I think its pretty fun to play a wizard or artificer. Especially wizards, they are amazing as control. That large a spell list is class feature enough, in my opinion. And wizard is super fun when you play for fun, instead of optimizing everything. Honestly, I really dislike sorcerer. Metamagic is neat and all, but the fact that there is a spellcasting class that can prepare so few spells just sucks for me.
The Tasha's sub classes go a long way to fix that problem. They get bunch of extra spells prepared. Never played one, though.
Neither have I. I was referring to PHB sorcerer, since I only recently got Tashas.
Honestly, I really dislike sorcerer. Metamagic is neat and all, but the fact that there is a spellcasting class that can prepare so few spells just sucks for me.
Sorcerer is pretty fun as a quick multiclass dip though -- grab a few spells and features, maybe tack on Metamagic Adept for extra options there, and away you go
I actually like sorcerers. Warlocks aren't able to prepare a massive amount of spells either, and the amount of spells that a wizard can prepare and the various spells they have access to are the exception, not the norm. A sorcerer may not be able to have as much variety, but metamagic is awesome and, (I think) mostly makes up for that.
It depends on the subclass of course, but I honestly think that sorcerers aren't bad at all.
It is a class that thematically does not fit me in the type of fantasy that dnd sells. I find it very cartoony, very anime.
Mechanically, well, it seems to me the class that has the worst subclasses. And besides, what it gives you from base is worse than what other base classes give you.
I understand that there are people who like it, and it's been in dnd for a long time (since 3.0 if I remember correctly. I think it wasn't in 2.0), but I really can't handle it. Luckily very few monks are seen in the games I play. They take me completely out of the immersion.
Thematically I freaking love the monk. I just wish they didn't suck so bad mechanically.
Are you sure you're playing the right game? Because Monks are objectively and mecahnically one of the most powerful classes there are. They lack in skill versatility and social interaction, though.
We shouldn't play the same game, no. The few times I've seen a monk in one of my games, the player gets frustrated because he's running a lvl x peasant.
Well, kidding aside. There are some monk subclasses that can make a proficient character (never top tier). The two main problems are: - Some monk subclasses are the worst in the game (Four elements, Kensei, Sun Soul). - The base monk is the most MAD class by design.
On the other hand, anything you want to do with a monk, you're going to do better with another class.
And then another thing that is not so much the fault of the Monk itself, but rather the metagame. One of the monk's greatest strengths is supposed to be mobility. But most people play the fights in a static way. That makes the monk's (or any other character's) mobility not matter. A lot of people just get to the fight, and just sit there until the end. Monsters don't move. The PCs don't move... And the Monk spends most of the fights lying on the ground xd.
It is a class that thematically does not fit me in the type of fantasy that dnd sells. I find it very cartoony, very anime.
Mechanically, well, it seems to me the class that has the worst subclasses. And besides, what it gives you from base is worse than what other base classes give you.
I understand that there are people who like it, and it's been in dnd for a long time (since 3.0 if I remember correctly. I think it wasn't in 2.0), but I really can't handle it. Luckily very few monks are seen in the games I play. They take me completely out of the immersion.
Thematically I freaking love the monk. I just wish they didn't suck so bad mechanically.
Are you sure you're playing the right game? Because Monks are objectively and mecahnically one of the most powerful classes there are. They lack in skill versatility and social interaction, though.
We shouldn't play the same game, no. The few times I've seen a monk in one of my games, the player gets frustrated because he's running a lvl x peasant.
Well, kidding aside. There are some monk subclasses that can make a proficient character (never top tier).
Mercy Monk is arguably one of the best subclasses in the game (depending on what you value). Open hand and Shadow are also top tier.
The two main problems are: - Some monk subclasses are the worst in the game (Four elements, Kensei, Sun Soul).
Neither Kensei nor Sun Soul is among the worst but yes, Four Elements compete with PHB Beast Master for worst subclass in the game. That a few subclasses are bad doesn't mean that the whole class is bad though.
- The base monk is the most MAD class by design.
Since Monks really don't need Con for anything but HP you can just take the tough feat to mitigate that. But sure, being MAD is not good for any class. With 4D6 drop the lowest I'm not sure how big of a problem this is, though.
On the other hand, anything you want to do with a monk, you're going to do better with another class.
Perhaps, but most of those classes are reliant on resources (spell slots, equipment, bardic inspiration dice) that monks just don't need.
And then another thing that is not so much the fault of the Monk itself, but rather the metagame. One of the monk's greatest strengths is supposed to be mobility. But most people play the fights in a static way. That makes the monk's (or any other character's) mobility not matter. A lot of people just get to the fight, and just sit there until the end. Monsters don't move. The PCs don't move...
That's a PEBCAK and not the fault of the Monk class itself., though. ;)
The biggest thing going against the Ranger is that people don’t want to have to worry about tracking rations, water, or torches so some of what they were designed to be good at gets wasted.
Not to mention things like favoured enemy and terrain are pretty darn situational. There are campaigns where you can get a lot of use out of them and campaigns where you just… don’t, and that second possibility can really leave a bad taste in someone’s mouth.
The same thing can be said for pretty much any class, though. High court drama campaign with little or no fighting? That Bear Totem Barbarian is gonna get bored pretty soon. A campaign with lots of fighting and no social interaction? Bards will probably have very little to do. And so on.
Those are not equivalent examples. A Bear Totem Barbarian is still going to have some combat on a regular basis.
That's just not true. Or are you saying that you would willfully derail a campaign focused on court drama and intrigue? If so, that's just being bad player.
A bard is still going to have some social interactions on a regular basis. Neither might be as common as they might be in other campaigns, but they will still turn up with a degree of regularity.
Again, you are just making things up. There are plenty of games that don't have any kind of social interaction.- Or are you saying that the people who play and enjoy those games are not allowed to do that? That they are playing DnD wrong, somehow?
That is vastly different than, say, favoured terrain. Find yourself going through a jungle when your favoured terrain is desert? Enjoy having an entire feature of your class that will not show up at all in a session, until you leave the zone you are in. Pretty clear why “never show up for long swaths of time” would feel worse than “will show up from time to time, albeit rarely.”
If you limit yourself to using your knowledge of something to only certain occassion that solely on you. There are plenty of occassions where favoured terrain could be used outside of that favoured terraoin. Sure, it requires a minimum of creativity (but isn't that basically what DnD is all about?) but there are plenty of situations where you can use it. You can impress people with your knowledge of desert animals. You can solve mysteries by figuring out that the mauled murder victim couldn't possibly have been attacked by a vampire camel since the bit radius is too small or you could uncover a spy by realizing that if they really were from the desert they claim to be they would know how to protect themslef from the sun.
This was just a few example that I thought of this instance. But sure, if you actively choose to ignore your class features then every class is going to be boring. But again, that's a user end problem. Maybe you should try thinking a bit more creatively instead of just focusing on the negative?
I want to clarify that in no case do I say that the monks are unplayable. What I am saying is that it is the worst class in the game.
It is true that there are some subclasses that can make a decent build, even a good one. But objectively, point by point, I don't think they are neck and neck with the best builds in the game.
Also, his main resource, ki, is quickly depleted. That makes the monk even more reliant on short rests than the warlock.
While I don't agree that his AC is his biggest problem, I do think it's mediocre at best. They can get up to AC 20 (without some magic item), but for that you need dex 20 wis 20, something you're usually going to get when AC 20 is no longer anything spectacular due to monster attack modifiers (not it sucks, but it's nothing to go crazy about either). Other classes get that AC without too much trouble early in their career.
You can make a decent striker, but from level 5 to 17, it is difficult to equal other martial classes in that aspect. And besides, you're going to have to spend ki for that. From level 2 to 5 it can certainly put you ahead, but again at the cost of your precious and limited ki.
His hit points are mediocre. You can alleviate that with feats or cons, but being so MAD you have little room for it. You can also use hit and run tactics but, again, you either use feats (little room for that again), or you spend your ki.
The biggest advantage of many monks is their ability to apply the stuned condition. That is very good, but again we return to the problem of ki points. Also, Cons saves are usually high on monsters. However, that's one of its best perks.
For me, the best thing about the base monk is Diamond Soul. That's a great feature without any buts. You get that at level 14 though, and that alone doesn't justify taking the monk out of the worst class slot in the game.
And, in my opinion, the worst thing about monks is that most of their subclasses are average at best. They have a lot of very, very bad subclases (among the worst subclasses in the game, we easily find 3 or 4 monk subclasses). Mercy and some others, arguably, like Open hand or Shadow, can be an exception (for me Open hand only in the first levels. And Shadow, well, very situational really. In any case, I do not consider any of these top tier, although they can make good builds). And Way of the Long Death, which I don't usually see mentioned, but seems to me to be one of the best monk subclasses (although boring). But like I say, none of these are on hand with the best subclasses in the game. In a tier 2 at best. And the base monk doesn't help to improve his position.
And to finish. Mechanically why are you going to choose a monk over other options? Thematically you may want to play one, and no one is going to argue with you. It's what you want to play, and that's fine. But mechanically? If you want to play a striker, you're going to be better with a fighter. If you want to play hit and run, your best bet is a rogue (and you're going to do a lot more damage, as well as be more useful out of combat). Defender or tank? Better a barbarian, a fighter or paladin. Support? Better a cleric, druid, bard, or even a wizard. And other roles like nova, blaster, scout, etc... Better not to mention. What role are you going to fulfill better as a Monk than with another class? What are you going to excel at that another class doesn't do better?
Honestly, and without jokes or likes and dislikes, I think objectively they are the worst class in the game without a doubt.
The party monk has an Eldritch Claw Tattoo that he activates on his first round, and he has Hunter's Mark from the Fey Touched feat, so on his third turn in combat, he gets to make 5 attacks (2 from Extra Attack + 2 from Flurry of Blows + 1 from Haste), dealing a total of 100 (5d8 + 10d6 + 5d4 + 30) average damage per round of combat if all attacks hit (he has a +11 to hit, too).
Without the Artificer, the monk would just do 56 (4d8 + 4d6 + 24) average damage per turn, about half the damage he does with the Artificer's help.
That's just a smart use of spells. But for comparison sake, the Artificer can't access haste until level 9. Full casters can do so at level 5. Granted, it's not a fair comparison because you have a half caster compared to a full caster.
There's a couple Paladins who also get Haste. Take both of their spells away, and now how do they compare?
The half caster concept is supposed to be you get all this other stuff to make up for cutting your spell progression in half. So here's a thought experiment. Make a mental note of all the half casters in the game. Now take all of their spells away. How do they compare? The Artificer is left far behind. That's my main gripe. They don't get nearly enough to justify only being a half caster.
Artificers aren't true half-casters, though. They're two-thirds or half+ casters. They get spellcasting at 1st instead of 2nd level, and a bunch of cantrips. They also get the majority of their combat power from their subclasses, rather than the base class, which makes comparing base classes an inherently flawed approach. It's also why the Alchemist lags so far behind. But two of them get a Hexblade-esque "weapon attack with casting stat" feature, which definitely alters how that comparison would go, anyway.
Plus, taking away their magic is silly to begin with. Ranger and Paladin are both built to be Fighter+. They're Fighters that also get some magic stuff to augment them. Paladin gets healing/smite/auras, Ranger gets extra damage on hit and a lot of noncombat utility. Artificers are meant to be baby wizards that can also melee. They're also built to be more support than damage, along the lines of a Bard or Cleric's party role, than the Ranger and Paladin are. Artificer isn't meant to be a frontliner the way they are. Comparing them is very much apples and oranges.
Artificers are a sort of middle ground between Rogue and Bard, more support and out-of-combat utility than raw damage. They don't directly compare to Paladin and Ranger at all because they're not meant to.
The party monk has an Eldritch Claw Tattoo that he activates on his first round, and he has Hunter's Mark from the Fey Touched feat, so on his third turn in combat, he gets to make 5 attacks (2 from Extra Attack + 2 from Flurry of Blows + 1 from Haste), dealing a total of 100 (5d8 + 10d6 + 5d4 + 30) average damage per round of combat if all attacks hit (he has a +11 to hit, too).
Without the Artificer, the monk would just do 56 (4d8 + 4d6 + 24) average damage per turn, about half the damage he does with the Artificer's help.
That's just a smart use of spells.
And what's your point? Because it's the Artificer class and its mechanics that allowed that smart combination of spells to be possible. No other class in the game can allow a single character to cast those to spells at the same time. Spell Storing Item is the only feature that makes this "smart use of spells" possible.
So, yes, it is a smart use of spells. That's only possible because of the Artificer class. Otherwise, it would take two different spellcasting PCs to make this combo possible.
But for comparison sake, the Artificer can't access haste until level 9. Full casters can do so at level 5. Granted, it's not a fair comparison because you have a half caster compared to a full caster.
Yep. Not a fair comparison. Because the Artificer is a half-caster and you're comparing it to a full caster. And even if you were to make that comparison, one character casting both haste and enlarge on one of their companions is not possible in the official rules.
So, sure, it takes them longer to get both spells, but they also get to do combos that no other class can possibly do.
There's a couple Paladins who also get Haste. Take both of their spells away, and now how do they compare? The half caster concept is supposed to be you get all this other stuff to make up for cutting your spell progression in half. So here's a thought experiment. Make a mental note of all the half casters in the game. Now take all of their spells away. How do they compare? The Artificer is left far behind. That's my main gripe. They don't get nearly enough to justify only being a half caster.
That's not a fair comparison. Artificers are more of a spell-focused class than Paladins are. They get spells earlier and get cantrips. That would be like saying Wizards suck compared to Fighters because they're completely useless while inside the range of an antimagic field while Fighters get to keep all of their features. Or like saying that Fighters suck compared to monks because when you take away a fighter's weapons and armor they're less effective in combat than monks are with no weapons or armor.
Spellcasting is a bigger part of the artificer class than it is for rangers and paladins. If you remove spellcasting from both, the artificer is going to be weaker because it makes more use of spellcasting than rangers and paladins do. That's a really stupid and fallacious argument.
And Artificers get quite a bit to make up for their half-casting. They get cantrips, spells at first level, more tools (which are campaign dependent, but still useful), infusions, and subclasses that give them more features than those of the other half-casters.
They are a “spell focused class” that get the same spell slots and spell progression, so how is it not fair?
Give the Artificer ALL of those things then compare them to other half casters but take away leveled spells for everyone. And sure, give everyone their sub class features. How do Artificers compare?
I'm gonna receive a lot of hate for this, but... Paladin. I've always found them unbearably bland. However, any counter-opinions with good reasoning will be thankfully reviewed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
I'm gonna receive a lot of hate for this, but... Paladin. I've always found them unbearably bland. However, any counter-opinions with good reasoning will be thankfully reviewed.
They're one of the most mechanically well-designed classes in the game, but I've hated basically every Paladin player I've ever shared a table with, so I'm just sorta irrationally against them. But that's a me thing, not a them thing.
I'm gonna receive a lot of hate for this, but... Paladin. I've always found them unbearably bland. However, any counter-opinions with good reasoning will be thankfully reviewed.
They're one of the most mechanically well-designed classes in the game, but I've hated basically every Paladin player I've ever shared a table with, so I'm just sorta irrationally against them. But that's a me thing, not a them thing.
I have to agree. Sort of. The paladin has nice level 20 abilities and subclasses, but they simply drop off in power after level 5 ish unless you are making a hyper optimized nova build. I think with less nova damage and more all around utility, a paladin would be perfect. But as long as you don't play into the lawful stupid stereotype, they are super fun to play.
I'm gonna receive a lot of hate for this, but... Paladin. I've always found them unbearably bland. However, any counter-opinions with good reasoning will be thankfully reviewed.
Bland in what way? I can understand not liking them, but not sure what exactly you mean here.
Hard to say religious or moral-fanatic (paladin) is bland. Surely some of "ways" of playing them sounds horrificly boring but if i must call someone bland i will call aracocra-monks xD
Paladin for me is like totally misterious cake - u take all perfect parts, put to oven and cake can be totaly , yeah, bland and withour flavour, boring zelaout with one smite'y gimmick
or
can be rockmelting team face with inspirational and philosofical background going with roleplay far away from just fanatic, focusing on playing (sorry for styreotype) typical Hero
In my limited playing 5e (only a year really...old player from the 80s/90s) I must say they've done a great job with 5e.
To the question of the post, I find Artificers to be my least favorite. Not because of any lacking of abilities but because I just do not like the class in general. I have also found a lot of mega multi class players that 'cheese' to the max tend to have some of this in their build every time. Everyone can play how they wish of course...just personal opinion.
As to Paladins I do agree the old LG Paladins were quite boring. However, now that alignment is out the door it gets more interesting.
I personally have played a Paladin of Talos to 20th level now and thoroughly enjoyed it. I only wish Storm Paladins were official so I could play in Tier 4 AL!
But I can tell you the party loves having the Paladin 30 foot circle of defenses. I thoroughly enjoy showing the might of Talos flying around on my steed wielding Black Razor.
I'm gonna receive a lot of hate for this, but... Paladin. I've always found them unbearably bland. However, any counter-opinions with good reasoning will be thankfully reviewed.
They're one of the most mechanically well-designed classes in the game, but I've hated basically every Paladin player I've ever shared a table with, so I'm just sorta irrationally against them. But that's a me thing, not a them thing.
I wouldn't say it's the best designed class, but it's certainly one of the best designed classes.
Everything that the base paladin has is relevant, and defines the class to play in a certain way. Its subclasses are usually very good mechanically, and they also have a lot of flavor. Even the worst subclasses like Glory or Watches have cool stuff and aren't crap.
However, I think most players don't play their paladin the way they should. Many players ignore oaths. Furthermore, in most games, upon reaching 3rd level, the paladin's player does not solemnly swear his oaths. Why do you play a paladin then? Thematically the heart of the class is the oaths. If you don't play with them, if they don't appear constantly in the game, what you are playing is a fighter with divine magic.
I don't know if your hatred of most paladin players comes from there. But it certainly disgusts me that people ignore their paladin's oaths. Or that those oaths don't even exist in the game. What paladin is that?
The problems normally start when their faith is not well outlined. The player does not know their own faith so how can they play an character that should live by it and thus promote it?
The paladin normally does not come from the whole of the faith but from a small orthodox sect of it. The "true" believers. They tend to protect the followers of their faith on the frontier and boarder lands or actively engage in a holy war against another faith seeking out their followers and eliminating their holy sites and leaders.(you leave the followers alive to convert later.)
You often sent into the worst areas because the standard cleric can not survive or handle it alone. (this is why I do not like the 5e combat cleric, they step on the toes of the paladin.)
The problems normally start when their faith is not well outlined. The player does not know their own faith so how can they play an character that should live by it and thus promote it?
The paladin normally does not come from the whole of the faith but from a small orthodox sect of it. The "true" believers. They tend to protect the followers of their faith on the frontier and boarder lands or actively engage in a holy war against another faith seeking out their followers and eliminating their holy sites and leaders.(you leave the followers alive to convert later.)
You often sent into the worst areas because the standard cleric can not survive or handle it alone. (this is why I do not like the 5e combat cleric, they step on the toes of the paladin.)
None of that applies in 5e. Paladins are not driven by faith or deities, but by their conviction and belief in specific ideals, i.e. devotion, redemption, etc. They aren't overtly religious, they just are so convinced of the worth of their ideology that they tap into something magical. Everything you're talking about is older edition stuff. Modern paladins are essentially powered by moral confidence, not gods.
The party monk has an Eldritch Claw Tattoo that he activates on his first round, and he has Hunter's Mark from the Fey Touched feat, so on his third turn in combat, he gets to make 5 attacks (2 from Extra Attack + 2 from Flurry of Blows + 1 from Haste), dealing a total of 100 (5d8 + 10d6 + 5d4 + 30) average damage per round of combat if all attacks hit (he has a +11 to hit, too).
Without the Artificer, the monk would just do 56 (4d8 + 4d6 + 24) average damage per turn, about half the damage he does with the Artificer's help.
That's just a smart use of spells.
And what's your point? Because it's the Artificer class and its mechanics that allowed that smart combination of spells to be possible. No other class in the game can allow a single character to cast those to spells at the same time. Spell Storing Item is the only feature that makes this "smart use of spells" possible.
So, yes, it is a smart use of spells. That's only possible because of the Artificer class. Otherwise, it would take two different spellcasting PCs to make this combo possible.
But for comparison sake, the Artificer can't access haste until level 9. Full casters can do so at level 5. Granted, it's not a fair comparison because you have a half caster compared to a full caster.
Yep. Not a fair comparison. Because the Artificer is a half-caster and you're comparing it to a full caster. And even if you were to make that comparison, one character casting both haste and enlarge on one of their companions is not possible in the official rules.
So, sure, it takes them longer to get both spells, but they also get to do combos that no other class can possibly do.
There's a couple Paladins who also get Haste. Take both of their spells away, and now how do they compare? The half caster concept is supposed to be you get all this other stuff to make up for cutting your spell progression in half. So here's a thought experiment. Make a mental note of all the half casters in the game. Now take all of their spells away. How do they compare? The Artificer is left far behind. That's my main gripe. They don't get nearly enough to justify only being a half caster.
That's not a fair comparison. Artificers are more of a spell-focused class than Paladins are. They get spells earlier and get cantrips. That would be like saying Wizards suck compared to Fighters because they're completely useless while inside the range of an antimagic field while Fighters get to keep all of their features. Or like saying that Fighters suck compared to monks because when you take away a fighter's weapons and armor they're less effective in combat than monks are with no weapons or armor.
Spellcasting is a bigger part of the artificer class than it is for rangers and paladins. If you remove spellcasting from both, the artificer is going to be weaker because it makes more use of spellcasting than rangers and paladins do. That's a really stupid and fallacious argument.
And Artificers get quite a bit to make up for their half-casting. They get cantrips, spells at first level, more tools (which are campaign dependent, but still useful), infusions, and subclasses that give them more features than those of the other half-casters.
They are a “spell focused class” that get the same spell slots and spell progression, so how is it not fair?
Because the Artificer gets cantrips and infusions instead of martial prowess. It's not a fair comparison just like it wouldn't be fair to compare the effectiveness of a Wizard and a Battlemaster Fighter while they're both in an antimagic field. (Yes, the power difference wouldn't be as drastic as this scenario, but it is a valid comparison to show the unfairness of the scenario you're proposing.)
Give the Artificer ALL of those things then compare them to other half casters but take away leveled spells for everyone. And sure, give everyone their sub class features. How do Artificers compare?
Stop trying to compare the classes once you're removed features from them. A more fair comparison would be the classes at the height of their powers and their effectiveness. And not just pure damage output, because as I noted before, a lot of the artificer's effectiveness in combat comes from buffing their allies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The problems normally start when their faith is not well outlined. The player does not know their own faith so how can they play an character that should live by it and thus promote it?
The paladin normally does not come from the whole of the faith but from a small orthodox sect of it. The "true" believers. They tend to protect the followers of their faith on the frontier and boarder lands or actively engage in a holy war against another faith seeking out their followers and eliminating their holy sites and leaders.(you leave the followers alive to convert later.)
You often sent into the worst areas because the standard cleric can not survive or handle it alone. (this is why I do not like the 5e combat cleric, they step on the toes of the paladin.)
None of that applies in 5e. Paladins are not driven by faith or deities, but by their conviction and belief in specific ideals, i.e. devotion, redemption, etc. They aren't overtly religious, they just are so convinced of the worth of their ideology that they tap into something magical. Everything you're talking about is older edition stuff. Modern paladins are essentially powered by moral confidence, not gods.
Modern D&D Requires Modern Paladins <3
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Neither have I. I was referring to PHB sorcerer, since I only recently got Tashas.
N/A
I actually like sorcerers. Warlocks aren't able to prepare a massive amount of spells either, and the amount of spells that a wizard can prepare and the various spells they have access to are the exception, not the norm. A sorcerer may not be able to have as much variety, but metamagic is awesome and, (I think) mostly makes up for that.
It depends on the subclass of course, but I honestly think that sorcerers aren't bad at all.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.We shouldn't play the same game, no. The few times I've seen a monk in one of my games, the player gets frustrated because he's running a lvl x peasant.
Well, kidding aside. There are some monk subclasses that can make a proficient character (never top tier). The two main problems are:
- Some monk subclasses are the worst in the game (Four elements, Kensei, Sun Soul).
- The base monk is the most MAD class by design.
On the other hand, anything you want to do with a monk, you're going to do better with another class.
And then another thing that is not so much the fault of the Monk itself, but rather the metagame. One of the monk's greatest strengths is supposed to be mobility. But most people play the fights in a static way. That makes the monk's (or any other character's) mobility not matter. A lot of people just get to the fight, and just sit there until the end. Monsters don't move. The PCs don't move...
And the Monk spends most of the fights lying on the ground xd.
Mercy Monk is arguably one of the best subclasses in the game (depending on what you value). Open hand and Shadow are also top tier.
Neither Kensei nor Sun Soul is among the worst but yes, Four Elements compete with PHB Beast Master for worst subclass in the game. That a few subclasses are bad doesn't mean that the whole class is bad though.
Since Monks really don't need Con for anything but HP you can just take the tough feat to mitigate that. But sure, being MAD is not good for any class. With 4D6 drop the lowest I'm not sure how big of a problem this is, though.
Perhaps, but most of those classes are reliant on resources (spell slots, equipment, bardic inspiration dice) that monks just don't need.
That's a PEBCAK and not the fault of the Monk class itself., though. ;)
That's just not true. Or are you saying that you would willfully derail a campaign focused on court drama and intrigue? If so, that's just being bad player.
Again, you are just making things up. There are plenty of games that don't have any kind of social interaction.- Or are you saying that the people who play and enjoy those games are not allowed to do that? That they are playing DnD wrong, somehow?
If you limit yourself to using your knowledge of something to only certain occassion that solely on you. There are plenty of occassions where favoured terrain could be used outside of that favoured terraoin. Sure, it requires a minimum of creativity (but isn't that basically what DnD is all about?) but there are plenty of situations where you can use it. You can impress people with your knowledge of desert animals. You can solve mysteries by figuring out that the mauled murder victim couldn't possibly have been attacked by a vampire camel since the bit radius is too small or you could uncover a spy by realizing that if they really were from the desert they claim to be they would know how to protect themslef from the sun.
This was just a few example that I thought of this instance. But sure, if you actively choose to ignore your class features then every class is going to be boring. But again, that's a user end problem. Maybe you should try thinking a bit more creatively instead of just focusing on the negative?
I want to clarify that in no case do I say that the monks are unplayable. What I am saying is that it is the worst class in the game.
It is true that there are some subclasses that can make a decent build, even a good one. But objectively, point by point, I don't think they are neck and neck with the best builds in the game.
Also, his main resource, ki, is quickly depleted. That makes the monk even more reliant on short rests than the warlock.
While I don't agree that his AC is his biggest problem, I do think it's mediocre at best. They can get up to AC 20 (without some magic item), but for that you need dex 20 wis 20, something you're usually going to get when AC 20 is no longer anything spectacular due to monster attack modifiers (not it sucks, but it's nothing to go crazy about either). Other classes get that AC without too much trouble early in their career.
You can make a decent striker, but from level 5 to 17, it is difficult to equal other martial classes in that aspect. And besides, you're going to have to spend ki for that. From level 2 to 5 it can certainly put you ahead, but again at the cost of your precious and limited ki.
His hit points are mediocre. You can alleviate that with feats or cons, but being so MAD you have little room for it. You can also use hit and run tactics but, again, you either use feats (little room for that again), or you spend your ki.
The biggest advantage of many monks is their ability to apply the stuned condition. That is very good, but again we return to the problem of ki points. Also, Cons saves are usually high on monsters. However, that's one of its best perks.
For me, the best thing about the base monk is Diamond Soul. That's a great feature without any buts. You get that at level 14 though, and that alone doesn't justify taking the monk out of the worst class slot in the game.
And, in my opinion, the worst thing about monks is that most of their subclasses are average at best. They have a lot of very, very bad subclases (among the worst subclasses in the game, we easily find 3 or 4 monk subclasses). Mercy and some others, arguably, like Open hand or Shadow, can be an exception (for me Open hand only in the first levels. And Shadow, well, very situational really. In any case, I do not consider any of these top tier, although they can make good builds). And Way of the Long Death, which I don't usually see mentioned, but seems to me to be one of the best monk subclasses (although boring). But like I say, none of these are on hand with the best subclasses in the game. In a tier 2 at best. And the base monk doesn't help to improve his position.
And to finish. Mechanically why are you going to choose a monk over other options? Thematically you may want to play one, and no one is going to argue with you. It's what you want to play, and that's fine. But mechanically? If you want to play a striker, you're going to be better with a fighter. If you want to play hit and run, your best bet is a rogue (and you're going to do a lot more damage, as well as be more useful out of combat). Defender or tank? Better a barbarian, a fighter or paladin. Support? Better a cleric, druid, bard, or even a wizard. And other roles like nova, blaster, scout, etc... Better not to mention. What role are you going to fulfill better as a Monk than with another class? What are you going to excel at that another class doesn't do better?
Honestly, and without jokes or likes and dislikes, I think objectively they are the worst class in the game without a doubt.
Artificers aren't true half-casters, though. They're two-thirds or half+ casters. They get spellcasting at 1st instead of 2nd level, and a bunch of cantrips. They also get the majority of their combat power from their subclasses, rather than the base class, which makes comparing base classes an inherently flawed approach. It's also why the Alchemist lags so far behind. But two of them get a Hexblade-esque "weapon attack with casting stat" feature, which definitely alters how that comparison would go, anyway.
Plus, taking away their magic is silly to begin with. Ranger and Paladin are both built to be Fighter+. They're Fighters that also get some magic stuff to augment them. Paladin gets healing/smite/auras, Ranger gets extra damage on hit and a lot of noncombat utility. Artificers are meant to be baby wizards that can also melee. They're also built to be more support than damage, along the lines of a Bard or Cleric's party role, than the Ranger and Paladin are. Artificer isn't meant to be a frontliner the way they are. Comparing them is very much apples and oranges.
Artificers are a sort of middle ground between Rogue and Bard, more support and out-of-combat utility than raw damage. They don't directly compare to Paladin and Ranger at all because they're not meant to.
They are a “spell focused class” that get the same spell slots and spell progression, so how is it not fair?
Give the Artificer ALL of those things then compare them to other half casters but take away leveled spells for everyone. And sure, give everyone their sub class features. How do Artificers compare?
I'm gonna receive a lot of hate for this, but... Paladin. I've always found them unbearably bland. However, any counter-opinions with good reasoning will be thankfully reviewed.
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
They're one of the most mechanically well-designed classes in the game, but I've hated basically every Paladin player I've ever shared a table with, so I'm just sorta irrationally against them. But that's a me thing, not a them thing.
I have to agree. Sort of. The paladin has nice level 20 abilities and subclasses, but they simply drop off in power after level 5 ish unless you are making a hyper optimized nova build. I think with less nova damage and more all around utility, a paladin would be perfect. But as long as you don't play into the lawful stupid stereotype, they are super fun to play.
N/A
Bland in what way? I can understand not liking them, but not sure what exactly you mean here.
Hard to say religious or moral-fanatic (paladin) is bland. Surely some of "ways" of playing them sounds horrificly boring but if i must call someone bland i will call aracocra-monks xD
Paladin for me is like totally misterious cake - u take all perfect parts, put to oven and cake can be totaly , yeah, bland and withour flavour, boring zelaout with one smite'y gimmick
or
can be rockmelting team face with inspirational and philosofical background going with roleplay far away from just fanatic, focusing on playing (sorry for styreotype) typical Hero
In my limited playing 5e (only a year really...old player from the 80s/90s) I must say they've done a great job with 5e.
To the question of the post, I find Artificers to be my least favorite. Not because of any lacking of abilities but because I just do not like the class in general. I have also found a lot of mega multi class players that 'cheese' to the max tend to have some of this in their build every time. Everyone can play how they wish of course...just personal opinion.
As to Paladins I do agree the old LG Paladins were quite boring. However, now that alignment is out the door it gets more interesting.
I personally have played a Paladin of Talos to 20th level now and thoroughly enjoyed it. I only wish Storm Paladins were official so I could play in Tier 4 AL!
But I can tell you the party loves having the Paladin 30 foot circle of defenses. I thoroughly enjoy showing the might of Talos flying around on my steed wielding Black Razor.
I wouldn't say it's the best designed class, but it's certainly one of the best designed classes.
Everything that the base paladin has is relevant, and defines the class to play in a certain way. Its subclasses are usually very good mechanically, and they also have a lot of flavor. Even the worst subclasses like Glory or Watches have cool stuff and aren't crap.
However, I think most players don't play their paladin the way they should. Many players ignore oaths. Furthermore, in most games, upon reaching 3rd level, the paladin's player does not solemnly swear his oaths. Why do you play a paladin then? Thematically the heart of the class is the oaths. If you don't play with them, if they don't appear constantly in the game, what you are playing is a fighter with divine magic.
I don't know if your hatred of most paladin players comes from there. But it certainly disgusts me that people ignore their paladin's oaths. Or that those oaths don't even exist in the game. What paladin is that?
The paladins best feature is how you play them.
They are warriors of their faith.
The problems normally start when their faith is not well outlined. The player does not know their own faith so how can they play an character that should live by it and thus promote it?
The paladin normally does not come from the whole of the faith but from a small orthodox sect of it. The "true" believers. They tend to protect the followers of their faith on the frontier and boarder lands or actively engage in a holy war against another faith seeking out their followers and eliminating their holy sites and leaders.(you leave the followers alive to convert later.)
You often sent into the worst areas because the standard cleric can not survive or handle it alone. (this is why I do not like the 5e combat cleric, they step on the toes of the paladin.)
None of that applies in 5e. Paladins are not driven by faith or deities, but by their conviction and belief in specific ideals, i.e. devotion, redemption, etc. They aren't overtly religious, they just are so convinced of the worth of their ideology that they tap into something magical. Everything you're talking about is older edition stuff. Modern paladins are essentially powered by moral confidence, not gods.
Because the Artificer gets cantrips and infusions instead of martial prowess. It's not a fair comparison just like it wouldn't be fair to compare the effectiveness of a Wizard and a Battlemaster Fighter while they're both in an antimagic field. (Yes, the power difference wouldn't be as drastic as this scenario, but it is a valid comparison to show the unfairness of the scenario you're proposing.)
Stop trying to compare the classes once you're removed features from them. A more fair comparison would be the classes at the height of their powers and their effectiveness. And not just pure damage output, because as I noted before, a lot of the artificer's effectiveness in combat comes from buffing their allies.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Not surprised that monk is the least favorite of most...its the most in need of changes now that ranger got so much from Tashas
Modern D&D Requires Modern Paladins <3