What class do you hate playing?

[nickl_2000]

Hate is a strong word, but I don't think I would enjoy a full campaign playing as a Rogue or a Fighter.

I'm curious if you would feel better playing an EK Fighter/ AT Rogue verses a non-magical version?

[Shabbazar]

Of the others I dislike warlock due to too few spells. It is really boring when 80% of your turns in combat are you casting the same spell.

Whenever I look at warlock I get the sense that it is conceptually a magical fighter. Not a lot of variety. It essentially serves the function of dishing out damage in a repetitive way, just magical instead of physical. If that's your thing, cool, but not for me. I play a spellcaster for the variety.

[MrStabby]

Whenever I look at warlock I get the sense that it is conceptually a magical fighter. Not a lot of variety. It essentially serves the function of dishing out damage in a repetitive way, just magical instead of physical. If that's your thing, cool, but not for me. I play a spellcaster for the variety.

Actually I think it is worse than that. At least with a fighter you are based round strength (possibly) and get to shove and grapple and get feat support to make you a bit special. Not that I find fighters great fun either.

[NNescio]

Actually I think it is worse than that. At least with a fighter you are based round strength (possibly) and get to shove and grapple and get feat support to make you a bit special. Not that I find fighters great fun either.

You can "shove" with Repelling Blast and "grapple" with Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion.

[ChildofLuthic]

Cleric.
[snip]
they're not a socialite, but they conceptually should be (in many cases) and have some tools in that direction...it's just...
[snip]
...well, I can't really put my finger on it, but when I think "Cleric" (in D&D terms), what I'm thinking of is a Warrior Priest and the Paladin fills that role very nicely, thank you. If I think Priesty-Priest (i.e. a more spellcasty style god-botherer), then features like Medium/Heavy Armour Proficiency rear their ugly head and ruin the illusion, just as much as if a Wizard subclass offered the same; sure, some archetypes of Cleric (or Wizard) might involve that kind of martial training/ability, but it should very much be the exception, not the norm (IMO). I also understand that you don't have to use all the features you have, but it still rankles a little that there really isn't a "Priest" class that is a true divine counterpart to the Wizard, per se and that there never will be without treading heavily on the Clerics toes (I mean, a Divine Soul Sorcerer comes pretty close, I guess).

Yeah, it really sounds like you want to play a divine soul sorcerer. No armor, high charisma for a socialite character, and you can steal whatever spells you want from cleric. Reflavor it as being "blessed by your god with power" (which is close to the original fluff anyway) and you should be fine.

[diplomancer]

I'm curious if you would feel better playing an EK Fighter/ AT Rogue verses a non-magical version?

Not really, I would still prefer both a Monk and a Barbarian (the other non-casters).

[McSkrag]

Does your DM use cover correctly?

Allies and enemies count as cover, it's hard to just stand back and attack at range. If you ever wonder why Archery style gives a +2 to attack... Half Cover which can be a low wall, large piece of furniture, natrow tree trunk, or a creature (friend or foe). Half cover gives you +2 AC (and Dex saves).

I've found that ranged combat is so much better when people make you work for it.

I hear you. As a DM, I always add terrain to make tactics and strategy more interesting for everyone including ranged attackers.

But for me, standing back and shooting doesn't have the excitement of the front lines. I just really the feeling of being in the mix and trading blows with terrifying monsters. IRL I'm a bit of an adrenalin junkie, so maybe it's the danger factor I dig.

[Sigreid]

I wouldn't say hate, but I have a strong individualistic fantasy fulfillment in game that makes me chafe at the patronage aspects of cleric and warlock.

[JumboWheat01]

While I haven't played in a long while, looking at my plans, the classes I have the least planned out for are Warlocks and Rangers. I can't say I HATE them, per se, just am least inclined to them.

Warlocks, while I like their different casting style from the other casters (it's clearly 5e's version of 4e's AEDU system,) something about them keeps me away. Is it their patrons, which are generally not decent beings at all? How front-loaded they are and how often they're attached to just about anything with a Charisma score? I dunno.

Rangers, I don't quite understand why I have so few plans of them. They're primarily martial, with some spell casting power, a lot of flavor and a wide variety of skill power. A nice mixture of things. There must be something stopping me from them.

[diplomancer]

I hear you. As a DM, I always add terrain to make tactics and strategy more interesting for everyone including ranged attackers.

But for me, standing back and shooting doesn't have the excitement of the front lines. I just really the feeling of being in the mix and trading blows with terrifying monsters. IRL I'm a bit of an adrenalin junkie, so maybe it's the danger factor I dig.

I feel the same way. Being a primarily ranged character is not very fun for me. When I was playing a half-orc Ancients Paladin, a fun adventuring day was when I used both the relentless endurance AND the Paladins 15th level ability that copies it.

[Sception]

Wizard. Don't hate them, and they're far from weak, but there's a lot of book keeping and my favorite spell school, necromancy, is frustratingly poorly served in 5th edition so far, with hardly any spells to choose from, most of which are bad. Yeah you can make a fun & functional wizard, even a necromancer, by casting mostly spells of other schools, but yeah, frustrating.

[Fable Wright]

Bard and (non-tempest) Cleric.

The former is so, so squishy and relies completely on gimmicks to do anything useful. The latter just has a super restrictive spell list. No ranged BFC. No ranged damage. Just get your butt into melee and Spirit Guardians, then make one big auto attack. I just can't get into it.

[nickl_2000]

I am shocked at how few people are saying Ranger here. Considering how looked down upon it is on this board it is showing up rarely.

[stoutstien]

I am shocked at how few people are saying Ranger here. Considering how looked down upon it is on this board it is showing up rarely.

Ranger is concerned a weaker class but the idea of ranger is popular enough to keep them popping up at most tables.

[Sigreid]

Ranger is concerned a weaker class but the idea of ranger is popular enough to keep them popping up at most tables.

I think a lot if the mixed reviews on ranger are based on it having gone from a high damage striker in 4e to the party survival expert in 5e.

[ImperiousLeader]

I'm going to divide all the classes into three tiers:

1. Classes I actively want to play, iow, my first picks, my favs.
- Sorcerer
- Druid
- Bard
- Monk
- Artificer
- Psion (obviously, there are no official Psionic rules yet. And the Mystic was merely okay, but not great. But I've always liked Psionics conceptually, so I'm eager for the next iteration)

2. Classes I like playing, but generally want a cool concept to go with it to take it over the first tier.
- Wizard (The one 5e Wizard I played was in a campaign setting that feared and suppressed magic, so I took this class because it'd be harder to play than if I'd gone Sorcerer)
- Paladin
- Rogue
- Warlock

3. Classes that I'm meh about and not overly interested in playing.
- Fighter
- Cleric
- Ranger
- Barbarian

I'll confess, I like shiny things, so a new class that intrigues me would almost certainly jump right into first tier.

[Frozenstep]

Ranger. Yay, I get to be a fighter that concentrates on hunter's mark a lot and has only a few spells that are even worth picking up. I'm fine with the theme, but it's just not flexible enough.

Druid. This is one where the theme doesn't quite work for me. While turning into an animal out of combat to solve small issues sounds really cool, I don't like summoning animals/minions/anything in combat, lots of hassle, and beyond that if I wanted to control the battlefield I like the wizard spells a little more for that.

[Reevh]

I like them all, but I'd say Druid is my least favorite. The fantasy of the class just appeals to me less than the other classes.

I think my favorites are Bard and Rogue, because they have applicable skills for every situation, and lots of options in combat.

[Reevh]

I am shocked at how few people are saying Ranger here. Considering how looked down upon it is on this board it is showing up rarely.

The theme of the ranger and the fluff mechanics of the class are pretty poor, but it's generally reasonably strong from a damage dealing perspective. Not as strong as an equivalent fighter, but not completely weak either, and has a few more tools. Honestly I think I'd rather play a ranger than a monk.

[Reevh]

I'm curious if you would feel better playing an EK Fighter/ AT Rogue verses a non-magical version?

AT Rogues are probably too powerful, especially with a level or two dip in Hexblade. I've done 120 damage in a single round with an AT/Hexblade, and it was something I could have done reasonably consistently if the boss we were fighting (ancient red dragon) hadn't CC'd the hell out of the rogue with lair actions and fear. And on top of that, you have so damn much utility out of combat with all the skills and expertise you get.

[Skyblaze]

I wouldn't say I actively hate to play any class, just there are certain classes that are more challenging to come up with a fun character idea for.

It's funny because my favorite class is sorcerer and I think of new character ideas for it every time I look at their subclasses. Wizard however, I've had one maybe two ideas for? Same with druid.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Druid. Their generic flavor doesn't appeal to me all that much, and any other concept I have for them are better suited to clerics or wizards. I don't hate them or anything, but I'd have to be forced to play it.

After that, monks and warlocks are up there. I'll play either on rare occasion, but they don't hit those epic high fantasy hero notes I prefer.

[ZorroGames]

After I introduced my wife to Fantasy she became an avid Shannara fan. She wanted to play Druid like in that series but felt it was made Difficult by how the PHB addressed the class.

Between the number limits of Shape change into animals, the Murder Hoboes of early seasons, etc., she stopped playing and has not returned.

[sithlordnergal]

Out of all the classes, I find Warlock and Barbarian to be the most boring. All the Barbarian does/can do is Rage and hit things. There's nothing interesting about that at all. Meanwhile the Warlock lacks the resources to do anything outside of Hex and Eldritch Blast.

[JellyPooga]

After I introduced my wife to Fantasy she became an avid Shannara fan. She wanted to play Druid like in that series but felt it was made Difficult by how the PHB addressed the class.

Between the number limits of Shape change into animals, the Murder Hoboes of early seasons, etc., she stopped playing and has not returned.

To be fair, Alannon (or whatever he was called) wasn't exactly a Druid in the D&D sense...like, at all. Practically any other spellslinger fits his character/abilities better. Just because D&D has the same name for something as someone else, doesn't mean the concepts involved are necessarily, in any way, associated.

Out of all the classes, I find Warlock and Barbarian to be the most boring. All the Barbarian does/can do is Rage and hit things.

I dunno; it depends on if you want to use all their abilities or not. I mean, every Totem Barbarian can talk to animals, some can leap mighty distances, others can see for miles with perfect clarity, others still have a much broader skill base than even so-called "smart" classes like Wizards. If you want to boil it down to such simple terms, then every Class becomes an exercise in banality and uninteresting rinse&repeat activities.

[Arkhios]

To be fair, Alannon (or whatever he was called) wasn't exactly a Druid in the D&D sense...like, at all. Practically any other spellslinger fits his character/abilities better. Just because D&D has the same name for something as someone else, doesn't mean the concepts involved are necessarily, in any way, associated.

yeah, Allanon (at least from the TV-series) is more like an Eldritch Knight. Swinging that sword of his like a boss, and barely casting any spells.

Not sure about the book series though, but as I've understood, the TV-show version is leagues different from the book version.

[JellyPooga]

yeah, Allanon (at least from the TV-series) is more like an Eldritch Knight. Swinging that sword of his like a boss, and barely casting any spells.

Not sure about the book series though, but as I've understood, the TV-show version is leagues different from the book version.

It's been a while since I read them (like, decades), but as I recall, he was more of a loremaster than a warrior, with a focus on what d&d would probably dub necromancy of one design or another. Pretty sure he was not a shapeshifting nature-boi.

[Callin]

Druid. I hate how its been based around Shapeshifting as its "Thing". I hate Shapeshifting. Their spell list is also lacking to me. Its all over the place. Love the flavor. I really really want to play a Druid. I have wanted to play one for a long time. Spores is finally opening up something to put in place of Shapeshifting but its poison damage.. which is kinda wack.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

For all the people saying Druid... Did any of you play the 4e druid? For me it really felt like a nature wizard in 4e and I loved it.

Druid in 5e is mostly meh to me and I feel they took the wrong step backwards. I don't hate the 5e druid... I just don't feel much for it at all.

[Luccan]

Clerics.

Its nothing to do with their role in the party, in fact, right now I am playing a Valor Bard who is the parties primary healer, support caster, and back-up tank, so basically a Cleric's role in all but name. For me it is the roleplay aspect - I have never been comfortable with the attitude and obligations of the Clerics role. And its not like I have any personal religious stance that chafes with the Clerics default attitude (I am sort of christian agnostic myself), but I just cant find away to balance the seeming Cleric "duties" of converting and proselytizing with my own preferred playing style.

And this isn't just standard-D&D-style Clerics, I have tried a religious character in other systems (tried a preacher in a Deadlands campaign) and it fell flat too.

Funny, I never play Clerics because I feel like I would make other people uncomfortable if I made someone actually dedicated to their deity.