D&D 5E Worst Classes Level 1.

[Undrave]

In many of my 5e campaigns, 1st level characters don't have 75gp...

A Fighter's starting equipment includes the option to get Chainmail and a Shield. You can literally have 18 AC and up to 13 HP at first level as a Fighter. And you get Second Wind AND you can get the Defense Fighting Style to boost that up to a whopping 19! 17 without a shield if you want to grab a heavier weapon.

Monks also a lot better with higher rolled stats. I've get to see default array used IRL.

My rolled stat monk has ridiculously good stats, and I have 18 in both DEX and WIS. I still feel like I get hit a lot and for a lot of damage and I don't do a lot while in battle... It doesn't help that the rest of the team is a Paladin, a Warlock and a Barbarian so my major contribution is being the guy who can stealth without using an Invisibility spell, the ability to climb walls well (but the Warlock has a flying broom...) and that I know the Underdark in that particular area of the world becaue of my background. I DID put my ability to cast Silence to good use when an allied NPC spellcaster got mind controlled by an Aboleth! That was neat.

Also, in defense of that monk, I'm garbage at using illusions cleverly so that's a way to contribute I'm not super good at.

 

[Undrave]

Yeah, Sorcerers I find have more options than Warlocks. Shadow Magic and Divine Soul are my two favorite for different reasons and the extra cantrip does help a bunch for versatility. Wizard makes up for it a bit with Arcane Recovery for an extra slot, and of course Warlocks get their slot back on a short rest as well.

Divine Soul can get Guidance from the Cleric list right? So that would add a lot of potential for all sorts of out of combats situations.

 

[Zardnaar]

Divine Soul can get Guidance from the Cleric list right? So that would add a lot of potential for all sorts of out of combats situations.

Yeah the cleric is often better skill monkey than the rogue due to that spell. It's basically expertise in everything at low levels.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think every fighting class loses versus fighter at level 1 if you just consider fighting capability. There is nothing compared to fighting style and second wind at level 1. Even lay on hands from the paladin barely makes it up.
On the other hand, a monk, someone who does not carry weapons or armor might be in a great position to wander around in an enemy encampment pretending to be just a poor beggar at the wrong place. He is also a capable scout, since they are aware of their surroundings and don´t give away too much noise. And if you are caught sleeping, you are still ready to fight.
At level 1 a lot of your character is your race and background anyway and you only spend a fraction of your career at that level... so being slightly less durable is not a big problem. AC 15 which you can easily achieve is not bad at all.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ruin, too be fair, you have never liked Monks in almost any edition. Not 1e, 3e, not 5e...not sure how you felt about 4e monks. The position you have advocated previously was:
“Player’s that play Monks do not mind being mechanically inferior”.

Uhhhhh, buddy, not sure who you're confusing me with, but it's not me. 1E Monks were pretty cool. Nor have I ever asserted that position - it's not a position I would assert. I don't believe most players are mechanically competent enough to make an informed decision like that (the booing may commence now). You've confused me with someone with stronger opinions on Monks generally.

"Opportunities" for Stealth don't make Stealth good. As I said, the problem is, unless like 3+ PCs have it, it's a big risk and doesn't get you a whole lot. Some DMs are super-softball on it though, and I admit that at those particular tables, it is pretty great to have a character with a good Stealth check - but that's basically any DEX character, regardless of class, because at those sort of tables they will definitely take Stealth.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is truth. Even a level 20 character with expertise and +5 attribute can contribute less to a roll than the almighty D20.

D&D is very lolrandom.

Yes - and the one downside to Bounded Accuracy, especially combined with no Take 10 or Take 20 options is that it really super-emphasizes this. Having played D&D a lot since lockdown (suddenly three friends were willing/able to DM regularly, and I was keen to play instead of DM), I'm seeing this with newfound clarity.

It's certainly the thing I like least about 5E and probably worth it's own thread because honestly I don't see myself DMing D&D any time soon because I dislike it sufficiently. As a player I'll play almost anything that's fun (not Castle Falkenstein, sorry Mike), but wow it is really not at all on any level a good mechanic unless "lolrandum!!!!" is totally your bag. "lol the Barbarian got a 19 on his Religion check and the Cleric totalled 8 again lol". The best you can do is minimize rolling, but I can see from other DMs that they don't find that easy, and 5E doesn't really encourage it as clearly as it could. It could have used a default take 10 rule, instead of making it a thing Rogues could do with a few skills (and Eloquence Bards).

 

[Flamestrike]

Yes - and the one downside to Bounded Accuracy, especially combined with no Take 10 or Take 20 options is that it really super-emphasizes this. Having played D&D a lot since lockdown (suddenly three friends were willing/able to DM regularly, and I was keen to play instead of DM), I'm seeing this with newfound clarity.

It's certainly the thing I like least about 5E and probably worth it's own thread because honestly I don't see myself DMing D&D any time soon because I dislike it sufficiently. As a player I'll play almost anything that's fun (not Castle Falkenstein, sorry Mike), but wow it is really not at all on any level a good mechanic unless "lolrandum!!!!" is totally your bag. "lol the Barbarian got a 19 on his Religion check and the Cleric totalled 8 again lol". The best you can do is minimize rolling, but I can see from other DMs that they don't find that easy, and 5E doesn't really encourage it as clearly as it could. It could have used a default take 10 rule, instead of making it a thing Rogues could do with a few skills (and Eloquence Bards).

Or the DM doesnt let the Barbarian roll that Religion check in the first place.

Thokk the barbarian from the Outlands of Hyboria doesnt get a check to know the inner workings of the Church of Torm. Egbert the Wise, Acoloyte of the Seven Heavens, gets a check.

It's a judgement call depending on player background, skills and class. I dont always allow checks for some PCs to do some tasks, and I certainly dont allow all PCs to make a check. The PC with the highest bonus can attempt the check (or alternatively the PCs can nominate one of their members to do so).

If he or she doesnt know/ cant do the task, and he's the best in the party at that task, no-one else can do it either.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Or the DM doesnt let the Barbarian roll that Religion check in the first place.

Thokk the barbarian from the Outlands of Hyboria doesnt get a check to know the inner workings of the Church of Torm. Egbert the Wise, Acoloyte of the Seven Heavens, gets a check.

It's a judgement call depending on player background, skills and class. I dont always allow checks for some PCs to do some tasks, and I certainly dont allow all PCs to make a check. The PC with the highest bonus can attempt the check (or alternatively the PCs can nominate one of their members to do so).

If he or she doesnt know/ cant do the task, and he's the best in the party at that task, no-one else can do it either.

That's fine, but that's not the rules. The rules are pretty explicit that if you can possibly make a Religion check to find something out, you can make a flat WIS check to find out the same thing. The idea that having Proficiency in a Skill grants you something beyond the Proficiency Bonus is not RAW, it's a perfectly sensible house-rules approach. Your "only the highest can check" is also a particularly extreme house-rule, and I doubt you follow it mindlessly because it can lead into nonsensical waters.

 

[Flamestrike]

That's fine, but that's not the rules.

Yes it is the rules:

An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The GM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

You only get a check for a task if the DM rules there is a chance for your PC to do the task. You dont get an Athletics check to jump to the moon, or a Persuasion check to convince the King to hand you over his Kingdom.

The RAW is the DM determines when a check is allowed, who by, and what the DC is. The player doesnt, the DM does.

I'm sorry, but Thokk the Outlander Barbarian doesnt know the inner workings of the Abjuration school of magic (Arcana) or the secret rites of the Church of Torm (Religion) or similar without some pretty heavy justification in game (background, class, skills or elsewhere).

Conversely if Thokk the Barbarian cant move a boulder from the entrance of the Dungeon with his 18 Strength and an Athletics check, then Melegaunt the Strength 8 Wizard certainly cant either. Melegaunt would be better off helping Thokk (giving Thokk advantage on his skill check to move the boulder).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes it is the rules:

An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The GM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

You only get a check for a task if the DM rules there is a chance for your PC to do the task. You dont get an Athletics check to jump to the moon, or a Persuasion check to convince the King to hand you over his Kingdom.

The RAW is the DM determines when a check is allowed, who by, and what the DC is. The player doesnt, the DM does.

I'm sorry, but Thokk the Outlander Barbarian doesnt know the inner workings of the Abjuration school of magic (Arcana) or the secret rites of the Church of Torm (Religion) or similar without some pretty heavy justification in game (background, class, skills or elsewhere).

Conversely if Thokk the Barbarian cant move a boulder from the entrance of the Dungeon with his 18 Strength and an Athletics check, then Melegaunt the Strength 8 Wizard certainly cant either. Melegaunt would be better off helping Thokk (giving Thokk advantage on his skill check to move the boulder).

If you're not going to concede that many people don't read the same passage as meaning that, and going to use explicitly false examples like "leap to the moon" (leaping is explicitly covered in 5E), then I don't feel like you're interested in discussing this is good faith, mate. If you think those people do understand it their way, but believe they are wrong to do so and are willing to limit yourself to real examples, then it's worth discussing.

The key issue you're glossing over too is "your PC" vs. "a PC". It's not that "your PC" can't convince the King to hand over his kingdom. That's wrong. It's that no PC can convince him. Thus you don't allow anyone a check. It's not that you say "Okay you, Bard, might convince him, so roll, but Throknar cannot roll". Not RAW. The whole "deciding which PCs can and cannot roll" thing is absolutely house rules and not a typical reading of that passage. I daresay Jeremy Crawford would agree with me here. Crawford would certainly point out your "only highest rolls" thing is house-rules of a fairly serious kind.