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

[ECMO3]

I voted cleric.

I can have fun with any class, but I have had too many DM's forcing too much because deity.

One of the reasons I like bards do much is they make a suitable alternative support class without that baggage.

When I play a cleric it is usually a dip on another class and I make it a point to talk to my DM about my lukewarm relationship with my God.

The thing that gets me is D&D fiction is full of clerics that have strained relations with their gods but still get spells. Erivis Cale for example is a cleric of Mask and hates Mask. The Drizzt novels are full of clerics of Lolth that don't worship Lolth but still get spells.

That is probably easier to do storywise with a chaotic god then a lawful one -
DM: "Your God won't grant you spells if you don't worship him"
PC: "Sure he will, its chaos duh, I just go with the flow! The idea of rigid rules for worship is patently not chaotic. Us mortals are too simple minded to understand his nebulous and often random machinations anyway"

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I voted for all of them except fighter, ranger, rogue, and wizard.

You know, on second thought, I'm gonna' go back and vote for the wizard too.

 

[Stalker0]

Sorcerer, it just feels like the Warlock did it better.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wizard, Ranger, Fighter, Paladin, in basically that order.

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.

The Ranger is riddled with problems, and is forced to be a spellcaster. I vastly prefer non-spellcasting but still supernatural rangers.

The Fighter is a bitter disappointment after the 4e Fighter. Particularly since it was supposed to be pulling double duty as both the 4e Fighter and the Warlord.

The Paladin is better than the Ranger because it's functional and effective, but it's still a spellcaster on a class I emphatically wish was not one.

If Ranger and Paladin were non-spellcasting classes (at least by default; I'm totally fine with a spellcasting subclass analogous to the EK), that would've given us Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue as primarily non-casters, and Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Warlock as casters--an exactly equal lineup of mostly-not-casters and mostly-casters. Throw in Warlord and Artificer as bonus classes in later supplements, and you'd keep that parity between primarily-caster and primarily-non-caster classes. You'd also get the added benefit of explaining why there isn't a divine or primal equivalent of the EK: a divine EK is a Paladin subclass, and a primal EK is a Ranger subclass.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Ranger is my vote. The design isn't to my liking as I think it should have "no magic" options and frankly the subclasses aren't thrilling

I can see why people don't like bard but with sword, valor and lore colleges its easy to make something that is not a stereotypical lute plonker.

You're right. I'm gonna' go back and vote for ranger.

 

[Ashrym]

When I play a cleric it is usually a dip on another class and I make it a point to talk to my DM about my lukewarm relationship with my God.

The thing that gets me is D&D fiction is full of clerics that have strained relations with their gods but still get spells. Erivis Cale for example is a cleric of Mask and hates Mask. The Drizzt novels are full of clerics of Lolth that don't worship Lolth but still get spells.

That is probably easier to do storywise with a chaotic god then a lawful one -
DM: "Your God won't grant you spells if you don't worship him"
PC: "Sure he will, its chaos duh, I just go with the flow! The idea of rigid rules for worship is patently not chaotic. Us mortals are too simple minded to understand his nebulous and often random machinations anyway"

It's not even a class issue. The class is fine.

It's a perception issue and how some DM apply their perception.

 

[ART!]

Artificer.

Once you get into technology like that, it just stops being what I want from the fantasy genre.

 

[Scribe]

If Ranger and Paladin were non-spellcasting classes (at least by default; I'm totally fine with a spellcasting subclass analogous to the EK), that would've given us Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue as primarily non-casters, and Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Warlock as casters--an exactly equal lineup of mostly-not-casters and mostly-casters. Throw in Warlord and Artificer as bonus classes in later supplements, and you'd keep that parity between primarily-caster and primarily-non-caster classes. You'd also get the added benefit of explaining why there isn't a divine or primal equivalent of the EK: a divine EK is a Paladin subclass, and a primal EK is a Ranger subclass.

But what about the Psion.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

 

[Leatherhead]

I'm going to go with Sorcerer.
It is slightly redundant as an Arcane Caster
It's full on redundant as a CHA based caster.
A lot of their subclasses have problems.
A Warlock would make a better "I have magic in my blood and that causes me to have supernatural powers" character than a Sorcerer would from a mechanical standpoint (Invocations are way better than metamagic for that invoking that kind of playstyle).
And finally, the thing that puts it over the edge against lackluster classes (like the Monk): The existence of the Sorcerer, and people trying to preserve it's toes, have shot down interesting potential subclasses from UA.

That last thing is really the main reason for me. Monks might be bad, but at least they haven't stopped Barbarians and Fighters from getting their own twists on Unarmed Fighting.