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

log in or register to remove this ad

Lakesidefantasy

Adventurer
I love rangers, although I do take spells that readily lend themselves to the non-magical, nature-guy trope.

1634151950060.png
 

squibbles

Explorer
I voted based on thematics rather than implementation--Bard and Cleric.

I agree with the thread's other critics of bards, so no need to elaborate.

Cleric, though, is really weird and really specific, but built into D&D's traditions deeply enough that its indiosyncratic jank gets overlooked. From Wikipedia:
  • "In the original edition, the class is described as gaining "some of the advantages from both of the other two classes (Fighting-Men and Magic-Users) in that they have the use of magic, armor, and all non-edged magic weapons"
  • "The cleric character class began as a simulation of vampire hunting clergy, such as seen in B grade "Hammer Horror" films, specifically created to oppose a vampire player character called "Sir Fang". The cleric's power to repel the undead had its roots in Dracula, which coined the popular term 'undead' and established a vampire hunter's ability to turn away vampires by the presentation of a crucifix"
  • "Gary Gygax added the restriction on weapon types, influenced by a popular interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry where Odo of Bayeux is depicted with a mace in hand"
  • "When the paladin character class was introduced in Supplement I – Greyhawk (1975), the potential for confusion between the roles of the two classes arose."
So, the Cleric--conceived as a gish class, a Victorian vampire hunter (implied to use a crucifix), but also the analog of a deeply shady bishop who (maybe) fought at Hastings, and (despite the obvious similarity) definitely NOT a paladin--has come down to contemporary D&D as THE PRIMARY REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL ORGANIZED RELIGION. What?

So, for example, why would the earthly agents of a trickster god use turn undead as a core feature? No reason but path dependency.

Artificers and Monks belong to specific settings.
A reasonable counterargument can be made to this point, but I generally agree with you (and I normally hate mixing steampunk aesthetics with vanilla fantasy).

But, for whatever reason, I don't have any difficulty compartmentalizing them from the other setting elements. I guess they don't feel like they're an integral part of 5e's implied setting to me, just extra bits that are bolted on, and that makes them inoffensive.

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.
...mind blown. That's a really good idea. Maybe a bit strong, but that'd be a great chassis for a whole bunch of non-magic-using adventurer archetypes--provided some of the loudly rogue-y things were modified.
 
Last edited:

Yaarel

Mind Mage
I couldnt dislike any class.

Either the mechanics are redeeming (Warlock) or the flavor is redeeming (Monk).

The core Cleric has too much baggage, but I like the cosmic force Cleric.

Every class has something that I appreciate.
 


I had to go with cleric. Not because it's a bad class - but because there's only a very few ways that I personally know how to roleplay an individual focused on faith without it starting to feel incredibly samey; with maybe slightly different window dressing.
 


Minigiant

Legend
I want to split martial arts from subclass and build both back much better.

Martial arts could stay.

There just should be 3-5 options for it

I should be able to be Orc Zangief and Final Atomic Buster an ogre by now. Or Goliath Abigail. Or Dwarf Alex. Or Bugbear Hugo.

Goblin Dhalsim would be fine to.

Great Now Imma spend the next hour converting Street Fighters characters into D&D PCs and NPCs... again.
 

Minigiant

Legend
But does every martial art require ki? Or are non-ki martial arts inappropriate for dnd settings?

No.
You could use arcane, divine, psionic, or primal magic. Or use martial arts that uses magic weapons and armor.

However purely biological physical "real life" unarmed unarmored martial arts without some enhancement tops out at level 4, level 5 or so in D&D.
 

RoughCoronet0

Dragon Lover
Wizards. They are boring to me. I can come up with cool ideas for all manner of characters, but whenever I try to think of a Wizard character, I just end up enjoying them more as some other class. They are just so uninspiring to me, regardless mechanics.
 

No.
You could use arcane, divine, psionic, or primal magic. Or use martial arts that uses magic weapons and armor.

However purely biological physical "real life" unarmed unarmored martial arts without some enhancement tops out at level 4, level 5 or so in D&D.
Okay, so the monk class, as written, doesn't do that, because martial arts = ki. You can only have divine ki, which works exactly like regular ki except it's yellow, and does not resemble other divine magic.

(And ki = martial arts, which is a whole other problem.)
 



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.
I also voted Wizard. It is by far the worst-designed class in the game. I am fine with a class whose specialty is versatility, but the wizard doesn’t really “give up” anything in exchange for that versatility.

It doesn’t help that later splatbooks tend to print spells that allow wizards to encroach even more on other characters’ territories. Vicious Mockery is a cool, Bard-exclusive cantrip…until Frostbite came along. Flame Arrows makes sense for Rangers, but let’s give it to Wizards as well at a much earlier level. Hey, let’s make Wizard gishes as well! ThankBladesinger subclass! Tasha’s contained tons of spells for wizards, and scraps for other spellcasters.

The flavour of the subclasses is pretty meaningless when wizards can cherrypick spells from any school. I’ve played with an abjurer that never cast abjuration spells and a diviner that never cast divination spells.

I honestly think that there would be fewer spellcaster vs. non-spellcaster threads if the typical spellcaster were a sorcerer rather than a wizard.
 

Ashrym

Hero
The flavour of the subclasses is pretty meaningless when wizards can cherrypick spells from any school. I’ve played with an abjurer that never cast abjuration spells and a diviner that never cast divination spells.

Seems off to me. Diviners cast divination spells almost free because of expert divination and arcane ward requires casting abjuration spells.
 

Cleric, though, is really weird and really specific, but built into D&D's traditions deeply enough that its indiosyncratic jank gets overlooked.
Yep. It is now about as core as core classes get, but try coming up with anything that really looks like a classic D&D Cleric in history, mythology, or any non-D&D derived fantasy literature and you mostly come up short. An early monopoly on healing, an absolute necessity, let something pretty weird and sui generis become deeply ingrained as "normal".

The weird specificity of them being a wielder of theurgical magic who also is a heavily armored melee combatant focused on bludgeoning weapons is not really enforced on the class overall in 5e (though it is still the presumed MO of too many of the subclasses), so for this edition I don't particularly dislike them, but in a pan-edition class hating contest they would be my go-to least favorite.
 

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
So, for example, why would the earthly agents of a trickster god use turn undead as a core feature? No reason but path dependency.
Fun Fact (read here: WotC once again fumbled during the playtest)
The original cleric as presented in the playtest got to choose its CD from a few choices taken from a long list of possible channel divinity. No cleric were forced to take Turn Undead (IIRC, there was even a ''charm undead'' somewhere in there).
 

unarmed needs the magic to work in dnd as how are your fists supposed to break steel or dragon hide?
Same is true of fighters, but they don't have spellcasting as a core feature. Magic items is enough magic to make them workable anyways.

Sure, in a no-magic-at-all game, monks are out, but so are all but 5 subclasses in the PHB.
 

Esbee

Dungeon Master at large.
I also voted Wizard. It is by far the worst-designed class in the game. I am fine with a class whose specialty is versatility, but the wizard doesn’t really “give up” anything in exchange for that versatility.

It doesn’t help that later splatbooks tend to print spells that allow wizards to encroach even more on other characters’ territories. Vicious Mockery is a cool, Bard-exclusive cantrip…until Frostbite came along. Flame Arrows makes sense for Rangers, but let’s give it to Wizards as well at a much earlier level. Hey, let’s make Wizard gishes as well! ThankBladesinger subclass! Tasha’s contained tons of spells for wizards, and scraps for other spellcasters.

The flavour of the subclasses is pretty meaningless when wizards can cherrypick spells from any school. I’ve played with an abjurer that never cast abjuration spells and a diviner that never cast divination spells.

I honestly think that there would be fewer spellcaster vs. non-spellcaster threads if the typical spellcaster were a sorcerer rather than a wizard.

When I was prepping my 5e 'Hardcore Old School' mode, I wanted to nerf this. The idea that Wizards have full control over what they choose without drawback is the main bone of contention. In old school games they had to roll to learn their magic, and failure meant you couldn't learn those spells. So I added a house rule along those lines - before you can learn a spell you had to make a DC 13+ spell level Intelligence check. Failure meaning that spell is barred to you until your proficiency modifier goes up and you can try again.

At level 2 when you choose your school, you can make rolls to learn spells from your school at advantage.

My player who loves the power-game mode of RAW 5e absolutely HATED this rule, so I knew it was the right way to go. :devilish:

Oh, and regarding this thread... I loathe Artificers. They do not show up in my games, and players who suggest that I let them play one get flogged.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
Most of them scream ranger to me.

Favored Enemy
Natural Explorer
Primeval Awareness
Land's Stride
Hide in Plain Sight(however bad)
Feral Senses
Foe Slayer
All the subclass abilities
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top