D&D 5E Worst Classes Level 1.

[Zardnaar]

As the title says. We ran level 1 the other day and I noticed the artificer basically stunk.

No sneak attack, didn't deal much damage no spells except cantrips. Probably level up near the start of next session.

The Sorcerer was also a big pile of meh.

Fighters at least deal decent damage and can heal themselves 1/shirt rest. Probably one of the better level 1 classes tbh.

 

[CleverNickName]

The least amount of fun I've had at 1st level was when I played a monk.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The least amount of fun I've had at 1st level was when I played a monk.

I was going to say the same thing. As a 1st level monk you only have the passive effects of your martial arts, but you still do have anything ''buttons'' to press to do cool stuff with your ki.

Warlocks are also pretty bad: 1 slot, no invocation, no boons...ouch

 

[Eltab]

I enjoyed my L1 Monk, except when I rolled a 2 for Acrobatics (trying to show off Jackie Chan cartoon -style and landed flat on my back at the enemies' feet). Martial Arts at that level is like getting Advantage on an attack roll - you roll for two attacks but probably only one will hit.

An L1 Ranger is disappointing: your class features don't do anything. Combat effectiveness is OK but you cannot really do much wilderness-y stuff (worse if you are 'urban ranger ').

 

[pkt77242]

Definitely Warlocks for worst 1st level class. Paladins, Fighters and some Clerics are great at 1st level.

 

[Mistwell]

Monk, Sorcerer, Artificer.

Monk, in my opinion, never gets to "decent to good" class.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Ranger has to be the worst, hands-down. Both of its 1st-level features are worthless if the DM doesn't play nice.

 

[jgsugden]

Played 'em all (except artificer), loved 'em all.

Level 1 Monk - d8+d4+6 damager per round (assuming 16 dex). So damage should not be an issue - they're on par with heavy hitting fighters and two handed wielders. They can do stealth for scouting. I'm not sure why you would not like them.

Level 1 Warlock - You are not doing the higher damage with Eldritch Blast, yet, you get a reasonable amount of damage (flat d10) from range and you get some spellcasting, plus a special ability based upon your patron. Plus, you have awesome built in story at first level due to your pact.

Level 1 Ranger - Compare to a first level fighter. What are you missing? A little self healing, a fighting style and heavy armor (which you often can't afford)? Even if you get no real use of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, you get an extra skill over a fighter and a better selection of skills, too. While generally weaker than a fighter at level 1, it is not by that much. And, given that they make great scouts, they have opportunities to do a lot of things fighters can't.

 

[Shiroiken]

While none of the base classes are specifically super "meh" at level 1 (at least compared to the rest of the levels Ranger), there are some that are worse than others. I think the core 4 are probably the strongest, plus maybe the barbarian. The others need another level or two to really get into their schtick.

 

[ccs]

My vote for worst class at 1st lv? Probably the Sorcerer. But then I'm a bit biased as I don't think they're all that great/interesting at Lv.2+

As the title says. We ran level 1 the other day and I noticed the artificer basically stunk.

No sneak attack, didn't deal much damage no spells except cantrips.

You say that as if it's a bad thing....
Me? I wonder "Why would anyone expect that to even be a feature of Guy-Who-Makes-Things?"

Yeah, yeah. I know. Rules, past rules, some aim to make every class viable in combat, probably built on the Rogue chassis & all of that, etc.