Rate all the D&D classes on a scale of 1-5. Give all classes and overall rating based on balance, thematic elements, mechanics, ease of play, overall power, and whatever else you consider
Take the poll, and feel free to explain your reasoning in the comments.
For example I like the monk thematically but mechanically it is way underpowered. I used to like clerics until Tasha came out with two massively OP subclasses so you now only see twilight clerics and the occasional peace cleric .
Rate all the D&D classes on a scale of 1-5. What subclasses do you love, and which do you just hate?
Take the poll, and feel free to explain your reasoning in the comments.
As a DM, I hate most of them. Or rather, I hate the more recent subclasses that are subject to an ever accelerating power creep. Artificers are likely the one I should hate the most, but because I don't run an Eberron setting, no one says boo when I banned that class. The game is better without that class, and whatever class mercer created. Any class/subclass that lends itself to multi-classed broken chars, those are given a real hard look, and if not banned, is heavily nerfed.
For example I like the monk thematically but mechanically it is way underpowered. I used to like clerics until Tasha came out with two massively OP subclasses so you now only see twilight clerics and the occasional peace cleric .
Some options for criteria
Thematic
Mechanical power
Features that make them mechanically fun to play
Balance within subclasses
Balanced with other classes
I'd say like an overall rating, balancing all those things.
I'm a DM, so I like classes and subclasses that fit with the story. A warlock of the archfey would be really cool in Wild Beyond the Witchlight, but might seem out of place in Descent into Avernus. I think classes like fighter, wizard, and rogue are classics that belong in any campaign or setting. I don't think that random multiclassing and "cool" subclasses really make the character, some of the favorite characters I've DMed for have been vanilla builds, i.e. the pre-generated sheets from LMOP. I'm DMing for a podcast (shameless plug: The Endless Quest) , and the players have been really fun, despite them being somewhat typical builds (human samurai, halfling scout, half-elf light domain). That said, warlock subclasses are always good because of the opportunity for RP, the new ranger subclasses help to boost a normally weak class, and druids are always fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dungeon Master for The Endless Quest, a family friendly 5e actual play podcast.
Interesting how wizard got so high. I consider it such a bland class which does nothing except inhale the power budget from other arcane casters.
My highest two were warlock and cleric. Gave both a 4. My lowest was sorcerer which I gave a 1.
Also it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the blood hunter. Are people downvoting it because it's a bad class? Because it's homebrew? Or just because it's by Matt Mercer?
Artificer: 4 Does what it needs to do, but needs more subclasses. Figuring out how this class works the first time is tough, though.
Barbarian: 4 Fills a classic trope, and is mostly effective at it. Minus a point for the subclasses leaning so heavily on magical powers, and the berserker being trash.
Bard: 3 I have a hard time taking "musical spellcaster" seriously enough to be worth an entire class. That said, the subclasses do give some nice variety both in theme and mechanics.
Cleric: 5 Wide variety of themes and mechanics.
Druid: 2 You're mechanically weakened for thematic purposes (armor restriction), and the spell list has always been hard for me to wrap my head around.
Fighter: 4 A solid core foundation and some good subclasses, though there's a lot of janky subclasses too, which clutter the list.
Monk: 1 Severe mechanical restrictions, for benefits that hardly break even. I love multiclass builds, and this one strives to be absolutely impossible to work with. Worst of all, I love the core idea, so I'm constantly drawn to it, only to be disappointed.
Paladin: 5 Strong mechanics and themes that you can take in several directions.
Ranger: 2 The reliance on Hunter's Mark and similar effects turn me off of this one, because I know I'd end up constantly forgetting half of my damage. The stat requirements and bonus action reliance make this another one that fights with my multiclassing addiction.
Rogue: 5 Solid mechanics, always has something to do, and the subclasses give nice variety. Though I think a few of them could stand to be merged.
Sorcerer: 3 or 4 Decent mix of mechanics and thematics, though the earlier subclasses are a bit underpowered.
Warlock: 2 I am turned off by the feature list being so inescapably edgelord themed.
Wizard: 2 The wizard is the one class where the subclasses feel too generic. I feel less like I'm picking a class, and more like I'm just picking a spell list to add to my character.
Never really considered rating the classes. After thinking on it for a few minutes, I've decided that I have no strong opinions, or even particularly well informed opinions, on any of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Rate all the D&D classes on a scale of 1-5. Give all classes and overall rating based on balance, thematic elements, mechanics, ease of play, overall power, and whatever else you consider
Take the poll, and feel free to explain your reasoning in the comments.
Upvote these 18 unique mythical weapon materials!
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
What are the judging criteria
For example I like the monk thematically but mechanically it is way underpowered. I used to like clerics until Tasha came out with two massively OP subclasses so you now only see twilight clerics and the occasional peace cleric .
Some options for criteria
As a DM, I hate most of them. Or rather, I hate the more recent subclasses that are subject to an ever accelerating power creep. Artificers are likely the one I should hate the most, but because I don't run an Eberron setting, no one says boo when I banned that class. The game is better without that class, and whatever class mercer created. Any class/subclass that lends itself to multi-classed broken chars, those are given a real hard look, and if not banned, is heavily nerfed.
I'd say like an overall rating, balancing all those things.
Upvote these 18 unique mythical weapon materials!
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
I'm a DM, so I like classes and subclasses that fit with the story. A warlock of the archfey would be really cool in Wild Beyond the Witchlight, but might seem out of place in Descent into Avernus. I think classes like fighter, wizard, and rogue are classics that belong in any campaign or setting. I don't think that random multiclassing and "cool" subclasses really make the character, some of the favorite characters I've DMed for have been vanilla builds, i.e. the pre-generated sheets from LMOP. I'm DMing for a podcast (shameless plug: The Endless Quest) , and the players have been really fun, despite them being somewhat typical builds (human samurai, halfling scout, half-elf light domain). That said, warlock subclasses are always good because of the opportunity for RP, the new ranger subclasses help to boost a normally weak class, and druids are always fun.
Dungeon Master for The Endless Quest, a family friendly 5e actual play podcast.
Check out my DMsGuild work: https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?author=A%20Wizard%20of%20the%20Woodlands
Interesting how wizard got so high. I consider it such a bland class which does nothing except inhale the power budget from other arcane casters.
My highest two were warlock and cleric. Gave both a 4. My lowest was sorcerer which I gave a 1.
Also it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the blood hunter. Are people downvoting it because it's a bad class? Because it's homebrew? Or just because it's by Matt Mercer?
Current after almost 24 Hours:
Upvote these 18 unique mythical weapon materials!
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
My general thoughts on the classes:
Artificer: 4
Does what it needs to do, but needs more subclasses. Figuring out how this class works the first time is tough, though.
Barbarian: 4
Fills a classic trope, and is mostly effective at it. Minus a point for the subclasses leaning so heavily on magical powers, and the berserker being trash.
Bard: 3
I have a hard time taking "musical spellcaster" seriously enough to be worth an entire class. That said, the subclasses do give some nice variety both in theme and mechanics.
Cleric: 5
Wide variety of themes and mechanics.
Druid: 2
You're mechanically weakened for thematic purposes (armor restriction), and the spell list has always been hard for me to wrap my head around.
Fighter: 4
A solid core foundation and some good subclasses, though there's a lot of janky subclasses too, which clutter the list.
Monk: 1
Severe mechanical restrictions, for benefits that hardly break even. I love multiclass builds, and this one strives to be absolutely impossible to work with. Worst of all, I love the core idea, so I'm constantly drawn to it, only to be disappointed.
Paladin: 5
Strong mechanics and themes that you can take in several directions.
Ranger: 2
The reliance on Hunter's Mark and similar effects turn me off of this one, because I know I'd end up constantly forgetting half of my damage. The stat requirements and bonus action reliance make this another one that fights with my multiclassing addiction.
Rogue: 5
Solid mechanics, always has something to do, and the subclasses give nice variety. Though I think a few of them could stand to be merged.
Sorcerer: 3 or 4
Decent mix of mechanics and thematics, though the earlier subclasses are a bit underpowered.
Warlock: 2
I am turned off by the feature list being so inescapably edgelord themed.
Wizard: 2
The wizard is the one class where the subclasses feel too generic. I feel less like I'm picking a class, and more like I'm just picking a spell list to add to my character.
Never really considered rating the classes. After thinking on it for a few minutes, I've decided that I have no strong opinions, or even particularly well informed opinions, on any of them.