This will probably be an unpopular opinion but, Wizard is actually my least favorite class to play. For being the ultimate utility caster, they just seem kinda over powerfully....bland. They are a master of a school of magic, which is cool but.... I don’t know it just doesn’t seem as interesting to me. 

The two Wizard subclass I actually found interesting and actually sparked my creativity and desire to play a Wizard.....was the Bladesinger (more so because it’s a good gish class then because it’s a cool Wizard) and the Psionic Wizard (which was controversial, not well received, and is now a Dead UA).

Every other Class has things I really like (mechanically and thematically) even if they aren’t as good as a Wizard, and all the other Classes have subclasses that I really want to play. But the Wizard? Maybe I’ll play a Bladesinger at some point but otherwise I’ll stick with the Sorcerer or a Warlock for my Arcane casters.

Monk. The combo of being skirmish warriors with MAD that doesn't include Cha or Int puts me off a bit. It's nothing major, just not in my happy space.

Whoa! Why do so many people hate the monk!? They have just as good damage output as the other martial classes, their unarmored AC makes them just as hard (if not harder) to hit, and they get really awesome things they can do with ki! Nevermind all the awesome things like running on walls and across water, or getting proficiency in all saving throws (which according to the DMG, is the equivalent of a +4 to AC).

Quote from KidPenguin >>

Whoa! Why do so many people hate the monk!?

 "Least favourite" doesn't mean people hate the monk.

Bard by a significant margin is my least favorite.  

They are usually obnoxious and annoying, I don’t like their spell list, and the idea of casting through a flute or whatever has never caught my interest.  

Hey, can you see how many people participated in this poll? I could really use this data for a presentation that I'm working on. Thanks. 

Quote from Im_TheRouge >>

Hey, can you see how many people participated in this poll? I could really use this data for a presentation that I'm working on. Thanks. 

 
181.

If you hover your cursor over a result it tells you how many voted for that result and how many voted overall. 

As flattered as I am that you'd like to use this poll for a presentation, do keep in mind this was a poll conducted at the end of May in 2020. The popularity of it had died down but it was shortly revived again at the end of December in 2020. Since then, there has been a bunch of official material released that may have affected the opinions of people that have placed their votes in the poll.

I also have another poll hidden somewhere in my threads where I asked the community what their favorite class was to play. Feel free to check that out if it might be useful for your presentation!

Warlocks and Sorcerers....... meeh.... why do we need a class based in a SOUL-SELLER and a class based in being so-OP by natural born ????

Those classes should be banned from D&D and included in LoTR TTRPG .

I don’t dislike any of the classes, but I think I’ll put Druid at the bottom. Whenever I try to come up with one I always get caught up on how their description doesn’t seem to explain what “nature” actually means in their context. The loads of concentration spells also don’t help.

Bards don’t grab me either, maybe because I tried learning music a few times but never maintained interest for long.

Ranger for me, it seems like it falls a little flat. Had potential to be great but just missed the mark a little bit. Second up for me would be Wizard because I hate having to constantly prepare spells. I'm not a deck-builder or micro-manager player, and I prefer to just have a toolkit I know and that is the same all the time. Sorc is my preferred caster. Because different strokes for different folks.

I'm seeing a decent amount of paladin annoyance (I know it's an old thread but I'd like to offer some help here), and as someone who currently plays a paladin, I see some of the concerns. The RP problems seem to be the biggest beef people have, and I'll agree, that 5e has not done a good job necessarily handling their backstory and development. However, you don't have to follow RAW, and also, paladins are still fun as they are. Mechanically I have no issue really other than the fact that they can deal massive damage (but if you're a good DM you're good at managing balancing encounters. I understand some stuff makes it harder, but paladins aren't that unbalanced). As far as roleplay, my paladin still fits in fine with the party, and I don't have trouble roleplaying him at all. You could call him a "standard" paladin, in that he is an Aasimar hexblade warlock paladin. Instead of really following a god or pantheon (although he is somewhat religious), his powers come from a bond with a magical sentient sword who also is his angel bond for aasimar (the angel is trapped in the sword). I find roleplay fun and enjoyable, and he still works as a paladin. I don't really have trouble with the oaths (his is vengeance) like people say, and it's strange that they complain that paladin subclasses make you roleplay a certain way, as pretty much every class in the game does that, or at least changes how you roleplay. I don't really have a least favorite class, although I'm not a huuuuge barbarian fan. That said, druids are I think difficult for me to play but I see their value and I don't think they are least favorite material.

I also think sorcerers and monks both need MAJOR updates but they are good and well thought out classes for the most part.

Artificers.  The last thing I want to see in a D&D campaign is Power Armor a la Tony Stark.  The only subclass that really interests me in the Artificer umbrella is the Alchemist, but it's far too random for any serious dungeoneering.  I get that the devs wanted to control player experimentation for the sake of DM-control and Adventurer's League, but there's not much fun to an Alchemist without the player being able to actually Innovate better potions than the ones already available.

I would love to have enough experience to be able to discuss this drawing on that experience, but I haven't even played every class.  I selected Monk as my least favorite because I have a cognitive dissonance hurdle to clear about a guy beating up another guy wearing armor, but this guy uses his bare hands, and the armored guy has a real weapon and the training to use it.

So far, I have played a bard twice, a paladin, a cleric and a ranger.  I want to play a barbarian as a Highlander someday.

Fighter.

I chose the Ranger. Thematically and mechanically limited, Rangers are better played as another class with the idea of tracking, hunting and surviving. Because of how 5th Edition works with greater emphasis on each class being able to take proficiency sensibly in most things, I find the Ranger would be a better subclass/class kit to the Warrior archetype (if we consider Warrior, Thief, and Mage to be the three archetypes) than its own thing, but then that's asking for a radical change to how 5E works. My belief in this is furthered by Xanathar's Guide to Everything and Tasha's Cauldron of Everything doing more to blur the lines between class restriction and stereotypes, where Rangers see few revisions in their own class, but get a second chance in others (see Scout Rogue).

The Artificer is a class I really want to play, specifically the Battle Smith and Alchemist. Unfortunately I dislike a lot of the mechanics of them. Battle Smith, for instance, does not synergise quite well with their Steel Defender (I had the idea of a Commissar gnome riding a metal mastiff; "drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword" and all that), but this is probably more due to the mechanics of actions and bonus actions than any class features. The Alchemist, however, is entirely unforgivable in how poorly its title feature of alchemy is implemented. I just want to lob potions like grenades or alchemist's fire, but I'm limited to random potions with a ridiculously short lifespan upon consumption (if they situation calls for it.)

While I don't get Paladins in this edition I don't dislike them. It's more that, and this goes for the Ranger as well, they're an iconic carry-over from previous editions but struggles to find its place in the current one. The Oathbreaker title, for instance, does not always match its flavour text of being someone who seeks dark powers. But what do you do with someone who breaks their oath, take away the spells and divine powers? Hit them with a level loss and forced alignment change? Or turn those levels into Fighter levels, which begs the question why the Paladin isn't just a Fighter subclass? I realise this is inviting people to go off-topic, so I must also invite moderators to redact what they see necessary to keep my post, and thus this thread, on-topic.

I've not played enough of the Monk to really see how weak it gets at higher levels, but I had a ton of fun with it in a one-shot at third level. The ability to leap and bound in combat, as well as expend ki points for all manner of maneuvers was fascinating. I had loads of options but not so many that I would umm and arr about my next choice. My only problem with it was that I didn't do anything to harm a golem enemy I was fighting, only cracking my knuckles on its metal frame. And taking a lot of damage in the process! But yeah, in spite of that, I had a really good time with the Way of the Drunken Master. Lyle the Leonin of the Samson Meadery will rise again, tipsily.

I chose rogue just because I dislike most characters that are boring to play in combat. There are some rogue sub classes that are definitely more fighting focused and I love those, but from my experience playing a rogue is just to bland in combat.