look on ranger or barbarian (imo) where u can LOVE gloomy subclass or totem warrior, same time crying from depression playing (old) beast master xD or berserk xD
It occurs to me that despite all the Artificer nonsense, I never talked about my least favorite class.
Which is Sorcerer.
Based on the poll results, I guess that's a minor hot take. There's the standard stuff about "low spells known," and yada yada, which Tasha subs (and lunar UA) seem to be trying to fix, and I assume will be better with PHB2 in two years, but...that still doesn't fix them for me. Nothing about the mechanics sells their flavor for me at all. Their magic doesn't feel innate at all. They should be the X-Men of D&D. They should be able to cast select 1st-level spells without a slot by like 11th level, and maybe some 2nd-level ones by 17th. They should be CON casters, as their bodies are the literal source of their magic. They should be rough-and-tumble and melee capable across the board, not just draconic ones. They should get magic resistance at some point. They should have damaging auras. Wild Magic should be broken down for parts and all subs should get Tides of Chaos with smaller (maybe d20 instead of d100) surge tables with subclass/origin-specific thematic effects. The flavor text straight up says "A sorcerer’s magic wants to be wielded, and it has a tendency to spill out in unpredictable ways if it isn’t called on." It should feel effortless but chaotic, with power boosts to match. There should be a way to cast spells not on the sorc spell list as magic just falls out of you.
And then there's metamagic. It's cool, but it's not enough to be an entire class' only ******* feature, and it doesn't feel thematic at all to me. It feels like a Wizard feature. Like, "I've studied the magical formulae and can substitute my own variables to make it work." But on the flip side, Wizard's "Spell Mastery" and "Signature Spells" do feel like sorcery things to me. Being able to cast 1st/2nd-level spells at will and 3rd-level ones a few times for free feels "Innate" to me. There's a mismatch between fluff and crunch that makes it hard for me to build a character around what we've got without massive reflavorings or minor homebrew. But even if I could square that circle, you don't get enough metamagics known, you don't get them often enough, and sorc points should come back on a short rest like ki, because they disappear pretty quick if you run anything like the recommended 6-8 fights per adventuring day.
That's the main thing for me. There's minor mechanical quibbles, but it's mostly a functional class, even pre-Tasha subs. It works, you can get some good mechanical stuff out of it, but none of the mechanics sell the fantasy for me. There's a mismatch between fluff and crunch that makes it hard for me to build a character around what we've got without massive reflavorings or minor homebrew. I find that ludonarrative dissonance is the biggest hurdle for me to overcome in 5e. Fortunately that's not a huge issue most of the time. There's a lot of classes/subclasses with flavor I don't care for, but it's not often that the flavor and the mechanics seem so wildly disconnected.
So it's got nothing to do with power-level or builds or usefulness or balance or whatever, it's just that the game and the story don't work together to make sorcerers feel like sorcerers.
That said, my second-least favorite is Barbarian 'cause they can't do anything but get hit and take hits. It gets real dull real fast.
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."
That's a difference without a distinction. Classes are designed around using their class features.
... reading SemanticAvenger's post. It suddenly strikes me as really weird that the Sorcerer is the only spellcaster without some kind of dedicated battlemage/melee sub. Hexblades, bladesingers, battle clerics, wild shaping druids, armorers and battlesmiths... and Sorcerers are just kind of there. Feels like it would be incredibly thematic for an appropriate bloodline to push a sorcerer to the frontline but that's not really something they have much built in support for.
Feel like a lot of it stems from WOTC just not knowing what to do with the Sorcerer as a class. A lot of its ideas are just kind of there and it's struggled with identity for a long time. In 3.5 it was just kind of a bad Wizard. In 4e it was a dedicated blaster, but that design space is harder to pull off in 5e in the same way. I kind of like what PF2 did, having your bloodline completely change your spell list, but that's not super feasible in 5e either (and PF2 sorcerers are still kind of underbaked anyways).
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."
That's a difference without a distinction. Classes are designed around using their class features.
... reading SemanticAvenger's post. It suddenly strikes me as really weird that the Sorcerer is the only spellcaster without some kind of dedicated battlemage/melee sub. Hexblades, bladesingers, battle clerics, wild shaping druids, armorers and battlesmiths... and Sorcerers are just kind of there. Feels like it would be incredibly thematic for an appropriate bloodline to push a sorcerer to the frontline but that's not really something they have much built in support for.
The Draconic sorc is supposed to be that, with its increased HP and AC, and extra damage on spells, but it's a PHB class that predates Hexblade and Bladesinger by a long way so it doesn't...really work.
I kind of like what PF2 did, having your bloodline completely change your spell list, but that's not super feasible in 5e either
I've had ideas about completely changing what your primary casting stat is depending on what origin you choose. Aberrant could use INT, Divine could use WIS, Shadow could use DEX, Draconic could be CON, etc. And each one would get different choice of skill profs than the others. Basically...reduce the base sorc chassis to literally subclass choice, spell slot progression, and sorc points/metamagic, then put variants of skill/weapon/armor profs and casting stats and basically everything else that makes the base class into the subclasses. Could expand that to variant spell lists, too. Make Sorcerer's niche that it's an empty shell of a class that's filled out by the most robust subclasses in the game.
For some classes I just don't like the flavor, for others the mechanics/how a subclass works.
Barbarian: I think barbarians can be really cool, I just can't think of a chara who has to be angry to fight.
Artificer: Now, this has nothing to do with Artificers not working in D&D lore, etc, this is just a remnant from when I played D&D for the first time. Back in 2016 or 2017, not sure anymore, I joined my first D&D group. Back then I had no idea how D&D worked, so I googled D&D wiki which sent me to dandwiki and while I now know that that site is 99% homebrew I didn't know that back then and just thought that it was, well, a wiki, where I could find explanations and stuff. (I didn't know about DDB back then) Anyway, I wanted to play a mage who could make magic items and asked if I could play an Arcane Warrior (some homebrew class) because their text said that they could create magic items. My DM back didn't want to use homebrew classes (also he thought I wanted to wear heavy armor as a mage, which I didn't but not the point right now), which I was completely fine with. He then suggested the then UA Artificer to me, which at first looked great, cause I saw I could craft a Bag of Holding for the group, so I then tried it for the single game we played. And I did not like it at all. We started at Lvl 1, so the only spell (that I remember) that I had was my Fire Genasi's Produce Flame. At the time we were in a cave, where I was using that cantrip instead of a torch to light the way for the other party members without darkvision. In the cave we got attacked by goblins. I couldn't throw the flame, cause the others wouldn't have been able to see anything, so all I had for attacks, was my dagger and it went as well as you can expect. My Lvl 1 Fire Genasi Artificer with his 9HP got a crit hit from a goblin, taking 10 damage and falling unconsious. We had a cleric who healed me, but it still made me feel pretty useless. ( .__.)
If I would remake the chara now, I'd choose High Elf Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer with the Clan Crafter background and Jeweler's tools.
Sounds like you just didn't choose spells. Artificers have 2 cantrips and 2 1st-level slots at 1.
I honestly can't remember, we were playing on roll20 and the campaign doesn't exist anymore (I just went and checked cause I wanted to look it up) and some time ago my external HD died, where I had chara sheet of my Genasi saved.
I just went on a google search and found the old UA Artificer from 2017, which is the one I was playing. That Artificer didn't get spells until Lvl 3.
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."
That's a difference without a distinction. Classes are designed around using their class features.
And you're point is? Monks have class features that let them do a bunch of stuff that other classes needs items to be able to do.
Sounds like you just didn't choose spells. Artificers have 2 cantrips and 2 1st-level slots at 1.
I honestly can't remember, we were playing on roll20 and the campaign doesn't exist anymore (I just went and checked cause I wanted to look it up) and some time ago my external HD died, where I had chara sheet of my Genasi saved.
I just went on a google search and found the old UA Artificer from 2017, which is the one I was playing. That Artificer didn't get spells until Lvl 3.
Oh, gross. I don't think I've ever read that version.
Sounds like you just didn't choose spells. Artificers have 2 cantrips and 2 1st-level slots at 1.
I honestly can't remember, we were playing on roll20 and the campaign doesn't exist anymore (I just went and checked cause I wanted to look it up) and some time ago my external HD died, where I had chara sheet of my Genasi saved.
I just went on a google search and found the old UA Artificer from 2017, which is the one I was playing. That Artificer didn't get spells until Lvl 3.
Oh, gross. I don't think I've ever read that version.
So gross and unfun to play. Glad the class got changed.
My least favorite class is the Wizard. To me, they are very boring and uninspiring. Every time I come up with an idea for one, I discover I like the concept better when they are any other caster class. The Bladesinger has been the only subclass that has ever even remotely piqued my interest, and even then I typically prefer other options. I’d play a Sorcerer or Warlock over a Wizard any day.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
the bad (monk) is for me boring to roleplay hayaa.....
the ugly (sorcerer) ... well Semantic Avenger just typed about sorcerer upper in discussion and yeah i share same point of view. the ugly, because still roleplaying a Wild Magic Sorcerer is always meme hero hehehehe but all other is like meh to me
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.
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.
Monks can be extremaly climatic if you make campaign in oriental flavours - but in general - taking a sum of all spells, of current events new books, new areas, even taking as a point Sigil and all those planar travel - monk can be somehow yeah "anime" meme character that forces you to play strange ways / strange races, to not be "basic" human Ip Man wingchu dragonasses.... well....
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.
Sorcerer, for being a sadder version of the Warlock. In older editions, if you inherited your magic from a family member who had an ambiguous encounter with something like a dragon, celestial, demon, etc... You'd be a Warlock. Or rather, that was well within the flavor for them, anyway.
You've got two Charisma casters, both exhibiting strange mutations and powers loosely themed around types of monsters. Both of them are supposedly feared, their magic is supposed to be different from ordinary magic, and they're both trying to give you gish options, too.
But the Sorcerer is just less cool AND less good, with its distinctive elements being a less evocative narrative and a core mechanic that by all rights should be available to all spellcasters. Yaaaay.
I think the Monk itself should be dropped. Its left over from a culture that is no longer portrayed in D&D 5e.
What needs to be done is to add back in those other cultures, classes, weapons, equipment and magics. Even find knowledgeable people from those areas to help write up the supplements.
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.
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.
Don't say that on Reddit. Community consensus is that Monk is the single worst class by a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide margin.
Yeah fair point
look on ranger or barbarian (imo) where u can LOVE gloomy subclass or totem warrior, same time crying from depression playing (old) beast master xD or berserk xD
It occurs to me that despite all the Artificer nonsense, I never talked about my least favorite class.
Which is Sorcerer.
Based on the poll results, I guess that's a minor hot take. There's the standard stuff about "low spells known," and yada yada, which Tasha subs (and lunar UA) seem to be trying to fix, and I assume will be better with PHB2 in two years, but...that still doesn't fix them for me. Nothing about the mechanics sells their flavor for me at all. Their magic doesn't feel innate at all. They should be the X-Men of D&D. They should be able to cast select 1st-level spells without a slot by like 11th level, and maybe some 2nd-level ones by 17th. They should be CON casters, as their bodies are the literal source of their magic. They should be rough-and-tumble and melee capable across the board, not just draconic ones. They should get magic resistance at some point. They should have damaging auras. Wild Magic should be broken down for parts and all subs should get Tides of Chaos with smaller (maybe d20 instead of d100) surge tables with subclass/origin-specific thematic effects. The flavor text straight up says "A sorcerer’s magic wants to be wielded, and it has a tendency to spill out in unpredictable ways if it isn’t called on." It should feel effortless but chaotic, with power boosts to match. There should be a way to cast spells not on the sorc spell list as magic just falls out of you.
And then there's metamagic. It's cool, but it's not enough to be an entire class' only ******* feature, and it doesn't feel thematic at all to me. It feels like a Wizard feature. Like, "I've studied the magical formulae and can substitute my own variables to make it work." But on the flip side, Wizard's "Spell Mastery" and "Signature Spells" do feel like sorcery things to me. Being able to cast 1st/2nd-level spells at will and 3rd-level ones a few times for free feels "Innate" to me. There's a mismatch between fluff and crunch that makes it hard for me to build a character around what we've got without massive reflavorings or minor homebrew. But even if I could square that circle, you don't get enough metamagics known, you don't get them often enough, and sorc points should come back on a short rest like ki, because they disappear pretty quick if you run anything like the recommended 6-8 fights per adventuring day.
That's the main thing for me. There's minor mechanical quibbles, but it's mostly a functional class, even pre-Tasha subs. It works, you can get some good mechanical stuff out of it, but none of the mechanics sell the fantasy for me. There's a mismatch between fluff and crunch that makes it hard for me to build a character around what we've got without massive reflavorings or minor homebrew. I find that ludonarrative dissonance is the biggest hurdle for me to overcome in 5e. Fortunately that's not a huge issue most of the time. There's a lot of classes/subclasses with flavor I don't care for, but it's not often that the flavor and the mechanics seem so wildly disconnected.
So it's got nothing to do with power-level or builds or usefulness or balance or whatever, it's just that the game and the story don't work together to make sorcerers feel like sorcerers.
That said, my second-least favorite is Barbarian 'cause they can't do anything but get hit and take hits. It gets real dull real fast.
That's a difference without a distinction. Classes are designed around using their class features.
... reading SemanticAvenger's post. It suddenly strikes me as really weird that the Sorcerer is the only spellcaster without some kind of dedicated battlemage/melee sub. Hexblades, bladesingers, battle clerics, wild shaping druids, armorers and battlesmiths... and Sorcerers are just kind of there. Feels like it would be incredibly thematic for an appropriate bloodline to push a sorcerer to the frontline but that's not really something they have much built in support for.
Feel like a lot of it stems from WOTC just not knowing what to do with the Sorcerer as a class. A lot of its ideas are just kind of there and it's struggled with identity for a long time. In 3.5 it was just kind of a bad Wizard. In 4e it was a dedicated blaster, but that design space is harder to pull off in 5e in the same way. I kind of like what PF2 did, having your bloodline completely change your spell list, but that's not super feasible in 5e either (and PF2 sorcerers are still kind of underbaked anyways).
The Draconic sorc is supposed to be that, with its increased HP and AC, and extra damage on spells, but it's a PHB class that predates Hexblade and Bladesinger by a long way so it doesn't...really work.
I've had ideas about completely changing what your primary casting stat is depending on what origin you choose. Aberrant could use INT, Divine could use WIS, Shadow could use DEX, Draconic could be CON, etc. And each one would get different choice of skill profs than the others. Basically...reduce the base sorc chassis to literally subclass choice, spell slot progression, and sorc points/metamagic, then put variants of skill/weapon/armor profs and casting stats and basically everything else that makes the base class into the subclasses. Could expand that to variant spell lists, too. Make Sorcerer's niche that it's an empty shell of a class that's filled out by the most robust subclasses in the game.
For some classes I just don't like the flavor, for others the mechanics/how a subclass works.
Barbarian: I think barbarians can be really cool, I just can't think of a chara who has to be angry to fight.
Artificer: Now, this has nothing to do with Artificers not working in D&D lore, etc, this is just a remnant from when I played D&D for the first time. Back in 2016 or 2017, not sure anymore, I joined my first D&D group. Back then I had no idea how D&D worked, so I googled D&D wiki which sent me to dandwiki and while I now know that that site is 99% homebrew I didn't know that back then and just thought that it was, well, a wiki, where I could find explanations and stuff. (I didn't know about DDB back then) Anyway, I wanted to play a mage who could make magic items and asked if I could play an Arcane Warrior (some homebrew class) because their text said that they could create magic items. My DM back didn't want to use homebrew classes (also he thought I wanted to wear heavy armor as a mage, which I didn't but not the point right now), which I was completely fine with. He then suggested the then UA Artificer to me, which at first looked great, cause I saw I could craft a Bag of Holding for the group, so I then tried it for the single game we played. And I did not like it at all.
We started at Lvl 1, so the only spell (that I remember) that I had was my Fire Genasi's Produce Flame. At the time we were in a cave, where I was using that cantrip instead of a torch to light the way for the other party members without darkvision. In the cave we got attacked by goblins. I couldn't throw the flame, cause the others wouldn't have been able to see anything, so all I had for attacks, was my dagger and it went as well as you can expect. My Lvl 1 Fire Genasi Artificer with his 9HP got a crit hit from a goblin, taking 10 damage and falling unconsious. We had a cleric who healed me, but it still made me feel pretty useless. ( .__.)
If I would remake the chara now, I'd choose High Elf Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer with the Clan Crafter background and Jeweler's tools.
Sounds like you just didn't choose spells. Artificers have 2 cantrips and 2 1st-level slots at 1.
I honestly can't remember, we were playing on roll20 and the campaign doesn't exist anymore (I just went and checked cause I wanted to look it up) and some time ago my external HD died, where I had chara sheet of my Genasi saved.
I just went on a google search and found the old UA Artificer from 2017, which is the one I was playing. That Artificer didn't get spells until Lvl 3.
And you're point is? Monks have class features that let them do a bunch of stuff that other classes needs items to be able to do.
Oh, gross. I don't think I've ever read that version.
So gross and unfun to play. Glad the class got changed.
My least favorite class is the Wizard. To me, they are very boring and uninspiring. Every time I come up with an idea for one, I discover I like the concept better when they are any other caster class. The Bladesinger has been the only subclass that has ever even remotely piqued my interest, and even then I typically prefer other options. I’d play a Sorcerer or Warlock over a Wizard any day.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Only one vote? Darn, I hate several of them.
Former LatAm Director of The Ed Greenwood Group (yes, that Ed!)
Twitch/Trovo @iDeeSalazar | #TDAH #ADHD Writer | #RPG c. 81 #NerdFam.
🇺🇸|🇧🇷|🇪🇸
Twitter/Instagram @iDeeSalazar
Translator of all geeky things (AAA games, TTRPGs, D&D, you name it) since 1990.
So rank them :D the good the bad and the ugly xD
the good (warlock) is sweetspot for me
the bad (monk) is for me boring to roleplay hayaa.....
the ugly (sorcerer) ... well Semantic Avenger just typed about sorcerer upper in discussion and yeah i share same point of view. the ugly, because still roleplaying a Wild Magic Sorcerer is always meme hero hehehehe but all other is like meh to me
Thematically: The monk.
Mechanically: The monk.
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.
Monks can be extremaly climatic if you make campaign in oriental flavours - but in general - taking a sum of all spells, of current events new books, new areas, even taking as a point Sigil and all those planar travel - monk can be somehow yeah "anime" meme character that forces you to play strange ways / strange races, to not be "basic" human Ip Man wingchu dragonasses.... well....
Thematically I freaking love the monk. I just wish they didn't suck so bad mechanically.
Sorcerer, for being a sadder version of the Warlock. In older editions, if you inherited your magic from a family member who had an ambiguous encounter with something like a dragon, celestial, demon, etc... You'd be a Warlock. Or rather, that was well within the flavor for them, anyway.
You've got two Charisma casters, both exhibiting strange mutations and powers loosely themed around types of monsters. Both of them are supposedly feared, their magic is supposed to be different from ordinary magic, and they're both trying to give you gish options, too.
But the Sorcerer is just less cool AND less good, with its distinctive elements being a less evocative narrative and a core mechanic that by all rights should be available to all spellcasters. Yaaaay.
I think the Monk itself should be dropped. Its left over from a culture that is no longer portrayed in D&D 5e.
What needs to be done is to add back in those other cultures, classes, weapons, equipment and magics. Even find knowledgeable people from those areas to help write up the supplements.
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.
Don't say that on Reddit. Community consensus is that Monk is the single worst class by a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide margin.