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
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.
100% agreement on this and I came here to say the same thing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Voted ranger. I don't have a problem with the theme of a ranger and would like to play one in a general sense, but the actual class was just so boring in practice. No meaningful combat choices (because one choice is always clearly the best, and it's the same one) and you're cool wilderness stuff is just a 'skip this scene' button, which isn't fun.

My 13th Age ranger had almost too many cool, flavorful, effective options, and there's not reason the 5e one couldn't - but what we have is just dishwater.
 


delericho

Legend
Druid for me. There's nothing wrong with it mechanically; I'm just not a fan. Plus, with so many of my campaigns being very heavily urban-based, they don't get many chances to shine.
 


Scribe

Hero
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.
I think you're right, but how it is presented is simply not going to mesh with me.

It could be salvaged, and I feel should be core in 5.5, but it's how it's pitched.
 

Lakesidefantasy

Adventurer
I always thought of the sorcerer as an experimental wizard class, and I expected it to replace the wizard. I saw it as an attempt to make the wizard easier and more fun to play because it was always so annoying to decide each 'morning' on what spells to prepare for the day. It was so annoying that when I played a wizard I always prepared a generic list of spells and never returned to the question. In that way, I was playing a de facto sorcerer.

I'm wrong of course, which I'm sure will quickly be pointed out in a slightly degrading and subtly devastating fashion. 🙃
 

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.
monk has the problem of if you go with less inbuilt flavour than say mystical martial artist people will just try to make it a fighter subclass or something insane like that plus it is inherently from different cultures as the idea never really worked in Europe if you want more make a thread on monks and see how it goes.
 

Lakesidefantasy

Adventurer
Another uninformed opinion I hold is about the cleric. I always saw it as a unit on the wargaming table that could bolster and heal other units. Pretty cool stuff. It got carried over to Dungeons and Dragons and now I play them like I play a wizard.
 


Monks carry a lot of conceptual space in one class. Like Druids they would benefit from a more modular approach to character design. 5e works better with classes that have a tighter focus.
Monks have two distinct concepts that don't depend on each other but don't exist in other classes: unarmed combat and ki as a magic style.

Both could probably hold their own class if a bit of a thin one, but the real issue is if you want one, you have to take the other along with it, which makes a lot of monk-adjacent concepts not workable.
 

Monks have two distinct concepts that don't depend on each other but don't exist in other classes: unarmed combat and ki as a magic style.

Both could probably hold their own class if a bit of a thin one, but the real issue is if you want one, you have to take the other along with it, which makes a lot of monk-adjacent concepts not workable.
unarmed needs the magic to work in dnd as how are your fists supposed to break steel or dragon hide?
 

Lakesidefantasy

Adventurer
Monk. It's like peanut butter on chocolate or peanut butter on a hamburger. Both are great options, but I still don't care for monks.

In fact, it took me an embarrassingly long time to understand what a monk was. I always referred to those guys as ninjas, or karate masters, or Chuck Norris; but, for the longest time, 'monk' was synonymous with Friar Tuck for me (and still is a little bit).
 



Minigiant

Legend
Monk.

It displays clearly my 4 main criticisms of 5e all in one class. 5e is excellent but all it's flaws collide in monk.

Oh and my 4 main criticisms explained.

1) Simplicity in game design even when it hurts usability. Ki equal to level is easy to understand but too few for fun. Sorcerer and fighter feel this as well.

2) Legacy ribbons masquerading as major core feature. Many of the weak and/or situational kung fu master class features take up space in an underpowered class. Shares problem with ranger.

3) Forced gameplay styles. Why does every monk have to be "fast monk" and have the same martial arts and ki abilities? Woulda loved wrestler monk, slow one punch monk, or counterpuncher monk. Shares with the one note melee based barbarian.

4) Overuse of spells to create effects. Self explanatory. I don't know if it was to save page space or for ease.
 

Magic, okay, but it doesn't have to be Ki. It could be divine or primal or psychic - but the rules don't support that.
ki and psionics are the same thing internal magic both having to do with breath if you go back far and look at this and tell me it is not almost psionic Ṛddhi - Wikipedia
With a magic boxing glove of course. Same way anybody else does it, right?
do you want fighters to end up even more of a mess? as we must never let them hear that or it will happen plus I happen to like monks.
 



Minigiant

Legend
Monks have two distinct concepts that don't depend on each other but don't exist in other classes: unarmed combat and ki as a magic style.

Both could probably hold their own class if a bit of a thin one, but the real issue is if you want one, you have to take the other along with it, which makes a lot of monk-adjacent concepts not workable.
unarmed needs the magic to work in dnd as how are your fists supposed to break steel or dragon hide?
The issue is not ki.

The issue is that forces one martial art, one genre of fiction, and one style on all monks.

I played Street Fighter and KOF. Any martial art can be KIed
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top