D&D 5E Which Class is "The Best" - Your chance to VOTE!

[Tony Vargas]

Whats up with the Druid?

I played a 1e Druid, and loved it.

But, 5e, Im not getting into it, and cant put my finger on why.

Maybe part of it is the inability to specialize. Want weather magic, get stuck with animal shapes. Want to shapeshift, get stuck with the four elements.

That's in no way different from 1e.

What's different about the Druid in 5e vs 1e?
No ascension by assassination.
No hard level cap.
Conventional spell progression.
?

 

[cmad1977]

I think you secretly love Paladins and just haven’t came out of the closet yet.

Your severe paladinphobia supports this position.

It’s always the one driving through West Hollywood yelling ‘F’ing Pallies!’ That turn out to be paladins.

 

[Parmandur]

WOW! THANKS EVERYONE!!!

I got home from work and BAM! nearly three new pages of posts! I am happy to see the poll finally topped 100. Hopefully, more people will chime in and cast their votes as well.

(Of course, I am disappointed people continue to rate the bard so highly... but them's the breaks. )

Per WotC own market research, only the Ranger has any variance in satisfaction among players. All of the other Classes have satisfaction rates well within the margin for error from each other.

 

[Yaarel]

That's in no way different from 1e.

What's different about the Druid in 5e vs 1e?
No ascension by assassination.
No hard level cap.
Conventional spell progression.
?

I agree, the absence of the less helpful stuff is appreciated (Mortal Kombat advancement).

Thankfully, fullcaster, open alignment, etcetera.

But the wild shaping felt peripheral in 1e. Now, the class is all about wild shaping.

Like I said, I cant quite put my finger on what the issue is.

But I would appreciate more fluidity in the Druid design, allowing me swap stuff I want to focus on for other stuff I want to focus on less.

I like all these concepts. And want to play each at some point:

• Shapeshifter (including Human forms, elemental forms, werewolf forms, etcetera)
• Plant-Animal mage
• Weather mage, Elemental mage
• Full healer

This is all awesome.

I like urban environments, and have enjoyed subterranean settings. So ‘nature’ doesnt always mean tree-hugging. Sometimes it plays on Humanoids as living species. Sometimes it plays up elemental substances.

I would like more focus to be able to play one concept at time − or sometimes blend two or more when I am in the mood to do so.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But the wild shaping felt peripheral in 1e. Now, the class is all about wild shaping.
Like I said, I cant quite put my finger on what the issue is.

It was pretty remarkable to "shapeshift," even if only into animal forms, in 1e at only 7th level, and all Druids got it. The limitation then was by size, you could assume a form from small bird to largish animal, about double you weight - and it healed you. That's not a lot of really butch combat forms, but useful in combat for the recovered hps, and a lot of potential for scouting and getting places you normally couldn't.
In 5e, unless you go Moon, your forms are more utility than combat, so that fits, too.

But I would appreciate more fluidity in the Druid design, allowing me swap stuff I want to focus on for other stuff I want to focus on less.

I actually appreciate that the Druid class just gets all its traditional stuff like it used to, instead of being chopped up into 3 mutually incompatible sub-classes like 4e, with shapechange in one, healing in another, and summoning in the third.

I would like more focus to be able to play one concept at time − or sometimes blend two or more when I am in the mood to do so.

5e sub-class design is not much for blending. If something gets relegated to a sub-class, and something else to another, it's harder to combine them than to combine abilities from another class, entirely.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Per WotC own market research, only the Ranger has any variance in satisfaction among players. All of the other Classes have satisfaction rates well within the margin for error from each other.

I can see that. The ranger can be played well and have fun. We had a drow ranger (female, no tie to Drizz't as the player had never played before or heard of RAS's character) and she had a lot of fun playing the class.

The problem as I see it for the ranger RAW is it is sort of "all over the place" and "no place in particular" all at once, ya know?

 

[Parmandur]

I can see that. The ranger can be played well and have fun. We had a drow ranger (female, no tie to Drizz't as the player had never played before or heard of RAS's character) and she had a lot of fun playing the class.

The problem as I see it for the ranger RAW is it is sort of "all over the place" and "no place in particular" all at once, ya know?

Yeah, they find most people are satisfied with the Ranger, but it is the only outlier: the other Classes are equal in reception. Dead equal.

 

[Yaarel]

You might be right... I'm not one to advocate for that kind of bloat but maybe the Druid needs more spell choices... but probably shouldn't follow the Cleric way of prepping spells if that were the case.

Yeah, to me Cleric has a more Charisma vibe (spiritual leader), while the D&D Druid has a more Intelligence vibe (sage of nature). I feel it ok to distinguish the way they spell prep.

I also see the Druid brewing potions (‘eye of newt’ etcetera), and performing alchemical experiments (earth, wind, fire, water, with lifeforce as the fifth element). Daoist alchemists (metal, tree, fire, water, plus the space of soil) also work well as a Druid.



In any case, I would like the Druid class design to allow the player to focus more, to swap in or out whatever the player wants.

 

[Ashrym]

If you're curious as to why, I think they made the bard too powerful to satiate the people who want to be more special than everyone else. I.e, the "I want to be able to be best at everything--fighting, exploration, and magic, so I'll be a bard!" Being able to essentially steal other classes spells is the cherry on top in this regard.

The problem is bards aren't the best at any of those things, lol. They are marginally more durable than a sorc or wizard, and often less so than a warlock. It takes effort to get their damage up to mediocre.

Magical secrets is extremely limited and no different than domains or land circles adding spells from other classes. It's actually funny that anyone would think taking fireball (for example) on a bard makes it somehow more powerful than a warlock picking it up through a patron (auto-upcast), a sorcerer picking it up (applied meta magic), or a wizard casting it (more often via recovered slots).

It's impossible to have the spell more powerful than the original class. It's either their baseline or the class applies enhancements not available to the bard. The only exception to that general rule is with spells that include an ability check.

Bards are useful. They are not the best in multiple areas.

 

[Mistwell]

Sorry, replied to something already dealt with. Nevermind