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: 39 27.3%
  • Barbarian

    Votes: 13 9.1%
  • Bard

    Votes: 25 17.5%
  • Cleric

    Votes: 13 9.1%
  • Druid

    Votes: 11 7.7%
  • Fighter

    Votes: 7 4.9%
  • Monk

    Votes: 41 28.7%
  • Paladin

    Votes: 8 5.6%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 27 18.9%
  • Rogue

    Votes: 3 2.1%
  • Sorcerer

    Votes: 33 23.1%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 16 11.2%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 11 7.7%

  • Total voters
    143

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Artificer and Ranger because I want non-spellcasting options for both and neither provide one. (Dis-)honorable mention to Bard for being a full caster when I want it to be a half-caster.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Horwath

Hero
Monk because it's mechanically THE worst class.

Rangers as they have ribbon garbage abilities where some classes get decent utility/combat. Also I do not like the half-caster default for rangers.
1/3 caster could have been a subclass.

Bards as they should take rangers spot as halfcasters. Or 2/3 casters like in 3.5e

Rogues for having their subclass features coming too late,

Sorcerers because WotC didn't want to put spellpoints variant as a default option for sorcerers. Spell points plus sorcery points in one pool should be way to go.

Warlocks should be 2/3 casters with little more invocations as their class focus.
 

Horwath

Hero
Artificer and Ranger because I want non-spellcasting options for both and neither provide one. (Dis-)honorable mention to Bard for being a full caster when I want it to be a half-caster.
spell-less artificer?

hmm, now I'm intrigued... but how to do that, or should it be without spells?

so, let's try to do this fast:

No spells,
HD from d8 to d10
1st level; gain a fighting style
extra magic infusion known and active limit increased at levels 1,5,9,13,17
 

AtomicPope

Adventurer
Artificer. I love the idea but the class itself needs a little more help. Other than that I really love every class. Bard is my favorite, but not by much anymore. Warlock has really grown on me. I love the mechanics, the fluff, and game play. The new subclasses for Sorcerer have grown on me as well. I want to try out the Shadow Sorc in a campaign and see how it plays, when I get the chance.
 

Stormonu

Legend
I picked Ranger because the mechanics don't meet the fluff of the class.

Also, I'm not sold by the presentation of the Artificer much either, but haven't played the class or conceived of a character concept yet that'd entice me to play as one. That may be just because the class is so new to me, though - it took a while for me to warm up to Warlocks when they first showed up too.

A lot of the 5E classes suffer from structure-itis, and despite the appearance, have very narrow effective ways to be "built" - Warlocks with their Eldritch Ray (making Hexblades difficult to build), Paladins using Smite (making spell-based paladins difficult), Rogues depending on Sneak Attack (making non-skirmishers difficult), and the whole rigidity of the Monk class (unarmed attack or nothing, every monk has the same exact abilities). Sometimes the homoginization of 5E's sacrifice of general playability versus options gets on my nerves, but at the same time I glance at PF2 and see what going whole-hog on options costs.
 


I went with Monk. It is a somewhat underpowered class that makes up for much of its underpoweredness with the stunning strike feature, which is powerful but in a fun-breaking sort of way by trivializing solo enemy fights while also not being a very exciting way to use your ki. So underwhelming, but with one overpowered feature that gives the DM a headache without really being that much fun.

It's also just not my jam on a core thematic level. I'm not a hardliner against it by any means, but making it a core class such that every setting has to accommodate both a bunch of fantasy pseudo-medieval stuff AND this one random kung-fu interloper or else put the DM in the position of having to say no is just not something I've liked in any version of D&D that makes it a core class.

I might argue for the Ranger or Sorcerer having graver design missteps, but I enjoy those classes more overall, I just think they have frustrating progression and some obvious design blunders.

But, lets not overstate this. Even my least favorite class is not one I consider bad.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
spell-less artificer?

hmm, now I'm intrigued... but how to do that, or should it be without spells?

so, let's try to do this fast:

No spells,
HD from d8 to d10
1st level; gain a fighting style
extra magic infusion known and active limit increased at levels 1,5,9,13,17
Yeah, I definitely think you’d want to lean heavily into infusions. Maybe some skill/tool expertise. I hadn’t considered fighting style, as I still wouldn’t think of an artificer as a frontliner, but I definitely see room for at least a subclass that makes magical weapons and armor for themselves and then fights with it.
 

Horwath

Hero
Yeah, I definitely think you’d want to lean heavily into infusions. Maybe some skill/tool expertise. I hadn’t considered fighting style, as I still wouldn’t think of an artificer as a frontliner, but I definitely see room for at least a subclass that makes magical weapons and armor for themselves and then fights with it.
You already get 3 tools at level 1, and tool expertise with every proficient tool at level 6(maybe this is a little late)

also you have a subclass(battlesmith) that gets all weapons and a pet, and Armorer that gets heavy armor for tanking.
 


Why?

You could then stretch that definition to any class if you really wanted to. Well, maybe not for fighters and rogues, they are too generic.
The other classes have safety in numbers; they all feel at home in a similar set of quasi-Euro, pseudo-medieval adjacent settings that seem natural to a game that is called Dungeons and Dragons and incorporates other system mechanics like the spells and standard equipment. Certainly no class belongs everywhere, but I can certainly sympathize with the argument that the kung-fu ask of Monks or the magitech ask of Artificers are more eccentric in terms of overall setting aesthetics than the other classes.

Of course personally I find Clerics the most demanding class of a setting. They tend to expect you to provide them with a whole pantheon of gods. That's really much more demanding than just conceding that "okay, so you're like the one crazy inventor in this world" or "alright, I guess there is some sort of kung-fu monastery on some distant part of the map".
 


TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
Votes coming along as expected.

As for the monk...I would have voted for them before, but having seen a couple in play, they can be fun. A little underpowered overall, but fun potential is there.
 

But what about the Psion.
Psionics, as fans have made pretty clear, needs to be a non-spellcasting class, that still has resources and mechanics to its supernatural behavior. I actually quite liked the Mystic they playtested, for example, and was very sad they abandoned it rather than trying to iterate more.

Then again, I was also sad that they utterly abandoned the playtest Sorcerer (which was an awesome, transforming mixed spellcaster, with a struggling-with-the-power-in-your-soul theme) and Warlock (which, while admittedly less well-developed, had the super interesting mechanic of having to actually sacrifice something for each "boon"--Invocation, as we'd call it now--granted). But the arbitrary popularity threshold said those things couldn't be allowed to stand, so they were axed, along with all the cool ACTUAL differentiation they brought with them.

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.
If you want to complain about the Sorcerer being boring and too similar to other classes, you have only the fanbase to blame. Wizards tried to do something new. Too many people shouted it down, so they dropped it like a hot rock.

The other classes have safety in numbers; they all feel at home in a similar set of quasi-Euro, pseudo-medieval adjacent settings that seem natural
Yeah...gonna stop you right there. This is, quite literally, just "because the others are more traditional." Tradition as an argument isn't particularly persuasive. "We do this because it's what we've always done" would mean there should never have been a Cleric or Thief class, because the only truly traditional classes are Fighting-Man and Magic-User. Further, what "seems natural" to you may be WILDLY different from what "seems natural" to others. Why should your--and only your--perception of what "seems natural" be promoted to "what goes for everyone?"

And yes, I know this is a thread about personal preferences. I'm not going to argue if someone's honest opinion is "because I just don't want it, and I was asked what things I wouldn't want." De gustibus non disputandum est. But I don't really cotton to the notion that (for example) "person who makes difficult, magically-binding bargains with eldritch beings" is anywhere near as generic as you're painting it, let alone some of the particularly niche things like Druids, Bards, or Paladins. If we're gonna talk about opinions, we should present them as opinions.

Of course personally I find Clerics the most demanding class of a setting. They tend to expect you to provide them with a whole pantheon of gods. That's really much more demanding than just conceding that "okay, so you're like the one crazy inventor in this world" or "alright, I guess there is some sort of kung-fu monastery on some distant part of the map".
But...they get approved for inclusion, despite being more disruptive than these other things, because...?
 
Last edited:

LoganRan

Explorer
I selected three classes: Artificer, Bard and Monk.

As pointed out upthread, Artificers and Monks just don't "feel" right in the vision of D&D in my head. I'm not a fan of "crossing streams" in my games and Artificers feel like a mix of fantasy and sci-fi. Monks are obviously based purely on the Asian version of the concept rather than the cloistered, book-ish monks of Europe, and, therefore, also "feel" out of place to me (note: this opinion dates all the way back to 1E).

Finally, I am fine with the concept of bards but do not like the execution of the class in 5E. My primary beef is having them be full casters since bards are supposed to be "jack of all trades, master of none". If I wanted to play a bard-like character in 5E, I would probably go with an Arcane Trickster rogue with a proficiency in singing or storytelling. That would be much closer to my conception of the class.
 


Frozen_Heart

Adventurer
Thematically the sorcerer. It's just awesome. However I find sorcerers as fun to play as filing taxes.

Warlock is my favourite mechanically (and what I picked for the poll). Invocations provide so much customisation, while the pacts basically give you an entire second subclass. And the themes overlap with sorcerer a lot.

Favourite class not in 5e, which I grumble about not being in 5e endlessly, is the swordmage. Teleporting round the battlefield while wreathing your sword in flame, encasing it in ice, or setting it crackling with lightning was a level of awesome which 5e just doesn't come close to.

Edit: Ignore me, I read the title wrong.
 
Last edited:

Ath-kethin

Elder Thing
I voted:

1. Cleric. They seem redundant in 5e when we have Paladins and Celestial Pact Warlocks, which each fulfill part of a cleric's purpose and role and do it more interestingly.

2. Bard. These should be half-casters with spellbooks so they can add to their lore and capabilities. Kneecapping them with the "spells known" mechanic is a flavor-killer for me.

3. Wizards. At the table they all play the same because there's no real distinction from one "specialization" to the next. I would love to see discrete spell lists for each subclass, with minimal overlap. Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyperboria got wizard subclasses and spell lists exactly right, and I wish WotC could follow that example.
 

Tallifer

Hero
My favourite roleplaying persona is some sort of Paladin, so I have never enjoyed roleplaying the Thief or Rogue in any edition.
 


Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top