After that the Bard. Not for any game reason but because I personally think of them as the guitar playing hippy trying to pick up your girlfriend( hey it happened to me IRL). So most of my character take a dislike to them so much so that they are the targets of tricks no matter what.
Barbarians. Just because I think barbarian is more a culture than a class. They should be more fighter than the Ranger but less fighter then the fighter. Why should they get any special abilities more than a fully professionally trained fighter? Rage, please, who couldn't get just as angry and do the same thing?
Warlock - I just don’t like even playing being beholden to someone else for my powers. ( and yes I know I can reskin it how I want ,but I still know what the mechanic is.)
Anyways, I guess my least favorite classes to play are martials and half-casters. Here is my favorites tier list, with some subclasses standing way out of the rest of their class: 1. wizard 2. sorcerer, bard, genie warlock 3. warlock, cleric, druid, cavalier fighter, vengeance paladin 4. everyone else
Warlock - I just don’t like even playing being beholden to someone else for my powers. ( and yes I know I can reskin it how I want ,but I still know what the mechanic is.)
Warlock - I just don’t like even playing being beholden to someone else for my powers. ( and yes I know I can reskin it how I want ,but I still know what the mechanic is.)
I don’t exactly hate the monk but I feel it suffers from the opposite problem for the old ranger. The old ranger was too hyper focused on one environment and enemy type with only one combat goals of “consistent single-target damage with solid lockdown and chase tools.” Where the monk suffers from having a lot of ribbon features that either mix poorly or not at all with their base features. They can function as skirmishers with their movement speed and escape options but they also want to be in super close to land stunning strikes. I feel a redesign of their core abilities and subclass features is in order. (Also changing their martial arts die to basically be a free unarmed fighting style plus wis mod, because a fighter or normal variant human with have a higher damage die if they take unarmed fighting until the monk reaches fifth level, which really stings given how central martial arts is to the whole class)
Lot of folks up in here hating on Artificer for "reasons" not actually based on fact. I have to wonder how many people complaining about the "technology" angle have actually read the Artie's flavor. The literal first two sentences are:
"Masters of invention, artificers use ingenuity and magic to unlock extraordinary capabilities in objects. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and then harnessed in their spells and inventions."
They are not inherently technological, nor mundane. Nothing they do is non-magical. They are casting spells, both mechanically and narratively. The very first feature they get, Magical Tinkering, says "you learn how to invest a spark of magic into mundane objects," and all their magic works that way, they weave the arcane into the mundane.
Actually, in my mind, the archetypal artificers in modern fantasy fiction are Sandal and Bodahn from Dragon Age. Artificers analyze magic the way scientists do physical laws, but they're still DOING MAGIC. All their flavor supports this. The fluff offers multiple ways you can describe and flavor your casting as creating magically-enhanced devices, but those are potential options, they're not proscriptive. Mechanically, all you need is to have tools or an infused item to cast.
Basically, every objection I've read in this thread indicates the objector hasn't actually read the class, either looked at the art or simply jumped on the Reddit/YouTube bandwagon. But there's nothing restrictive about the flavor of artificer, no one way to do them, if anything, they're given more flavor choices than any other class, and there's no setting they can't work in. People who claim otherwise simply lack imagination.
Artificers analyze magic the way scientists do physical laws, but they're still DOING MAGIC.
The problem is, the description you just gave is what wizards are -- people who study and analyze how the laws of magic work, and have developed a system for manipulating it. So where does that leave artificers, if the character concept you have is "caster with a scientific approach to magic"?
The 5e version of artificer is just kind of weird and awkward, and regardless of the flavor text, they're in the game to be the technology-themed and inventor class
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)
Wizards learn magic by rote, practice and repetition, artificers are studying the mechanics of how magic works and putting it into objects. I think that's enough of a difference to fill a flavor niche. There's a difference between scholars and craftsmen.
Lot of folks up in here hating on Artificer for "reasons" not actually based on fact. I have to wonder how many people complaining about the "technology" angle have actually read the Artie's flavor. The literal first two sentences are:
"Masters of invention, artificers use ingenuity and magic to unlock extraordinary capabilities in objects. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and then harnessed in their spells and inventions."
They are not inherently technological, nor mundane. Nothing they do is non-magical. They are casting spells, both mechanically and narratively. The very first feature they get, Magical Tinkering, says "you learn how to invest a spark of magic into mundane objects," and all their magic works that way, they weave the arcane into the mundane.
Actually, in my mind, the archetypal artificers in modern fantasy fiction are Sandal and Bodahn from Dragon Age. Artificers analyze magic the way scientists do physical laws, but they're still DOING MAGIC. All their flavor supports this. The fluff offers multiple ways you can describe and flavor your casting as creating magically-enhanced devices, but those are potential options, they're not proscriptive. Mechanically, all you need is to have tools or an infused item to cast.
Basically, every objection I've read in this thread indicates the objector hasn't actually read the class, either looked at the art or simply jumped on the Reddit/YouTube bandwagon. But there's nothing restrictive about the flavor of artificer, no one way to do them, if anything, they're given more flavor choices than any other class, and there's no setting they can't work in. People who claim otherwise simply lack imagination.
I like artificer because I love building things, and it is easy to imagine an artificer inventing something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
I'd overall say my least favorite class is Barbarian by far. I've never been interested in the concept of it though thematically, and on the side of mechanics, Rage is absurdly restrictive on what you can do in combat. I get spell casting, but not allowing any action but attack? I get they want to say, "hey, this is the attack class now go hit stuff" but it's just absurd that there's nothing for players who want an experience with more depth. (Another note, but I hate that rage is a bonus action, It really should be a free action to activate/deactivate. The limited uses already balance it out)
You can make a newb friendly class while having strategy. Yes, most of the time when you play a martial you just run up and attack, but there's some strategy to the other martial classes still. Rogues can properly position and work with the team, fighters can find the most tactical time to second wind, action surge, etc and are super customizable while being simple. Additionally the subclasses for the other martial classes are great! Fighters have amazing subclasses while also giving both tactical (battlemaster, eldritch knight) and more simple subclasses (champion, samurai). I also think it doesn't help that Barbarians have both mechanically weak subclasses and zero subclasses with much depth. (listen I get that it's a simple class but give me at least one option with depth) The only "good" barbarian subclasses is Totem Warrior (I actually like the customization and playstyle changing options of this one! One of the few I like!) and Ancestral Guardian (AKA how to make your DM hate you 101. 5e doesn't work like an MMO so stop defending the subclass by screaming that it's "the needed tank role".)
Another thing about barbarian is the stupidly low utility it has. The other martial classes have at least something when it comes to that. Rogues have the expertise mechanic, monks get a few niche features as they level and some subclasses help out with utility), and fighters have more feats (enough room for a utility one if you desire it) and some fighter subclasses get utility too! Barbarians typically don't get any sort of utility up until level 10.
I don’t like artificer or ranger. Ranger has too few spell slots and situational features. I also don’t like Druid due to the stuff you have to keep track of. I also don’t enjoy monks because of the lack of ki points to use abilities
Lot of folks up in here hating on Artificer for "reasons" not actually based on fact. I have to wonder how many people complaining about the "technology" angle have actually read the Artie's flavor. The literal first two sentences are:
"Masters of invention, artificers use ingenuity and magic to unlock extraordinary capabilities in objects. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and then harnessed in their spells and inventions."
They are not inherently technological, nor mundane. Nothing they do is non-magical. They are casting spells, both mechanically and narratively. The very first feature they get, Magical Tinkering, says "you learn how to invest a spark of magic into mundane objects," and all their magic works that way, they weave the arcane into the mundane.
Actually, in my mind, the archetypal artificers in modern fantasy fiction are Sandal and Bodahn from Dragon Age. Artificers analyze magic the way scientists do physical laws, but they're still DOING MAGIC. All their flavor supports this. The fluff offers multiple ways you can describe and flavor your casting as creating magically-enhanced devices, but those are potential options, they're not proscriptive. Mechanically, all you need is to have tools or an infused item to cast.
Basically, every objection I've read in this thread indicates the objector hasn't actually read the class, either looked at the art or simply jumped on the Reddit/YouTube bandwagon. But there's nothing restrictive about the flavor of artificer, no one way to do them, if anything, they're given more flavor choices than any other class, and there's no setting they can't work in. People who claim otherwise simply lack imagination.
The reason I dislike them has nothing to do with flavor. I dislike them because they're weak. They don't get nearly enough to justify only being a half caster. Rangers and Paladins are far stronger half casters.
Okay so this thread is half filled with the war for whether or not artificer is good. To be honest, I don't feel that strongly about it. I mean, I think making magic items is cool but I see the argument about teach. I could go either way. I defiantly allow it in my games, but the most I've ever played it was a one-shot.
My least favorite class is hard to pick. I enjoy all the classes but can find faults with them all. My bottom three would probably be paladin, monk, then barbarian.
Paladin is a great nova damage dealer, tank, and healer. I like the idea of playing an oath-bound warrior similar to the knights of the round table idea of chivalry, and I like the resource management of having spell slots for smiting and for spellcasting and smiting. However, there are a few things that make it my least favorite. For one, I find holy warrior concept and oath-warrior concept different. I like the idea of oath warrior, and I'm not apposed to holy warrior but they don't need to be the same class. I find it somewhat hard thematically to do both. Secondly, both concepts really didn't need an entire class. War domain cleric jut needs smites instead one of the other abilities then it's a paladin. Chivalry already should be a cleric domain or fighter archetype. Next, I feel like the oath options are restrictive. Many other classes did a good job diversifying subclass so there are a lot to satisfy many different archetypes and concepts. However, most of the paladin subclasses seem redundant or very niche leaving many seemingly important archetypes unfilled and with few different thematic satisfied. Finally, while going nova can be really fun, I have had experiences DMing where a boss fights was one-shot killed by a paladin going nova which left me a little salty because I couldn't have a full long boss fight with all the dramatic action. But the class is still well-made and fun so 6/10.
Monk is an easy to understand yet non-basic class because of its ki. It has great mobility and can deal mediocre damage to single or multiple targets. It fulfills the fantasy of a martial artist superhero going hand-to-hand. However, it has mechanical downfalls that make it my second least favorite class. Firstly, it deals low damage at early levels comparatively to other classes which makes it far less advantageous to play. At level 1 monk is dealing 1d6+3+1d4+3=12 average damage in most cases. Barbarian on average deals 1d12+3+2=11.5 average damage while taking half damage from everyone and 2 more hp. Rogue can deal 1d8+2d6+3=14.5 damage with range is they can get sneak attack which isn't much of a stretch. Secondly, the great mobility which is a key part of the class is not used much in many games. Whether it be a dungeons crawl or just opportunity attacks being annoying that it's hard to use the mobility of the class in too many situations. But they can sill be fun to play despite the mechanical short-comings. 7/10.
Finally, barbarian is a great fun class that does a good job being both a primal warrior and raging tanks. My only two problems with the class are the lack of combat options and the restriction of spellcasting. Most classes have more strategy and options in combat but barbarians mainly just rage and attack. Secondly, you can't really have a spellcasting subclass of barbarian or even multiclass into a spellcasting class. The rage says you can't cast spells or concentrate on spells which while make sense for raging is just restricting and does not add much the class itself. But both aren't enough to take away significantly from the class so 7/10.
I think the easy fix to Artificer is to significantly buff their infusions.
But the Ranger and the Paladin can take to Pepsi challenge to full martial classes, without even relying on magic. The casting power of a half caster is a huge Nerf when compared to full casters. So on your turn, whether you're casting a spell or not, you're getting out shined.
Give their infused items a big buff. Also, DM's, don't deprive your Artificer players of external in-game magic items, just because they can make their own.
Lot of folks up in here hating on Artificer for "reasons" not actually based on fact. I have to wonder how many people complaining about the "technology" angle have actually read the Artie's flavor. The literal first two sentences are:
"Masters of invention, artificers use ingenuity and magic to unlock extraordinary capabilities in objects. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and then harnessed in their spells and inventions."
They are not inherently technological, nor mundane. Nothing they do is non-magical. They are casting spells, both mechanically and narratively. The very first feature they get, Magical Tinkering, says "you learn how to invest a spark of magic into mundane objects," and all their magic works that way, they weave the arcane into the mundane.
Actually, in my mind, the archetypal artificers in modern fantasy fiction are Sandal and Bodahn from Dragon Age. Artificers analyze magic the way scientists do physical laws, but they're still DOING MAGIC. All their flavor supports this. The fluff offers multiple ways you can describe and flavor your casting as creating magically-enhanced devices, but those are potential options, they're not proscriptive. Mechanically, all you need is to have tools or an infused item to cast.
Basically, every objection I've read in this thread indicates the objector hasn't actually read the class, either looked at the art or simply jumped on the Reddit/YouTube bandwagon. But there's nothing restrictive about the flavor of artificer, no one way to do them, if anything, they're given more flavor choices than any other class, and there's no setting they can't work in. People who claim otherwise simply lack imagination.
The reason I dislike them has nothing to do with flavor. I dislike them because they're weak. They don't get nearly enough to justify only being a half caster. Rangers and Paladins are far stronger half casters.
That’s because the other half of Rangers and Paladins is martial. The other half of Artificer is support/skill monkey. They are very strong, just as something other than a martial classes is all.
Artafister. For all the reasons Flushmaster gave.
After that the Bard. Not for any game reason but because I personally think of them as the guitar playing hippy trying to pick up your girlfriend( hey it happened to me IRL). So most of my character take a dislike to them so much so that they are the targets of tricks no matter what.
Barbarians. Just because I think barbarian is more a culture than a class. They should be more fighter than the Ranger but less fighter then the fighter. Why should they get any special abilities more than a fully professionally trained fighter? Rage, please, who couldn't get just as angry and do the same thing?
Warlock - I just don’t like even playing being beholden to someone else for my powers. ( and yes I know I can reskin it how I want ,but I still know what the mechanic is.)
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
All of them. I hate the concept of classes.
Anyways, I guess my least favorite classes to play are martials and half-casters. Here is my favorites tier list, with some subclasses standing way out of the rest of their class:
1. wizard
2. sorcerer, bard, genie warlock
3. warlock, cleric, druid, cavalier fighter, vengeance paladin
4. everyone else
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I am a GM, so I am above the rules! I can make my NPCs however I want. I do not face the same classes, limits, and restrictions that my players do.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
So Cleric is second worst for you then? :-)
And Paladin third?
i am a human being.
I don’t exactly hate the monk but I feel it suffers from the opposite problem for the old ranger. The old ranger was too hyper focused on one environment and enemy type with only one combat goals of “consistent single-target damage with solid lockdown and chase tools.” Where the monk suffers from having a lot of ribbon features that either mix poorly or not at all with their base features. They can function as skirmishers with their movement speed and escape options but they also want to be in super close to land stunning strikes. I feel a redesign of their core abilities and subclass features is in order. (Also changing their martial arts die to basically be a free unarmed fighting style plus wis mod, because a fighter or normal variant human with have a higher damage die if they take unarmed fighting until the monk reaches fifth level, which really stings given how central martial arts is to the whole class)
Lot of folks up in here hating on Artificer for "reasons" not actually based on fact. I have to wonder how many people complaining about the "technology" angle have actually read the Artie's flavor. The literal first two sentences are:
"Masters of invention, artificers use ingenuity and magic to unlock extraordinary capabilities in objects. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and then harnessed in their spells and inventions."
They are not inherently technological, nor mundane. Nothing they do is non-magical. They are casting spells, both mechanically and narratively. The very first feature they get, Magical Tinkering, says "you learn how to invest a spark of magic into mundane objects," and all their magic works that way, they weave the arcane into the mundane.
Actually, in my mind, the archetypal artificers in modern fantasy fiction are Sandal and Bodahn from Dragon Age. Artificers analyze magic the way scientists do physical laws, but they're still DOING MAGIC. All their flavor supports this. The fluff offers multiple ways you can describe and flavor your casting as creating magically-enhanced devices, but those are potential options, they're not proscriptive. Mechanically, all you need is to have tools or an infused item to cast.
Basically, every objection I've read in this thread indicates the objector hasn't actually read the class, either looked at the art or simply jumped on the Reddit/YouTube bandwagon. But there's nothing restrictive about the flavor of artificer, no one way to do them, if anything, they're given more flavor choices than any other class, and there's no setting they can't work in. People who claim otherwise simply lack imagination.
The problem is, the description you just gave is what wizards are -- people who study and analyze how the laws of magic work, and have developed a system for manipulating it. So where does that leave artificers, if the character concept you have is "caster with a scientific approach to magic"?
The 5e version of artificer is just kind of weird and awkward, and regardless of the flavor text, they're in the game to be the technology-themed and inventor class
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)
Wizards learn magic by rote, practice and repetition, artificers are studying the mechanics of how magic works and putting it into objects. I think that's enough of a difference to fill a flavor niche. There's a difference between scholars and craftsmen.
I like artificer because I love building things, and it is easy to imagine an artificer inventing something.
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
I'd overall say my least favorite class is Barbarian by far. I've never been interested in the concept of it though thematically, and on the side of mechanics, Rage is absurdly restrictive on what you can do in combat. I get spell casting, but not allowing any action but attack? I get they want to say, "hey, this is the attack class now go hit stuff" but it's just absurd that there's nothing for players who want an experience with more depth. (Another note, but I hate that rage is a bonus action, It really should be a free action to activate/deactivate. The limited uses already balance it out)
You can make a newb friendly class while having strategy. Yes, most of the time when you play a martial you just run up and attack, but there's some strategy to the other martial classes still. Rogues can properly position and work with the team, fighters can find the most tactical time to second wind, action surge, etc and are super customizable while being simple. Additionally the subclasses for the other martial classes are great! Fighters have amazing subclasses while also giving both tactical (battlemaster, eldritch knight) and more simple subclasses (champion, samurai). I also think it doesn't help that Barbarians have both mechanically weak subclasses and zero subclasses with much depth. (listen I get that it's a simple class but give me at least one option with depth) The only "good" barbarian subclasses is Totem Warrior (I actually like the customization and playstyle changing options of this one! One of the few I like!) and Ancestral Guardian (AKA how to make your DM hate you 101. 5e doesn't work like an MMO so stop defending the subclass by screaming that it's "the needed tank role".)
Another thing about barbarian is the stupidly low utility it has. The other martial classes have at least something when it comes to that. Rogues have the expertise mechanic, monks get a few niche features as they level and some subclasses help out with utility), and fighters have more feats (enough room for a utility one if you desire it) and some fighter subclasses get utility too! Barbarians typically don't get any sort of utility up until level 10.
I don’t like artificer or ranger. Ranger has too few spell slots and situational features. I also don’t like Druid due to the stuff you have to keep track of. I also don’t enjoy monks because of the lack of ki points to use abilities
"I am Hrothgar, son of Hrothgar..." | Personal Forum Site: Main | Paladin Forum (harmoncia37.editorx.io)
I speak Norwegian (Bokmål) and some Irish (Gaeilge)
I struggle with droods, but that's because wild shape is just such a funky mechanic. I like it, but it feels "different".
The reason I dislike them has nothing to do with flavor. I dislike them because they're weak. They don't get nearly enough to justify only being a half caster. Rangers and Paladins are far stronger half casters.
Okay so this thread is half filled with the war for whether or not artificer is good. To be honest, I don't feel that strongly about it. I mean, I think making magic items is cool but I see the argument about teach. I could go either way. I defiantly allow it in my games, but the most I've ever played it was a one-shot.
My least favorite class is hard to pick. I enjoy all the classes but can find faults with them all. My bottom three would probably be paladin, monk, then barbarian.
Paladin is a great nova damage dealer, tank, and healer. I like the idea of playing an oath-bound warrior similar to the knights of the round table idea of chivalry, and I like the resource management of having spell slots for smiting and for spellcasting and smiting. However, there are a few things that make it my least favorite. For one, I find holy warrior concept and oath-warrior concept different. I like the idea of oath warrior, and I'm not apposed to holy warrior but they don't need to be the same class. I find it somewhat hard thematically to do both. Secondly, both concepts really didn't need an entire class. War domain cleric jut needs smites instead one of the other abilities then it's a paladin. Chivalry already should be a cleric domain or fighter archetype. Next, I feel like the oath options are restrictive. Many other classes did a good job diversifying subclass so there are a lot to satisfy many different archetypes and concepts. However, most of the paladin subclasses seem redundant or very niche leaving many seemingly important archetypes unfilled and with few different thematic satisfied. Finally, while going nova can be really fun, I have had experiences DMing where a boss fights was one-shot killed by a paladin going nova which left me a little salty because I couldn't have a full long boss fight with all the dramatic action. But the class is still well-made and fun so 6/10.
Monk is an easy to understand yet non-basic class because of its ki. It has great mobility and can deal mediocre damage to single or multiple targets. It fulfills the fantasy of a martial artist superhero going hand-to-hand. However, it has mechanical downfalls that make it my second least favorite class. Firstly, it deals low damage at early levels comparatively to other classes which makes it far less advantageous to play. At level 1 monk is dealing 1d6+3+1d4+3=12 average damage in most cases. Barbarian on average deals 1d12+3+2=11.5 average damage while taking half damage from everyone and 2 more hp. Rogue can deal 1d8+2d6+3=14.5 damage with range is they can get sneak attack which isn't much of a stretch. Secondly, the great mobility which is a key part of the class is not used much in many games. Whether it be a dungeons crawl or just opportunity attacks being annoying that it's hard to use the mobility of the class in too many situations. But they can sill be fun to play despite the mechanical short-comings. 7/10.
Finally, barbarian is a great fun class that does a good job being both a primal warrior and raging tanks. My only two problems with the class are the lack of combat options and the restriction of spellcasting. Most classes have more strategy and options in combat but barbarians mainly just rage and attack. Secondly, you can't really have a spellcasting subclass of barbarian or even multiclass into a spellcasting class. The rage says you can't cast spells or concentrate on spells which while make sense for raging is just restricting and does not add much the class itself. But both aren't enough to take away significantly from the class so 7/10.
So yeah I like all the classes.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Who else is surprised to see Wizard tied for 2nd worst class?? Is it because they consider it OP?
I think the easy fix to Artificer is to significantly buff their infusions.
But the Ranger and the Paladin can take to Pepsi challenge to full martial classes, without even relying on magic. The casting power of a half caster is a huge Nerf when compared to full casters. So on your turn, whether you're casting a spell or not, you're getting out shined.
Give their infused items a big buff. Also, DM's, don't deprive your Artificer players of external in-game magic items, just because they can make their own.
That’s because the other half of Rangers and Paladins is martial. The other half of Artificer is support/skill monkey. They are very strong, just as something other than a martial classes is all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting