D&D 5E Worst Classes Level 1.

[FrogReaver]

At leve l 1, Sleep's a win-button against a group of kobolds or goblins. A setup for blowing your one other spell slot, not so much.

I'm imagining the narration of what killing a goblin with 6d10 damage would be...

 

[FrogReaver]

Monk's fun stuff is missing at 1. The one thing they get is "competent in combat while naked".

This I agree with but to a large degree so is rangers, paladins, warlocks.

Monks at least out damage those classes at level 1 while being broadly good at dex and wis skills, which covers alot of ground. I mean compare a level 1 monk to a level 1 ranger. The ranger get's slightly more hp (+3) and some wilderness abilities which tend to not come up that often, at least in my experience. The monk gets +3 damage on the ranger and +1 ac unless the ranger wants disadvantage on stealth.

The warlock comparison is even worse IMO. Essentially the same hp and less AC than the monk but has to use a spellslot for damage and doing so still causes him to do less damage than the level 1 ranger.

 

[FrogReaver]

And rogues tend to be better in melee than at long range. Its often harder getting sneak attack in at range than in melee (although the new Aim ability in UA helps with that).

Depends on how lenient your DM is with hiding in combat. If he's very lenient it could arguably be better than the melee alternative.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

These are outstandingly bad arguments. It's almost impressive.

The whole "u can do stealth" thing is like a ridiculous claim people who've never actually played D&D but read the rulebooks would make, because it's obviously not a particularly good idea in practice due to the extremely high failure chance (unless your DM is doing some softball stuff). Monks at this level are roundly inferior to Fighters. Less damage, less AC, less HP. Indeed they're inferior to most classes.

Warlocks are just bad at L1. Any character can and should have an "awesome story". 1d10 damage is 5.5 average. That's the same as a shortbow or a throwing axe with 16 DEX. A second-rate weapon. At least you have 120' range.

Rangers are roundly inferior to Fighters. That's all they are at L1 - really bad Fighters. And a DEX Fighter will be a better scout than them too if you're really pushing that (as well as a noticeably better combatant).

Of these three only Warlocks really ever become a super-solid class, too. Rangers are largely fixed by the Class Feature Variants at least. Monks peak at "kinda ok maybe".

 

[FrogReaver]

1st level monk. The extra offense is nice, but at level 1, they have mediocre AC & HP and tend to go down pretty easily unless you min-max. Every other melee class starts at 16-18 AC and 12 hp with no more than 14s in two key stats, and can therefore get there with any race. IME it takes a pretty good player to not get his monk killed early on, more so than other classes, and you have to minmax your stats & race.

Sure, you can do like the rogue and avoid melee, but the rogue's offense bonus works at range, and yours doesn't.

heavy armor str classes start out with 16-ac (and disadvantage at stealth)
medium armor +2 dex classes start out with 16-ac (disadvantage at stealth)
medium armor +2 dex classes start out with 15ac (regular stealth)
light armor dex classes start out with 15ac (regular stealth)

*Shields add +2 AC to these

Monks actually start off with better armor than anyone as they hit 16 ac with regular stealth. Instead of using a shield they essentially TWF which is why their AC is mistaken for being low. You can't compare a character going all offense to a character that is using a shield.

Monks are good with bows and easier to switch from bow to melee combat without houserules. (Drop bow pull out 1 sword and they are ready). (Rogues drop bow and pull out 1 sword this turn, then pull out the 2nd the next turn).

Basic monk tactics. Start combat at range with a bow. After enemies are injured and fighters are engaged go in deal your high damage - hopefully finishing them off.

 

[FrogReaver]

The whole "u can do stealth" thing is like a ridiculous claim people who've never actually played D&D but read the rulebooks would make, because it's obviously not a particularly good idea in practice due to the extremely high failure chance (unless your DM is doing some softball stuff). Monks at this level are roundly inferior to Fighters. Less damage, less AC, less HP. Indeed they're inferior to most classes.

Depends on the campaign and your DM. If the DM always throws fair fights your way that you can always engage with then stealth isn't much needed. If the DM allows opportunity for advantages because you are sneaky then the result isn't nearly as clear cut as you make it out to be here.

 

[FrogReaver]

We're talking just level 1. Sorry if that was unclear.

Does it change if you are a medium armor cleric with 14 dex?

 

[Undrave]

(incidentally, I'm not arguing about the level 1 monk)

A wizard may shut down more enemies yes, but they can't provide that focused locking power a monk can. A level 5+ monk can try four times per round to lock down one foe. The mooks can be dealt by the wizard, the lieutenant by the fighter and other warriors, but that monk can shut down the big bad guy just long enough for the rest of the party to mop up most of the other foes and then BLAM focus fire the bad guy.

Then that level 5 monk is out of ki until he takes a nap, and anything you would want to stun is probably gonna succeed on its saving throws and if anything goes wrong with your allies you're stuck next to the big bad with your pathetic AC and paper thin HP. And that four times is if you didn't use your ki for anything else useful AND have your bonus action available.

In theory the monk is great, in practice it often feels like it has too little HP (especially until it gets Evasion at level 7), its best defensive feature take a long time to come online, and it runs face first into the action economy.

The Monk's ability to do martial arts as a bonus action should increase in number of attacks at later level, same with flurry of blows.

The Monk can be a cool replacement for a rogue, that's for sure, despite lacking expertise and the ability to take ten whenever they want, but it doesn't match the rogue in combat at all.

As a Monk, I never feel super comfortable in melee with anything, but if I want to keep my DPS I need to use my bonus action to attack instead of using a ki powered dodge or my Shadow Step feature. And if I get hit it usually takes a huge chunk out of my HP. But I can't stay at range either because I'm plinking with a D6 shortbow.

Really... the Monk should just GET Mobile as a free feat in the first three level instead of having to invest in it.

 

[Minigiant]

Everybody badmouthing the ranger forget

1. It is one of the three classes that get more than 2 skills from class (Bard gets 3, rogue gets 4)
2. It gets a bonus language from Favored Enemy
3. It still has martial weapons, light armor, medium armor and shields.

The ranger might not be a damage monster but it can hold it is a decent boost in party exploration and social power.

Remember, comprehend languages doesn't let you talk back in their language and tongues is a 3rd level spell.

Bonus languages are big until at least level 6.

 

[FrogReaver]

Everybody badmouthing the ranger forget

1. It is one of the three classes that get more than 2 skills from class (Bard gets 3, rogue gets 4)
2. It gets a bonus language from Favored Enemy
3. It still has martial weapons, light armor, medium armor and shields.

The ranger might not be a damage monster but it can hold it is a decent boost in party exploration and social power.

Remember, comprehend languages doesn't let you talk back in their language and tongues is a 3rd level spell.

Bonus languages are big until at least level 6.

1 extra +2 in a single skill isn't much to get excited about. 1 extra language that has a good chance of not coming up at level 1 isn't either.