I just feel like everything conceptually (and PARTIALLY mechanically) about them can be achieved by some variation of Fighter, Cleric or multi of each. Heck, I could even see an argument for a sub of Barbarian...
I generally don't like how cleric and monk were made separate things, when lore function wise, they should fall in the same category (character whose life is shaped by their spiritual/ religious calling, and who derives power from such).
Personally, I feel like Monk should have been either a sub-class of Fighter or Cleric. Mechanics wise fighter, since I think it fits for a fighter to be an ace martial-artist, and cleric for the aforementioned spiritual RP side of things.
Monk, because the class that's all about mastering their own body is somehow the most inflexible class out there.
Stats are extremely rigid. You NEED high dex and wis, and con can hardly budge either because you're a frontliner with d8 hitpoints. The highest you can ever reasonably push another stat is 12, and even that feels like a stretch.
No armor or weapon proficiencies to speak of, and even trying to implement them in your build through other methods will turn off half your class features.
Multiclassing is difficult because of the rigid stats. And if you even *can* multiclass, it's going to go poorly because you ki and damage are dependent on you *monk* level.
Oh, there's a cool feat or racial ability you want to use? Too bad it's a bonus action, so it's going to compete with everything else the monk does with their bonus action. And good luck picking up feats when your ASIs are in such high demand.
By picking a monk as your class, you are picking a fight with every single thing you can ever make a decision about in regards to your character.
From a purely personal "taste" stance: Barbarian. Just not an archetype that I find particularly interesting or compelling to play generally; same goes for the class in Diablo. Also not a huge bard guy; always feels a bit odd to me from an in-universe logic perspective.
From a game-play stance: Monk, monk needs more work to make its mechanics shine in DnD. I LOVE the idea of a martial arts character, I love anime-esque and Asian-inspired themes. I love the "idea" of monk... But the execution leaves a lot to be desired. Monk also hurts itself by (ironically) being very self-sufficient: it doesn't benefit from a LOT of the game's magic items (all armor and weapons by in large); so that's another bit of teh game you just don't get to interact with.
From a "most disappointing subclass" stance: Assassin rogue. I can't think of a single time that I'd actually want to use that class; stealth, infiltration, and surprise are already situational in 5e and hard to pull off in a party, so pidgeon-holing yourself into that feels very underwhelming. Then again: Purple dragon knight fighter and four-elements monk also belong on that list...
I'm not really a fan of most of the Artificer subclasses purely from a flavor perspective. As someone earlier said the flavor of alchemist would be cool but the subclass is poorly implemented.
If we're counting it, my least favorite is definitely Blood Hunter. There are so many different factors stacked against anyone who wants to play one, it's ridiculous. Plus, the flavor is specific enough that I'd say it'd be better as a Fighter or Ranger subclass.
Yeah, I really like the concept but there are way too many barriers to playing it right now, which is why it should be modified and made an official class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Oh yeah I also really dislike bladesinger. They blatantly break the AC system and don't really fulfill their promise as an interesting Gish because...spells are always better for them than weapon attacks.
Fighter, because I think the barbarian is just the fighter but better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time. -Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
All of them and none of them. By that I mean for me anyway, it really depends on the entire situation. If I'm with a fun group then anything I play is going to feel fun. Also, as some have said or alluded too anyway, I might like one class/subclass from a RP perspective, another from a mechanics perspective.
Someone mentioned assassination rogue because there was almost never a real chance to do what they do well, and that's my other thought. This isn't to point fingers at anyone really, but sometimes it depends on the adventure and the DM. If all the encounters and stuff are just tank and spank, then yeah, a lot of classes/subclasses are going to feel left out or sub optimal while another constantly gets to do cool things and smash face with big numbers and flashy spells. But by the same token try being a raging barbarian all the time when you're in a political intrigue game. Now they could feel nearly useless if there's hardly ever any fighting. Or being a life cleric in a world where people don't get hurt that much.
Add onto all of that the fact that most classes play very similarly for the first few levels, when most adventures run, and it is easy to feel like your character stinks or isn't good or whatever, and then if the adventure is over by level 3, or falls apart (like so many do) then I can absolutely see how you can walk away feeling bad about your character. I'm not saying every class is amazing at level 20, I agree there's always work to be done even with "good" classes.
All that being said, we all naturally want to fall into familiar and comfortable playstyles. Some prefer being in melee, others like casting from afar, others like more support roles. There also should be consideration of whether we're talking about things in a vacuum, or with a party.
bard. lore-wise they are spies but also they're scholarly and they're jack's of all trades and master of a few things too and super popular and also they can swordfight and oh yeah they're full spellcasters all the way to 9th just by being so clever and handsome.
...and in all of that, music wasn't mentioned because it's tangential. no base ability to play a song of power to protect the party from fear and illusion. no base class ability to play a power chord that hits a wave of foes with thunderous notes, bludgeoning winds, and a touch of psychic woe. no putting giants to sleep with a magical lullaby. no stacking auras of blended background melodies to benefit the group in a number of ways and hinder foes. instead, they hold a fife like a wand to cast Tiny Hut or Animate Objects or Fireball like any other mage. but a less handsome, less 'main character' mage for sure
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
I did not expect so many anti-bard people. That is really interesting to me. I guess this is why we need so many classes/subclasses - you like what you like and don't what you don't.
You know that Wild Magic is just one subclass for Sorcerer, right? If you don't want to play a character that's somewhat chaotic, maybe choose a different one.
Eh, just not my cup of tea. Admittedly, I have never made and played a sorcerer character, so there is probably a lot that I misunderstand, but from seeing other players, and their Sorcerer characters, from both a DM's perspective and a fellow Player's perspective, it just seems like wild fun. Easily enjoyable for someone else, but I personally wouldn't choose a Sorcerer over a Druid, Warlock, or Wizard.
Evidently plenty of people have different perspectives about what makes a character enjoyable, as evident in this sub. I find it interesting to see these different perspectives.
I've played a Sorcerer, and found them fun, but that I think was largely the character and not the class, which is basically true for all my favourite characters. He was an autognome with magical gems which he used to cast spells. He could just as easily have used them to Wildshape or Smite, but I made him a Sorcerer!
Monk.
I just feel like everything conceptually (and PARTIALLY mechanically) about them can be achieved by some variation of Fighter, Cleric or multi of each. Heck, I could even see an argument for a sub of Barbarian...
I generally don't like how cleric and monk were made separate things, when lore function wise, they should fall in the same category (character whose life is shaped by their spiritual/ religious calling, and who derives power from such).
Personally, I feel like Monk should have been either a sub-class of Fighter or Cleric. Mechanics wise fighter, since I think it fits for a fighter to be an ace martial-artist, and cleric for the aforementioned spiritual RP side of things.
Monk, because the class that's all about mastering their own body is somehow the most inflexible class out there.
Stats are extremely rigid. You NEED high dex and wis, and con can hardly budge either because you're a frontliner with d8 hitpoints. The highest you can ever reasonably push another stat is 12, and even that feels like a stretch.
No armor or weapon proficiencies to speak of, and even trying to implement them in your build through other methods will turn off half your class features.
Multiclassing is difficult because of the rigid stats. And if you even *can* multiclass, it's going to go poorly because you ki and damage are dependent on you *monk* level.
Oh, there's a cool feat or racial ability you want to use? Too bad it's a bonus action, so it's going to compete with everything else the monk does with their bonus action. And good luck picking up feats when your ASIs are in such high demand.
By picking a monk as your class, you are picking a fight with every single thing you can ever make a decision about in regards to your character.
From a purely personal "taste" stance: Barbarian. Just not an archetype that I find particularly interesting or compelling to play generally; same goes for the class in Diablo. Also not a huge bard guy; always feels a bit odd to me from an in-universe logic perspective.
From a game-play stance: Monk, monk needs more work to make its mechanics shine in DnD. I LOVE the idea of a martial arts character, I love anime-esque and Asian-inspired themes. I love the "idea" of monk... But the execution leaves a lot to be desired. Monk also hurts itself by (ironically) being very self-sufficient: it doesn't benefit from a LOT of the game's magic items (all armor and weapons by in large); so that's another bit of teh game you just don't get to interact with.
From a "most disappointing subclass" stance: Assassin rogue. I can't think of a single time that I'd actually want to use that class; stealth, infiltration, and surprise are already situational in 5e and hard to pull off in a party, so pidgeon-holing yourself into that feels very underwhelming. Then again: Purple dragon knight fighter and four-elements monk also belong on that list...
I'm not really a fan of most of the Artificer subclasses purely from a flavor perspective. As someone earlier said the flavor of alchemist would be cool but the subclass is poorly implemented.
Yeah, I really like the concept but there are way too many barriers to playing it right now, which is why it should be modified and made an official class.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Oh yeah I also really dislike bladesinger. They blatantly break the AC system and don't really fulfill their promise as an interesting Gish because...spells are always better for them than weapon attacks.
Fighter, because I think the barbarian is just the fighter but better.
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time.
-Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
I love all of them! But if I had to pick one it would be monk, it just has structural problems that need work. But I love the concept.
All of them and none of them. By that I mean for me anyway, it really depends on the entire situation. If I'm with a fun group then anything I play is going to feel fun. Also, as some have said or alluded too anyway, I might like one class/subclass from a RP perspective, another from a mechanics perspective.
Someone mentioned assassination rogue because there was almost never a real chance to do what they do well, and that's my other thought. This isn't to point fingers at anyone really, but sometimes it depends on the adventure and the DM. If all the encounters and stuff are just tank and spank, then yeah, a lot of classes/subclasses are going to feel left out or sub optimal while another constantly gets to do cool things and smash face with big numbers and flashy spells. But by the same token try being a raging barbarian all the time when you're in a political intrigue game. Now they could feel nearly useless if there's hardly ever any fighting. Or being a life cleric in a world where people don't get hurt that much.
Add onto all of that the fact that most classes play very similarly for the first few levels, when most adventures run, and it is easy to feel like your character stinks or isn't good or whatever, and then if the adventure is over by level 3, or falls apart (like so many do) then I can absolutely see how you can walk away feeling bad about your character. I'm not saying every class is amazing at level 20, I agree there's always work to be done even with "good" classes.
All that being said, we all naturally want to fall into familiar and comfortable playstyles. Some prefer being in melee, others like casting from afar, others like more support roles. There also should be consideration of whether we're talking about things in a vacuum, or with a party.
bard. lore-wise they are spies but also they're scholarly and they're jack's of all trades and master of a few things too and super popular and also they can swordfight and oh yeah they're full spellcasters all the way to 9th just by being so clever and handsome.
...and in all of that, music wasn't mentioned because it's tangential. no base ability to play a song of power to protect the party from fear and illusion. no base class ability to play a power chord that hits a wave of foes with thunderous notes, bludgeoning winds, and a touch of psychic woe. no putting giants to sleep with a magical lullaby. no stacking auras of blended background melodies to benefit the group in a number of ways and hinder foes. instead, they hold a fife like a wand to cast Tiny Hut or Animate Objects or Fireball like any other mage. but a less handsome, less 'main character' mage for sure
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I did not expect so many anti-bard people. That is really interesting to me. I guess this is why we need so many classes/subclasses - you like what you like and don't what you don't.
It's Monk for me. There are a few features I like, but they all feel a bit flat overall.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Same. And the PHB's ranger is second for me.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Eh, just not my cup of tea. Admittedly, I have never made and played a sorcerer character, so there is probably a lot that I misunderstand, but from seeing other players, and their Sorcerer characters, from both a DM's perspective and a fellow Player's perspective, it just seems like wild fun. Easily enjoyable for someone else, but I personally wouldn't choose a Sorcerer over a Druid, Warlock, or Wizard.
Evidently plenty of people have different perspectives about what makes a character enjoyable, as evident in this sub. I find it interesting to see these different perspectives.
I've played a Sorcerer, and found them fun, but that I think was largely the character and not the class, which is basically true for all my favourite characters. He was an autognome with magical gems which he used to cast spells. He could just as easily have used them to Wildshape or Smite, but I made him a Sorcerer!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Monk. Played one, died within first five sessions. I hated that guy.
Your character, or your DM?