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

[Charlaquin]

Artificer and Ranger because I want non-spellcasting options for both and neither provide one. (Dis-)honorable mention to Bard for being a full caster when I want it to be a half-caster.

 

[Horwath]

Monk because it's mechanically THE worst class.

Rangers as they have ribbon garbage abilities where some classes get decent utility/combat. Also I do not like the half-caster default for rangers.
1/3 caster could have been a subclass.

Bards as they should take rangers spot as halfcasters. Or 2/3 casters like in 3.5e

Rogues for having their subclass features coming too late,

Sorcerers because WotC didn't want to put spellpoints variant as a default option for sorcerers. Spell points plus sorcery points in one pool should be way to go.

Warlocks should be 2/3 casters with little more invocations as their class focus.

 

[Horwath]

Artificer and Ranger because I want non-spellcasting options for both and neither provide one. (Dis-)honorable mention to Bard for being a full caster when I want it to be a half-caster.

spell-less artificer?

hmm, now I'm intrigued... but how to do that, or should it be without spells?

so, let's try to do this fast:

No spells,
HD from d8 to d10
1st level; gain a fighting style
extra magic infusion known and active limit increased at levels 1,5,9,13,17

 

[AtomicPope]

Artificer. I love the idea but the class itself needs a little more help. Other than that I really love every class. Bard is my favorite, but not by much anymore. Warlock has really grown on me. I love the mechanics, the fluff, and game play. The new subclasses for Sorcerer have grown on me as well. I want to try out the Shadow Sorc in a campaign and see how it plays, when I get the chance.

 

[Stormonu]

I picked Ranger because the mechanics don't meet the fluff of the class.

Also, I'm not sold by the presentation of the Artificer much either, but haven't played the class or conceived of a character concept yet that'd entice me to play as one. That may be just because the class is so new to me, though - it took a while for me to warm up to Warlocks when they first showed up too.

A lot of the 5E classes suffer from structure-itis, and despite the appearance, have very narrow effective ways to be "built" - Warlocks with their Eldritch Ray (making Hexblades difficult to build), Paladins using Smite (making spell-based paladins difficult), Rogues depending on Sneak Attack (making non-skirmishers difficult), and the whole rigidity of the Monk class (unarmed attack or nothing, every monk has the same exact abilities). Sometimes the homoginization of 5E's sacrifice of general playability versus options gets on my nerves, but at the same time I glance at PF2 and see what going whole-hog on options costs.

 

[Lyxen]

Artificers and Monks belong to specific settings.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

spell-less artificer?

hmm, now I'm intrigued... but how to do that, or should it be without spells?

so, let's try to do this fast:

No spells,
HD from d8 to d10
1st level; gain a fighting style
extra magic infusion known and active limit increased at levels 1,5,9,13,17

Yeah, I definitely think you’d want to lean heavily into infusions. Maybe some skill/tool expertise. I hadn’t considered fighting style, as I still wouldn’t think of an artificer as a frontliner, but I definitely see room for at least a subclass that makes magical weapons and armor for themselves and then fights with it.

 

[Horwath]

Yeah, I definitely think you’d want to lean heavily into infusions. Maybe some skill/tool expertise. I hadn’t considered fighting style, as I still wouldn’t think of an artificer as a frontliner, but I definitely see room for at least a subclass that makes magical weapons and armor for themselves and then fights with it.

You already get 3 tools at level 1, and tool expertise with every proficient tool at level 6(maybe this is a little late)

also you have a subclass(battlesmith) that gets all weapons and a pet, and Armorer that gets heavy armor for tanking.

 

[Horwath]

Artificers and Monks belong to specific settings.

Why?

You could then stretch that definition to any class if you really wanted to. Well, maybe not for fighters and rogues, they are too generic.