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: 56 28.7%
  • Barbarian

    Votes: 17 8.7%
  • Bard

    Votes: 29 14.9%
  • Cleric

    Votes: 15 7.7%
  • Druid

    Votes: 17 8.7%
  • Fighter

    Votes: 14 7.2%
  • Monk

    Votes: 60 30.8%
  • Paladin

    Votes: 10 5.1%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 34 17.4%
  • Rogue

    Votes: 6 3.1%
  • Sorcerer

    Votes: 50 25.6%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 23 11.8%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 13 6.7%

  • Total voters
    195

log in or register to remove this ad

TarionzCousin

Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
Monk is getting a lot of dislike here. I've only played in one year-long campaign with a monk character. His use of Stunning Strike was make or break in many combats.

That said, I wouldn't want to play a monk, either.

I did play a Sorcerer in Adventurers League to level twelve and was disappointed in the lack of useful spells; every combat was a maximized Magic Missile and/or Fireball.
 

Greg K

Hero
If you can liken the two together... go nuts. More power to you.

But that doesn't change the fact that I think the Sorcerer's story in D&D kinda stinks, because I don't equate the fantasy and superhero genres. And I especially wouldn't use the rules of a game in one genre to play in the other one. I'm not going to use D&D to play Superheroes, I'm going to use Mutants & Masterminds-- a game that specifically took the rules of D&D and re-wrote them for the genre in question because even Steve Kenson knew that the D&D d20 rules as written was not the best tool for the job.
Sadly, Monte Cook, when he was discussing a d20 superhero, did not, initally, have the same realization as Steve. Monte was planning to keep several D&Disms that Steve abolished which, at the time, made me wish that I reach through the screen and shake some sense in to him.
 
Last edited:

Thunderfoot

Adventurer
Warlock.... I hate the whole idea of this abomination. (of course I don't allow Tieflings neither). Barbarian and Artificer are also choosen not because I dislike the classes, but because I think they are broken a bit, I always end up altering them before allowing them.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
I voted Monk, Artificer and Ranger. Not because I don't like those classes in any kind of broad way (I'm actually a big fan of both Monks and Rangers) but I find those three classes disappointing in terms of design, mechanics and synergy. I don't mean that in a specifically optimization related way, but more about how those classes just feel clunky set next to some of the better designed options.
 


Sorcerer for me. Tasha's has gone some way towards fixing them but seriously, just double their spells known or something.
This is, unfortunately, one of the difficult things about any poll like this.

If someone says they dislike a class, they might do so for thematic reasons, mechanical ones, or both. The Artificer unfortunately tends to get hit from people on both sides: those who like it conceptually often find it lackluster, and those who dislike its theme couldn't really care less if it's functional or not.

Most of my responses were on the mechanics front, but some verge into thematic elements as well. I dislike the Wizard because the class has no flavor. There's nothing in it except the spells--you don't even meaningfully research anything. That's thematic, but it also comes from a desire to have theme represented in mechanics.
 

ART!

Hero
Changed my vote to Druid.

I had voted for Artificer, because the kind of technology it implies kind of takes me out of my fantasy mindset. But then i remembered the origami artificer a player in our group ran very briefly, and now I'm reminded how easy it is to re-conceptualize classes and subclasses while keeping the actual mechanics - sort of ignoring the descriptions and looking at the implications and effects of the mechanics.

Whereas with druids, I just have no interest in shapechanging, so I don't want to have a chunk of my class dedicated to that, despite liking everything else that druids do.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
This is, unfortunately, one of the difficult things about any poll like this.

If someone says they dislike a class, they might do so for thematic reasons, mechanical ones, or both. The Artificer unfortunately tends to get hit from people on both sides: those who like it conceptually often find it lackluster, and those who dislike its theme couldn't really care less if it's functional or not.

Most of my responses were on the mechanics front, but some verge into thematic elements as well. I dislike the Wizard because the class has no flavor. There's nothing in it except the spells--you don't even meaningfully research anything. That's thematic, but it also comes from a desire to have theme represented in mechanics.
I concur with your analysis of the artificer. Furthermore, some subclass can be made to work, but with pathfinder-esque "builds" and I don't like that.

Wizard is like the fighter - it's your job to inject the flavor. A blank canvas can be good for creativity...
 

ScuroNotte

Explorer
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.
It has been done. Rogue Scout. And with the skills, expertise (able to use in all terrains), abilities, and tools (need thieves tools for bear traps as per XGtE), its the perfect spell-less Ranger except it has no extra attack.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
It has been done. Rogue Scout.
This is a scout, not a ranger.
And with the skills, expertise (able to use in all terrains), abilities, and tools (need thieves tools for bear traps as per XGtE), its the perfect spell-less Ranger except it has no extra attack.
Where are the nature and animal skills? Simply being able to scout in terrain and hunt does not a ranger make.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
For me, the answer is simple: Bard

I would gladly play any of the classes except the bard. Thematically, they do nothing for me. The only version I would consider playing is college of sword and multiclass into hexblade (ie, a not-a-bard bard).

I'm particularly dissatisfied in 5e because the promotion to full caster makes no sense to me. Jack of all trade casting wish? uh? Where do their powers come from? All the other classes fit well in my mind, the bard is just... ugh.

If I had to play a magical entertainer, give me a warlock with the entertainer background. I made a deal with the devil, boom.
 

Wizard is like the fighter - it's your job to inject the flavor. A blank canvas can be good for creativity...
My main issue with Wizard isn't its blank-canvas status (though I have issues with that too, for two reasons). My main issue is that it doesn't do anything that's supposed to represent its core flavor concept, "magic through research." It would be like having a Fighter class where the mechanics imply that you fight...but never actually show you fighting. Yet Wizard gets a pass, mostly because spells are so stupidly powerful and diverse. That's a problem.

As for the genericism thing: (1) As noted, lots of people have "writer's block" type issues which can make totally blank canvases hard to work with. IMO this means for classes that are more innately blank slates, subclasses NEED to be offered that provide more flavor; it's fine for one or two options o preserve the blank slate, but when essentially all of them do, that's an issue. (2) Blank slates have a pattern of being either over- or under-powered pretty consistently. This applies most pointedly to Wizard and Fighter: the Fighter is the weakest or second-weakest of the "more might than spells" heavies (Barb, Ranger, Fighter, Paladin), and its need to be so totally flavor-free is a big factor. (Ranger is also weak, but mostly because vital class features got offloaded as so-called "optional" spells.) Wizard, meanwhile, can be stupidly strong because it's lack of flavor means it must go all out for "I cast lots of spells," and spells remain extremely potent tools in 5e. Again, not saying that offering low-inherent-flavor options is bad. Just that there are oft-ignored design problems with such classes that need to be addressed to make them work well.
 

ScuroNotte

Explorer
This is a scout, not a ranger.

Where are the nature and animal skills? Simply being able to scout in terrain and hunt does not a ranger make.
A Ranger is a hunter. A ranger is supposed to be the person to turn to help guide through the wilderness and survive. Its embarrassing when the party asks the ranger to lead them and they say "Sorry, wrong terrain. Maybe next time."

Where are these skills? You can say the same for the Ranger.
Other than Land's Stride, there is not other skill the scout can't do and better. Unless the ranger is their in favored terrain, their skills are greatly diminished. The Scout gets these skills and have them applicable in any terrain. The Nature skills are given to them at 3rd level (with Survival) with expertise on top of it. Animal skills, maybe a background or a skill feat.

Let's compare;

Favored Enemy/Foe/Hunter's Mark - 1 target/speciesSneak attack - any target, no concentration, unlimited uses
Natural Explorer - Favored terrain onlyMore skills, expertise, Reliable Talent, Given Survival & Nature skills with Expertise at 3rd level - Any terrain
Hide in Plain Sight - must stay stillExpertise in Stealth - can move
VanishCunning Action
Feral SensesBlindsight
Foe Slayer - only favored Enemy, maybe Favored FoeSneak Attack any creature. Now can now be used against 2 different targets on the same turn
Land StrideNo equivalent

So other than Land's Stride and and the Animal Handling skill, each feature the ranger has is outdone by the Rogue Scout. And through a feat they can get Archery fighting style. And as I mentioned bear traps or other hunting traps require Thieves tools as per XGtE, which the ranger does not have as part of their class.
Classes are different and normally should not be compared to each other, but when you expect a class to have a role and an identity and it is not properly executed, and then to be outdone by another class/subclass, then there is an issue. The Rogue Scout is a slap in the face to the Ranger class.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
A Ranger is a hunter.
I ranger is far more than a hunter.
A ranger is supposed to be the person to turn to help guide through the wilderness and survive. Its embarrassing when the party asks the ranger to lead them and they say "Sorry, wrong terrain. Maybe next time."
The ranger is in tune with nature and the wild to a degree no hunter ever can be. He's also no mere guide. He can guide, but that's not his job any more than hunting is.
Where are these skills? You can say the same for the Ranger.
Starting at the very beginning(1e) rangers were so in tune with nature that they gained druidic ability. They attracted not just people, but elves, animals, fey and even treants and were creatures. That set the tone for being far more than mere hunters and guides. Even the hunter ranger is just emulating a hunter archetype and isn't just a mere hunter.
Other than Land's Stride, there is not other skill the scout can't do and better.
I'd like to see a scout be aware creature types within 1-6 miles. Rangers have feral senses.
Unless the ranger is their in favored terrain, their skills are greatly diminished. The Scout gets these skills and have them applicable in any terrain. The Nature skills are given to them at 3rd level (with Survival) with expertise on top of it. Animal skills, maybe a background or a skill feat.\
If you have to start searching for ways to try and be a ranger, you aren't a ranger. ;)
Let's compare;

Favored Enemy/Foe/Hunter's Mark - 1 target/speciesSneak attack - any target, no concentration, unlimited uses
Natural Explorer - Favored terrain onlyMore skills, expertise, Reliable Talent, Given Survival & Nature skills with Expertise at 3rd level - Any terrain
Hide in Plain Sight - must stay stillExpertise in Stealth - can move
VanishCunning Action
Feral SensesBlindsight
Foe Slayer - only favored Enemy, maybe Favored FoeSneak Attack any creature. Now can now be used against 2 different targets on the same turn
Land StrideNo equivalent
By 10th level the ranger will have favored terrain that covers 90% of where the party travels anyway. Groups are rarely in the arctic, swamps, coast or underdark, so rangers will take forest, grassland and mountains. Unless it's an arctic or underdark campaign, in which case they will be in their favored terrain 100% of the time.

You left off primeval awareness.

Ranger spells have no equivalent.

You've also given yourself a subclass, scout. Scouts are good at ambushing and do get nature and survival proficiency, but they are not at all a nature subclass. Since you have picked scout, you have to compare that to a ranger subclass which means even more rangerish abilities for the real ranger.
 

ScuroNotte

Explorer
You've also given yourself a subclass, scout. Scouts are good at ambushing and do get nature and survival proficiency, but they are not at all a nature subclass. Since you have picked scout, you have to compare that to a ranger subclass which means even more rangerish abilities for the real ranger.
Ranger subclasses are mainly focused on combat, not "rangerish" abilities. And my point is that the Rogue Scout is the best ranger. I personally don't see magic as being crucial to being a ranger and their skill set as we discussed earlier, that is why I excluded that feature. It is offered to many classes and subclasses.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Ranger subclasses are mainly focused on combat, not "rangerish" abilities. And my point is that the Rogue Scout is the best ranger. I personally don't see magic as being crucial to being a ranger and their skill set as we discussed earlier, that is why I excluded that feature. It is offered to many classes and subclasses.
If I don't get a ranger subclass, you don't get scout. We just have ranger and rogue base classes. And even with scout, you fail to have the ranger spells that convey a lot of the ranger flavor.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Ranger subclasses are mainly focused on combat, not "rangerish" abilities. And my point is that the Rogue Scout is the best ranger. I personally don't see magic as being crucial to being a ranger and their skill set as we discussed earlier, that is why I excluded that feature. It is offered to many classes and subclasses.
I’m sorry but you have to at least acknowledge the Ranger’s unique spells and those they only share with the Druid, in a comparison like this.

The rogue is not a Ranger.

Also if we are allowing later product subclasses, then Tasha’s is on the table, and the Ranger has expertise, and a broader toolkit in general.

And the Ranger has the Gloomstalker, which allows it to be just as at home in stealth missions as the rogue.

Don’t get me wrong, the rogue is great, but it only covers parts of what the Ranger does.
 


AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
I still can't understand why the artificer is rated so low.
I can guess a few possible main reasons for this:
  1. It's new. Any class in 5e not in the PHB is destined to be not as popular as the ones in the PHB.
  2. It's fairly setting-specific, and there are some people that don't like Eberron. (Which is shocking.)
  3. People don't like how it was mechanically implemented. (I personally think that it's better than any of the UA version, and is a better designed class than most of the ones in the PHB, but I guess this is subjective.)
  4. People don't like "sci-fi" elements in "their" fantasy game. This is also applies to why some people just straight up don't want Psionics in D&D. I disagree with both of these people (especially because there are viable and creative ways to include both Artificers and Psionics in the fantasy genre that aren't "sci-fi"), but there are quite a few people that do have this opinion.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top