I love paladins, sorcerers and warlocks.........or multi classes of the three
I personally hate fighters as I dont like the idea of just swinging a sword all day long
Poor fighters. Why does everyone play sword and board fighters in my games? They can be great archers, dual wielders, polearmers, maulers, and basically any type of fighter.
I never play sword and board builds, but for some reason in dnd I have to play a class with magic or it feels so boring:/
I do really like the samurai subclass tho
Eldritch Knight Fighters: "Am I a joke to you?"
(Also, I dislike the samurai mechanically. Most other fighter subclasses are better.)
any Time I play an Eldritch Knight I feel slow next to the full casters:)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I do not care at all for Druids. Part of that is me being allergic to everything that pollinates and having to deal with animals on a ranch. The outside deserves to die! It was also very narrow in its them. Protect the balance nature. You can do a lot of things within that, but mechanically I can get that with a lot of other classes. Those classes have more flavor and roleplaying opportunities that I like with them.
You could play a Druid in the way you described.
Nature doesn't have to be all sunshine, unicorns and roses. You could play a spore Druid whose spores depend on attaching to and devouring other living beings. Think of the real-life pathogenic fungus; Ophiocordyceps Unilateralis, that attaches itself to insects, specifically ants, and then alters their behavioural patterns, forcing them to climb high into the trees and grasp onto a branch. The fungus then kills the ant and uses its body as food, allowing it to grow and release more spores to infect more ants. There are even behavioural altering parasites that infect mammals such as mice, and I see no reason why these couldn't also be spores for the purpose of D&D.
I could see a Spore Druid using their spores to make people like them or agree with them. You could make guards stand still and let you walk past them without question. You could infect an enemy soldier with your spores and turn them into a spy, sending information on enemy troop movements back to you and your allies. You could make someone fall so madly in love with you that they would use their own body to shield yours or even make them do so against their will.
I would even go as far to say that you could infect an animal like a bird, rat or cat or something with your spores, and turn them into a familiar. Would anybody suspect that the rat currying around the corners of the room, or that spider on the wall might bring their doom i wonder?
There are many ways you can play a Druid in D&D without having to be a flower child. It all just depends on how you play them and what kind of Druid you are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Rangers and sorcerers. Rangers got somewhat redeemed by the Xanathar's Guide subclasses but still have power issues. Sorcerers are a primary spellcasting class that gets few spells known than paladins of the same level. That's just insulting. They're stuck with niche builds, hoping that whatever thing they happened to specialize in will be useful on a particular day: woe unto you if, for example, you happened to specialize in fire magic only to wind up going against Fire Giants, Salamanders, and Magmin for several sessions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Monks are better than rangers. Just putting this out there. They both are unbalanced at different parts of their tiers of play, but IMHO, Rangers are overall worse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Paladin. I'm not a huge fan of being forced to roleplay something a specific way, and the paladin subclasses do exactly that.
A close second goes to monk. They're clearly designed as skirmishers, but most of them are forced to use melee attacks with a subpar hit die and armor class.
Both are more MAD than others, making them squishier than I'd like if optimizing them for maximum output (less Con for primary stats).
I agree with the paladin thing, but not with your statement on monks. At low levels (less than 3) monks are useless. Past that, they become a force to be reckoned with, as their ki points add alot.
I mean if you really care a lot about being MAD as a paladin, dip 1 level in hexblade. Suddenly charisma is the only stat that really matters, and unless you're actually going to make it to level 20 you won't lose out on anything really (Though, I wouldn't do this if you are going to hit 20. Paladins have the single coolest level 20 feature bar none). Further, there was someone further up who asked where paladins fit in 5e... the answer is basically anywhere. They're a jack of all trades, but where the original phrase is "Jack of all trades, master of none", the paladin is more "Jack of all trades, master of some". Heals, buffs (both spells and auras), utility spells are all something they can do pretty well, and then their upfront damage output is ridiculous.
As for my own least favourite class... probably fighter? I just feel like i can get most everything the fighter offers out of a different, more specialised class (that said, Samurai and EK are still fun). It would probably be ranger if I hadn't been playing with the class feature variants and oh my god does it's entire theme feel so cool when the mechanics are there to back it up.
The paladin is the single best Nova class in the game. They're limited to melee weapons, and do have an honor code, but these don't restrict you a whole ton.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Most of the complaints I've seen about 5E paladins' codes of conduct are really people remembering back in 2nd and 3rd edition when the game required you to be Lawful Stupid and assuming that nothing changed since then.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Most of the complaints I've seen about 5E paladins' codes of conduct are really people remembering back in 2nd and 3rd edition when the game required you to be Lawful Stupid and assuming that nothing changed since then.
Yeah. Paladins aren't limited anymore. If you want to be evil, be Conquest, Vengeance, or Oathbreaker paladins. You want to be lawful good, be Devotion, Ancients, or Redemption paladins. Any alignment? Well, there's Crown, Heroism/Glory, and Vengeance. Ancients could even be Chaotic Good/Neutral. Vengeance and Conquest can be good/neutral. There's really not many restrictions on paladins.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I used to hate druids because you have to keep track of all of the animals stats. But now, with DDB, I can track the stats easily! (this sounds like an ad but it's true lol)
I don't like rangers because they're just so much worse than everyone else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Most of the complaints I've seen about 5E paladins' codes of conduct are really people remembering back in 2nd and 3rd edition when the game required you to be Lawful Stupid and assuming that nothing changed since then.
Yeah. Paladins aren't limited anymore. If you want to be evil, be Conquest, Vengeance, or Oathbreaker paladins. You want to be lawful good, be Devotion, Ancients, or Redemption paladins. Any alignment? Well, there's Crown, Heroism/Glory, and Vengeance. Ancients could even be Chaotic Good/Neutral. Vengeance and Conquest can be good/neutral. There's really not many restrictions on paladins.
You can play any oath as any alignment (not counting Oathbreaker) so long as you justify it properly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I strongly dislike fighters. Their meant to hit things. A lot. Or shoot things. The name of the class is fighter, which I find very unoriginal. Couldn't it at least have been warrior?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Warlocks. Mechanically they sound fun. But thematically, it's a complete shoehorn of a story arc. It's exoticism for its own sake. It's gotten to the point where warlocks are one of the most common classes. It should not be a freaking job description to make a deal with the devil.
Paladins. I like the theme a lot more, but since all of the campaigns I am in have a 20 minute adventuring day, going nova all the time sounds really boring. And, I played a Pally in PF for years.
Barbarians. The lorewise, the absolute last type of character I would ever want to play, bar none.
I find it interesting how many people say that they don't like playing barbarians because of some combination of "you can only just hit things and drink mead". Mostly because in my current campaign I'm playing a barbarian, and he's basically the calmest, most level-headed member of the party. I actually kind of like finding ways to contribute in combat without the built-in versatility of spell-casting. It forces you to think more about your environment and the layout of the enemies. Plus it's nice to give yourself advantage constantly... it's honestly the most interesting part of paying barb, to me. Reckless Attack really changes how you approach combat.
As for me... I just don't really like playing Druid. Not that I hate them or anything, but Druid is probably the last class I would pick. Needing to keep track of all kinds of different animals for different situations is part of it, but I dunno... something just feels kinda boring about them.
Barbarians. They don’t typically have lots of stuff they can “do” to pick from as options from turn to turn. At least the fighter has Battle Master and the Eldritch Knight, and the Monk has... enthusiasm.....
Monk, I found it boring to play, and I felt frustrated and weaker than the rest of the party because my stunning strikes never went off.
Next least favorite was Ranger. It was sad not having half of my class features ever come into play. I felt like I would've been stronger as a Fighter or Rogue. Right now I'm playing a Scout Rogue and it feels more like a ranger than my actual ranger did.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
any Time I play an Eldritch Knight I feel slow next to the full casters:)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
You could play a Druid in the way you described.
Nature doesn't have to be all sunshine, unicorns and roses. You could play a spore Druid whose spores depend on attaching to and devouring other living beings. Think of the real-life pathogenic fungus; Ophiocordyceps Unilateralis, that attaches itself to insects, specifically ants, and then alters their behavioural patterns, forcing them to climb high into the trees and grasp onto a branch. The fungus then kills the ant and uses its body as food, allowing it to grow and release more spores to infect more ants. There are even behavioural altering parasites that infect mammals such as mice, and I see no reason why these couldn't also be spores for the purpose of D&D.
I could see a Spore Druid using their spores to make people like them or agree with them. You could make guards stand still and let you walk past them without question. You could infect an enemy soldier with your spores and turn them into a spy, sending information on enemy troop movements back to you and your allies. You could make someone fall so madly in love with you that they would use their own body to shield yours or even make them do so against their will.
I would even go as far to say that you could infect an animal like a bird, rat or cat or something with your spores, and turn them into a familiar. Would anybody suspect that the rat currying around the corners of the room, or that spider on the wall might bring their doom i wonder?
There are many ways you can play a Druid in D&D without having to be a flower child. It all just depends on how you play them and what kind of Druid you are.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I played a monk for a while. I just found him a yawn. Retired him for a warlock, so much more fun.
Let's throw down
Poor monks and sorcerers. They're losing/winning right now.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Rangers and sorcerers. Rangers got somewhat redeemed by the Xanathar's Guide subclasses but still have power issues. Sorcerers are a primary spellcasting class that gets few spells known than paladins of the same level. That's just insulting. They're stuck with niche builds, hoping that whatever thing they happened to specialize in will be useful on a particular day: woe unto you if, for example, you happened to specialize in fire magic only to wind up going against Fire Giants, Salamanders, and Magmin for several sessions.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Monks are better than rangers. Just putting this out there. They both are unbalanced at different parts of their tiers of play, but IMHO, Rangers are overall worse.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree, if you want to play a ranger it feels like you’d be better off going for a fighter or rogue archer and snag some feats to help as well.
Paladin. I'm not a huge fan of being forced to roleplay something a specific way, and the paladin subclasses do exactly that.
A close second goes to monk. They're clearly designed as skirmishers, but most of them are forced to use melee attacks with a subpar hit die and armor class.
Both are more MAD than others, making them squishier than I'd like if optimizing them for maximum output (less Con for primary stats).
I agree with the paladin thing, but not with your statement on monks. At low levels (less than 3) monks are useless. Past that, they become a force to be reckoned with, as their ki points add alot.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
I mean if you really care a lot about being MAD as a paladin, dip 1 level in hexblade. Suddenly charisma is the only stat that really matters, and unless you're actually going to make it to level 20 you won't lose out on anything really (Though, I wouldn't do this if you are going to hit 20. Paladins have the single coolest level 20 feature bar none). Further, there was someone further up who asked where paladins fit in 5e... the answer is basically anywhere. They're a jack of all trades, but where the original phrase is "Jack of all trades, master of none", the paladin is more "Jack of all trades, master of some". Heals, buffs (both spells and auras), utility spells are all something they can do pretty well, and then their upfront damage output is ridiculous.
As for my own least favourite class... probably fighter? I just feel like i can get most everything the fighter offers out of a different, more specialised class (that said, Samurai and EK are still fun). It would probably be ranger if I hadn't been playing with the class feature variants and oh my god does it's entire theme feel so cool when the mechanics are there to back it up.
The paladin is the single best Nova class in the game. They're limited to melee weapons, and do have an honor code, but these don't restrict you a whole ton.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Most of the complaints I've seen about 5E paladins' codes of conduct are really people remembering back in 2nd and 3rd edition when the game required you to be Lawful Stupid and assuming that nothing changed since then.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yeah. Paladins aren't limited anymore. If you want to be evil, be Conquest, Vengeance, or Oathbreaker paladins. You want to be lawful good, be Devotion, Ancients, or Redemption paladins. Any alignment? Well, there's Crown, Heroism/Glory, and Vengeance. Ancients could even be Chaotic Good/Neutral. Vengeance and Conquest can be good/neutral. There's really not many restrictions on paladins.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I used to hate druids because you have to keep track of all of the animals stats. But now, with DDB, I can track the stats easily! (this sounds like an ad but it's true lol)
I don't like rangers because they're just so much worse than everyone else.
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Subclasses | Races | Spells | Magic Items | Monsters | Feats | Backgrounds
You can play any oath as any alignment (not counting Oathbreaker) so long as you justify it properly.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I strongly dislike fighters. Their meant to hit things. A lot. Or shoot things. The name of the class is fighter, which I find very unoriginal. Couldn't it at least have been warrior?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Warlocks.
Mechanically they sound fun. But thematically, it's a complete shoehorn of a story arc. It's exoticism for its own sake. It's gotten to the point where warlocks are one of the most common classes. It should not be a freaking job description to make a deal with the devil.
Paladins.
I like the theme a lot more, but since all of the campaigns I am in have a 20 minute adventuring day, going nova all the time sounds really boring. And, I played a Pally in PF for years.
Barbarians.
The lorewise, the absolute last type of character I would ever want to play, bar none.
I find it interesting how many people say that they don't like playing barbarians because of some combination of "you can only just hit things and drink mead". Mostly because in my current campaign I'm playing a barbarian, and he's basically the calmest, most level-headed member of the party. I actually kind of like finding ways to contribute in combat without the built-in versatility of spell-casting. It forces you to think more about your environment and the layout of the enemies. Plus it's nice to give yourself advantage constantly... it's honestly the most interesting part of paying barb, to me. Reckless Attack really changes how you approach combat.
As for me... I just don't really like playing Druid. Not that I hate them or anything, but Druid is probably the last class I would pick. Needing to keep track of all kinds of different animals for different situations is part of it, but I dunno... something just feels kinda boring about them.
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
Druids. I have never really gotten into them.
Barbarians. They don’t typically have lots of stuff they can “do” to pick from as options from turn to turn. At least the fighter has Battle Master and the Eldritch Knight, and the Monk has... enthusiasm.....
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Monk, I found it boring to play, and I felt frustrated and weaker than the rest of the party because my stunning strikes never went off.
Next least favorite was Ranger. It was sad not having half of my class features ever come into play. I felt like I would've been stronger as a Fighter or Rogue. Right now I'm playing a Scout Rogue and it feels more like a ranger than my actual ranger did.