D&D 5E Worst Classes Level 1.

[fearsomepirate]

AC 16 with point buy is as good as a Fighter with chainmail and a greatsword. Its perfctly acceptable at 1st level.

And, as I said in my post, you have to min-max your stats & race to get there...unlike the other melee classes, where you can choose just about any race you want to start 11 HP and 16 AC. Limitations like that are a disadvantage all on their own.

Min stats for a fighter to have 16 AC and 11 HP:

13 STR, 12 CON
race options: anything you want

Min stats for a monk to have 16 AC and 11 HP

16 DEX, 16 CON, 16 WIS
race options: human

Its often harder getting sneak attack in at range than in melee

Landing a ranged shot with a -2 penalty might be hard, but using Martial Arts at long range is against the rules. Advantage: rogue.

 

[Hohige]

If you hit with it. You have advantage of course.

Advantage and favored by the gods that add +2d4 attack roll. It's insane 6d10 damage.

 

[Flamestrike]

Advantage and favored by the gods that add +2d4 attack roll. It's insane 6d10 damage.

At 1st level its also pointless.

 

[fearsomepirate]

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

A dex fighter would be just the same, apart from getting AC 16 for 25 gp less.

He would either have an ac less or disadvantage on stealth.

Yes, but at level 1 the monk is only equal to the fighter, who does it with much more survivability,

TWF fighter might be a sub par choice at higher level, but that's irrelevant if you are only considering 1st level.

Well, no hardly no one goes TWF because it falls behind the others.

 

[Zardnaar]

Takes a while for fighter to fall behind twf and even then it's feat dependent.

By a while often around level 11.

Games often don't go that long.

It's not so much comparing monk to fighter, second best at something is still better than 10 other classes.

 

[Helldritch]

I guess it depends on what makes a character interesting to you. I've found all classes can be fun at Level 1 really, it just depends on what you want to focus on. Of course depending skill selection, background choice, and were you put your typical ability scores, I have found (for the most part)

Barbarian -- Good combat, decent exploration, poor social (2,1,0)
Bard -- Decent combat, decent exploration, good social (1,1,2)
Cleric -- Decent combat, poor exploration, decent social (1,0,1)
Druid -- Decent combat, good exploration, decent social (1,2,1)
Fighter -- Good combat, decent exploration, poor social (2,1,0)
Monk -- Decent combat, decent exploration, decent social (1,1,1)
Paladin -- Good combat, poor exploration, decent social (2,0,1)
Ranger -- Good combat, good exploration, poor social (2,2,0)
Rogue -- Good combat, good exploration, good social (focus is usually in one and the others are decent) (2,1,1 in some combination)
Sorcerer -- Decent combat, poor exploration, good social (1,0,2)
Warlock -- Decent combat, poor exploration, good social (1,0,2)
Wizard -- Decent combat, decent exploration, decent social (versatile spell choice allows focus) (2,1,1)

So, I have found Clerics tend to be the most one-dimensional at level 1, focusing on one of the three pillars.
For myself, Druids, Rangers, Rogues, and Wizards tend to be the most enjoyable.

But, it will vary according to your desires and exactly how you build your PC. I think it is only really disappointing if you want to be good at one aspect, but failed to build for it.

0 on exploration? Minimum one. Divination, augury and he can always question a servant of his god about some questions he has. Otherwise, I do agree with you.

 

[FrogReaver]

Takes a while for fighter to fall behind twf and even then it's feat dependent.

By a while often around level 11.

Games often don't go that long.

It's not so much comparing monk to fighter, second best at something is still better than 10 other classes.

Level 11 without feats. Level 6-8 with feats.

 

[DND_Reborn]

0 on exploration? Minimum one. Divination, augury and he can always question a servant of his god about some questions he has. Otherwise, I do agree with you.

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

 

[FrogReaver]

Sorcerer level 1 is pretty bad except divine soul.

Sleep + Inflict Wounds is insane. Automatic critical inflict wounds.
It's 6d10 at level 1.

IMO not a good combo. There's no need to do 6d10 damage on a creature you just put to sleep with less than 5d8 hp. In fact if it's the only creature and you just put it to sleep... then the chances it stayed asleep till your next turn are pretty slim as your allies are going to hit it themselves.

I'm trying to think of a general use case where that combo would make sense and I can't think of any.