That's the thing about flavor. You can make anything work if you want to
That's literally what I just did. At your suggestion, I might add
You took a run at me for it anyway, because I dared besmirch the good name the tinker's tools, I guess? It's still not clear what prompted you to tell me I displayed a "failure of imagination"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
What you're suggesting is a switch to woodworking tools, which still doesn't fit the character concept as I'm explicitly trying to do the thing you said was possible -- make a non-technological artificer
Cool. They're for working with metals. Like the metals of an armorer artificer's armor.
No, that would be the smith's tools proficiency you get with the Armorer subclass
But please, continue to lecture other people about how they don't understand the artificer or haven't read the PHB or whatever
Yes, because there are zero softer metals used for buckles or filigree or anything else on armor.
That's the thing about flavor. You can make anything work if you want to. A lot of people just don't want to.
(and if you want to get shitty about details, I never mentioned the PHB, the Artificer is printed in Eberron: Rising From the Last War and Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, so the PHB isn't even relevant. See, I can pick petty nits, too)
Translation: ”This is a thread asking a subjective question, and darned if I will let anyone give a subjective response that I subjectively disagree with!”
So, serious question - why do you care if others don’t like the artificer flavour? They are not wrong; and neither are you. Maybe folks don’t like to reflavour classes because they find “how do I make the character I want fun by mixing and matching, rather than just changing things to fit what I want.” Maybe they just think artificer’s flavour permeates the class in a way other classes do not, so even with reflavouring there’s a hint of the old unless you start messing with mechanics. Maybe they think the abilities are boring to begin with, so why play something they would both find dull and have to reskin. Etc.
There’s myriad subjective reasons someone might not like artificer’s flavour and not want to reskin it. That doesn’t mean they cannot reskin it if they don’t want or that they lack the imagination to reskin it - it just means they don’t like artificer enough to choose it when there are a bunch of other choices that might better fit what they want to actually play.
That's the thing about flavor. You can make anything work if you want to
That's literally what I just did. At your suggestion, I might add
You took a run at me for it anyway, because I dared besmirch the good name the tinker's tools, I guess? It's still not clear what prompted you to tell me I displayed a "failure of imagination"
Just to see if I could based on this thread, I slapped together a multiclass of my two least favorite classes, paladin and artificer, while trying not to have the artificer part be all techy-techy
Wound up with an Oath of the Ancients/Armorer gnome as a sort of deep forest protector concept, with the infusions and such flavored more as fey gifts and nature magic
Like the bard and music, though, RAW still forces you to view the artificer as an inventor/engineer-type with all the tool proficiencies (like, what's this guy going to do with tinker's tools, exactly?), so if I were actually going to play this character I'd probably talk to the DM about swapping at least one of them out for another language or something
What you did was attempt to do so, then bring up all the ways it still didn't work with the flavor you chose. Then when I offered explanations, you bickered about minor details easily altered within a fictional high-magic setting. Successive comments also ignored several arguments I considered central to the topic in favor of more disagreement. You set a tone of skepticism and doubt (and I also read a little irritation, but that may have been projection on my part), so I matched that tone.
Your post came off, at least to me, as somewhat combative, and seemed an awful lot like you were trying to underline just why what I (and the published materials) said didn't work, so I responded in roughly the same tone that I understood your comment to be in. If that's not the case, I apologize and offer a handshake and a "my bad."
What you're suggesting is a switch to woodworking tools, which still doesn't fit the character concept as I'm explicitly trying to do the thing you said was possible -- make a non-technological artificer
Cool. They're for working with metals. Like the metals of an armorer artificer's armor.
No, that would be the smith's tools proficiency you get with the Armorer subclass
But please, continue to lecture other people about how they don't understand the artificer or haven't read the PHB or whatever
Yes, because there are zero softer metals used for buckles or filigree or anything else on armor.
That's the thing about flavor. You can make anything work if you want to. A lot of people just don't want to.
(and if you want to get shitty about details, I never mentioned the PHB, the Artificer is printed in Eberron: Rising From the Last War and Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, so the PHB isn't even relevant. See, I can pick petty nits, too)
Translation: ”This is a thread asking a subjective question, and darned if I will let anyone give a subjective response that I subjectively disagree with!”
So, serious question - why do you care if others don’t like the artificer flavour?
Serious answer: I don't. I do care that the entire community as a whole seems to have chosen to deliberately misunderstand it. The fact that "Artificer PCs require DM permission" is a common sentiment irks me to absolutely no end, particularly when juxtaposed with the fact that so many tables allow optional/variant rules like feats and multiclassing without a second thought. Artificers are more core to the game (post-Tasha, anyway) than feats or multiclassing, better playtested, and better balanced, and designed to fit seamlessly into all published game settings. But so many people bring so many expectations and suppositions and preconceptions to Artificers specifically for some reason that they are considered default-banned at a lot of tables without specific DM permission. Clerics don't suffer this, nor Monks nor Rangers nor Sorcerers. Just Artificers. And it's because people don't read the material. They have expectations based on art and other media that alter what the class is.
Again, if your setting features magic items, then Artificers thematically fit. It's very simple.
I don't care if people don't like the flavor. I get irritated when people don't read, misunderstand, project, and alter the flavor so much that the game is negatively impacted for players who want to use an official class. My issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with taste and preference. It's about people being demonstrably wrong and removing player choice because of it. If I say "I don't like Star Wars because I don't like submarine movies," I sound like an idiot. There's no submarines in Star Wars. It's not Hunt For Red October. That is the crux of my objection throughout this thread. It's not about druthers, it's about people reacting to a version of the Artificer that...just doesn't exist. It's not high-tech. It's not Iron Man any more than the shield spell is. The Armorer gets hit particularly hard with this, in large part because Iron Man is so prominent in pop culture, but per the actual written material, there's nothing more technological about the Armorer subclass than there is in a suit of +1 plate. Anything else is projection.
The artificer is explicitly magical, a craftsman that imbues mundane objects with arcane energy for spectacular effects. That is what they are, a basically a specialist wizard. If people don't like that flavor? Awesome. More power to them. But that's not what happens in most of these cases, and not what was happening in most of the comments I was subtweeting when I first joined the thread. It was people talking about them being "technological" or "science fiction," or most often, "incongruous with a high-magic setting." Which is blatantly untrue. You don't need to "reflavor" or "reskin" artificer to make it work in the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or Eberron or Theros or whatever. Their base version in Tasha works just fine as it is. Your further comments (not reproduced here) just underline that you are misunderstanding as clearly as so many others are. Artificer fluff offers some options regarding clockwork spiders and so on, but that is, at most, an example, and there are other options in that same fluff text.
But at this point, I'm largely just beating my head against a wall, so I may as well stop.
TL;DR: if you don't like how they work or the concept of imbuing mundane items with magic? Fine. Taste is taste. If you think they somehow fundamentally "break" a high-magic setting because they're too "sci-fi," then you don't know what you're talking about, and boxing out an entire class due to ignorance. More power to you, I guess, but less options always means less potential fun. I've enjoyed every Artie I've played, and they've never messed with immersion or narrative simply by existing.
Like I have always said' The artificer was an NPC master crafter who eventually learned to work magic. He should have stayed an NPC. But like everything in D&D if you make anything an NPC and give them an interesting skill, someone will demand they be a PC class. As with all things given time they will grow.
It would have been easier to just make a wizard subclass that manufactures magic items. From already existing items or newly manufactured items.
What is created for one expansion world should stay in that world.
Hey that should be a strong suggestion. We use that rule at our table.
In the end the OP was asking for an opinion not a debate. If you do not someones opinion make a new thread debating it.
Barbarians for me. I like the idea of the class and the flavor of some of its subclasses, but find it really mechanically disappointing to play. Been waiting since the PHB came out to see the Barbarian get a subclass that really pushes what you can do with it, but it's all just been pretty basic stuff.
I picked artificer like many others, but not for issues about inducing technology or the magic/not magic discussion. I chose it because it is, IMO, the worst described class overall. Many open ended questions and things that have to be tweaked, agreed, or house-ruled based on interpretations of the wording.
From interpreting whether you need a magic item for the arty to make the infusion (I mean it's called replicate item - which suggests that there needs to be something there to replicate) to tackling steel defenders, there just seems to be too much poorly defined wordings and descriptions compared to other classes (not that all other classes are immune from this issue)
I assume it was described more vaguely to be able to fit into a wider range of settings e.g. low/high magic etc. but it results in a lot of lose ends. This is mainly from a DM perspective, and although I find the deliberations frustrating since they mainly spring from wording - I still allow arty players, and like a lot of the concept if people really get into the class - but it is a very demanding class to play imo.
Barbarians for me. I like the idea of the class and the flavor of some of its subclasses, but find it really mechanically disappointing to play. Been waiting since the PHB came out to see the Barbarian get a subclass that really pushes what you can do with it, but it's all just been pretty basic stuff.
If they would fix the Berserker you might be happier. The ONE subclass that grants an additional Attack and they have to cripple it with Exhaustion. IMHO they need to have Exhaustion be reduced with Lesser Restoration rather than greater. There...problem fixed.
Barbarians for me. I like the idea of the class and the flavor of some of its subclasses, but find it really mechanically disappointing to play. Been waiting since the PHB came out to see the Barbarian get a subclass that really pushes what you can do with it, but it's all just been pretty basic stuff.
If they would fix the Berserker you might be happier. The ONE subclass that grants an additional Attack and they have to cripple it with Exhaustion. IMHO they need to have Exhaustion be reduced with Lesser Restoration rather than greater. There...problem fixed.
I've got an idea rattling around in my head for a barb subclass based around non-spell, non-concentration buffs, sort of like Totem Warrior but with abilities that can help the whole party, in and out of combat. I can't find a theme/concept I like to tie it together though
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Barbarians for me. I like the idea of the class and the flavor of some of its subclasses, but find it really mechanically disappointing to play. Been waiting since the PHB came out to see the Barbarian get a subclass that really pushes what you can do with it, but it's all just been pretty basic stuff.
If they would fix the Berserker you might be happier. The ONE subclass that grants an additional Attack and they have to cripple it with Exhaustion. IMHO they need to have Exhaustion be reduced with Lesser Restoration rather than greater. There...problem fixed.
I've got an idea rattling around in my head for a barb subclass based around non-spell, non-concentration buffs, sort of like Totem Warrior but with abilities that can help the whole party, in and out of combat. I can't find a theme/concept I like to tie it together though
Yeah, theme can be hard. I've tried to come up with several ideas for different classes but most of them boil down to 'play that class and ask the DM to homebrew these 1-2 minor points.'
Barbarians for me. I like the idea of the class and the flavor of some of its subclasses, but find it really mechanically disappointing to play. Been waiting since the PHB came out to see the Barbarian get a subclass that really pushes what you can do with it, but it's all just been pretty basic stuff.
If they would fix the Berserker you might be happier. The ONE subclass that grants an additional Attack and they have to cripple it with Exhaustion. IMHO they need to have Exhaustion be reduced with Lesser Restoration rather than greater. There...problem fixed.
I've got an idea rattling around in my head for a barb subclass based around non-spell, non-concentration buffs, sort of like Totem Warrior but with abilities that can help the whole party, in and out of combat. I can't find a theme/concept I like to tie it together though
Off the top of my head, I think a Celestial Barbarian seems like a good start. Similar in theme a bit to Zealot barbarian, but more heavily focused on helping allies rather than yourself.
Probably rogue for me. Because the features from the class I like most are all there by level 2. Sure, sneak attack continues to scale with level, and they get some good stuff later on. But expertise, sneak attack and cunning action and thieves cant are the things I really like about rogue gameplay.
A lot of what comes after can be good, but I generally don't find super interesting, not enough to draw me deeper into the class. Reliable talent is powerful, but kind of makes the game less fun imo when it turns many of your ability checks into a foregone conclusion. I think this is better handled by say, eloquence bard where it's just two skills specific to a subclass affected and not any ability check you have proficiency in.
I'm not saying rogues are a bad class, it's just that they don't interest me much beyond the first few levels.
Barbarians for me. I like the idea of the class and the flavor of some of its subclasses, but find it really mechanically disappointing to play. Been waiting since the PHB came out to see the Barbarian get a subclass that really pushes what you can do with it, but it's all just been pretty basic stuff.
If they would fix the Berserker you might be happier. The ONE subclass that grants an additional Attack and they have to cripple it with Exhaustion. IMHO they need to have Exhaustion be reduced with Lesser Restoration rather than greater. There...problem fixed.
I've got an idea rattling around in my head for a barb subclass based around non-spell, non-concentration buffs, sort of like Totem Warrior but with abilities that can help the whole party, in and out of combat. I can't find a theme/concept I like to tie it together though
That would’ve been perfect for the current Competition of the Finest ‘Brews.
I got probably "periods" of hating almost each class, same with love ^^' all depending on subclasses and campaign experiences, sometimes comparing my class hero to others in team (Monks were my least liked champs as due to lack of Ki points 1-10 lvl it was like im just pet to team with barb/paladin front line and epic good rogue & ranger, and after 12 lvl forward i felt like playing solo ......)
Probably most hated / loved hero class for me was and still is Paladin :D for me its This or That scenario character, or you end up being smiting with power of sun wrecking ball or you are joke-champ kissing figher&cleric boots ... no matter how good i roleplay i almost always endup in this two scenarios, or nuke-paladin, or "pls leave me goblin to smite"
My issues are mostly about being tied too tightly to theme.
The Warlock has a variety of patrons, but all the core features are written for the fiend or some kind of aberration.
I have a hard time taking the bard's musical battle magic seriously.
This one is a subclass, but it irks me that the bladesinger wizard can only be dex-focused since they're limited to light armor and one-handed weapons.
Most egregious is the Monk, who loses half of their class features if you dare equip the wrong item, and loses progression harder than anyone else if you try to multiclass it. And with their need for high scores in both dex and wisdom, I can't even picture them as buff because the highest I'd ever put their strength score at is 10. "You are a monk, and you are a scrawny punchy shirtless dude" is enforced on this class.
about monk - for me STILL my least favorite hero, BUT this video helped me to see it diffrently; it does not change my mind over concept (like wizzard) try to lvl up and wait for power spike - i prefer something thats its slowly but regu;ary going more and more powerful up and up (like bards / fighter / warlock)
Depends on what you mean by "least favourite". There are some classes I like more than others but all classes have subclasses that I would really like to play or subclasses that I would never want to play.
Most egregious is the Monk, who loses half of their class features if you dare equip the wrong item, and loses progression harder than anyone else if you try to multiclass it. And with their need for high scores in both dex and wisdom, I can't even picture them as buff because the highest I'd ever put their strength score at is 10. "You are a monk, and you are a scrawny punchy shirtless dude" is enforced on this class.
Those are just limits in *your* ability to imagine how the Monk is portrayed, not the class itself. Also, it's not "loses half of their class features if you dare equip the wrong item", it's "Monks, who has a class feature that allows them to do a bunch of stuff without the need for equipping certain items."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's literally what I just did. At your suggestion, I might add
You took a run at me for it anyway, because I dared besmirch the good name the tinker's tools, I guess? It's still not clear what prompted you to tell me I displayed a "failure of imagination"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Translation: ”This is a thread asking a subjective question, and darned if I will let anyone give a subjective response that I subjectively disagree with!”
So, serious question - why do you care if others don’t like the artificer flavour? They are not wrong; and neither are you. Maybe folks don’t like to reflavour classes because they find “how do I make the character I want fun by mixing and matching, rather than just changing things to fit what I want.” Maybe they just think artificer’s flavour permeates the class in a way other classes do not, so even with reflavouring there’s a hint of the old unless you start messing with mechanics. Maybe they think the abilities are boring to begin with, so why play something they would both find dull and have to reskin. Etc.
There’s myriad subjective reasons someone might not like artificer’s flavour and not want to reskin it. That doesn’t mean they cannot reskin it if they don’t want or that they lack the imagination to reskin it - it just means they don’t like artificer enough to choose it when there are a bunch of other choices that might better fit what they want to actually play.
Not strictly true.
What you did was attempt to do so, then bring up all the ways it still didn't work with the flavor you chose. Then when I offered explanations, you bickered about minor details easily altered within a fictional high-magic setting. Successive comments also ignored several arguments I considered central to the topic in favor of more disagreement. You set a tone of skepticism and doubt (and I also read a little irritation, but that may have been projection on my part), so I matched that tone.
Your post came off, at least to me, as somewhat combative, and seemed an awful lot like you were trying to underline just why what I (and the published materials) said didn't work, so I responded in roughly the same tone that I understood your comment to be in. If that's not the case, I apologize and offer a handshake and a "my bad."
Serious answer: I don't. I do care that the entire community as a whole seems to have chosen to deliberately misunderstand it. The fact that "Artificer PCs require DM permission" is a common sentiment irks me to absolutely no end, particularly when juxtaposed with the fact that so many tables allow optional/variant rules like feats and multiclassing without a second thought. Artificers are more core to the game (post-Tasha, anyway) than feats or multiclassing, better playtested, and better balanced, and designed to fit seamlessly into all published game settings. But so many people bring so many expectations and suppositions and preconceptions to Artificers specifically for some reason that they are considered default-banned at a lot of tables without specific DM permission. Clerics don't suffer this, nor Monks nor Rangers nor Sorcerers. Just Artificers. And it's because people don't read the material. They have expectations based on art and other media that alter what the class is.
Again, if your setting features magic items, then Artificers thematically fit. It's very simple.
I don't care if people don't like the flavor. I get irritated when people don't read, misunderstand, project, and alter the flavor so much that the game is negatively impacted for players who want to use an official class. My issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with taste and preference. It's about people being demonstrably wrong and removing player choice because of it. If I say "I don't like Star Wars because I don't like submarine movies," I sound like an idiot. There's no submarines in Star Wars. It's not Hunt For Red October. That is the crux of my objection throughout this thread. It's not about druthers, it's about people reacting to a version of the Artificer that...just doesn't exist. It's not high-tech. It's not Iron Man any more than the shield spell is. The Armorer gets hit particularly hard with this, in large part because Iron Man is so prominent in pop culture, but per the actual written material, there's nothing more technological about the Armorer subclass than there is in a suit of +1 plate. Anything else is projection.
The artificer is explicitly magical, a craftsman that imbues mundane objects with arcane energy for spectacular effects. That is what they are, a basically a specialist wizard. If people don't like that flavor? Awesome. More power to them. But that's not what happens in most of these cases, and not what was happening in most of the comments I was subtweeting when I first joined the thread. It was people talking about them being "technological" or "science fiction," or most often, "incongruous with a high-magic setting." Which is blatantly untrue. You don't need to "reflavor" or "reskin" artificer to make it work in the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or Eberron or Theros or whatever. Their base version in Tasha works just fine as it is. Your further comments (not reproduced here) just underline that you are misunderstanding as clearly as so many others are. Artificer fluff offers some options regarding clockwork spiders and so on, but that is, at most, an example, and there are other options in that same fluff text.
But at this point, I'm largely just beating my head against a wall, so I may as well stop.
TL;DR: if you don't like how they work or the concept of imbuing mundane items with magic? Fine. Taste is taste. If you think they somehow fundamentally "break" a high-magic setting because they're too "sci-fi," then you don't know what you're talking about, and boxing out an entire class due to ignorance. More power to you, I guess, but less options always means less potential fun. I've enjoyed every Artie I've played, and they've never messed with immersion or narrative simply by existing.
Like I have always said' The artificer was an NPC master crafter who eventually learned to work magic. He should have stayed an NPC. But like everything in D&D if you make anything an NPC and give them an interesting skill, someone will demand they be a PC class. As with all things given time they will grow.
It would have been easier to just make a wizard subclass that manufactures magic items. From already existing items or newly manufactured items.
What is created for one expansion world should stay in that world.
Hey that should be a strong suggestion. We use that rule at our table.
In the end the OP was asking for an opinion not a debate. If you do not someones opinion make a new thread debating it.
I started not liking the bard once I realized that Magical Secrets counted against the amount of spells you know
i am not a big fan of wizard or artificers, thanks to my dyselxia, i am more of rogue/ranger/monk/warlock
Barbarians for me. I like the idea of the class and the flavor of some of its subclasses, but find it really mechanically disappointing to play. Been waiting since the PHB came out to see the Barbarian get a subclass that really pushes what you can do with it, but it's all just been pretty basic stuff.
I picked artificer like many others, but not for issues about inducing technology or the magic/not magic discussion. I chose it because it is, IMO, the worst described class overall. Many open ended questions and things that have to be tweaked, agreed, or house-ruled based on interpretations of the wording.
From interpreting whether you need a magic item for the arty to make the infusion (I mean it's called replicate item - which suggests that there needs to be something there to replicate) to tackling steel defenders, there just seems to be too much poorly defined wordings and descriptions compared to other classes (not that all other classes are immune from this issue)
I assume it was described more vaguely to be able to fit into a wider range of settings e.g. low/high magic etc. but it results in a lot of lose ends.
This is mainly from a DM perspective, and although I find the deliberations frustrating since they mainly spring from wording - I still allow arty players, and like a lot of the concept if people really get into the class - but it is a very demanding class to play imo.
If they would fix the Berserker you might be happier. The ONE subclass that grants an additional Attack and they have to cripple it with Exhaustion. IMHO they need to have Exhaustion be reduced with Lesser Restoration rather than greater. There...problem fixed.
I've got an idea rattling around in my head for a barb subclass based around non-spell, non-concentration buffs, sort of like Totem Warrior but with abilities that can help the whole party, in and out of combat. I can't find a theme/concept I like to tie it together though
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah, theme can be hard. I've tried to come up with several ideas for different classes but most of them boil down to 'play that class and ask the DM to homebrew these 1-2 minor points.'
Creation is HARD. Good luck with yours.
Off the top of my head, I think a Celestial Barbarian seems like a good start. Similar in theme a bit to Zealot barbarian, but more heavily focused on helping allies rather than yourself.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Probably rogue for me. Because the features from the class I like most are all there by level 2. Sure, sneak attack continues to scale with level, and they get some good stuff later on. But expertise, sneak attack and cunning action and thieves cant are the things I really like about rogue gameplay.
A lot of what comes after can be good, but I generally don't find super interesting, not enough to draw me deeper into the class. Reliable talent is powerful, but kind of makes the game less fun imo when it turns many of your ability checks into a foregone conclusion. I think this is better handled by say, eloquence bard where it's just two skills specific to a subclass affected and not any ability check you have proficiency in.
I'm not saying rogues are a bad class, it's just that they don't interest me much beyond the first few levels.
That would’ve been perfect for the current Competition of the Finest ‘Brews.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I got probably "periods" of hating almost each class, same with love ^^' all depending on subclasses and campaign experiences, sometimes comparing my class hero to others in team (Monks were my least liked champs as due to lack of Ki points 1-10 lvl it was like im just pet to team with barb/paladin front line and epic good rogue & ranger, and after 12 lvl forward i felt like playing solo ......)
Probably most hated / loved hero class for me was and still is Paladin :D for me its This or That scenario character, or you end up being smiting with power of sun wrecking ball or you are joke-champ kissing figher&cleric boots ... no matter how good i roleplay i almost always endup in this two scenarios, or nuke-paladin, or "pls leave me goblin to smite"
My issues are mostly about being tied too tightly to theme.
The Warlock has a variety of patrons, but all the core features are written for the fiend or some kind of aberration.
I have a hard time taking the bard's musical battle magic seriously.
This one is a subclass, but it irks me that the bladesinger wizard can only be dex-focused since they're limited to light armor and one-handed weapons.
Most egregious is the Monk, who loses half of their class features if you dare equip the wrong item, and loses progression harder than anyone else if you try to multiclass it. And with their need for high scores in both dex and wisdom, I can't even picture them as buff because the highest I'd ever put their strength score at is 10. "You are a monk, and you are a scrawny punchy shirtless dude" is enforced on this class.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AArYxZpBIrE
about monk - for me STILL my least favorite hero, BUT this video helped me to see it diffrently; it does not change my mind over concept (like wizzard) try to lvl up and wait for power spike - i prefer something thats its slowly but regu;ary going more and more powerful up and up (like bards / fighter / warlock)
Depends on what you mean by "least favourite". There are some classes I like more than others but all classes have subclasses that I would really like to play or subclasses that I would never want to play.
Those are just limits in *your* ability to imagine how the Monk is portrayed, not the class itself. Also, it's not "loses half of their class features if you dare equip the wrong item", it's "Monks, who has a class feature that allows them to do a bunch of stuff without the need for equipping certain items."