D&D 5E (2014) What is your least favorite class in 5E?

[Aldarc]

IMHO, the Monk and Artificer need a design boost. So do the Ranger, Sorcerer, and Warlock, but these classes got nice boosts via their subclasses.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

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.

 

[Li Shenron]

Hands down the artificer... it fails me since its inception, because I think the game would have much, much better benefitted from a non-magical artificer class inspired by MacGuyver. The "turrets summoning" even borders the ridiculous.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

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]

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.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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]

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.

 

[The Glen]

Barbarian and sorcerer. Both redundant compared to fighter and wizard.

 

[grimslade]

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]

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.