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

log in or register to remove this ad

Frozen_Heart

Adventurer
Ok least favourite. So much choice here....

I dislike the theme of bard, but my main issue is that it should have been a half caster. It's entire thing was meant to be 'jack of all trades'. Now it's a wizard with a guitar. Overall I picked this one for the poll due to both hating the theme and the entire design of the class.

Other mentions are the sorcerer. My favourite theme, but why is it a class? Gimped wizard with the metamagic feat glued to the side is not a class. Its themes have already been merged with warlock. Metamagic should return to being a feat only like prior editions. And sorcerer needs to be taken out behind the shed....

Artificer is a cool class idea, but the implementation is basically wtf? Reads like a bad homebrew. It's basically a dropdown menu of 'select a few magic items, here is a cut down wizard spell list with not a single unique thing because we were too lazy, oh and just reflavour it to pretend it's gadgets'. A full official class should not be dependent on reflavoring as the default.

Eldritch Knight from the fighter class has a special bit of hate from me too. It's meant to replace the swordmage.... but has every single thing from that class which was fun removed. Would definitely like to see this thing get axed.
 


vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
Artificer and Monk

both are pretty weak in both design and theme.

Do I really need a WHOLE class just for punching people and deal less damage than a rogue or fighter most of the day?

I just added a 1d6 Bludgeoning, finesse, light weapon (reinforced gloves) and 1d8 B, light (heavy gloves) to the equipment list. Boom, there you go. You can enchant them, so there's no need for a feature that let's you punch ghosts. Go play your brawler barbarian or luchador battlemaster without the whole kung-fu thingy.

Want a psionic feel to your unarmed fighter? Use the psi-warrior or the soul knife!
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Fighter, for multiple reasons.

1) Doubles down on one of the worst design flaws of 5e, scaling number of attacks. 5e is much more robust, design-wise, with one attack per action and scaling damage dice.
2) Puts its best feature (maneuvers and superiority dice) into a subclass. Its 2nd best feature (bonus feats) comes too late and is siloed into an optional system.
3) The class is too broad and eats up too much of the "non-magical" concept space. A heavily armored warrior, a skirmishing ranged fighter, and a commander type are broad enough archetypes to support their own classes, but get swallowed up by the history of the "fighter" class.

Let the rogue wear medium armor and use sneak attack with all weapons, and it does what a want a fighter to do much better than the actual fighter class.
 

From a design perspective Monks are definitely it. You have to spend resources just to keep up with Fighters and Rogues, are completely short rest dependent, and often have to spend valuable resources on ribbon abilities. It's a class I really like conceptually, but I would rather play a single class Ranger than a 5e Monk. At least Rangers have some decent subclasses.
I sadly agree with despite monk being my go-to, buff the ki points and is shines so much better.

I hate clerics because they are randomly armoured we have paladins for that, get rid of this armour.

also, sorcerer feels just uninspired and I hate the bloodline aspect of it.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Huh. I didn't realize people could vote twice. Least favorite class is singular. Only one vote should have been allowed. Multiple votes will skew the results away from knowing which class is least favorite.
 


grimslade

Doddering Old Git
Ranger. It is a class without a purpose. A warrior who tracks? A mystic woodsman? Buff Pokemon trainer? Ranger is a subclass to better base classes. The Spell-less Ranger is a fighter with an appropriate outdoorsy background. I am at a loss how a ranger is its own class anymore, other than nostalgia.
Sorcerer is a close second. Metamagic is a subsystem, not a class.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Ranger. It is a class without a purpose. A warrior who tracks? A mystic woodsman? Buff Pokemon trainer? Ranger is a subclass to better base classes. The Spell-less Ranger is a fighter with an appropriate outdoorsy background. I am at a loss how a ranger is its own class anymore, other than nostalgia.
Sorcerer is a close second. Metamagic is a subsystem, not a class.
The way that 5e sets up classes and subclass, ranger can't be placed into any other class. It has too many abilities to be covered by subclass alone.
 


Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Bard.

If you're picking a CLASS, and you drop the first two letters, you end up with a Bard.

Did you know that Bard is an palindrome for drab? And it's an anagram for "This class makes you a lesser person if you play it, if that was possible."

To recap- I would not say that the Bard is the absolute worst thing in D&D. But I would say that it is in the top 1.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Bard.

If you're picking a CLASS, and you drop the first two letters, you end up with a Bard.

Did you know that Bard is an palindrome for drab? And it's an anagram for "This class makes you a lesser person if you play it, if that was possible."

To recap- I would not say that the Bard is the absolute worst thing in D&D. But I would say that it is in the top 1.
Brad is also an anagram. Never trust anyone named Brad.
 



Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
true but the fighter was always broad, eldrich knight is trying to be the arcane half caster and failing.
Fighter never included magic. Fighter/magic user multiclasses is what the eldritch knight is trying to be. It really needed to be its own subclass or a subclass of wizard, which has included some fighting ability in the past.
 

Fighter never included magic. Fighter/magic user multiclasses is what the eldritch knight is trying to be. It really needed to be its own subclass or a subclass of wizard, which has included some fighting ability in the past.
no full class so it can just eat all those ideas as the wizard is too full at it is.
 

grimslade

Doddering Old Git
The way that 5e sets up classes and subclass, ranger can't be placed into any other class. It has too many abilities to be covered by subclass alone.
But what of those abilities scream 'Ranger'? I loved my ranger in 1E because he was a fighter, but better. The character type is iconic. The character mechanics are mushy at best. The community has more consensus on psionics than the ranger, but it sits in the PHB, taking of page space. What abilities are definitive to the ranger? The base class is rogue abilities with a fighting style. Natural explorer could be background ribbons, rather than class abilities. Ranger is better accomplished through multiclassing. The class is a mess and WotC agrees. The constant flow of subclasses and class tweaks in Tasha's are half measures at best. The class needs an overhaul and I do not see it happening before an edition change.
 

Greg K

Hero
I voted Barbarian, Cleric, Monk, and Sorcerer. The Monk, actually, takes the #1 spot. The Cleric is close behind at #2 (edit: with the Artificer), and Barbarian and Sorcerer tie for the third spot (as my dislike is more related to the subclasses). I am pretty disappointed with the Paladin and Ranger as well.
 
Last edited:

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
I voted Bard, Monk, and Sorcerer.

I've noted in this thread how I would prefer for Bards to be Half-Casters, similar to the Artificer class. I just feel that they don't fulfill their thematic role as well as they should, and are just a huge mess class-wise that can't decide if it wants to be a Swashbuckling Sword-Dancer or Poem-Chanting Skald.

Monk is just the most thematically-restrictive class in the game, and is so tied to its source material that it feels very out of place in 5e, where other classes have largely dumped their cultural baggage and expanded from their restrictive traditional niches. The Monk has failed to evolved, even as basically every other class in D&D 5e has.

Sorcerer because of its thematic and mechanical overlap with the Warlock, the PHB and XGtE subclasses not getting automatically known spell lists, their use of Spell Slots instead of Spell Points, and their restrictive metamagics (them only having 1 unique spell on their spell list doesn't help, either).

I'm also very surprised that a lot of people are saying Artificer, especially by giving the "they don't fit into most settings" complaint. I mean, Alchemists have a thematic place in pretty much every setting. The class is pretty setting specific, but there are a ton of settings that have lore-justifications for having the class (Church of Gond and Lantan in FR, Tinker Gnomes in Dragonlance and Spelljammer, Fleshmancy in Ravenloft, Sigil and Mechanus in Planescape, Izzet and Simic Guilds in Ravnica, Purphoros followers in Theros, Gunmakers in Exandria, etc). I can see why they wouldn't necessarily fit in Dark Sun and maybe Greyhawk, but they do certainly fit into the vast majority of popular D&D worlds.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top