep it from 4e to 5e: that of skirmisher fighter. It could use a little oomph, but the model and concept fits it well.

Sorcerer: I have no problem with the idea of a spellcaster with a magical bloodline, but the sorcerer really needs reworking to give it more of an effect. maybe reduce it to a half caster and give it a whole range of innate abilities, but that ship may have already sailed with the warlock.

Warlock: This class is probably the most improved of all the 5e in concept and it's the choice for simplified spellcaster.

Wizard: I really don't know what to say with wizards. They are the ultimate rules benders and even while nerfed from previous editions, they still have that feel that if you want to be the clever one, you play this because the rules of reality don't apply. The archtypes of specialist classes kinda works to curtail it, but there is honestly no real agony of choice between options.

In short, I hate to say it, but cleric, fighter, monk, ranger and sorcerer, for the reasons above
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
It has a lot of issues and is underpowered.

The big one is it's a half caster that's not that good at combat. Steel defender is kinda an exception butmost paladinss and the good rangers beat that as well.
"Can be beat in a spreadsheet battle by the strongest combat classes" is not the same thing as, or even a closely related thing to, "not that good at combat".

Paladins and the most combat focused rangers exceed the bounds of other options in combat. The Paladin is as close as 5e gets to "broken", though it still isn't actually close to broken. Artificer isn't even in the bottom half, if built at all to focus on combat rather than utility and support.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Druid: The single biggest mistake was not separating out shapeshifting as a dedicated class. It is a power that you could get 20 levels out of and not need spells, animal companions and other woodsy abilities Plus the insta heal makes it, while not as badly broken as it is in 3e, still has issues.

Druid needs to almost become an archtype for Cleric, as their isn't enough once you take out the shapeshifting, but I'd be okay with making it the dedicated shapeshifting class like it was in 4e.
This, I would really dislike. The Druid is both. Make both work or don't bother.

The idea that wild shape is anything like broken, or even top tier powerful, is laughable. To make it even powerful, you have to take Moon Druid and then multi-class martial to take advantage of having extra HP and martial class features and stuff like pack tactics.

Druids should Wildshape as a bonus action, be able to spend a spell slot to regain a use of Wildshape, and have collumns on the wildshape table for fey and monstrosities, and then pack alternate uses of Wildshape into the base class. The Tasha's familiar granting usage shouldn't be as restricted and limited as it is, and it should also allow you to communicate with the natural world without spells, and mimic plant growth, and even summon a fully combat ready companion (maybe by spending multiple uses of wild shape). Moon Druid should add elementals to the wildshape table, have a faster progression in all collumns on the table, and gain a smite style ability usable only in wild shape.

Then add in a full companion subclass that uses wildshape to boost a pet you get permanently from the subclass.

Another usage of wildshape that should also have a subclass that specialises in it, would the Warden, who takes on traits and abilities of nature to fight, becoming a being of wood and stone with terrain attacks and such.

If "Druid" is going to mean "the nature wizard priest thing", let it mean "avatar of nature", and go whole hog on the concept.
 




Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Actually WoTC tried it in 5th but fell flat on their face with extreme poor execution
No they didn't. They may have thought about it briefly, but there's nothing about the 5e ranger that is hunter and wilds only. Like not even close. The ranger spells and abilities are very distinctly otherwise. Even the "hunter" subclass is all about hunting monsters and favored enemies and not wildlife.
 

ScuroNotte

Explorer
No they didn't. They may have thought about it briefly, but there's nothing about the 5e ranger that is hunter and wilds only. Like not even close. The ranger spells and abilities are very distinctly otherwise. Even the "hunter" subclass is all about hunting monsters and favored enemies and not wildlife.
What? Yes they did. Natural Explorer with the the skills, tracking, leading your party through wilderness. Favored Enemy allows you to get advantage on tracking and knowledge about your prey. And last time I checked, beasts are included in the description of wildlife, and beasts are included in favored enemy
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
What? Yes they did. Natural Explorer with the the skills, tracking, leading your party through wilderness. Favored Enemy allows you to get advantage on tracking and knowledge about your prey. And last time I checked, beasts are included in the description of wildlife, and beasts are included in favored enemy
And the myriad of non-pure skill ranger stuff? Dude. They didn't try and make a wilderness only ranger. They made a normal ranger which ALSO has some wilderness stuff, because ranger. Beasts were included in prior editions, too. This edition isn't special that way.
 
Last edited:

ScuroNotte

Explorer
And the myriad of non-pure skill ranger stuff? Dude. They didn't try and make a wilderness only ranger. They made a normal ranger which ALSO has some wilderness stuff, because ranger. Beasts were included in prior editions, too. This edition isn't special that way. You're making stuff up.
No. I think your confused. And time to walk away
 
Last edited:


Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top