Least favorite class to play as: Cleric. I build an ultra strong defender of the faith, who wants to smite his foes with the burning fury of his goddess, but am stuck playing healer for a bunch of murder hobos 95% of the time. When I use a turn to do anything OTHER than heal, I am criticized for wasting slots on things not helpful to the group. I'm sorry, my Flame Strike was very helpful, it killed half the bandits in the clearing, and only slightly singed the rogue and fighter. The barbarian made his death save, and the rogue should have used evasion.
There's so much here. Let me tackle it quickly in the hopes of other people not fully derailing for six pages.
1) "That's a player problem, not a class problem." Sure. Not an uncommon one though. And regardless, it's a valid complaint, and OP never really specified anything that would invalidate it as a response to this thread.
2) Death saves isn't "slightly singed!" Also, Flame Strike on bandits? Seems excessive. Why not use Spirit Guardians, which doesn't have friendly fire and would kill bandits just as easily? Well, possibly because Flame Strike is cool and when you get it, you want to use it. Takes a while to get it. And the party members should have been fine, numerically.
3) Rogues don't use Evasion. It's automatic. Probably just forgot.
Anyway, the "mandatory healer" thing is still pervasive, even though it's not true. I hope the upcoming revisions address it in a major way. It hasn't affected me in a long time but it's definitely still a problem for lots of folks.
Least favorite class to play as: Cleric. I build an ultra strong defender of the faith, who wants to smite his foes with the burning fury of his goddess, but am stuck playing healer for a bunch of murder hobos 95% of the time. When I use a turn to do anything OTHER than heal, I am criticized for wasting slots on things not helpful to the group. I'm sorry, my Flame Strike was very helpful, it killed half the bandits in the clearing, and only slightly singed the rogue and fighter. The barbarian made his death save, and the rogue should have used evasion.
There's so much here. Let me tackle it quickly in the hopes of other people not fully derailing for six pages.
1) "That's a player problem, not a class problem." Sure. Not an uncommon one though. And regardless, it's a valid complaint, and OP never really specified anything that would invalidate it as a response to this thread.
2) Death saves isn't "slightly singed!" Also, Flame Strike on bandits? Seems excessive. Why not use Spirit Guardians, which doesn't have friendly fire and would kill bandits just as easily? Well, possibly because Flame Strike is cool and when you get it, you want to use it. Takes a while to get it. And the party members should have been fine, numerically.
3) Rogues don't use Evasion. It's automatic. Probably just forgot.
Anyway, the "mandatory healer" thing is still pervasive, even though it's not true. I hope the upcoming revisions address it in a major way. It hasn't affected me in a long time but it's definitely still a problem for lots of folks.
How would they address that any more than 5e already has? By making the cleric heal even less?
Because from where I'm standing, if the cleric still has healing in any capacity (and judging from the divine spell list, they almost certainly will), that expectation a number of people have for clerics being a healer will still be there in some form.
Which goes right back to what Appellion said: It's a player issue, not a class issue. The players themselves need to change their views on the class, as otherwise nothing short of making the cleric not heal period will really make much of a difference.
To be somewhat fair, that really is a comment more on the players, but I feel you. On the average I'm not really impressed with the spells and power thereof available to the 5e Cleric, so that doesn't help. And what's worse is the knowledge that, rather than buff the Cleric's spells or provide greater diversity, they'll simply nerf the Arcane casters even more than 5e already has.
I am constantly astonished by how many people "aren't impressed" by what is almost unanimously believed to be one of the two strongest classes in the game. Whether Wizard is first or Cleric is first gets debated a lot, but it's always one of those two.
The only thing I can imagine is having healing attached like riders to other, actually fun, spells you cast.
I actually happen to like healing spells and healing in general as a mode of play, because I like being a support character. I don't like that some see it as something clerics have to do for some reason, but it's a bit much to say that healing spells aren't fun for anyone.
Ultimately this is the issue with giving feedback for the content WoTC puts out, at least judging from this forum. They can't please everyone with their decisions, and trying to do so will only end up causing more problems than it solves.
To be somewhat fair, that really is a comment more on the players, but I feel you. On the average I'm not really impressed with the spells and power thereof available to the 5e Cleric, so that doesn't help. And what's worse is the knowledge that, rather than buff the Cleric's spells or provide greater diversity, they'll simply nerf the Arcane casters even more than 5e already has.
I am constantly astonished by how many people "aren't impressed" by what is almost unanimously believed to be one of the two strongest classes in the game. Whether Wizard is first or Cleric is first gets debated a lot, but it's always one of those two.
I think the hiccup some have is that the class's potent spells on the base level are primarily support like bless, aid, death ward, greater restoration, guidance, revivify, and so on. The cleric isn't, at the base level, shooting out fireballs, putting up busted walls of force, or (at higher levels) creating clones of themselves and wishing for whatever.
But that also points to another weird issue, which is the tendency for some players to look down on support roles, which wizards can also do quite well incidentally.
That being said, when you have stuff like guiding bolt and spirit guardians on your spell list, you do have decent offensive options too.
To be somewhat fair, that really is a comment more on the players, but I feel you. On the average I'm not really impressed with the spells and power thereof available to the 5e Cleric, so that doesn't help. And what's worse is the knowledge that, rather than buff the Cleric's spells or provide greater diversity, they'll simply nerf the Arcane casters even more than 5e already has.
I am constantly astonished by how many people "aren't impressed" by what is almost unanimously believed to be one of the two strongest classes in the game. Whether Wizard is first or Cleric is first gets debated a lot, but it's always one of those two.
It's almost certainly due to expectations set by previous editions and simple experience. 5e Wizards absolutely suck compared to every prior edition (or at least 3rd through 4th (I remember Wizard spells being awesome in 2e but that rule set was old as hell)).
To be somewhat fair, that really is a comment more on the players, but I feel you. On the average I'm not really impressed with the spells and power thereof available to the 5e Cleric, so that doesn't help. And what's worse is the knowledge that, rather than buff the Cleric's spells or provide greater diversity, they'll simply nerf the Arcane casters even more than 5e already has.
I am constantly astonished by how many people "aren't impressed" by what is almost unanimously believed to be one of the two strongest classes in the game. Whether Wizard is first or Cleric is first gets debated a lot, but it's always one of those two.
It's almost certainly due to expectations set by previous editions and simple experience. 5e Wizards absolutely suck compared to every prior edition (or at least 3rd through 4th (I remember Wizard spells being awesome in 2e but that rule set was old as hell)).
If 5e wizards suck compared to every prior edition, then it's a good thing they got nerfed, since even in 5e they're comparatively speaking still ridiculously powerful from 9th level onwards. Contingency, Wall of Force, Forcecage, Simulacrum, Maze, and other higher-level wizard spells make them really stand out from the caster crowd.
And even earlier on, the sheer number of potent combat spells like fireball and hypnotic pattern they can have in their toolbelt, in addition to utility stuff like fly, leomund's tiny hut, and so on? And a number of those utility spells can just be cast for free by spending 10 minutes?
Wall of Force is 5th level, Contingency is 6th so that's 11th. Your other spells are even higher. I also think you don't really figure in the limiting factor of Concentratiom. Still. I'm indifferent on the supposed majority as a lot of people thinking like me doesn't mean I'm right. Also, they are far from being the worst class, as I said in my own vote, that most definitely goes to Artificer. I just don't think they're anywhere near as amazing as everyone feels they are, but I also dislike pure class builds.
Wall of Force is 5th level, Contingency is 6th so that's 11th. Your other spells are even higher. I also think you don't really figure in the limiting factor of Concentratiom.
I literally said "9th level onwards" about those, meaning when the class reaches Level 9 onwards, and then mentioned 3rd level spells that also up the power curve significantly when you get access to them.
And as for concentration, that doesn't matter when the concentration spell in question can actually turn the encounter on its head.
Also it's funny you mention Artificer, because 1 level of Artificer actually adds a substantial amount to wizard builds, giving them proficiency in medium armor and shields (thus removing the need for mage armor), proficiency in thieves' tools, spells like faerie fire and support spells like healing spells and feather fall they can prepare whenever they want, and additional cantrips like guidance.
I'm not looking for a fight here so chill. I've made my commentary and I was talking about something else before you picked out one sentence from a comment and took issue with it.
I'm not looking for a fight here so chill. I've made my commentary and I was talking about something else before you picked out one sentence from a comment and took issue with it.
I actually like wizards too, so while I don't doubt they were more powerful in say 3rd edition, I also don't like to see them downplayed.
Also we both took issue with each other's statements because I wasn't intending to fight when I said that it's a good thing wizards were nerfed in 5e, given what they can still do.
To be somewhat fair, that really is a comment more on the players, but I feel you. On the average I'm not really impressed with the spells and power thereof available to the 5e Cleric, so that doesn't help. And what's worse is the knowledge that, rather than buff the Cleric's spells or provide greater diversity, they'll simply nerf the Arcane casters even more than 5e already has.
I am constantly astonished by how many people "aren't impressed" by what is almost unanimously believed to be one of the two strongest classes in the game. Whether Wizard is first or Cleric is first gets debated a lot, but it's always one of those two.
It's almost certainly due to expectations set by previous editions and simple experience. 5e Wizards absolutely suck compared to every prior edition (or at least 3rd through 4th (I remember Wizard spells being awesome in 2e but that rule set was old as hell)).
I didn't play any prior editions, but Wizards absolutely rule the roost in 5e, just total cocks of the walk. It's hard to believe them being somehow more powerful than the reality-warping demigods they are now.
To be somewhat fair, that really is a comment more on the players, but I feel you. On the average I'm not really impressed with the spells and power thereof available to the 5e Cleric, so that doesn't help. And what's worse is the knowledge that, rather than buff the Cleric's spells or provide greater diversity, they'll simply nerf the Arcane casters even more than 5e already has.
I am constantly astonished by how many people "aren't impressed" by what is almost unanimously believed to be one of the two strongest classes in the game. Whether Wizard is first or Cleric is first gets debated a lot, but it's always one of those two.
It's almost certainly due to expectations set by previous editions and simple experience. 5e Wizards absolutely suck compared to every prior edition (or at least 3rd through 4th (I remember Wizard spells being awesome in 2e but that rule set was old as hell)).
I didn't play any prior editions, but Wizards absolutely rule the roost in 5e, just total cocks of the walk. It's hard to believe them being somehow more powerful than the reality-warping demigods they are now.
I haven't played any prior editions either, but while wizards may be quite powerful, they do have really low HP, and lowish AC. So it's not like they don't have their flaws. But yeah, in 5e at least, wizards are rather powerful.
The main thing I find annoying is that some other spellcasting classes aren't able to prepare nearly as many spells, and they're often grouped along with wizards as "OP," when they're not nearly as powerful/versatile as wizards and don't need to be nerfed.
There are the odd protection spells that you'd think would be Concentration, like Mirror Image, but I'm not going to complain there. Honestly, Concentration seems pretty arbitrary. Like, why is neither Freedom of Movement or Death Ward concentration?
There are the odd protection spells that you'd think would be Concentration, like Mirror Image, but I'm not going to complain there. Honestly, Concentration seems pretty arbitrary. Like, why is neither Freedom of Movement or Death Ward concentration?
Probably a few of them are intentional, to push particular play patterns, but others I'm sure are more or less based on "can we make it a little stronger/weaker?"
A spell that's supposed to last all day probably shouldn't take concentration. But there's really no fictional explanation for it. It's just, some do and some don't. Magic hasn't made sense since 3.5's last gasp of Vancian casting. ;P
There are the odd protection spells that you'd think would be Concentration, like Mirror Image, but I'm not going to complain there. Honestly, Concentration seems pretty arbitrary. Like, why is neither Freedom of Movement or Death Ward concentration?
Concentration is primarily for balance reasons, I'm guessing.
Casting freedom of movement on 5 people won't break anything, but summoning two elementals with conjure elemental or putting haste on two people might be a bit much.
Everyone talks about how boring and bland fighter is, yet it is the least hated here.
I actually don't mind the Fighter overall. My personal opinion is that the Battle Master's maneuvers really should have been a base class feature that gave a martial equivalent to spells (and would allow D&D Beyond to handle them more elegantly as such). But beyond that, I think Fighter is fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's so much here. Let me tackle it quickly in the hopes of other people not fully derailing for six pages.
1) "That's a player problem, not a class problem." Sure. Not an uncommon one though. And regardless, it's a valid complaint, and OP never really specified anything that would invalidate it as a response to this thread.
2) Death saves isn't "slightly singed!" Also, Flame Strike on bandits? Seems excessive. Why not use Spirit Guardians, which doesn't have friendly fire and would kill bandits just as easily? Well, possibly because Flame Strike is cool and when you get it, you want to use it. Takes a while to get it. And the party members should have been fine, numerically.
3) Rogues don't use Evasion. It's automatic. Probably just forgot.
Anyway, the "mandatory healer" thing is still pervasive, even though it's not true. I hope the upcoming revisions address it in a major way. It hasn't affected me in a long time but it's definitely still a problem for lots of folks.
How would they address that any more than 5e already has? By making the cleric heal even less?
Because from where I'm standing, if the cleric still has healing in any capacity (and judging from the divine spell list, they almost certainly will), that expectation a number of people have for clerics being a healer will still be there in some form.
Which goes right back to what Appellion said: It's a player issue, not a class issue. The players themselves need to change their views on the class, as otherwise nothing short of making the cleric not heal period will really make much of a difference.
The only thing I can imagine is having healing attached like riders to other, actually fun, spells you cast.
I am constantly astonished by how many people "aren't impressed" by what is almost unanimously believed to be one of the two strongest classes in the game. Whether Wizard is first or Cleric is first gets debated a lot, but it's always one of those two.
I actually happen to like healing spells and healing in general as a mode of play, because I like being a support character. I don't like that some see it as something clerics have to do for some reason, but it's a bit much to say that healing spells aren't fun for anyone.
Ultimately this is the issue with giving feedback for the content WoTC puts out, at least judging from this forum. They can't please everyone with their decisions, and trying to do so will only end up causing more problems than it solves.
I think the hiccup some have is that the class's potent spells on the base level are primarily support like bless, aid, death ward, greater restoration, guidance, revivify, and so on. The cleric isn't, at the base level, shooting out fireballs, putting up busted walls of force, or (at higher levels) creating clones of themselves and wishing for whatever.
But that also points to another weird issue, which is the tendency for some players to look down on support roles, which wizards can also do quite well incidentally.
That being said, when you have stuff like guiding bolt and spirit guardians on your spell list, you do have decent offensive options too.
It's almost certainly due to expectations set by previous editions and simple experience. 5e Wizards absolutely suck compared to every prior edition (or at least 3rd through 4th (I remember Wizard spells being awesome in 2e but that rule set was old as hell)).
If 5e wizards suck compared to every prior edition, then it's a good thing they got nerfed, since even in 5e they're comparatively speaking still ridiculously powerful from 9th level onwards. Contingency, Wall of Force, Forcecage, Simulacrum, Maze, and other higher-level wizard spells make them really stand out from the caster crowd.
And even earlier on, the sheer number of potent combat spells like fireball and hypnotic pattern they can have in their toolbelt, in addition to utility stuff like fly, leomund's tiny hut, and so on? And a number of those utility spells can just be cast for free by spending 10 minutes?
Wall of Force is 5th level, Contingency is 6th so that's 11th. Your other spells are even higher. I also think you don't really figure in the limiting factor of Concentratiom. Still. I'm indifferent on the supposed majority as a lot of people thinking like me doesn't mean I'm right. Also, they are far from being the worst class, as I said in my own vote, that most definitely goes to Artificer. I just don't think they're anywhere near as amazing as everyone feels they are, but I also dislike pure class builds.
I literally said "9th level onwards" about those, meaning when the class reaches Level 9 onwards, and then mentioned 3rd level spells that also up the power curve significantly when you get access to them.
And as for concentration, that doesn't matter when the concentration spell in question can actually turn the encounter on its head.
Also it's funny you mention Artificer, because 1 level of Artificer actually adds a substantial amount to wizard builds, giving them proficiency in medium armor and shields (thus removing the need for mage armor), proficiency in thieves' tools, spells like faerie fire and support spells like healing spells and feather fall they can prepare whenever they want, and additional cantrips like guidance.
I'm not looking for a fight here so chill. I've made my commentary and I was talking about something else before you picked out one sentence from a comment and took issue with it.
I actually like wizards too, so while I don't doubt they were more powerful in say 3rd edition, I also don't like to see them downplayed.
Also we both took issue with each other's statements because I wasn't intending to fight when I said that it's a good thing wizards were nerfed in 5e, given what they can still do.
I didn't play any prior editions, but Wizards absolutely rule the roost in 5e, just total cocks of the walk. It's hard to believe them being somehow more powerful than the reality-warping demigods they are now.
I haven't played any prior editions either, but while wizards may be quite powerful, they do have really low HP, and lowish AC. So it's not like they don't have their flaws. But yeah, in 5e at least, wizards are rather powerful.
The main thing I find annoying is that some other spellcasting classes aren't able to prepare nearly as many spells, and they're often grouped along with wizards as "OP," when they're not nearly as powerful/versatile as wizards and don't need to be nerfed.
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.There are the odd protection spells that you'd think would be Concentration, like Mirror Image, but I'm not going to complain there. Honestly, Concentration seems pretty arbitrary. Like, why is neither Freedom of Movement or Death Ward concentration?
Probably a few of them are intentional, to push particular play patterns, but others I'm sure are more or less based on "can we make it a little stronger/weaker?"
A spell that's supposed to last all day probably shouldn't take concentration. But there's really no fictional explanation for it. It's just, some do and some don't. Magic hasn't made sense since 3.5's last gasp of Vancian casting. ;P
Concentration is primarily for balance reasons, I'm guessing.
Casting freedom of movement on 5 people won't break anything, but summoning two elementals with conjure elemental or putting haste on two people might be a bit much.
Everyone talks about how boring and bland fighter is, yet it is the least hated here.
Homebrew: Creatures | Magic Items | Races | Spells | Subclasses
I actually don't mind the Fighter overall. My personal opinion is that the Battle Master's maneuvers really should have been a base class feature that gave a martial equivalent to spells (and would allow D&D Beyond to handle them more elegantly as such). But beyond that, I think Fighter is fine.