Most Over/Underrated Class?

[Misterwhisper]

Underrated ranger that is not beast master.

Especially with the new ua work, they are perfectly fine.

Runner up would be storm sorcerer, you can do a ton with them.
Also with the new ua metà magic options they even better.

Overrated: many of them.
Kensei monks there is just no reason to play one.
If I have to pick a class, probably rogue, while super fun, there is really nothing they do that is special, a bard is just plain better. Hell the ua sidekick adept is a better class.

[MrCharlie]

OK, I'll give this a try...

Overrated: Arcane Trickster Rogues - Fun idea, but I've yet to see it work out well. Sneak attack can't be applied to spells, and their spell progression is so slow, their spells hardly ever account for much of anything. Add to that the Rogue's already busy action economy, you usually have to choose between being either a substandard Rogue (that gets no combat benefit from their subclass) or a fairly unimpressive spellcaster.

Underrated: Domain of Trickery Clerics - Everyone downgrades this option, but a) you're still a Cleric with all the tankiness and great support/damage spells that goes with, and b) you get some really terrific non-cleric spells added to your spell list, like Mirror Image, Pass without Trace, and Polymorph. Fun!

Irrational Hatred: Moon Druids! For those who don't want roleplay in their roleplaying game. "i r a grizzly bear. Rawr!"

There are a couple spells that can sneak attack-booming blade, greenflame blade, and shadow blade all interact well with sneak attacking. The first two are actually cantrips, which breaks the rating scale if done properly; shadow blade makes a powerful weapon which you can then just sneak attack with.

I absolutely agree with trickery clerics, by the by; while their features are sub-par, invoke duplicity is actually very solid, improved duplicity is hilarious, and the spell list is a gem. Besides, divine strike is a minor boost at the best of times, clerics don't really do so hot if they try to attack all the time, they are full spellcasters and should act like it. Their first level ability basically being non concentration enhance ability and their other divinity option being pretty awful aren't great for them, but you take what you can get.

I also really agree about druids. Actually, I really agree in a more general sense, which is that druids and rangers and monks are often roleplayed terribly, with people playing the class instead of the character and ending up completely awful, or ignoring the class and having no character and almost being worse.

[Daphne]

What do you think is the most overrated class or subclass?

Overrated I'd say the Bard, mostly because of Magical Secrets. It seems people act like any spells = all spells.

What do you think is the most underrated class or subclass?

Ranger, it's only bad at first level. Otherwise their damage is fine and they get more utility than a Fighter.

What class do you irrationally love

Paladin. I consider Aura of Protection the strongest feature in the entire game. Also, smites are reliable, you know exactly what you're getting.

or hate irrespective of power levels or reasons.

Sorcerer, I love the flavor but I hate the implementation. Metamagic makes no sense as a Sorcerer main ability and I wish the origins had more design space.

[Merudo]

Barbarian is also somewhat overrated, especially Barb 20, but there's probably more people who look down on the Barb than the Paladin so the Paladin is more overrated.

Barbarians have amazing offense and offense, especially at low levels. They get good AC, HP, resistance to bludgeoning/piercing/slashing and Danger Sense for pseudo proficiency in Dex saves. With Rage damage bonus and Reckless Attack they can do tons of damage too.

The barbarian is near broken in some campaigns heavy in weapon attacks, such as Lost Mine of Phandelver and Storm King's Thunder. It's an amazing class, although I recommend multiclassing out of it somewhere in tier 2.

[Grognerd]

I usually avoid threads like this, but every now and then, why not?

Overrated: The Warlock. It is fine for what it does, but it is - in my humble estimation - somewhat boring. I'll take a sorcerer or even a wizard any day.

Underrated: The Ranger. Are there things that I would change (and have changed)? Absolutely. But it isn't the absolute crapfest that many people made it tout to be.

Irrational Hatred: The Monk. I hate these. For so many reasons, but I'll admit that most of those reasons are probably irrational. But let's be honest... the Monk is only in D&D because Gygax was in love with Kwai Chang Kaine , and that's by his own admission.

Bonus...
Rational Hatred: Not a class, but Multiclassing. IN MY EXPERIENCE (before anyone gets offended), archetypes often offer the versatility that required multiclassing in previous editions, and 90% of the 5e players that I've encountered (IN MY EXPERIENCE ONLY) only multiclass to "dip" and try and optimize stats rather than because it fits an actual characterization.

[JumboWheat01]

Overrated: Moon Druid, there's a lot more to worshiping and serving nature than shapeshifting all the bloody time.

Underrated: Ranger. It's good at what it does, the exploration aspect, and it's not all that shabby in combat. Could be better, sure, but could be worse.

Irrationally Love: For as little as I play them, I love Bards. Honorable mention goes to Trickery Clerics.

Irrationally Hate: Hexblade. Way too much power upfront that can be tagged onto so many other classes.

[airless_wing]

Overrated: Paladins. Personally, spending spells to deal damage is boring, especially considering that Paladins are already great damage dealers before smites.

Underrated: +1 to non-moon druids. I’ve never lacked options as a druid as i have with other classes. And i’ve trivialized so many encounters with the right spell at the right time.

Hate:Multiclassing into Sorcerer. It makes no narrative sense to me. It just seems like a way to gank the system.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Overrated: Wizard. Much of their perceived power comes from the expectation that they should be receiving extra spells in the form of scrolls and that they will always be prepared for any situation as a result of this. Your loot tables shouldn't change because a Wizard has rolled up to your table, they'll do just fine without the help. Their books aren't indestructible either (most of the time) so ignoring that as a weakness of the class feeds further into the perception that they're "unbeatable".

Underrated: Monk. Not enough love is given to their ability to lock down monsters and offer fantastic and versatile battlefield control while simultaneously being difficult to lock down on their own. They're often touted as frail and low damage but I don't see either of those as a major problem when played well. The only issue I see from Monks is that positioning with them can be difficult, you've always got to be careful about where you're standing and what you plan to do next turn.

Irrationally Love: Rogue. I've played one once and aside from Paladin (which I don't label my love for as "irrational") it was the unluckiest and poorest performing character I've ever played. He's still one of the most beloved characters I've ever made and it's an awful tragedy how I had to retire him on account of never being able to roll a dice over 10.

Irrationally Hate: Druid. Nothing about them interests me and despite their obvious power and durability as a spellcaster I can't bring myself to even consider playing one. Boring, bland and bad for me.

[Ganryu]

Overrated:
Bard: Magic secrets is great, but its a lvl 10 ability, and is admitting other classes have other it better. Bardic inspiration can be nice, but isn't a guarentee of anything. Granted, thematically they are fun.

Underrated:
Sorcerer: Seriously, Heightened is ungodly for a debuffer, and twinning some spells is great. I almost find the Divine soul OP is so good.

Irrational Love:
Warlocks: You can customize them SO much. I love that. I rarely use eldritch blast. Its not their own form of offense!

Irrational Hate:
Monks: (I literally started a thread.). I just don't understand them. I've played every other class in the game.

[MaxWilson]

Barbarians have amazing offense and offense, especially at low levels. They get good AC, HP, resistance to bludgeoning/piercing/slashing and Danger Sense for pseudo proficiency in Dex saves. With Rage damage bonus and Reckless Attack they can do tons of damage too.

The barbarian is near broken in some campaigns heavy in weapon attacks, such as Lost Mine of Phandelver and Storm King's Thunder. It's an amazing class, although I recommend multiclassing out of it somewhere in tier 2.

We don't actually disagree all that much then. Barb 1-5 is okay, about on par with a Fighter. Barb 20 is nowhere near worth the investment, unless you're a Zealot, then maybe.

People speak of Barb 20 as if it makes you some kind of combat god, but really it just bumps your anemic damage to be somewhat less anemic. You're still attacking only ~50-60% as often as a Fighter, and +2 to hit and damage doesn't change that. You've got a poor AC which is made poorer by the way many people play Barbs (Reckless Attack all the time), and if you're not a Bear or a Zealot your Rage resistances grow increasingly irrelevant as you face more or tougher foes. You're more fragile than many people realize.

Weaker and more fragile than many people realize = overrated.

Bonus...
Rational Hatred: Not a class, but Multiclassing. IN MY EXPERIENCE (before anyone gets offended), archetypes often offer the versatility that required multiclassing in previous editions, and 90% of the 5e players that I've encountered (IN MY EXPERIENCE ONLY) only multiclass to "dip" and try and optimize stats rather than because it fits an actual characterization.

5E multiclassing is the equivalent of 2E's custom class construction rules: you can cherry-pick strong abilities to make a class which is considerably mechanically stronger than a normal class, and yet isn't necessarily anchored in fictional archetypes. 2E put custom class construction in the DMG so that players wouldn't have direct access to or knowledge of it, but 5E puts it right there in the PHB.

They shouldn't really call it "multiclassing" because it's not. 5E has no Fighter/Mages or Fighter/Thiefs in the classic sense, where you pick your archetype up front and just get better at fighting and maging or thieving as you go. 5E just has custom classes that steal some abilities from Fighter levels and some from Rogue levels, up to a maximum of 20 levels total.

[Dork_Forge]

We don't actually disagree all that much then. Barb 1-5 is okay, about on par with a Fighter. Barb 20 is nowhere near worth the investment, unless you're a Zealot, then maybe.

People speak of Barb 20 as if it makes you some kind of combat god, but really it just bumps your anemic damage to be somewhat less anemic. You're still attacking only ~50-60% as often as a Fighter, and +2 to hit and damage doesn't change that. You've got a poor AC which is more poorer by the way many people play Barbs (Reckless Attack all the time), and if you're not a Bear or a Zealot your Rage resistances grow increasingly irrelevant as you face more or tougher foes. You're more fragile than many people realize.

Weaker and more fragile than many people realize = overrated.

Just curious why you think Barbarian AC is poor? If you did go all the way to 20 your AC would easily break 20 with minimal Dex investment and has a MAD but potential cap of 24.

[MaxWilson]

Just curious why you think Barbarian AC is poor? If you did go all the way to 20 your AC would easily break 20 with minimal Dex investment and has a MAD but potential cap of 24.

Because of medium armor and MADness.

Let's say you start with Str 17, Con 15, Dex 14 at level 1, and a feat like GWM. You spend one ASI on PAM, and four more ASIs on Str 20 and Con 20. At level 20 you're now Str 24, Con 24, Dex 14, which gives you an AC of 19, or 21 if you sacrifice offense for a shield. Before level 20 it's only AC 17.

For a front-liner, AC 17 is poor AC in my book even before you bring Reckless Attack on-board, and IME it leads to them getting shredded quickly whenever they are outnumbered. (Not counting Zealots.) It's even worse when the enemies happen to be using a non-physical damage type, but even when Rage does apply, 50% of lots is still lots. In a serious fight, the Barb is likely to be the first one KO'ed.

[Dork_Forge]

Because of medium armor and MADness.

Let's say you start with Str 17, Con 15, Dex 14 at level 1, and a feat like GWM. You spend one ASI on PAM, and four more ASIs on Str 20 and Con 20. At level 20 you're now Str 24, Con 24, Dex 14, which gives you an AC of 19, or 21 if you sacrifice offense for a shield. Before level 20 its' only AC 17.

For a front-liner, AC 17 is poor AC in my book even before you bring Reckless Attack on-board, and IME it leads to them getting shredded quickly whenever they are outnumbered. (Not counting Zealots.) It's even worse when the enemies happen to be using a non-physical damage type, but even when Rage does apply, 50% of lots is still lots. In a serious fight, the Barb is likely to be the first one KO'ed.

But they are a frontliner that relies more on HP than on AC and that should be factored in. They will be hit more than a Fighter/Paladin but also have a larger pool of hp to take that (for most Barbarians BPS is still the most common damage type and Bear Totem Barbarians are extremely commonplace). A plate wearing Fighter/Paladin using a great weapon would still have an AC of 19 at 20 with heavy armor and Defense open to them. If they choose to go with GWF instead, then they're only one better off than the Barbarian before 20 in this case.

I agree and have seen Barbarians get cut down quickly when swarmed and insisting on using Reckless Attack, though I don't think poor choices on the part of a player should reflect on the mechanics of the class. Ideally, like the -5 +10 feats it should only be used when appropriate to mitigate the risks.

[MaxWilson]

But they are a frontliner that relies more on HP than on AC and that should be factored in. They will be hit more than a Fighter/Paladin but also have a larger pool of hp to take that (for most Barbarians BPS is still the most common damage type and Bear Totem Barbarians are extremely commonplace). A plate wearing Fighter/Paladin using a great weapon would still have an AC of 19 at 20 with heavy armor and Defense open to them. If they choose to go with GWF instead, then they're only one better off than the Barbarian before 20 in this case.

I agree and have seen Barbarians get cut down quickly when swarmed and insisting on using Reckless Attack, though I don't think poor choices on the part of a player should reflect on the mechanics of the class. Ideally, like the -5 +10 feats it should only be used when appropriate to mitigate the risks.

The thing is though that if you're not using Reckless Attack then you're bad in different way: you're not as fragile, but you're doing anemic damage, and you really have no reason not to just be a Cavalier or something.

The ideal scenario for a Barbarian is to be up against a single big brute monster that does a lot of physical damage with high accuracy, like an Iron Golem. A Barbearian will take significantly less damage than an Eldritch Knight or Cavalier in that kind of a fight, even if they Recklessly Attack. (10.4 damage per attack for the AC 17 Reckless Barb instead of 16.0 for the AC 19 Fighter, assuming no Shield.) They'll also do significantly more damage. My prejudice against Barbs is probably caused partly by the fact that (1) as a DM, I tend not to use single big brute monsters like this, and (2) as a player, I can think of better and cheaper ways to kill them than meleeing them, so the Barbarian looks like a solution in search of a problem.

[ezekielraiden]

Bonus...
Rational Hatred: Not a class, but Multiclassing. IN MY EXPERIENCE (before anyone gets offended), archetypes often offer the versatility that required multiclassing in previous editions, and 90% of the 5e players that I've encountered (IN MY EXPERIENCE ONLY) only multiclass to "dip" and try and optimize stats rather than because it fits an actual characterization.

Perhaps, given the number and strain of caveats you have to add here, it really isn't such a rational hatr in the first place, and is very dependent on your personal experience plus your individual taste when it comes to class and character design?

5E multiclassing is the equivalent of 2E's custom class construction rules: you can cherry-pick strong abilities to make a class which is considerably mechanically stronger than a normal class, and yet isn't necessarily anchored in fictional archetypes. 2E put custom class construction in the DMG so that players wouldn't have direct access to or knowledge of it, but 5E puts it right there in the PHB.

They shouldn't really call it "multiclassing" because it's not. 5E has no Fighter/Mages or Fighter/Thiefs in the classic sense, where you pick your archetype up front and just get better at fighting and maging or thieving as you go. 5E just has custom classes that steal some abilities from Fighter levels and some from Rogue levels, up to a maximum of 20 levels total.

Er...no, it's not equivalent to that. It is, in fact, equivalent in nearly every way to 3e's multiclassing. Where you could "take a level" of a new class each time you levelled up. Literally the only difference between the two, other than fundamental system differences like "BAB and saving throw progressions aren't a thing in 5e," is that 5e multiclassing requires ability score minimums. It's very odd to say we should not call it "multiclassing" because it isn't like what 2e called "multiclassing" when that wasn't even a game designed by Wizards of the Coast and both 3e and 5e are such games. Should we not call rolling a d20 to determine if you succeed at inflicting damage an "attack roll" because it doesn't use THAC0 and instead uses proficiency, or not call the defensive value of armor "AC" because it's an ascending rather than descending value? 2e doesn't get hegemony over what terms mean.

[MrCharlie]

The thing is though that if you're not using Reckless Attack then you're bad in different way: you're not as fragile, but you're doing anemic damage, and you really have no reason not to just be a Cavalier or something.

The ideal scenario for a Barbarian is to be up against a single big brute monster that does a lot of physical damage with high accuracy, like an Iron Golem. A Barbearian will take significantly less damage than an Eldritch Knight or Cavalier in that kind of a fight, even if they Recklessly Attack. (10.4 damage per attack for the AC 17 Reckless Barb instead of 16.0 for the AC 19 Fighter, assuming no Shield.) They'll also do significantly more damage. My prejudice against Barbs is probably caused partly by the fact that (1) as a DM, I tend not to use single big brute monsters like this, and (2) as a player, I can think of better and cheaper ways to kill them than meleeing them, so the Barbarian looks like a solution in search of a problem.

But you can turn reckless attack off. Yeah, they are really terrible against swarms of moderate threats, and they tend to go down to some esoteric threats pretty rapidly (fire elementals and similar things are mean) but there are situations where most characters are found wanting.

Also, what your talking about damage wise only applies at extremely high levels. I don't think many people disagree that Barbarian becomes useless once it's main feature is brutal critical, with no significant milestones to make up the dead-gap airtime like Fighter has with indomitable (which is better at that). Although relentless rage is solid against big uglies...so when that drop off happens is debatable. Somewhere between 9 and 12.

And while you may be unfairly biased against big uglies, a lot of people expect them. Some big uglies don't use traditional damages, and that's okay, but many that don't use traditional damages don't even attack that often-in fact, attack rolls have become a rarer and rarer bird as 5e has progressed. Barbarians are okay to good at DEX and CON saves, which isn't too shabby at the end of the day. They can be relevant against threats like dragons with some mobility solutions, it's only when you get freaky elementals and abberations and other things that the barbarian starts to see better days.

That said-a Barbarian is absolutely a problem in search of other problems it can be a solution to, and most barbarians end up played that way. They tend to be boring, one dimensional characters inspired by second hand tales of conan the barbarian without understanding what made the original compelling, or by (to varying degrees of ignorance) noble savage mythos, be it from nordic roots or elsewhere. It's generally limited to a singular party role and a singular thematic role. But all that said, I don't think it's overvalued.

And I personally believe the exact same thing can be said about Monks. In fact, you can say the same thing about their game statistics, even. It's just that their role is more nebulous-but in many ways, monks also don't do so hot against mooks, have poor AC, and often do suicidal things that get them killed. They do more varied things otherwise-but still.

[Nagog]

Dragon Soul Sorcerers and Evocation Wizards. Both of them are the go-to Player Handbook subclasses for their respective classes, but neither offer anything I could see worth investing in. Dragon Souls are renowned for their AC bump, but that's all it is, a bump. One level in Druid could get you the light armor to replace it and also grant you so much more spells and abilities, and you would still get plenty of spell slots through multiclassing slots. Evocation Wizards get Spell Sculpting, but it's only truly useful if you're resigned to hucking fireballs all the live long day, which for a class that's renowned for it's large spell list and plenty of slots, having a higher level ability specific to one spell and specifically casting it into friendly space feels really... Garbage.

As for classes that I feel are underrated: Pretty much anything full martial, but more specifically, Monks. Also Rangers. Both have good flavor potential, but rarely see much exploration beyond they're expected paint jobs because the classes are seen as mediocre but not bad enough to warrant powerbuilding attempts. Here's a few examples of fun flavor changes I'd love to see:
Kensai monk whos a knife- and crossbow-wielding criminal/cat burglar.
Horizon Walker Ranger who is a deal-making demon, hopping between planes to make deals with various beings
Monster Slayer Ranger that plays like a bookish Wizard (knows vulerabilities/weaknesses, knows how to best hurt various creatures. Steam Dragon Express MC for reference)
Way of the Four Elements Monk that plays like a Druid (commune with nature/the elements)
Etc.


As for classes I just love irrationally, it really depends on my mood. I'm currently obsessing over Warlocks due to their malleability, but Rangers have also caught my eye after the recent UA gave them so much.

[diplomancer]

Find Greater Steed isn't available until level 13. By this point casters are teleporting hundreds of feet to gain distance and able to take a friend with them.... Heaven help you if you are trying to fly around and your Griffon and its -1 Cha save (+4 with your aura at max) eats a Banish while you're suspended 200ft in the air.

Even collateral damage like a dragon breath that hits you both for XX damage (even when you save) then claws that sucker and bam you're dropping out of the sky.

Find Greater Steed might be a nice boon for a paladin, but flourishes so much better with ranged characters who can use 300-600ft of range to their advantage while flying (the distance where they can keep the steed safe from all the other nonsense that can take them out).

And that's why you use a pegasus and get the mounted combatant feat (which increases both your offense and your mount's survivability considerably)

But we were comparing Paladin's mobility to other melee characters. As melee characters go, the Paladin is probably the one with the best mobility, starting from level 5.

[micahaphone]

Class


Irrational: Undying Parron (Warlock)

It doesn't get much traction because its higher level abilities don't look all that tasty compared to other Patrons, but it also has an absolutely killer (if situational) 1st ability and a really rather good bonus spell list. I think it's worth more than many guides and opinions give it credit.

Really? I'm playing one in Curse of Strahd, and the level 1 wis-save-before-undead-can-smack-me feature has been useful occasionally, but not that great. The other features have been nigh useless for me. Expanded spell list, I've grabbed Silence and both of the level 4 options (Death Ward and Aura of Vitality). Slapping my allies with a death ward during breakfast is great, but otherwise I feel like the expanded list is lacking. I absolutely love the character I've created and play in roleplay, but I sometimes wish I had the spell list or features of a different patron.

[Zerubbabel]

As for classes that I feel are underrated: Pretty much anything full martial, but more specifically, Monks. Also Rangers...
...
Horizon Walker Ranger who is a deal-making demon, hopping between planes to make deals with various beings

I hear so little about Horizon Walker Rangers, I'd be happy just to hear a few stories about how people are using them in adventures, what features are paying off, what utility they are finding in them. Anything at all...

[ProsecutorGodot]

I hear so little about Horizon Walker Rangers, I'd be happy just to hear a few stories about how people are using them in adventures, what features are paying off, what utility they are finding in them. Anything at all...

We briefly had a Horizon Walker Aarakocra in our party. One of the major benefits of the 11th level feature is that it allows for a bow wielding Ranger to avoid potentially being trapped in melee combat. If you're wielding a bow it can also be as good as gaining 30ft of extra movement if you choose to attack three different targets.

Not a bad subclass mechanically but beyond that one gimmick you don't have very much else. It's a pretty good gimmick though.

[Garresh]

I hear so little about Horizon Walker Rangers, I'd be happy just to hear a few stories about how people are using them in adventures, what features are paying off, what utility they are finding in them. Anything at all...

I literally forgot they existed...

[Hytheter]

We briefly had a Horizon Walker Aarakocra in our party. One of the major benefits of the 11th level feature is that it allows for a bow wielding Ranger to avoid potentially being trapped in melee combat. If you're wielding a bow it can also be as good as gaining 30ft of extra movement if you choose to attack three different targets.

Not a bad subclass mechanically but beyond that one gimmick you don't have very much else. It's a pretty good gimmick though.

It also lets a melee attacker zip around while whacking people, which is cool if nothing else. Shame it doesn't kick in until level 11 though.

[N7Paladin]

It's been done to death. Let's do it again!

Three questions:

What do you think is the most overrated class or subclass?
What do you think is the most underrated class or subclass?
What class do you irrationally love or hate irrespective of power levels or reasons.


Keep in mind, something being highly regarded but genuinely GOOD isn't overrated, it's just popular. I'm talking things where their respect level is way off.

Overrated-Clerics.

Underrated-Rangers. I think they've continuously gotten the short end of the stick.

Irrationally love/hate-HATE Bards. Oh my goodness-by and large, they're just so annoying to be in a group with or even hear about. I think it might have less to do with the actual class, than with the type of people who tend to play them. Either they'll bust out a musical instrument (I'm sorry--your shrieky flute playing isn't adding to the gameplay or immersion for the rest of the table), or worse, they want to seduce nearly everything under the sun/s (this is just... gross and pathetic).

[Merudo]

We don't actually disagree all that much then. Barb 1-5 is okay, about on par with a Fighter.

Barb 1-5 is about on par with Fighter on offense, with the Fighter having a slight advantage. On defense however, the Barbarian is so much better than the Fighter. The Barbarian has about the same AC as the Fighter, more HP, and resistance against weapon attacks, which are extremely prevalent at these levels.

Just curious why you think Barbarian AC is poor? If you did go all the way to 20 your AC would easily break 20 with minimal Dex investment and has a MAD but potential cap of 24.

Because of medium armor and MADness.

Let's say you start with Str 17, Con 15, Dex 14 at level 1, and a feat like GWM.

Okay, the Barbarian buys Scale mail as soon as possible (AC 14 + 2 = 16) and later upgrades to half plate (AC 17). A Fighter would start with Chain Mail (AC 16) and later upgrades to full plate (AC 18).

There is almost no difference here.

Barb 20 is nowhere near worth the investment, unless you're a Zealot, then maybe.

I don't consider levels 11+ when analyzing classes. First, high levels are almost never reached in practice. And secondly, class design and balance are horrendous for these levels.

[Zilong]

Overrated: Wizards. Contrary to forum theory crafters the Wizard will not, in fact, always have exactly the right spell for the situation.

Underrated: Rangers, even beastmasters. They are fine. They play well enough at the table that none of my players who don't frequent internet optimization forums has ever had a complaint.

Irrational dislikes: I was originally going to say I don't hate or love any class to excess, but clearly, from what I wrote, I just dislike internet optimized nonsense. So I guess I hate fighters who take the internet warrior subclass. (still no idea how to do blue text)

[AvatarVecna]

Overrated has gotta be Champion Fighter. There's a section of the community that understands it's a solid, simple option for new players who don't wanna deal with too many moving parts and there's a section of the community that has chosen "Champion is objectively the most powerful Fighter subclass" as their hill to die on. It's not bad - certainly, there are subclasses and classes that get shafted far harder, and Champion is by no means bad. They'll hold up the improved crits as a burst/per-day damage godsend, and then when you show that strategic use of of BM dice over the course of your average adventuring day deals more total damage, and about as much burst damage that you get to control when it comes up, they switch over to "well actually Champion is a defensive subclass so it's not supposed to compete with the BM on offense", except it's only got better defenses maybe at level 10 when you pick up a second fighting style (almost always an AC buff), and definitely at lvl 15 when you get the regen. I'm basically convinced that the reason "Brute" is called "Brute" instead of "Revised Champion" (which it clearly, obviously is) is specifically because WotC knows this part of the community would protest if the company implies Champion wasn't up to snuff. And again...Champion's not bad. It's gonna fall behind BM, generally speaking, but Champion Fighter is still strong and reliable. It's great for newer players, and past lvl 15 it's probably the best class for tanking mobs. But I think it gets a lot more credit than it deserves from the community - the very definition of "overrated". Its praises are sung, and it's...it's just Champion.

Underrated is Thief Rogue, although I'll be the first to admit it's pretty table-dependent. I ran with an IRL game (unfortunately ended) where the Lightfoot Halfling Thief Rogue would go into a fight and, instead of attacking, would use three Use An Object actions a round (free, action, and bonus action) on whatever hapless fool had the misfortune to cross him. Dex 20 (good starting roll), expertise in SoH, and halfling rerolls meant that basically all the time, whatever weird crap he was doing with the enemy's equipment would work. Belts unbuckled, pies in faces, shoelaces untied and retied together. I don't think he actually drew his weapon until we fought the actual dragon. We hasted him once just to see what he'd do with a minute of double-speed and an extra UaO, and he basically ran through the dungeon stealing everything he could carry, leaving us to handle the fight. Personally, I say this way of using Thief Rogue is underrated because while it's less optimal to do these things (even if they grant teammates adv) than to just stab the target for a bucket of d6s, but the DM rolled with it because the guy was hella inventive, so it made combat a bit less "will the rogue deal his share of damage or will he miss" swingy (since the DM could count on him not playing super-seriously), so it made fights a bit easier but also a lot more entertaining than the usual "roll, miss, roll, hit, roll damage, your turn". He inspired us to up our game and I was sad when that campaign ended.

I hate College Of Valor bards for not being better. I'd like to be able to play a Bard more like a battle cleric. That is all.

[JellyPooga]

Really? I'm playing one in Curse of Strahd, and the level 1 wis-save-before-undead-can-smack-me feature has been useful occasionally, but not that great. The other features have been nigh useless for me. Expanded spell list, I've grabbed Silence and both of the level 4 options (Death Ward and Aura of Vitality). Slapping my allies with a death ward during breakfast is great, but otherwise I feel like the expanded list is lacking. I absolutely love the character I've created and play in roleplay, but I sometimes wish I had the spell list or features of a different patron.

I'm surprised you found "Undead Sanctuary" lacklustre in CoS, but I guess it does come down to a bit of luck and your party play style. As for the spell list, you've nailed the crux of it with those spells you mention (before Undying Warlock came along, I had entire builds revolving around trying to get Death Ward on a Warlock; that's some prime cheddar right there), but I'd give a little shout to Ray of Sickness as a really solid early pick, both for its great rider effect and decent enough scaling damage, which is something generally lacking from and desirable in Warlock spells, given that they're always cast at their highest level.

Also, not needing to breathe, eat or sleep can be all sorts of handy too.

[HiveStriker]

Hi.

I'll start. Remember this is opinion! The whole point is to throw out views that by definition will be controversial!

By you. Just what you've seen on forums or IRL. We will all have different and highly subjective experiences, so it's by no means scientific. This is more for fun than to gain any deeper knowledge. Just to give an example. In a group I'm DMing for now I have THREE Rangers. It's an outlier, so I don't think it's that bad. But in that case I might say Rangers are overrated(though not the highest for me). Even though they're a mediocre class that is poorly defined, I still see it played quite often.

As much as I usually love these kind of threads, there is a difference between "opinions" and "prejudgements hinting on other's taste and ability to evaluate" you seem quite ok to ignore.

I hope this thread can still stay on the constructive side in spite of such a mindset. ^^

Most Overrated: "Coffeelock" (because you didn't say I couldn't pick multiclass stuff!)
People act like it completely breaks the game open...but it really doesn't. There are only 24 hours in a day, and more importantly, no party (nor reasonable DM) is going to let you short rest 23 times. Yes, if you end up with a Warlock slot or two left over when you start a short rest, this gives you an efficient way to spend them...and that's really it. In the vast majority of situations, you aren't going to benefit that much. And since the two casting systems explicitly don't stack, getting to the real power options either means only dipping Sorcerer (so you have very few sorcery points and MM options) or only dipping Warlock (so you only have a couple of low-level slots). Either way, it's really not the HOLY $#!% AMAZING thing people make it out to be, and certainly not the "this is why multiclassing is BAD" that a significant portion fears it to be.

I half-agree on this.
There is no reason why a DM would let you "short rest 23 times", at least unless exceptional circumstances.
But there is no reason either a DM would deny the benefits of a short rest whenever you spent the required amount of time and doing only "light activity". So, you would gain the benefits of a short rest...
- Whenever you have breakfast/lunch/tea/supper.
- Whenever you spend time in a library studiying things.
- Whenever you go from A to B while pacing yourself peacefully like a wandering tourist (or maybe using some transport).
- Whenever you're sitting and talking to someone about something (like a contract? ^^)

In any regular day in my games when players are set to simply walk around, buy equipment and otherwise gather information (= no stressful timer, no direct threat), the number of short rest that could be enabled is of 4 or 5 on average. It's just that generally nobody cares because rarely do we get a Warlock, and Druid's Wild Shape duration soon make "counting duration" irrelevant unless they want to swap forms. And the other classes usually need only one short rest over the day to get their recover except special cases (like Forge Cleric that wants to spend day crafting for example).

As such, imx, whenever you play games in which characters have time to develop their influence, skills or wealth, Sorlock is incredibly good simply because
1) Sorcerer has several good spells that you may find useful to maintain "over a day" or at least use "liberally" (like Enhance Ability, Detect Thoughts, See Invisibility), especially with Subtle in the ring, and having slots that recharge on a short rest help greatly with that.
2) You can mix up the ability to convert slots with the short rest slots to completely optimize your slot consumption, which shores up the main gripe many people have with Warlock being that many of the spells they want to use are casted "overkill" (like a Comprehend Languages or Enhance Ability when you only want to target you).

Now, there are not overpowered in fights. And some other classes end with even better ways to heavily extend their influence.
What makes Sorlock so good is that it offers a incredible source of power at low/mid level for people who like non-direct confrontations (gathering information, negociating contracts, manipulating expendable parties, setting up conflicts etc).


Otherwise...
Overrated: agreed on Paladins: many people underestimate how hard the "full melee" (or nearly) can be on a regular basis unless you have someone in your party that can help in that departement. And they tend to surevaluate the Aura of Protection: it's extremely good when it gets 30 feet range. At 10 feet, it's good if you are not the only frontliner AND your pal(s) can afford to stay close to you.

Indeed; it's worth noting that by the time barbarians and fighters really pull ahead with their bonuses, Paladins have spells which help with their mobility more reliably. If your a devotion paladin with just core though, tough luck.

Actually Devotion Paladins are the ones that fare the best: you can apply Sacred Weapon on a longbow, and be done.
---
As for my own feedback, quickly...

Underrated: 4E Monks, Rangers in general, Trickster Cleric.
4E have the possibly steepest progression, but they have some of the best mid level and end level abilities. In terms of damage per ki they can easily range in top tier (with the immovable king being Quivering Palm ^^).
Rangers in general are underrated because people don't pay attention to their spells, which make for the bigger half of their features, and synergize/enable their non-spell features. So obviously they are disappointed.
Trickster Cleric has much hate because its Channel Divinity has one big thing that annoy many people (being concentration, and which was certainly decided to avoid self-delegated Spirit Guardians shenanigans although they could just have barred "self-targeting" spells) and bonus damage on weapon attack is less than optimal, but has otherwise one of the best 3 top bonus spelllists and a very useful CD alternative.

[IronMike]

Bonus...
Rational Hatred: Not a class, but Multiclassing. IN MY EXPERIENCE (before anyone gets offended), archetypes often offer the versatility that required multiclassing in previous editions, and 90% of the 5e players that I've encountered (IN MY EXPERIENCE ONLY) only multiclass to "dip" and try and optimize stats rather than because it fits an actual characterization.

Thank you! I wasn't going to respond to this thread because, frankly, I've played very little 5e since coming back to D&D a couple years ago.

But all this talk of optimization and multiclassing. I just don't get it. Also from a narrative sense. How does it make sense to be raised religiously, to become a defender of the faith, and then years into your adventuring just decide you're gonna "take" a level or five in a totally unrelated skill set? Makes no sense. Sub-classes make much more sense.

Should I ever DM my own table, multiclassing would not be allowed. ;)