So I am hoping someone here can help me with this. I came up with a campaign that I want to run where the rule is you have to play the least popular subclasses in the class you choose. The issue I'm having is there is no Stat anywhere that I can find that shows the least popular subclasses. Any chance you all could help me out?
Right off the bat... Purple Dragon Knight Fighter. It's basically just a terrible version of Battlemaster.
The Beastmaster Ranger is interesting because it's a popular class for some new players, since "Yay, pet beast!", but it's generally considered one of the weakest subclasses of Ranger.
In a similar vein, the 4 Elements Monk gets a similar reputation... a lot of people want to live out their Avatar fantasies, but the 4-Elements Monk can't quite get the versatility they're hoping for.
The Beastmaster Ranger is interesting because it's a popular class for some new players, since "Yay, pet beast!", but it's generally considered one of the weakest subclasses of Ranger.
Was. Tasha's changed this big time. Rangers are a hard call for this purpose, but at a guess I'd go with Hunter. Eventually anyway, I expect Tasha's new subclasses will need a bit of time to get played a lot simply because the book is new.
Can I say there are a couple of issues with this whole idea? First, not every book is equally popular and thus accessible. The Wildemount subclasses are likely played a lot less than some others just because a lot of groups just don't have that book. The Echo Knight is good and fun to play, but I doubt it gets played a lot. Second, a number of subclasses are really circumstantial. The Fathomless warlock patron, Mastermind for rogues or the Oath of the Watchers for paladins can be great choices in the right campaign, but they lose a lot of potential in most. That doesn't just make them (presumably) impopular, but unless your campaign caters to them they'll be quite frustrating to pick as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It depends a bit on which supplements you're pulling from. Yes, the purple dragon knight isn't well received, but it's also buried in SCAG which isn't generally a core book. Honestly, a lot of classes have no truly dysfunctional subclasses (usually because very little of the class functionality comes from subclasses to start with). Other than the ones already called out, I'd call out the Path of the Berserker barbarian (their key ability is essentially unusable).
It's really only based on speculation and opinion, but I thought I'd just go down the list and identify the main suspects per class. I'll pretend Tasha's Cauldron has been out a while and people who want to play the subclasses in it have had their chance.
Artificer - Alchemist? Artillerist? This is a really tough one. Armourer is arguably the strongest subclass, but none of the others are bad. In my experience anything with a pet is popular, so I'm giving Battlesmith an easy pass. If I had to put money on it I'd go with Alchemist, I think the boomstick aspect of the Artillerist might be ever so slightly more popular, but it's really too close for me to tell. Barbarian - Path of the Battlerager? Zealot? Path of the Berserker has some issues as well, but it's the most iconic and stereotypical of the Barbarian subclasses so I think it'll rise above the two mentioned on the strength of that alone. Battlerager is racially restricted and revolves around spiked armour, I think that's a bit too specific not to nudge it into last place. I considered Zealot as well, mostly because it's a bit weird and tanky, but it has some cool stuff. Bard - College of Valor? College of Whispers? Ugh. Valor feels like something better achieved with a bit of multiclassing and Whispers is really campaign-specific. I tipped it towards Valor because in the right campaign Whispers is awesome and the spy feel is going to convince a few players at least. Cleric - Naturedomain. Possibly the weakest Cleric subclass, arguably the least standout core concept. Druid - Circle of Dreams. Hidden Paths is great, but that's it. Every other subclass has more appealing qualities. Fighter - Purple Dragon Knight. As TransmorpherDDS said, it's just a really poor subclass mechanically. Doesn't help that it's sitting in a setting book either. Monk - Way of the Sun Soul. Tries to fix the Monk class' issues with ranged combat, but is far too Ki-intensive to do so effectively. Four Elements isn't great either, but has a much broader array of qualities even if they aren't all very good. Paladin - Oath of the Watchers. Awesome if you go up against Extraplanar foes, but how often is that? Other Oaths will get picked more simply because they target more common foes, and some have more appealing abilities as well. I did not consider the Oathbreaker here, since it's a DMG subclass with some obvious issues if you want to fit in a somewhat regular party of heroes. Ranger - Hunter. This one annoys me no end. Hunter should arguably be the core concept for the Ranger class, but the abilities aren't convincing. Not a terrible choice by any means especially after Tasha's was released, but most of the others are cooler and/or more effective. Rogue - Mastermind. Extremely campaign-specific and if that's the thing you want to go for, you could probably find another class with good relevant core abilities instead. Fantastic in an intrigue campaign, sure, but groups that enjoy pure intrigue over mixing it up in combat at least every now and then aren't that common - you might find giving a Mastermind sufficient time in the spotlight can put the rest of the party off. Sorcerer - Storm Sorcery. They die oh so easily. Might get taken more than I think, but even in that case they probably die so quickly their actual playtime is likely very low. Multiclassing a bit can help survivability, but delays your spell progression and that sucks. Warlock - the Fathomless patron. Great on water, really not great away from water. The Undying is pretty terrible, but anything undeadish seems to appeal to a few people at least. Wizard - Graviturgy. If you're looking at the Wildemount book for Wizard options, Chronurgy is more awesome in every way. Some of the PHB options are pretty meh as well, but they're in the PHB at least.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would note that popular and bad aren't the same. For example, the arcane archer isn't spectacular, but it's by no mean the worst fighter subclass. I think it's just not something anyone especially wants to play.
I don't think any classes that debuted in Tasha's Guide should be counted, here given that they've only been available for a month.
Also, I'm totally baffled by the complaints about the Fathomless warlock given that it's only got two minor abilities that require you to be in water and one ability that requires you to be within a mile of at least a small body of water (which is really not that difficult unless you're in a desert).
And the Artillerist Artificer seems to be dramatically more popular than the Alchemist.
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.
Least popular subclasses are going to be the least fun to play. Maybe because they are not effective, maybe because they're too situational, maybe for other reasons - but the common thread is that people don't enjoy playing them. If I was invited to a dinner party where we had to eat the type of food we liked the least, I probably wouldn't go.
Most people don't want you to tell them what their character needs to be. Players should have control over their characters. As a DM you need to be satisfied with only having control over literally everything else.
If you want to describe the idea for your campaign in full, maybe we could preserve some of what you're going for without removing player agency.
Also, valor bards are awesome. The features don't compete with existing limited resources like swords bards do. ;-)
They both have a single feature that uses bardic inspiration dice (combat inspiration vs blade flourish), it's just that sword bards self-buff and valor bards buff others. If we ignore the bardic inspiration features, sword bards are melee offense builds (they get a fighting style and +10 speed), valor bards are ranged or defensive builds (they get longbow, heavy crossbow, and shield). The big problem with valor bards is that they don't get the ability to use a melee weapon as a spellcasting focus, which makes it hard to actually take advantage of the shield.
Also, valor bards are awesome. The features don't compete with existing limited resources like swords bards do. ;-)
They both have a single feature that uses bardic inspiration dice (combat inspiration vs blade flourish), it's just that sword bards self-buff and valor bards buff others. If we ignore the bardic inspiration features, sword bards are melee offense builds (they get a fighting style and +10 speed), valor bards are ranged or defensive builds (they get longbow, heavy crossbow, and shield). The big problem with valor bards is that they don't get the ability to use a melee weapon as a spellcasting focus, which makes it hard to actually take advantage of the shield.
There was a feat for that, but I guess it didn’t make the cut into Tasha’s.
Also, valor bards are awesome. The features don't compete with existing limited resources like swords bards do. ;-)
They both have a single feature that uses bardic inspiration dice (combat inspiration vs blade flourish), it's just that sword bards self-buff and valor bards buff others. If we ignore the bardic inspiration features, sword bards are melee offense builds (they get a fighting style and +10 speed), valor bards are ranged or defensive builds (they get longbow, heavy crossbow, and shield). The big problem with valor bards is that they don't get the ability to use a melee weapon as a spellcasting focus, which makes it hard to actually take advantage of the shield.
There was a feat for that, but I guess it didn’t make the cut into Tasha’s.
Yeah, it unfortunately got dumped.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Also, valor bards are awesome. The features don't compete with existing limited resources like swords bards do. ;-)
They both have a single feature that uses bardic inspiration dice (combat inspiration vs blade flourish), it's just that sword bards self-buff and valor bards buff others. If we ignore the bardic inspiration features, sword bards are melee offense builds (they get a fighting style and +10 speed), valor bards are ranged or defensive builds (they get longbow, heavy crossbow, and shield). The big problem with valor bards is that they don't get the ability to use a melee weapon as a spellcasting focus, which makes it hard to actually take advantage of the shield.
There was a feat for that, but I guess it didn’t make the cut into Tasha’s.
Also, valor bards are awesome. The features don't compete with existing limited resources like swords bards do. ;-)
They both have a single feature that uses bardic inspiration dice (combat inspiration vs blade flourish), it's just that sword bards self-buff and valor bards buff others. If we ignore the bardic inspiration features, sword bards are melee offense builds (they get a fighting style and +10 speed), valor bards are ranged or defensive builds (they get longbow, heavy crossbow, and shield). The big problem with valor bards is that they don't get the ability to use a melee weapon as a spellcasting focus, which makes it hard to actually take advantage of the shield.
It's because swords bards cannot use flourishes with locking our spell casting for the turn and flourishes also compete with inspiration. Combat inspiration improves bardic inspiration instead of competing with it.
After that it's better armor and weapon proficiencies versus a combat style.
Using the weapon as a focus is an advantage but using a component pouch on the valor bard allows for the free stowing and drawing of weapons rule while easily using the pouch instead of a focus. Alternatively, the valor bard could give up the shield for a two-handed weapon build and still have a free hand as needed.
Being able to use a shield and cast a spell on the same round another party member applies combat inspiration is hands-down better to using a flourish even with the combat style.
It's really only based on speculation and opinion, but I thought I'd just go down the list and identify the main suspects per class. I'll pretend Tasha's Cauldron has been out a while and people who want to play the subclasses in it have had their chance.
Artificer - Alchemist? Artillerist? This is a really tough one. Armourer is arguably the strongest subclass, but none of the others are bad. In my experience anything with a pet is popular, so I'm giving Battlesmith an easy pass. If I had to put money on it I'd go with Alchemist, I think the boomstick aspect of the Artillerist might be ever so slightly more popular, but it's really too close for me to tell.
I second this opinion. (Haven't looked at Armourer yet, but hear it's good) Battlesmith is a decent melee front-liner with your companion, I'm using one for Lost Mines, and the Defender was rushing everywhere going "You have disadvantage, you have disadvantage, EVERYONE has disadvantage." Plus it has some good spell options for a front-liner. Artillerist has the versatility innate in the cannons. But Alchemist's Experimental Elixirs have one major issue: You roll to see what you get. It might be a potent class (And you get some really good poison/life spells), but you're at the mercy of RNG as to your usefulness any given day.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am a machine, built to make more machines, so that those machines would go and fight your wars for you against the ultimate evil. I was not made by some heavenly deity ruling on high, but by a man's hands, with man's tools, and a man's will.I know that man's name, and I know that man's fate. I do not worship him, for he sought no worship from his creation, only that I follow his will.And thus you and I fulfil our respective duties to those who made us." -Constructor Tertius (Warforged)
But Alchemist's Experimental Elixirs have one major issue: You roll to see what you get. It might be a potent class (And you get some really good poison/life spells), but you're at the mercy of RNG as to your usefulness any given day.
You only roll for the free ones. If you spend a first level spell slot it's not random.
Artificer - I think all of these are varying degrees of fairly good and evenly popular.
Barbarian - I have never even heard of someone playing Ancestral Guardian.
Bard - I think Whispers is the weakest mechanically and generally think people shy away from it.
Cleric - Probably Nature. I think more people that want to play that nature caster are going with Druid.
Druid - Circle of Dreams is rarely even mentioned.
Fighter - Purple Dragon Knight. It's basically just a fighter without a subclass.
Monk - this his hard to pick. People new to the game want to play Aang which makes Four Elements popular. But it's really bad so people that have been around a while avoid it. I don't see many people bringing up Long Death and it seems fairly unpopular.
Paladin - Oath of the Ancients seems like an unpopular choice.
Ranger - So this one is hard to gage because Tasha's really changed things up here. Beast Master's were very popular for new players but are generally considered bad so veterans avoided them. Tasha's however gave new options for the Pet that made them quite good so I think we'll see a big uptick in Beast Master players. Monster Slayer seems fairly unpopular.
Rogue - Thief I think is somewhat unpopular.
Sorcerer - Maybe Storm?
Warlock - Undying seems like one that no one talks about.
Wizard - Enchantment?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I am hoping someone here can help me with this. I came up with a campaign that I want to run where the rule is you have to play the least popular subclasses in the class you choose. The issue I'm having is there is no Stat anywhere that I can find that shows the least popular subclasses. Any chance you all could help me out?
Right off the bat... Purple Dragon Knight Fighter. It's basically just a terrible version of Battlemaster.
The Beastmaster Ranger is interesting because it's a popular class for some new players, since "Yay, pet beast!", but it's generally considered one of the weakest subclasses of Ranger.
In a similar vein, the 4 Elements Monk gets a similar reputation... a lot of people want to live out their Avatar fantasies, but the 4-Elements Monk can't quite get the versatility they're hoping for.
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
Was. Tasha's changed this big time. Rangers are a hard call for this purpose, but at a guess I'd go with Hunter. Eventually anyway, I expect Tasha's new subclasses will need a bit of time to get played a lot simply because the book is new.
Can I say there are a couple of issues with this whole idea? First, not every book is equally popular and thus accessible. The Wildemount subclasses are likely played a lot less than some others just because a lot of groups just don't have that book. The Echo Knight is good and fun to play, but I doubt it gets played a lot. Second, a number of subclasses are really circumstantial. The Fathomless warlock patron, Mastermind for rogues or the Oath of the Watchers for paladins can be great choices in the right campaign, but they lose a lot of potential in most. That doesn't just make them (presumably) impopular, but unless your campaign caters to them they'll be quite frustrating to pick as well.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It depends a bit on which supplements you're pulling from. Yes, the purple dragon knight isn't well received, but it's also buried in SCAG which isn't generally a core book. Honestly, a lot of classes have no truly dysfunctional subclasses (usually because very little of the class functionality comes from subclasses to start with). Other than the ones already called out, I'd call out the Path of the Berserker barbarian (their key ability is essentially unusable).
The Nature and Knowledge domains for clerics seem fairly unpopular.
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'll do what I think are the least popular subclasses of each class:
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think the Arcane Archer fighter is another one that seems pretty unpopular.
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.
It's really only based on speculation and opinion, but I thought I'd just go down the list and identify the main suspects per class. I'll pretend Tasha's Cauldron has been out a while and people who want to play the subclasses in it have had their chance.
Artificer - Alchemist? Artillerist? This is a really tough one. Armourer is arguably the strongest subclass, but none of the others are bad. In my experience anything with a pet is popular, so I'm giving Battlesmith an easy pass. If I had to put money on it I'd go with Alchemist, I think the boomstick aspect of the Artillerist might be ever so slightly more popular, but it's really too close for me to tell.
Barbarian - Path of the Battlerager? Zealot? Path of the Berserker has some issues as well, but it's the most iconic and stereotypical of the Barbarian subclasses so I think it'll rise above the two mentioned on the strength of that alone. Battlerager is racially restricted and revolves around spiked armour, I think that's a bit too specific not to nudge it into last place. I considered Zealot as well, mostly because it's a bit weird and tanky, but it has some cool stuff.
Bard - College of Valor? College of Whispers? Ugh. Valor feels like something better achieved with a bit of multiclassing and Whispers is really campaign-specific. I tipped it towards Valor because in the right campaign Whispers is awesome and the spy feel is going to convince a few players at least.
Cleric - Nature domain. Possibly the weakest Cleric subclass, arguably the least standout core concept.
Druid - Circle of Dreams. Hidden Paths is great, but that's it. Every other subclass has more appealing qualities.
Fighter - Purple Dragon Knight. As TransmorpherDDS said, it's just a really poor subclass mechanically. Doesn't help that it's sitting in a setting book either.
Monk - Way of the Sun Soul. Tries to fix the Monk class' issues with ranged combat, but is far too Ki-intensive to do so effectively. Four Elements isn't great either, but has a much broader array of qualities even if they aren't all very good.
Paladin - Oath of the Watchers. Awesome if you go up against Extraplanar foes, but how often is that? Other Oaths will get picked more simply because they target more common foes, and some have more appealing abilities as well. I did not consider the Oathbreaker here, since it's a DMG subclass with some obvious issues if you want to fit in a somewhat regular party of heroes.
Ranger - Hunter. This one annoys me no end. Hunter should arguably be the core concept for the Ranger class, but the abilities aren't convincing. Not a terrible choice by any means especially after Tasha's was released, but most of the others are cooler and/or more effective.
Rogue - Mastermind. Extremely campaign-specific and if that's the thing you want to go for, you could probably find another class with good relevant core abilities instead. Fantastic in an intrigue campaign, sure, but groups that enjoy pure intrigue over mixing it up in combat at least every now and then aren't that common - you might find giving a Mastermind sufficient time in the spotlight can put the rest of the party off.
Sorcerer - Storm Sorcery. They die oh so easily. Might get taken more than I think, but even in that case they probably die so quickly their actual playtime is likely very low. Multiclassing a bit can help survivability, but delays your spell progression and that sucks.
Warlock - the Fathomless patron. Great on water, really not great away from water. The Undying is pretty terrible, but anything undeadish seems to appeal to a few people at least.
Wizard - Graviturgy. If you're looking at the Wildemount book for Wizard options, Chronurgy is more awesome in every way. Some of the PHB options are pretty meh as well, but they're in the PHB at least.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would note that popular and bad aren't the same. For example, the arcane archer isn't spectacular, but it's by no mean the worst fighter subclass. I think it's just not something anyone especially wants to play.
I don't think any classes that debuted in Tasha's Guide should be counted, here given that they've only been available for a month.
Also, I'm totally baffled by the complaints about the Fathomless warlock given that it's only got two minor abilities that require you to be in water and one ability that requires you to be within a mile of at least a small body of water (which is really not that difficult unless you're in a desert).
And the Artillerist Artificer seems to be dramatically more popular than the Alchemist.
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.
This seems like a bad idea for two reasons:
If you want to describe the idea for your campaign in full, maybe we could preserve some of what you're going for without removing player agency.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Just wait for DDB to publish stats again. They've done it a few times.
Also, valor bards are awesome. The features don't compete with existing limited resources like swords bards do. ;-)
They both have a single feature that uses bardic inspiration dice (combat inspiration vs blade flourish), it's just that sword bards self-buff and valor bards buff others. If we ignore the bardic inspiration features, sword bards are melee offense builds (they get a fighting style and +10 speed), valor bards are ranged or defensive builds (they get longbow, heavy crossbow, and shield). The big problem with valor bards is that they don't get the ability to use a melee weapon as a spellcasting focus, which makes it hard to actually take advantage of the shield.
There was a feat for that, but I guess it didn’t make the cut into Tasha’s.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah, it unfortunately got dumped.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
There's Ruby of the War Mage but it costs attunement.
It's because swords bards cannot use flourishes with locking our spell casting for the turn and flourishes also compete with inspiration. Combat inspiration improves bardic inspiration instead of competing with it.
After that it's better armor and weapon proficiencies versus a combat style.
Using the weapon as a focus is an advantage but using a component pouch on the valor bard allows for the free stowing and drawing of weapons rule while easily using the pouch instead of a focus. Alternatively, the valor bard could give up the shield for a two-handed weapon build and still have a free hand as needed.
Being able to use a shield and cast a spell on the same round another party member applies combat inspiration is hands-down better to using a flourish even with the combat style.
I second this opinion. (Haven't looked at Armourer yet, but hear it's good) Battlesmith is a decent melee front-liner with your companion, I'm using one for Lost Mines, and the Defender was rushing everywhere going "You have disadvantage, you have disadvantage, EVERYONE has disadvantage." Plus it has some good spell options for a front-liner. Artillerist has the versatility innate in the cannons. But Alchemist's Experimental Elixirs have one major issue: You roll to see what you get. It might be a potent class (And you get some really good poison/life spells), but you're at the mercy of RNG as to your usefulness any given day.
"I am a machine, built to make more machines, so that those machines would go and fight your wars for you against the ultimate evil. I was not made by some heavenly deity ruling on high, but by a man's hands, with man's tools, and a man's will.I know that man's name, and I know that man's fate. I do not worship him, for he sought no worship from his creation, only that I follow his will.And thus you and I fulfil our respective duties to those who made us."
-Constructor Tertius (Warforged)
You only roll for the free ones. If you spend a first level spell slot it's not random.