log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Worst Classes Level 1.

Zardnaar

Legend
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Eltab

Hero
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 ').
 




jgsugden

Legend
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.
 

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

40th lv DM
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.
 


Azzy

Newtype
The Sorcerer was also a big pile of meh.

Huh, I don't remember the Sorcerer being meh when I played one. The only issues I had with the Sorcerer were when I got to 12th+ level.

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

Yeah, the ranger is pretty bad until you hit 3rd level and the subclass kicks in. I'd never say that the base ranger is underpowered, but its feature tend to be fairly boring without a DM that tries to incorporate your abilities.
 


NotAYakk

Legend
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.
Wait what? Level 1 artificers have 2 first level spell slots.
The Sorcerer was also a big pile of meh.
which subclass? Their level 1 feature comes from a subclass. If nine, sure, they are meh.

Ranger; both of its features have zero use in combat, and require DM cooperation to work at all.

A TWF ranger is doing 10 vs TWF fighter's or monk's 13.

Even a TWF barbarian deals 14 in rage (10 without).

Defensively, a 16 dex ranger has 15 AC in studded; the Fighter has 16 in chain for a mere extra 30 gp.
 

Mistwell

Legend
The Monk is very decent. They are amazing at shutting down key enemies.

No, they're not. Of the classes who can shut down key enemies, they're on the weaker side due to the serious limitation of ki points. A wizard for example can shut down more enemies with a single third level spell than most monks can shut down in a day of adventuring.

Monks seriously suck.
 

Undrave

Hero
No, they're not. Of the classes who can shut down key enemies, they're on the weaker side due to the serious limitation of ki points. A wizard for example can shut down more enemies with a single third level spell than most monks can shut down in a day of adventuring.

Monks seriously suck.

Can confirm. My Shadow Monk is amazing at stealth and teleporting from shadow to shadow is great, especially if you have dark vision, but on the whole I don't feel particularly that great in combat.

Anything I would want to stun has Legendary Resistance or good saves, and anything that would fail the save doesn't survive long enough for the ki expenditure to be worth while. And next to the Paladin and Barbarian I feel pretty fragile standing there with my d8 hp.
 


Zardnaar

Legend
No, they're not. Of the classes who can shut down key enemies, they're on the weaker side due to the serious limitation of ki points. A wizard for example can shut down more enemies with a single third level spell than most monks can shut down in a day of adventuring.

Monks seriously suck.

Level one they do the most damage, even more than a great weapon fighter.

They can replace rogue with the right background trading skills for better combat ability.
 



Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top