D&D 5E Worst Classes Level 1.

[Mistwell]

actually, at lvl 1, they get an extra attack with martial arts (other classes get it at lvl 5) and unarmored defense gives you pretty good AC without the drawbacks of wearing armor

btw I have a tiefling monk and he is one of the highest damaging characters in our party (and we have clerics, paladins, and wizards to name a few)

Also, if you get the way of the astral self and lvl 3, you basically get flurry of blows for 10 mins for just 1 ki point (not gonna lie, kinda OP) and with way of the cobalt soul, you can manipulate your enemies and get to know their stats and intentions.

idk why I'm ranting I'm just think you are underestimating monks

I mean, you're replying to a comment from 2 years ago, when one of the options you mentioned didn't even exist.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

It's what I was saying - doing awesome damage once is much more interesting than doing slightly better damage on each attack.

On this we couldn't disagree more. Consistency is the ultimate sexy for me. It's why I cry about the removal of damage on a miss from the playtest.

 

[Rabulias]

Obviously the Dread Thread Necromancer is the best 1st level class.

 

[ECMO3]

I don't get all the Ranger votes. Ranger at 1st level has favored foe (unless you decided not to get it) and 3 class skill proficiencies.

That puts Rangers near the top in both combat and non-combat at 1st level level IME. They are not the best (Wizards and Clerics are of course), but they are probably 3rd best after those two IMO. When 2nd level comes along I think Rogues (cunning action), Fighters (action surge) get closer to Ranger, despite the spells he gets, but I think Ranger is well ahead of those classes at 1st level IME.

I also don't understand the down votes for sorcerer, although in their defense I have not played one at 1st level.

 

[ECMO3]

Show me. Remember, they don't get Ki until level 2. From lookng at it, they can do exactly what any other PC proficient with short swords can do.

They do get martial arts which gives them a bonus action attack with their ability bonus.

They can do more than any non-fighter/non-human PC with short swords because they get their strength or dex bonus to both their main attack and a bonus attack:

Assuming a 16 Dex/Strength:

Monk: 1d8+1d4+6 =13 average

Short Sword Man: 2d6+3 = 10 average

Greatsword Man=2d6+3= 10 average (but still has a bonus action)

To equal the monk at 1st level you either need a feat or specifically fighter with 2 weapon fighting style (and that only equals it, it does not beat it). If we start looking at humans and customs with feats, a Monk can get unarmed fighting style which boosts his unarmed strike to 1d8.

 

[Mistwell]

They do get martial arts which gives them a bonus action attack with their ability bonus.

They can do more than any non-fighter/non-human PC with short swords because they get their strength or dex bonus to both their main attack and a bonus attack:

Assuming a 16 Dex/Strength:

Monk: 1d8+1d4+6 =13 average

Short Sword Man: 2d6+3 = 10 average

Greatsword Man=2d6+3= 10 average (but still has a bonus action)

To equal the monk at 1st level you either need a feat or specifically fighter with 2 weapon fighting style (and that only equals it, it does not beat it). If we start looking at humans and customs with feats, a Monk can get unarmed fighting style which boosts his unarmed strike to 1d8.

Seriously, we're doing this two years later after I just pointed out it was necro'ed from two years ago?

Folks, when I first logged onto EnWorld I was a Joyous Young Meatball. Now, decades later, I am a Crusty OId Meatwad. I might sometimes have the time and desire to engage in a conversation from years ago...but not today.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I don't get all the Ranger votes. Ranger at 1st level has favored foe (unless you decided not to get it) and 3 class skill proficiencies.

Because the thread is from July 2020, before Tasha's was published in November. It was Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy, not Favored Foe or Deft Explorer. It's PHB ranger, and PHB level 1 ranger gets virtually nothing except equipment draw.

I also don't understand the down votes for sorcerer, although in their defense I have not played one at 1st level.

The Sorcerer problem at level 1 is the same problem the class always has: "Spells known: 2" and the spell list being a strict subset of Wizard.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The Sorcerer problem at level 1 is the same problem the class always has: "Spells known: 2" and the spell list being a strict subset of Wizard.

A dragon sorcerer holds up fine enough.
AC 13+dex, decent hp/con, decent cha for social skills and a few cantrips and even 2 spells to up the ante. Even if you only have burning hands and shield, you will do well enough.
Most other subclasses of course start quite a bit behind.

 

[NotAYakk]

A dragon sorcerer holds up fine enough.
AC 13+dex, decent hp/con, decent cha for social skills and a few cantrips and even 2 spells to up the ante. Even if you only have burning hands and shield, you will do well enough.
Most other subclasses of course start quite a bit behind.

In general, there is a 5e problem where classes that rely on subclasses for tier-defining features have issues.

Level 1/5/11/17 is, in my opinion, an important level; they open up a new tier.

Level 1 you need to get enough to differentiate you from other starting adventurers, yet also not so much that a 1 level dip is crazy good.

On the two ends of the spectrum are Fighter and a full caster:

5 competes with extra attack/3rd level spells.
11 competes with extra attack(2)/6th level spells.
17 competes with action surge(2)/9th level spells

Classes that rely on subclasses for their tier-defining stuff end up with a problem, in that balance control isn't going to be as good on subclasses. On the other hand, there are classes like the Barbarian whose main class features are hot garbage, so blaming it on subclass specific issues is maybe wrong.

With subclasses, you'll get lots of variation within each one.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In general, there is a 5e problem where classes that rely on subclasses for tier-defining features have issues.

Level 1/5/11/17 is, in my opinion, an important level; they open up a new tier.

Level 1 you need to get enough to differentiate you from other starting adventurers, yet also not so much that a 1 level dip is crazy good.

On the two ends of the spectrum are Fighter and a full caster:

5 competes with extra attack/3rd level spells.
11 competes with extra attack(2)/6th level spells.
17 competes with action surge(2)/9th level spells

Classes that rely on subclasses for their tier-defining stuff end up with a problem, in that balance control isn't going to be as good on subclasses. On the other hand, there are classes like the Barbarian whose main class features are hot garbage, so blaming it on subclass specific issues is maybe wrong.

With subclasses, you'll get lots of variation within each one.

I am sorry, I can´t follow your thought here.
The sorcerer is a full spellcaster, so no matter the subclass, they always are hitting the expected powerlevel at all tiers.

For the barbarian, tier 1 and 2 is obviously no problem because of rage and extra attack. I don´t see why you think the barbarian main features are hot garbage? Rage is good. More rage is more good. I ca nee that the offensive power at level 11 might be a bit lacking, but the barbarian usually makes that up with durability and very high hit chances that can often be converted to damage.