I can see why people call the Fighter boring, but it's sort of hard, imo, to single it out as especially bad since it's relatively straight-forward and inoffensive in its design. It just does its thing and fills its space.
It's also one of the few classes in the game that seems to genuinely have a bit of a sliding scale to how you play it. There are very straight forward subclasses, and then there are ones that give the players more choices and options to take, which gives it a broader base of appeal.
Contrast with the Barbarian, which pretty much all the subs go in the same direction which kind of inherently narrows its relative appeal a bit.
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.
Low level wizards were painfully weak in 2e. Very few spell slots (a first level Magic User as they were called had one 1st level spell slot and knew two spells. Cantrips didn't exist, almost no offensive options on 2nd level so until 4th level it was Sleep, Burning Hands and Magic Missile. Very low HP (d4 HD) and no armor. Weapons dagger or staff.
By 5th level that started to change (Hello Fireball!) and went to insanly powerful after that. The big caveat was the level progression for wizards was slower than for other classes and overall all classes needed a lot more XP to increase level. IIRC to reach 9th lvl Madic User you needed 250,000 XP, about half that to get to 9th as Fighter or Thief (today's Rogue). Standard monsters without special abilities pretty much gave 1-2 XP per hp. It was a bit of a grind
Everyone talks about how boring and bland fighter is, yet it is the least hated here.
Yeah that makes perfect sense. Anything that is boring and bland is bound to be the least hated option. How would anyone have a strong opinion about Fighters? They are too boring and bland to hate them or to love them, they're just kind of there
Fighters are cool. The only thing holding them back is that they lack anything that can be used outside of combat, like Pass Without Trace, Charm Person, or Divination. Battle Master even addresses this, with the new Tasha's maneuvers, but I have yet to play with them, so idk if they're any good. Also EK gets cantrips I think. That's about it. But it's hardly a problem unique to Fighter.
Here's my Big Opinion. The more a class leans into utility, the less combat effectiveness it should have. But wait! We spend so much time in combat. Nobody should be left out of that, even if they think they want it. So, the answer is to give everybody utility. Every class should have equal amounts, but different kinds, of utility. People aren't ready for how crazy this would look compared to what we have. But I digress.
Everyone talks about how boring and bland fighter is, yet it is the least hated here.
Yeah that makes perfect sense. Anything that is boring and bland is bound to be the least hated option. How would anyone have a strong opinion about Fighters? They are too boring and bland to hate them or to love them, they're just kind of there
I don't agree at all. On the bad side, most of their sub classes are bad in my opinion. But on the good side, their base class is strong. And most important, there are a handful of Fighter sub classes that are strong, interesting, and can completely change your play style. Take for example:
Battle Master: Knock that brute off his feat with your halberd, or shoot that sword out of that knight's hand with your bow, and more. To me Battle Master adds a ton of flavor, and it epitomizes the classic weapons expert fighter.
Eldritch Knight: Be that Gish Fighter who dabbles in magic to enhance his abilities. Spells always add flavor.
Echo Knight: Use an echo of yourself to do ranged melee attacks, lock enemies down at range with Sentinel, give yourself unprecedented mobility and the ability by switching places with your echo, safely scout ahead with echo avatar, and more.
Rune Knight: First, there are so many cool backstories you can write about how you learned the ways of the giants. Mechanically you can grow to large, and later to huge. You also gain a ton of abilities that are both cool and effective. You have many great choices for runes, so there is some customization there.
It's funny that people are saying the "Mandatory healer" thing is a me problem. Does anyone here contest the idea that two things are mandatory for a long DnD campaign to be successful? A DM, and a player willing to play a healer class. I don't care how hot the dice are. At some point, the rogue is going to flub a stealth check, the fighter is gonna get smacked in the mouth by an Iron Golem, or the Bard is gonna get hit with fireball, repeatedly. (No one wants to hear your DnD version of FREE BIRD DAVE!!!) Then they need a healer. If they don't have a druid, a Cleric, or a very specially tuned and equipped monk, they are taking dirt naps. Or ash naps in the case of Dave.
Point being: In the words of a young Cleric I once heard speaking to an older, and slightly cocky Assault Warlock(If you don't know what that is, thank your player group) "Don't F with the Healer. Your death is a sacrifice I am 100% willing to make."
It's funny that people are saying the "Mandatory healer" thing is a me problem. Does anyone here contest the idea that two things are mandatory for a long DnD campaign to be successful? A DM, and a player willing to play a healer class. I don't care how hot the dice are. At some point, the rogue is going to flub a stealth check, the fighter is gonna get smacked in the mouth by an Iron Golem, or the Bard is gonna get hit with fireball, repeatedly. (No one wants to hear your DnD version of FREE BIRD DAVE!!!) Then they need a healer. If they don't have a druid, a Cleric, or a very specially tuned and equipped monk, they are taking dirt naps. Or ash naps in the case of Dave.
Point being: In the words of a young Cleric I once heard speaking to an older, and slightly cocky Assault Warlock(If you don't know what that is, thank your player group) "Don't F with the Healer. Your death is a sacrifice I am 100% willing to make."
I've played multiple campaigns without a designated healer. It wasn't a problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I've watched a campaign online that went the entire time without anyone in the party being able to really heal. That's also what healing potions, and NPCs if need be, are supposed to be for.
You have to be ready to fall back, let things go, or outright give up sometimes to survive. Some characters may die. If you're playing a game where those things aren't possible, or your party isn't willing to do them, then you need a healer.
My personally least favourite class is prolly barbarian. I like choices and mechanics.. I also like classes that I can easily make my own.
Barbarians to to me are like fighters but more rail roaded and with less interesting subclasses.. I can't imagine myself being satisfied playing one for very long.
I both like and dislike wizards as they have a ton of spells for the player to manually theme their spell selection but their subclass features often feel extremely lackluster and rarely offers fun and new mechanics to define your character. A wizard is very much defined by the class and not the subclass which i think is a real shame..
Monks just feel off.. they have some super cool subclass themes but it's like monk subclass features and balanced around being side grades to the base monk features where as every other class get tonnes of straight character defining upgrades through their subclasses.
I mean the sun souls main feature is Short range attack that is slightly worse than attacking in melee.. meanwhile most the fighter's Rune knight get a ton of powers on top of the base fighter
Not gonna lie, but you are 100% correct. Barbarians, are really bad fighters. They are gods for the early game, but then you have fighters getting a bazillion attacks, rogues doing Rogue damage, and Wizards unraveling time and space with their brain. Barbs are like, "I can stay angry EXTRA long now, and at level 20 I am given 4 more strength, and Con." The Rogue is like "Dude, at level 20 I do 10d6 plus weapon damage, and cannot fail an ability score." The Wizard is sitting there like "I can divide by zero at level 20."
It's funny that people are saying the "Mandatory healer" thing is a me problem. Does anyone here contest the idea that two things are mandatory for a long DnD campaign to be successful? A DM, and a player willing to play a healer class. I don't care how hot the dice are. At some point, the rogue is going to flub a stealth check, the fighter is gonna get smacked in the mouth by an Iron Golem, or the Bard is gonna get hit with fireball, repeatedly. (No one wants to hear your DnD version of FREE BIRD DAVE!!!) Then they need a healer. If they don't have a druid, a Cleric, or a very specially tuned and equipped monk, they are taking dirt naps. Or ash naps in the case of Dave.
Point being: In the words of a young Cleric I once heard speaking to an older, and slightly cocky Assault Warlock(If you don't know what that is, thank your player group) "Don't F with the Healer. Your death is a sacrifice I am 100% willing to make."
Bards are also healers. So are Paladins, Rangers, and Artificers. That's just off the top of my head. Honestly, most healing spells are best saved until someone actually goes down. Healing for like 8 points in the middle of combat is almost always a waste of a spell slot, unless you wait for a tactical opportunity to raise someone making death saves.
Have at least one healer is unquestionably advantageous, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's mandatory. That said, healing spells and abilities are common enough that at most tables I've been at, at least one person has access to some kind of healing.
I'm a Barb and I HIT with my proficiency when I'm angry! Nobody else can hit with their proficiency bonus, just me!
Also, I take hits pretty good. And I like to be naked. Man, I really wish the DM could give me ANYTHING except for a new weapon I won't use because none are better than my +2 Poleax.
The Rogue walks in and watches as a fireball passes through him and torches the Barbarian. The rogue laughs and drops 34 damage in one hit... and the angry Barb deals 26 by combining both hits.
I think you're selling the Level 20 Barbarian really short there. Having 24 STR and CON + infinite rages + rages that don't turn off = +13 at minimum to attack rolls that have advantage pretty much all the time thanks to Reckless Attack, and more hit points than a solar, and on top of that, they have resistance to all physical damage (or all damage in general if they're a kalashtar or gith bear totem barbarian, but that's highly specific). And on top of all that, if they crit even once (which they're more likely to do because of Reckless Attack), Brutal Critical can just delete whatever they hit.
There's a reason every time the question of which Level 20 capstones are actually good comes up, I always see Barbarian as being near the top. If you only read the Level 20 feature text, it looks meh, but when you actually stack all the class features they've acquired from Level 1 all the way to 20, Level 20 is actually incredibly solid for Barbarians.
Barbarians do their thing very well. But their thing is being Wolverine. He's not exactly the most flexible guy on the X-Men. And any random spellcaster can be, uh, every other member of the X-Men at the same time, basically.
It makes perfect sense to me that the leading options in this poll would be martial characters. That's why it's strange to see Artificer.
I've played multiple campaigns without a designated healer. It wasn't a problem.
I once solo healed a party of new players through LMoP with a Celestial Warlock. That was entertaining. For me the monk is so mechanically under powered that I have only rarely used them. They can be fun as part of a specific build but not worth it as a dip. Barbarian makes for a powerful dip mechanically if you roll decent stats, unarmored defence can be amazing combined with a shield. But I find they become boring in mid game so I usually multiclass. I think they are probably better than monks though for me.
Barbarians do their thing very well. But their thing is being Wolverine. He's not exactly the most flexible guy on the X-Men. And any random spellcaster can be, uh, every other member of the X-Men at the same time, basically.
It makes perfect sense to me that the leading options in this poll would be martial characters. That's why it's strange to see Artificer.
The Bard is #3, and the Fighter is the least least-liked.
I think the Monk and the Artificer are the top 2 because they're perceived to be the weakest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Least commonly picked as "most hated" isn't the same as "most liked", so I don't think it's that telling.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Good Point, I still find it ironic, and I'm not picking on the fighter class or anything, btw.
Homebrew: Creatures | Magic Items | Races | Spells | Subclasses
I can see why people call the Fighter boring, but it's sort of hard, imo, to single it out as especially bad since it's relatively straight-forward and inoffensive in its design. It just does its thing and fills its space.
It's also one of the few classes in the game that seems to genuinely have a bit of a sliding scale to how you play it. There are very straight forward subclasses, and then there are ones that give the players more choices and options to take, which gives it a broader base of appeal.
Contrast with the Barbarian, which pretty much all the subs go in the same direction which kind of inherently narrows its relative appeal a bit.
Low level wizards were painfully weak in 2e. Very few spell slots (a first level Magic User as they were called had one 1st level spell slot and knew two spells. Cantrips didn't exist, almost no offensive options on 2nd level so until 4th level it was Sleep, Burning Hands and Magic Missile. Very low HP (d4 HD) and no armor. Weapons dagger or staff.
By 5th level that started to change (Hello Fireball!) and went to insanly powerful after that. The big caveat was the level progression for wizards was slower than for other classes and overall all classes needed a lot more XP to increase level. IIRC to reach 9th lvl Madic User you needed 250,000 XP, about half that to get to 9th as Fighter or Thief (today's Rogue). Standard monsters without special abilities pretty much gave 1-2 XP per hp. It was a bit of a grind
In 2e the Fighter was only able to hack at things with a weapon. By comparison, a 5e Fighter has a plethora of options
Yeah that makes perfect sense. Anything that is boring and bland is bound to be the least hated option. How would anyone have a strong opinion about Fighters? They are too boring and bland to hate them or to love them, they're just kind of there
Fighters are cool. The only thing holding them back is that they lack anything that can be used outside of combat, like Pass Without Trace, Charm Person, or Divination. Battle Master even addresses this, with the new Tasha's maneuvers, but I have yet to play with them, so idk if they're any good. Also EK gets cantrips I think. That's about it. But it's hardly a problem unique to Fighter.
Here's my Big Opinion. The more a class leans into utility, the less combat effectiveness it should have. But wait! We spend so much time in combat. Nobody should be left out of that, even if they think they want it. So, the answer is to give everybody utility. Every class should have equal amounts, but different kinds, of utility. People aren't ready for how crazy this would look compared to what we have. But I digress.
I don't agree at all. On the bad side, most of their sub classes are bad in my opinion. But on the good side, their base class is strong. And most important, there are a handful of Fighter sub classes that are strong, interesting, and can completely change your play style. Take for example:
Battle Master: Knock that brute off his feat with your halberd, or shoot that sword out of that knight's hand with your bow, and more. To me Battle Master adds a ton of flavor, and it epitomizes the classic weapons expert fighter.
Eldritch Knight: Be that Gish Fighter who dabbles in magic to enhance his abilities. Spells always add flavor.
Echo Knight: Use an echo of yourself to do ranged melee attacks, lock enemies down at range with Sentinel, give yourself unprecedented mobility and the ability by switching places with your echo, safely scout ahead with echo avatar, and more.
Rune Knight: First, there are so many cool backstories you can write about how you learned the ways of the giants. Mechanically you can grow to large, and later to huge. You also gain a ton of abilities that are both cool and effective. You have many great choices for runes, so there is some customization there.
It's funny that people are saying the "Mandatory healer" thing is a me problem. Does anyone here contest the idea that two things are mandatory for a long DnD campaign to be successful? A DM, and a player willing to play a healer class. I don't care how hot the dice are. At some point, the rogue is going to flub a stealth check, the fighter is gonna get smacked in the mouth by an Iron Golem, or the Bard is gonna get hit with fireball, repeatedly. (No one wants to hear your DnD version of FREE BIRD DAVE!!!) Then they need a healer. If they don't have a druid, a Cleric, or a very specially tuned and equipped monk, they are taking dirt naps. Or ash naps in the case of Dave.
Point being: In the words of a young Cleric I once heard speaking to an older, and slightly cocky Assault Warlock(If you don't know what that is, thank your player group) "Don't F with the Healer. Your death is a sacrifice I am 100% willing to make."
I've played multiple campaigns without a designated healer. It wasn't a problem.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I've watched a campaign online that went the entire time without anyone in the party being able to really heal. That's also what healing potions, and NPCs if need be, are supposed to be for.
You have to be ready to fall back, let things go, or outright give up sometimes to survive. Some characters may die. If you're playing a game where those things aren't possible, or your party isn't willing to do them, then you need a healer.
My personally least favourite class is prolly barbarian. I like choices and mechanics.. I also like classes that I can easily make my own.
Barbarians to to me are like fighters but more rail roaded and with less interesting subclasses.. I can't imagine myself being satisfied playing one for very long.
I both like and dislike wizards as they have a ton of spells for the player to manually theme their spell selection but their subclass features often feel extremely lackluster and rarely offers fun and new mechanics to define your character. A wizard is very much defined by the class and not the subclass which i think is a real shame..
Monks just feel off.. they have some super cool subclass themes but it's like monk subclass features and balanced around being side grades to the base monk features where as every other class get tonnes of straight character defining upgrades through their subclasses.
I mean the sun souls main feature is Short range attack that is slightly worse than attacking in melee.. meanwhile most the fighter's Rune knight get a ton of powers on top of the base fighter
Not gonna lie, but you are 100% correct. Barbarians, are really bad fighters. They are gods for the early game, but then you have fighters getting a bazillion attacks, rogues doing Rogue damage, and Wizards unraveling time and space with their brain. Barbs are like, "I can stay angry EXTRA long now, and at level 20 I am given 4 more strength, and Con." The Rogue is like "Dude, at level 20 I do 10d6 plus weapon damage, and cannot fail an ability score." The Wizard is sitting there like "I can divide by zero at level 20."
Bards are also healers. So are Paladins, Rangers, and Artificers. That's just off the top of my head. Honestly, most healing spells are best saved until someone actually goes down. Healing for like 8 points in the middle of combat is almost always a waste of a spell slot, unless you wait for a tactical opportunity to raise someone making death saves.
Have at least one healer is unquestionably advantageous, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's mandatory. That said, healing spells and abilities are common enough that at most tables I've been at, at least one person has access to some kind of healing.
I'm a Barb and I HIT with my proficiency when I'm angry! Nobody else can hit with their proficiency bonus, just me!
Also, I take hits pretty good. And I like to be naked. Man, I really wish the DM could give me ANYTHING except for a new weapon I won't use because none are better than my +2 Poleax.
The Rogue walks in and watches as a fireball passes through him and torches the Barbarian. The rogue laughs and drops 34 damage in one hit... and the angry Barb deals 26 by combining both hits.
I think you're selling the Level 20 Barbarian really short there. Having 24 STR and CON + infinite rages + rages that don't turn off = +13 at minimum to attack rolls that have advantage pretty much all the time thanks to Reckless Attack, and more hit points than a solar, and on top of that, they have resistance to all physical damage (or all damage in general if they're a kalashtar or gith bear totem barbarian, but that's highly specific). And on top of all that, if they crit even once (which they're more likely to do because of Reckless Attack), Brutal Critical can just delete whatever they hit.
There's a reason every time the question of which Level 20 capstones are actually good comes up, I always see Barbarian as being near the top. If you only read the Level 20 feature text, it looks meh, but when you actually stack all the class features they've acquired from Level 1 all the way to 20, Level 20 is actually incredibly solid for Barbarians.
Barbarians do their thing very well. But their thing is being Wolverine. He's not exactly the most flexible guy on the X-Men. And any random spellcaster can be, uh, every other member of the X-Men at the same time, basically.
It makes perfect sense to me that the leading options in this poll would be martial characters. That's why it's strange to see Artificer.
I once solo healed a party of new players through LMoP with a Celestial Warlock. That was entertaining. For me the monk is so mechanically under powered that I have only rarely used them. They can be fun as part of a specific build but not worth it as a dip. Barbarian makes for a powerful dip mechanically if you roll decent stats, unarmored defence can be amazing combined with a shield. But I find they become boring in mid game so I usually multiclass. I think they are probably better than monks though for me.
The Bard is #3, and the Fighter is the least least-liked.
I think the Monk and the Artificer are the top 2 because they're perceived to be the weakest.