Most Over/Underrated Class?

[Garresh]

Lol that fear/annoyance is totally justified, but I love multiclassing too much. As long as the concept and roleplay are good, I don't care what mechanics are used to get there.

[Garresh]

Snip

Sorry quote too large and don't wanna clog thread.

My intention wasn't to judge people. On the contrary, I love hearing people argue opinions that differ from mine. Not trying to be opinionated. Plus a lot of my own opinions are pretty irrational. Or at least somewhat emotionally driven. Really, I just like people make well reasoned arguments against the hive mind. Variety is the spice of life. It's fun to hear people have a polar opposite opinion of mine, so long as it's all civil. Plus you might learn something. I generally pick up a few details I didn't know when looking into stuff like this.

[Grognerd]

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?

Sure. Perhaps. OR I just know how over-reactive and thin-skinned some people on internet forums can be and thought it worthwhile to make it absolutely clear that I was stating an opinion and not "attacking" them for "badwrongfun." But if you want me to say it, ok... I've been playing D&D since 1981 in every edition that has been published, and I feel my experience is more than rational and for that matter representative of frequent practice with multi-classing ever since 3E. This forum alone suggests that this is a far too common practice among (predominantly younger) 5e players. But, I will gladly aver that this is my opinion. That doesn't make it irrational.

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. ;)

No problem. I loathe the multitude of "optimization" threads and the "dump stat" mentality. If I give a fighter an INT 8 because my concept is a stupid brute, cool. But that's not dumping a stat; it's creating a character according to concept. If I do it just to get those extra two points to put on a different stat, then it's dumping, not playing to concept. I think it is interesting to look at how many comments on this forum alone talk about dump stats, but when you look at any of the source material, the protagonists relatively rarely have any apparent "dump stat", and when they do, it is played upon for purpose.

I don't allow multiclassing when I'm DMing either, unless the player can convince me that 1) it legitimately fits a need to fulfill their character concept, and 2) that it is supported by the campaign narrative to that point. Supposedly, characters invest years of pre-game time to achieve 1st level. Having random "dips" into other classes doesn't reflect verisimilitude. Some people like to play that way, and that's fine for them. But for some (and I'd say many) of us - probably especially older players - it's not a good flavor. Picking the right archetype and feat selection largely accomplishes character customization without demanding a "dip."

[Garresh]

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. ;)

People change as they grow. I know a lot of people who have a change of heart as they age, and decide to go into a completely different field. Maybe they always dreamed of something else but felt duty bound to do a different thing. A religious figure can still practice and do good while trying a different approach.

To use a real life example, the actor Ken Jeong was a doctor for a long time. After a successful career practicing medicine he decided to become an actor.

My own mother had a very chill management position and quit to be a real estate agent. She was taking a pay cut and weirder hours but she enjoyed it because she likes to work with people and always loved houses, renovating, stuff like that.

It's not as outlandish as it sounds. Certainly some multiclass combos are. A paladin moonlighting as a warlock is definitely odd, unless it's Ancients and Fey. But most multiclass is pretty reasonable imho.

[IronMike]

People change as they grow. I know a lot of people who have a change of heart as they age, and decide to go into a completely different field. Maybe they always dreamed of something else but felt duty bound to do a different thing. A religious figure can still practice and do good while trying a different approach.

To use a real life example, the actor Ken Jeong was a doctor for a long time. After a successful career practicing medicine he decided to become an actor.

My own mother had a very chill management position and quit to be a real estate agent. She was taking a pay cut and weirder hours but she enjoyed it because she likes to work with people and always loved houses, renovating, stuff like that.

It's not as outlandish as it sounds. Certainly some multiclass combos are. A paladin moonlighting as a warlock is definitely odd, unless it's Ancients and Fey. But most multiclass is pretty reasonable imho.

Quite a different thing going from one "thinking" career field to another. Quite a different thing, I think, going from one adventuring, physical, career to another.

To use your examples, Ken Jeong (love him) did years and years to become a doctor. The same level of education is not needed to become an actor (don't @ me).

Your mother as well. Probably took her years to get to the "very chill management position" and then she had to take a pay cut and work weirder hours. Like she started over.

But when characters multiclass, we're not requiring them to start over. They've still got the money, HP, etc that they earned previously. Your mother couldn't just go into a real estate office and demand to work a management position right away. Ken Jeong probably isn't going to continue practicing medicine while auditioning for parts. (There may even be some legal reasons he can't.)

I can give you an example from my decades of military experience. All the services allow their enlisted (and to some extents, their officers) to cross-train into different career fields. You're an F-15E engine mechanic (your first class) for a few years (reaching level 3, say), then you apply and get accepted to go to tech school to become an intel analyst (multiclassing). You don't lose your rank (character level), you start at the bottom in the SCIF learning your new job (class level), you can use your knowledge of aircraft engines in your new career field (saves? can't think of the analogy here), but you'll be run outta the shop if you show up one day wanting to turn wrenches on someone else's Strike Eagle. All your prior certifications are gone, and you can't get them back unless you somehow go back to your original career field.

[Luccan]

Depending on the thread, over and underrated can apply to pretty much anything in the game. I guess Champion Fighter might be underrated. Yeah it's the simplest subclass in the game, but I think that's what makes it kind of great.

I also don't really hate any of the classes: I grew up mostly with 3.X, so the PHB classes have always been part of the game for me (except warlock, didn't get Complete Arcane until years later, but the flavor is cool). Even though I harp on Ranger and Sorcerer at times, I don't hate them. In fact, it's because I like them that I want them to be better...

I guess the closest thing I have is that I don't really like that bards are full casters in this edition. I've come to accept it, and I realize they were trying to avoid too many casting progressions, but they feel less like a jack of all trades (ha) because of this and a couple class abilities that make them kind of good at spells and skills (and valor bard makes them decent at fighting in exchange for a little of the other two). So they're less a jack of all trades and more a savant.

[micahaphone]

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.

Among the dead has saved me from a revenant for a turn, before it made its save, a zombie occasionally, and one vampire spawn. There's a surprising number of not-undead to fight, and half the time in my small party of 3 I end up attacking them soon enough anyway. Free "Spare the Dying " with my familiar is nice enough.

Level 6 gives me some extra healing 1/day, but I even once died because I rolled 3 death save failures. I even used up the parties' Inspiration to reroll the last one 3 times!

I'm only level 7, so by 10 I'll probably also take Contagion (TY errata!) off the expanded list, and I'll age slower and not need food.

When I look at the archfey or fiend level 6&10, I see a free GTFO and super countercharm, or a buff to an important roll and a resistance to any damage type. The perks Undying gives seem much more situational compared to what other patrons offer.

[micahaphone]

And to answer the actual thread topic:

Overrated
Wizards - sure you got a bunch of spells, but sometimes which you prep is a crapshoot. And the party/plot isn't always willing to wait a long rest before you'll have the right spell for the job. I do love their ritual casting though, by far the best in the game.

Underrated Dming for a monk has been really fun, I'm amazed by the versatility. They still do good damage, can move almost anywhere on the battlefield, and lay down killer CC. And forcing 4 concentration checks is amazing vs casters.

Irrational Love
The theming and story hooks to warlocks just gets me. Their customization is also nice. I love the fluff so much I bought a damn homebrew book (Compendium of Forgotten Secrets) full of extra warlocky goodness (and subclasses for other classes too). In play, I feel like an arcane archer with some extra bits of utility or niche tricks. I have one spell slot to use on a big effect/ongoing damage (Fear, Hunger of Hadar, Hypnotic Pattern, etc) and one slot to save for defense/emergency (Invisibility, Armor of Agathys, etc). Other than that, I'm either shooting eldritch blast or maybe doing melee attacks (bonus- use a polearm to still do D10s, to make it even more similar!).


I will note that in my group, I/we homebrew that pact of the blade gives you half of Hexblades' 1st level buffs: you can attack w/ CHA, and you get medium armor/shields. Makes Hexblade less of a pseudo patch, and tbh none of us have been drawn in by the flavor of it yet. Also makes hexblade get only one 1st level feature, like the rest of the patrons, and hexblade dips less attractive for multiclassing.

[MaxWilson]

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.

It depends on Fighter subclass. If you go EK, then you've got significantly better defense than the Barb. If you go Battlemaster, you have significiantly better offense. Second Wind + Action Surge + heavier armor ~= Rage and Reckless option. I don't see either class coming out ahead here, they're pretty comparable.

Note: at low levels, Fighter has more effective HP than Barb due to how Second Wind scales. At third level with one short rest it's an extra 2d10+6 (17) HP, whereas the Barb only has 7 HP more than the Fighter even if you count HD healing.

By level 6-9 the Fighter is starting to pull ahead. At level 11 the Fighter is clearly better in most situations, and the situations where the Barb is coming out ahead are better dealt with in other ways than by tanking them in melee.

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.

You're forgetting about Defense style and various defensive options like Shield, Defensive Duelist (from the extra ASIs and SADness), HAM (from the extra ASIs), Warding Maneuver/Tireless Spirit. Barbarian subclasses are more likely to grant stuff like extra damage (Zealot, Storm Herald) or situational advantage on attacks (Wolf Totem) or a wider range of resistances (Bear Totem). My experience is that the Fighter comes out tankier, especially if you factor in how the Barb stereotype encourages them to be played: they feel like they've been promised to be nigh-invulnerable as long as they're angry, so they do dumb things like charge (Recklessly) right at the largest clump of enemies and then get shredded, whereas the Fighter will position himself to kill one of them this turn and force the others to have to waste time Dashing over to him.

You don't have to play Barbs this way but IME people do, or they wouldn't be playing Barbs in the first place, they'd be playing Fighters.

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.

Huh, that explains it.

[Willie the Duck]

Underrated and overrated presumes that I/we know how others rate things. I'm not sure I do, and I've seen rather stark differences between online places like this and IRL (sufficient to have come to the conclusion that we are not representative of the wider gaming community). I think I can say that both wizards and most combinations of the cha-based classes (particularly Paladins, Sorcerers, and hexblade Warlocks) receive a lot of adoration. My overall critique of this fandom is not that it is wrong per se, but merely that it overlooks important factors in the analysis. For wizards, the player who can capitalize on their abilities as well as they are sometimes pictured as doing probably could play any class with extreme success. Likewise, the Pal/Sor/hexbladelock analysis almost always requires one to give pass to those levels of play where various combinations/exploits haven't come online yet and you are sitting there underperforming while waiting for the levels where you excel.

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".

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

This is part of what I was talking about. Sure, you could have hunted down all the right spells, have the right ones prepared in all situations, and had the right number of backup spellbooks in the right places to circumvent spellbook loss. However, assuming this isn't just the DM being overly kind, that probably speaks to a player who just takes the game very seriously and is competent and honestly would do very well with a any other class as well.

For underrated, I'd say rangers, but qualify it quite a bit. I mean, the new UA came out and I think I agree with all the adds they gave them. If all those can go on and the class isn't overpowered, then that kinda hints at being a little deserving of a low rating without. That said, the class is imminently playable, and combines lots of good things that a party can need (heck, just saying, 'good Dex-based DPR,' 'Attribute focus on Dex, Con, and Wis,' 'Healing Spirit,' and 'utility spells' and you have something that is going to be okay).

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.

I think between a (always good but) situationally awesome gimmick and the rather unimpressive 'bonus action for +1-2D8 damage' bit makes the class seem underwhelming (particularly when it is right next to an archetype that gets Wisdom saves and let's you get darkvision on the Vuman you took for SS or XBE at level 1). The spell additions make up for it, IMO. All 5 spells added are great for the type of adventurer who would want to be one in the first place (plane hopping makes Protection from Good and Evil become a good spell rather than a niche one). I tend to make 3 types of rangers: hunter for damage output, Vuman Gloomstalker with a dip in other caster class (for more spell options) for overall utility, or wood elf Horizon Walker for the overall goal of 'playing a ranger.'

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.

There are lots of classes whose schtick could be replaced by a dip into other classes. One level of cleric often would exceed druid or dragon sorcerer. Clearly some options are left open for those games where MCing (or just dipping, or dipping into druid or cleric without an RP justification one might not want to put up with) is not allowed. As to evokers -- for every person who knows that there are usually/often better things for a wizard to do than casting direct damage onto the enemies, there is another gamer who chose to play a wizard specifically because they wanted to cast direct damage onto the enemies. For those players, an evoker is great. It makes more practical what they wanted to do in the first place.

[Merudo]

My experience is that the Fighter comes out tankier, especially if you factor in how the Barb stereotype encourages them to be played: they feel like they've been promised to be nigh-invulnerable as long as they're angry, so they do dumb things like charge (Recklessly) right at the largest clump of enemies and then get shredded, whereas the Fighter will position himself to kill one of them this turn and force the others to have to waste time Dashing over to him.

You don't have to play Barbs this way but IME people do, or they wouldn't be playing Barbs in the first place, they'd be playing Fighters.

Interestingly, my favorite path is the Ancestral Guardian Barbarian with Polearm Mastery. I hit the most dangerous creature with my Ancestral Protectors debuff before retreating behind the other fighters. The fighting style is akin to an elaborate dance and is the opposite of charging recklessly.

[MaxWilson]

I don't allow multiclassing when I'm DMing either, unless the player can convince me that 1) it legitimately fits a need to fulfill their character concept, and 2) that it is supported by the campaign narrative to that point. Supposedly, characters invest years of pre-game time to achieve 1st level. Having random "dips" into other classes doesn't reflect verisimilitude. Some people like to play that way, and that's fine for them. But for some (and I'd say many) of us - probably especially older players - it's not a good flavor. Picking the right archetype and feat selection largely accomplishes character customization without demanding a "dip."

I'm more of a fan of AD&D-style multiclassing than 5E build-a-class multiclassing, but I have to say that "dips" don't have to be random. If I'm playing a PC who's intended to emulate an elven fighter/mage, I may not "take a level in wizard" until quite late in my career, but that doesn't mean I'm not studying magic! I just don't get any mechanical benefits from it.

For classes like Dragon Sorcerer where the ability is supposed to be inborn, I feel that it is especially important to establish up-front that character has that inborn ability, long before the player chooses to invest class levels in it. From this perspective, "builds" are actually better for roleplaying than random multiclassing is: you already know your Divine Shepherdlock has a celestial grandpa even if he's a currently a Shepherd Druid 5. Maybe someday grandpa will make a deal to teach you a few things, or maybe he already has and you are still working through the intro theory (Fundamentals of Celestial Channeling 101) and can't actually cast any Warlock spells yet.

[HiveStriker]

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.

I so strongly agree with this...
Although, to be fair, if a DM intends on dealing out magic weapons for martials without just randomly rolling, it is expected he would use the same mindset of "tailored reward" for Wizards, hence scrolls.

There is also the problem/opportunity of how games are handled, between...
- Free-form campaigns where DM lets party shape the world and expand/adapt/evolve it on the fly as a result: in which a Wizard will get nothing per se, but a Wizard saying he's spending downtime searching for ways to expand spell knowledge should get new spells.
- Free-form "dungeon crawling" where everyone is focused on encounters and DM sets everything that happens with little regard to downtime character evolution, in which well it will probably suck to be a Wizard...
- And the middle-ground of campaigns, official or otherwise, that usually provide at least a handful of spell scrolls to grab throughout the adventure, and in some a lot more, where you can reasonably expect your Wizard to learn at least three or more extra spells before lvl 10... But not necessarily spells he's interested in... XD

Reality is much more twisted and unpredictable than discussions on forum make it seem to be.
That's, incidentally, 60% of the reason why I love Druids (the other 30% being Wild Shape, last 10% archetype features).

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.

You are very right. There are many multiclass where, if you really stop and take a few steps back, you would ask "what the hell? How is that supposed to exist?" XD

On another hand, some dips are easy enough to integrate into any character, as in "neutral enough in what they hint in terms of value or background or whatever".
For example, a single level of Fighter on a Sorcerer may simply be because that character doesn't like relying on magic, or was trained in a family of warriors that didn't care about him having innate magic and instead tried to suppress it).
Or maybe you could completely shunt the "Fighter" aspect and simply say it's the result of you continuously engaging in martial training during your downtime "since your first level of Sorcerer" (you see what I mean) because you feel that any man should be able to fend for himself without magic.

In general, how "weird" multiclass is or not depends, imo, on how strictly DM enforces all the fluff pertaining each class, also depending on everyone's taste.
Like Warlocks: if the DM doesn't / cannot create engaging quests and really make the Patron "exist", why should we care that character paired Devotion Paladin with Fiend Patron?
It's ultimately always the question of whether to see "classes as sets of mechanics" or "classes as character concepts to customize". :)

I don't allow multiclassing when I'm DMing either, unless the player can convince me that 1) it legitimately fits a need to fulfill their character concept, and 2) that it is supported by the campaign narrative to that point. Supposedly, characters invest years of pre-game time to achieve 1st level. Having random "dips" into other classes doesn't reflect verisimilitude. Some people like to play that way, and that's fine for them. But for some (and I'd say many) of us - probably especially older players - it's not a good flavor. Picking the right archetype and feat selection largely accomplishes character customization without demanding a "dip."

Agreed on that. Multiclassing has a "sequential" component in essence, so when a player suddenly "takes a level" in a class not remotely related to everything he's done up to now, it feels very cheesy...
That's why I think it's best to either allow very "early" in character progression, OR "bootstrap" characters at level 3/4 so people that want some dips can have their character concept "feel native" (if players are experienced enough with the game of course), or speak with players in session 0 and then try and tailor a quest or event that may provoke a big change of vocation/heart for that character.

That's also why I miss dearly the "gestalt" concept of 4E. Hybridation seemed the right way for me to cover, with any 2 classes, nearly all the niches that could ever imagine that base classes couldn't cover. To be fair 4E had many more classes and was designed with balance as the priority.

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.

I so agree on this too...
Same with players complaining they lose their rage early because "they couldn't get a melee attack" and "nobody tried to attack them".
Like they didn't have thrown weapons, Shoving and Grappling at their disposal *shrug*.

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.

Lol: doing anemic damage? You are using one and only ultra-specific context to try and make a point that is so hard to justify (at least you recognize as "ideal", but you hint that in other situations Barbarian will sub-perform when there is no reason to). XD

Reckless Attack is NOT a strict requirement for Barbarian, because advantage is NOT a requirement to deal damage: you will have the same exact chances as a Fighter out of manoeuvers to hit, provided both character are same level and were optimized in stats.
Except that Barbarian will add a small, but reliable amount of damage in bonus every attack.
So technically, comparing a Barbarian and a Fighter, all things equal, Barbarian is the one that deals the most damage.

Furthermore, as far as advantage goes, let's recall once again (like once every thread) you are usually *in a party*. You may have a Rogue/Bard that loves proning for everyone, or a caster that lands Faerie Fire / Blindness / Hold Person / whatever.

Even if you're alone, and you want to favor accuracy over damage, you can like a similarly STR Fighter Shove your opponent prone... Except you're so much better at that thanks to advantage on STR checks.

You were possibly talking about the difference in damage when using the GWM feat (which not *all* Barbarians are interested to take mind you). But how the Fighter would be any better? Battlemaster has Precision, but that lasts for a handful of attacks. Eldricht Knight has Greater Invisibility... At level 17.
Vengeance Paladin has Channel Divinity... Against one enemy.
Only Devotion Paladin and Conquest Paladin really stand out here thanks to their features.
Every other martial that may be interested in GWM will be dependant on either a Shove done self (which means Fighter get ahead only after level 11 and also depending on which Barbarian archetype you compare them to), or an ally (which means Barbarian is plain better than Fighter until level 11 and midly inferior between level 11 and 20).

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...

Making all damage on next attack force damage is a must-have for Rogues...
AAAAAAND, to be honest that's about it.
Paladins's smites? Already radiant damage which is rarely resisted.
Whisper's Bard? Psychic damage, even less resisted IIRC.

It's better on a Ranger than on other classes though because, imo, it even supercedes the type of damage of a magical effect.
So for a Lightning Arrow for example, secondary damage would still be lightning, but primary would be force.
Not anything wildly impressive, but it does have niche use against some enemies.

With that said, I disagree with others that only lvl 11 ability is memorable (although it is certainly: you can bait enemies into using nasty movement-depriving effects on you instead of others then laugh away. It also means you don't ever need Crossbow Expert unless you really want bonus action attack that much, so it frees up bonus action on all Ranger exclusive spells).
All the bonus spells are great as well: Misty Step as a preview of your level 11, Haste which synergizes greatly with level 11 whether you go melee or ranged, Banishment no need to explain I guess, and Teleportation Circle which is great utility.
And, the lvl 7 is often overlooked as ribbon, but it effectively makes you immune to anything until the end of the turn and "unperceivable". So while we may regret it ends at the end of own turn and not at the start of own's next turn, it can still allow you to escape a big threat and/or ensure your concentration on an important spell (*cough* Conjure Animals *cough*) is maintained.

[bid]

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 the improved critical dip that's die-on-a-hill overrated.

At level 20 with 4 superior critical attacks and 10 extra hp per turn, it finally does better random damage. Front-loaded BM would need 8 SD to match it.

[JellyPooga]

Among the dead has saved me from a revenant for a turn, before it made its save, a zombie occasionally, and one vampire spawn. There's a surprising number of not-undead to fight, and half the time in my small party of 3 I end up attacking them soon enough anyway. Free "Spare the Dying " with my familiar is nice enough.

Level 6 gives me some extra healing 1/day, but I even once died because I rolled 3 death save failures. I even used up the parties' Inspiration to reroll the last one 3 times!

I'm only level 7, so by 10 I'll probably also take Contagion (TY errata!) off the expanded list, and I'll age slower and not need food.

When I look at the archfey or fiend level 6&10, I see a free GTFO and super countercharm, or a buff to an important roll and a resistance to any damage type. The perks Undying gives seem much more situational compared to what other patrons offer.

I won't deny that the level 6 & 10 features pale by comparison to those of Fiend and Fey; it was my "irrational" choice for a reason! As I say, I think it's worth more than it's given credit for, but I still wouldn't rate it better than other choices, except maybe GOO, depending on the campaign.

In the spirit of irrationality, I have a conspiracy theory that the devs accidentally gave the Long Death Monk the features intended for the Undying Warlock and vice versa (and as an aside, I don't think making that switch "back" would necessarily affect either class all that negatively).

[Ravinsild]

Sorry quote too large and don't wanna clog thread.

My intention wasn't to judge people. On the contrary, I love hearing people argue opinions that differ from mine. Not trying to be opinionated. Plus a lot of my own opinions are pretty irrational. Or at least somewhat emotionally driven. Really, I just like people make well reasoned arguments against the hive mind. Variety is the spice of life. It's fun to hear people have a polar opposite opinion of mine, so long as it's all civil. Plus you might learn something. I generally pick up a few details I didn't know when looking into stuff like this.

Yeah, my irrational hatred is emotion driven too, more or less.

Okay:

Overrated: Not sure honestly. I guess I'd go with Arcane Trickster Rogue.

Underrated: Ranger. It's actually quite good. I'm playing 2 of them in 2 different campaigns. They're even better with the UA Alternate Class features turned on.

Irrational Love: Ranger. It's my favorite class. I have like 5 more Rangers planned. I just think they're incredible.

Irrational Hatred: Wizards. I hate them. I'll never play a wizard. I think the root cause is 3.x/P Exponential Wizards with Linear Fighters and as a person who pretty much favors Martial Classes over casting, this bothered me. CoDzilla bothered me and late game "Oh a wizard hand waves this problem away" while the fighter picks his nose and looks sad and useless trope got to me. Maybe it was just the internet, I didn't actually get to play much 3.x/P but the idea of it really didn't sit well with me and eventually made me resent and hate the wizard class.

[MaxWilson]

In the spirit of irrationality, I have a conspiracy theory that the devs accidentally gave the Long Death Monk the features intended for the Undying Warlock and vice versa (and as an aside, I don't think making that switch "back" would necessarily affect either class all that negatively).

It would gut Long Death Monk. Also, Touch of Death would be less valuable to a blasty warlock than to a melee monk, because it only works within 5' range.

However, if a player came to me with an Undying Warlock, wanting to replace some or all of their subclass features with the equivalent Long Death features (Defy Death => Hour of Reaping, Undying Nature => Master of Death fueled by a spell slot instead of a ki point, etc.) I'd say yes.

[Garresh]

Wizards confuse me. On one hand I like the concept of an intelligence caster solving problems exclusively through precise magic. In practice they always bore me. Unlike a lot of other classes lists, wizards feel very binary. Like most of their spells are powerful, but somewhat narrowly focused. As compared to other spell lists where a handful of spells can be used in more exciting ways. The only exception I see is illusions, and eventually a few conjurations.

[Chaosticket]

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

Most Overrated? Warlock.

Most Underrated: Non-Moon Druid

My Irrational Hatred? Bard.

#1 Warlock has never been mentioned to me as being that powerful by itself. Yeah it has a clear flaw in that its highly dependent on Short Rests. I use the Warlock much more often for multiclassing.

#2 Moon Druid, the 5e Druid is pretty bad. It doesnt matter what the Druid's spell list is, but that like everyone it has too few spell slots to go Full Caster. the 5e Druid's Wild Shape is almost useless because the animal forms have zero combat ability. Moon Druid improves so much on a fundamental part of the Druid that its a radical change. No Form is too powerful so you end up with a character is it just versatile without overshadowing anyone.

#3 Bard, I really like the Bard. Maybe the best class in 5th edition overall. Its just made to be customized. Its a bit plain by itself, basically a Super-Rogue because it has Spells on top of Skills. Its biggest flaw is just that it cant beat anyone at any one thing. Except it you multiclass you get really close.

Only bad classes would be ones that dont have spells. You can gain more skill proficiencies and better combat ability, but you cant rewrite a class to be on part with Tier 1-9 spells like Wish.
==============================================
I dont really know what to say about this thread, because Its an argument of "opinion against logic" I follow logical reasoning rather than opinions. the way to underrate something would be to ignore reasoning.
"Its good, so I like it" while opinion would "I like it, so its good." My opinion is neutral because rely on the facts and numbers.

D&D is based around Combat, Spells, and Skills. Characters that are only good at one thing lose important outside that element. Get characters that can do all 3 and youre good.

Lowest rated classes and combinations are there because they are poorly compatible. Anyone ever try a Multiclass with 1 level in every class?

[micahaphone]

Oh I got an irrational dislike - I don't personally have any interest in playing a non-moon druid, and I barely have an interest in moon druid. I feel little interest in nature-based spells or summoning, so I'm not sure if the druid class has anything to offer me.

[MaxWilson]

Wizards confuse me. On one hand I like the concept of an intelligence caster solving problems exclusively through precise magic. In practice they always bore me. Unlike a lot of other classes lists, wizards feel very binary. Like most of their spells are powerful, but somewhat narrowly focused. As compared to other spell lists where a handful of spells can be used in more exciting ways. The only exception I see is illusions, and eventually a few conjurations.

Well, there's also Fabricate, and Creation, and Suggestion, and cantrips (Mold Earth/Shape Water), and to a certain degree Skill Enhancement and Alter Self.

But in general I take your point: 5E magic is really very effects-based, which makes it feel narrow. (It's not just wizards either.) E.g. you don't have the option of using Grease to grease up a door to open without creaking--in 5E, Grease just makes people fall down and that's it.

#2 Moon Druid, the 5e Druid is pretty bad. It doesnt matter what the Druid's spell list is, but that like everyone it has too few spell slots to go Full Caster. the 5e Druid's Wild Shape is almost useless because the animal forms have zero combat ability.

Regular druid's wildshape is definitely underrated, especially past level 8. Sure, a 15th level Moon Druid can wildshape as a bonus action into an 85 HP Giant Crocodile with +8 to hit, and a level 8 Shepherd Druid can only wildshape as an action into a 52 HP Giant Octopus with +5 to hit... the Moon Druid is clearly better, but does that make the 8th level regular druid wildshape useless? No way. 104 free HP per short rest is still 104 free HP, and a built-in grapple/restrain attack is nice. In any given combat which isn't tough enough to justify spending spending spell slots on Spike Growth/Conjure Animals/whatnot, just run up to a mean-looking bad guy and spend your action to Wildshape into a giant ocotopus threatening opportunity attacks on him.

[JellyPooga]

It would gut Long Death Monk. Also, Touch of Death would be less valuable to a blasty warlock than to a melee monk, because it only works within 5' range.

I honestly think the Monk would get more thematic and subclass appropriate ("power" wise) features if it used the Undying ones and likewise for vice versa. Yes, it could be argued that the LDMonk gets "gutted", but not so much as you might think, especially if you consider LDMonk above the curve in the first place (which I do, incidentally, if only a bit).

Consider and compare...

The character who is considered one of the dead and is ignored by them as such, knows how to stave it off, learns to ignore the ravages of time and repair his own body.

The character who can instill fear in his opponents and can leech the very life from his foes to bolster his own.

Without a preconception of which is which, which of these would you think, thematically, to be an Undying Warlock and which a Long Death Monk? Monks are all about improving the self, while your typical Warlock is all over that fear and tempHP. It really is a no brainer on the themes being back to front.

Now, ignoring the thematic element, compare the LD features to those of the Fiend and Fey Patron and do similar for Undying Warlock and the Shadow and Open Hand Monk Traditions. See any similarities in power? I do.

A Monk that can sometimes ignore Undead has a great advantage when it comes to getting bogged down by undead mooks; an improvement on his ability to skirmish on a crowded battlefield. The extra healing is certainly helpful for the otherwise kinda squishy Monk.

Then there's the Warlock with a Patron that actively encourages mixing it up between getting stuck in and scaring foes away. Solid support for a "switch-hitter" style Warlock; a niche otherwise unoccupied.

Just my take on it.

[Petrocorus]

Overrated: the Eldritch Knight. A lot of people consider it the best Fighter subclass or one of the two best. But the limitation on spell selection actually hinder the main point of the subclass. More than a third of your spells will be Evocation. But why would you care about blasting more than once in a while, especially with such a low level progression? What you need is enhancement and mobility, but you have only 4 spell for this, and then Abjuration spell to help your defences (which is rather good). Not what i would want out of an Eldritch Knight.

I also +1 the Assassin. There are too many situations where their main feature just doesn't work.

Underrated: The Monk. At least in my gaming group, no one seems to care about the Monk. I also have the feeling this is one of the least discussed class on this board.

Irrationnal hatred: Wild Magic Sorcerer. I just find the class lunatic and potentially dangerous for the players.

The real reason people dump on the ranger is because there is little it does that's better than another class......
Hence why the Ranger is useless. This isn't to say it's not capable of doing things, just that there is no reason to be a ranger specifically over anything else.

Wholeheartedly agree. The Ranger has good damages, but besides this?
And after 5 years of 5E, i still don't get why he has a limit of spell known.
Any Scout 4/ Fighter 8/ Druid 8/ or Scout 4/ Fighter 12/ Druid 4 will be a better ranger than a Ranger 20, on almost any ground.
Heck, even a Warlock can be build to be a better ranger than the Ranger.

[Willie the Duck]

And after 5 years of 5E, i still don't get why he has a limit of spell known.

Regardless of whether people find the ranger underpowered or underappreciated, I've yet to have found anyone that understands this decision.

[MaxWilson]

I honestly think the Monk would get more thematic and subclass appropriate ("power" wise) features if it used the Undying ones and likewise for vice versa. Yes, it could be argued that the LDMonk gets "gutted", but not so much as you might think, especially if you consider LDMonk above the curve in the first place (which I do, incidentally, if only a bit).

Consider and compare...

The character who is considered one of the dead and is ignored by them as such, knows how to stave it off, learns to ignore the ravages of time and repair his own body.

The character who can instill fear in his opponents and can leech the very life from his foes to bolster his own.

Without a preconception of which is which, which of these would you think, thematically, to be an Undying Warlock and which a Long Death Monk? Monks are all about improving the self, while your typical Warlock is all over that fear and tempHP. It really is a no brainer on the themes being back to front.

Without a preconception, I would have no idea which is which. "What's a Long Death Monk?" But then I read the Long Death Monk flavor + rule text and figured out that Long Death Monks are the guys who get shot full of arrows and then have a sword shoved through their guts and don't even react--like Boromir at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, only all the time.

If you swap that out for the guys whom undead are mildly inclined to ignore and who don't eat... well, that's kind of boring in comparison.

Now, ignoring the thematic element, compare the LD features to those of the Fiend and Fey Patron and do similar for Undying Warlock and the Shadow and Open Hand Monk Traditions. See any similarities in power? I do.

I don't. Shadow, Open Hand, and Four Elements all have a mix of combat and non-combat abilities, and they're all stronger than Undying Warlock's abilities. Shadow is less combat-focused than most (e.g. the 11th level feature is more of a recon feature than a combat feature) but it still has Shadow Jumping for combat mobility + advantage at 6th level and Opportunist at 17th level for an extra attack, and some of the Shadow Spells like Silence and Darkness have combat applications. Undying Warlock has a very niche undead-only Sanctuary-like effect, and a crummy low-power heal that can only be used when you're losing and people are hitting 0 HP, plus a 14th level Second Wind and a couple of ribbons like reattaching limbs and not needing to breathe.

No, the hypothetical Undying monk isn't comparable to the other monk traditions. That would be a horrible monk, well below the curve. Even the Sun Soul Monk is better than that.

A Monk that can sometimes ignore Undead has a great advantage when it comes to getting bogged down by undead mooks; an improvement on his ability to skirmish on a crowded battlefield. The extra healing is certainly helpful for the otherwise kinda squishy Monk.

Any other monk would just use Step of the Wind or a subclass feature like Shadow Jump or Darkness to avoid getting bogged down by mooks, undead or otherwise. The extra healing is negligible: 1d8 + Con modifier, only for creatures at 0 HP, once per long rest! It's restricted, weak, and infrequent. That's just awful, far worse than the Healer feat.

Then there's the Warlock with a Patron that actively encourages mixing it up between getting stuck in and scaring foes away. Solid support for a "switch-hitter" style Warlock; a niche otherwise unoccupied. Just my take on it.

I don't deny that the Warlock comes out of this trade well ahead. Again, I wouldn't mind giving the Undying Warlock the features of Long Death. I just wouldn't want to cripple the Long Death Monk by taking away its features and giving it Undying ones instead.

=======================================

Overrated: the Eldritch Knight. A lot of people consider it the best Fighter subclass or one of the two best. But the limitation on spell selection actually hinder the main point of the subclass. More than a third of your spells will be Evocation. But why would you care about blasting more than once in a while, especially with such a low level progression? What you need is enhancement and mobility, but you have only 4 spell for this, and then Abjuration spell to help your defences (which is rather good). Not what i would want out of an Eldritch Knight.

Evocation or Abjuration, and there's plenty of those to want. At 20th level you'll have nine Evoc/Abj spells and four free picks. Worthwhile Evoc/Abj spells include:

Absorb Elements
Protection From Evil
Shield
Mage Armor
Darkness (note: pseudo Blur spell if you have Alert feat)
Pass Without Trace (only available for Eberron, Mark of Passage or Shadow)
Counterspell
Dispel Magic
Fireball
Glyph of Warding
Nondetection
Banishment
Fire Shield
Wall of Fire
Sickening Radiance

That's way more decent spells than you can afford to pick anyway so the evoc/abj restriction isn't hurting you too badly. You can spend your free picks/concentration on e.g. Expeditious Retreat, Magic Weapon, Animate Dead, Polymorph for enhancement/meat shields/mobility.

Sure, you've only got one or two blasting spells, but you can eventually use them well: surrounded by a mob of hostile 49 HP Githyanki, a single Fireball isn't going to do the job, but you can Fireball + Fireball and then make a bonus action weapon attack on top of that to finish off a survivor. You're like a cross between a Jedi Knight and Senator Palpatine.

An Evoker would probably require two turns to wipe out that kind of beefy CR 2-3 mob (yes, yes, Simulacrum, I know).

[JellyPooga]

Without a preconception, I would have no idea which is which. "What's a Long Death Monk?" But then I read the Long Death Monk flavor + rule text and figured out that Long Death Monks are the guys who get shot full of arrows and then have a sword shoved through their guts and don't even react--like Boromir at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, only all the time.

If you swap that out for the guys whom undead are mildly inclined to ignore and who don't eat... well, that's kind of boring in comparison.

I read about monks that are obsessed with death and its applications, including experimentation on the dead and dying. Didn't really read much about drawing life energy from living foes or instilling fear except in the class features themselves. The lore and abilities simply don't match. Undying Warlocks features might be weaker, I won't argue that, but lore-wise they're way more appropriate.

I don't.

Among the Dying is pretty comparable to Tranquility (Open Hand), except it comes online at 1st lvl instead of 11th and doesn't need to be refreshed after a rest when you break it. Granted, it has "undead only" as a caveat, but it's not a bad trade unless your campaign features zero Undead and on the flipside it also gets Spare the Dying thrown in to sweeten the pot.

It's worth bearing in mind that healing is, generally speaking, something you will always need to do. Some of the other tricks that Monk subclasses offer may not even come up as being an option, let alone useful, in some adventures. I'm not saying an Undying Monk would be top-tier or anything; don't get me wrong. I think it would be on the weaker side, but I think it could be viable. Tying Defy Death and Indestructable Life to Ki points rather than rests would go a long way towards making it a more attractive option (and if you'll allow me to indulge my conspiracy theory; I suspect it was, but then when it was "mistakenly" ported over to Warlock, who doesn't have Ki, it was tied to rests instead and became the weak-sauce it is now).

[MaxWilson]

Among the Dying is pretty comparable to Tranquility (Open Hand), except it comes online at 1st lvl instead of 11th and doesn't need to be refreshed after a rest when you break it. Granted, it has "undead only" as a caveat, but it's not a bad trade unless your campaign features zero Undead and on the flipside it also gets Spare the Dying thrown in to sweeten the pot.

Are you kidding? That's a huge restriction and a horrible trade. And Tranquility is still one of Open Hand's weaker features, whereas most of the Undying's features are even worse than Among the Dead. (Because Among the Dead is at least somewhat useful in an undead-heavy campaign, whereas Defy Death is situational, weak, and infrequent in any conceivable campaign.) Spare the Dying is a ranged version of a healer's kit, but monks are fast enough that a regular healer's kit is perfectly fine for them.

It's worth bearing in mind that healing is, generally speaking, something you will always need to do. Some of the other tricks that Monk subclasses offer may not even come up as being an option, let alone useful, in some adventures. I'm not saying an Undying Monk would be top-tier or anything; don't get me wrong. I think it would be on the weaker side, but I think it could be viable. Tying Defy Death and Indestructable Life to Ki points rather than rests would go a long way towards making it a more attractive option (and if you'll allow me to indulge my conspiracy theory; I suspect it was, but then when it was "mistakenly" ported over to Warlock, who doesn't have Ki, it was tied to rests instead and became the weak-sauce it is now).

It's a weak, situational, infrequent heal.

But at least you've moved from "I don't think making that switch 'back' would necessarily affect either class all that negatively" to acknowledging that it would take Long Death from "above the curve" to "the weaker side". How much weaker is a matter of opinion, but I've made my point.

[JellyPooga]

But at least you've moved from "I don't think making that switch 'back' would necessarily affect either class all that negatively" to acknowledging that it would take Long Death from "above the curve" to "the weaker side". How much weaker is a matter of opinion, but I've made my point.

My position hasn't changed; going from above the curve to being on the weaker side isn't all that negative. It could even be seen as a positive, if it equalises an imbalance, not that I'm necessarily saying that in this case. But yes, I agree that points have been made and little more can be gained from this course of discussion.

[Chaosticket]

Monk and Ranger are the two least popular as far as I know.

Monk has the usual problems of Cool but inefficient competing with Fighter and Barbarian.

Ranger is more mixed than a Fighter.

So same as every edition, but with the twist that the Fighter is better than previous editions.

[MaxWilson]

My position hasn't changed; going from above the curve to being on the weaker side isn't all that negative.

Then maybe I misunderstood your position, or misunderstood how you would intend to do the adaptation. (Sounds like maybe you'd rewrite them to be ki-fueled instead of rest-fueled.)

Anyway, I'm on the record now as someone who thinks that a monk with Undying Warlock features as written instead of monk subclass features is practically a monk with no subclass. Whether you meant that or something different, that's all I have to say.

Anyway, good gaming to you and Merry Christmas.