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

[Ancalagon]

But these are not "Superhero" stories. We're talking genre here, not mechanics and I think you know that. Just because Michael Myers behaves like an undead doesn't make Halloween a Gothic Horror story, and Call of Duty isn't a Revolutionary War epic just because they both fire guns at people.

I would say that 5e is very super heroic. The problem with 5e? ... it's best feature.

 

[TarionzCousin]

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]

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.

 

[Thunderfoot]

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]

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.

 

[Torquar]

Sorcerer for me. Tasha's has gone some way towards fixing them but seriously, just double their spells known or something.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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!]

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]

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]

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.