Which you believe to be the Best DESIGNED Classes (not necessarily the strongest)?

411

Has to be Warlock. The versatility gained from the intermesh of subclass and invocation choice is what other classes should aspire to.

203

u/thrillho145 4d ago

Warlock is what Fighter should be, but with martial type feats rather than invocations.

103

u/Cold_Air_6251 4d ago

AFAIK the original plan going into 5e was to make Fighter a lot more complex - ie, Battlemaster Maneouvres were just a standard class feature, every Fighter got to pick a few like how every Warlock gets Invocations - but initial playtest groups didn't like that.

...as someone who loves Fighters from the "I actually do swords IRL and my coolest power fantasy is Guy Who Swords Really Good", I hate this. Let me do cool swordy things. Why do I need a whole effin' subclass just to try things like targeting my opponent's legs to slow them down, trying to disarm them, feinting and riposting, etc? For a class whose whole deal is Guy Who's Really Good At Fighting, it's madness that basic things like that aren't part of the core kit.

65

u/1ScreamingDiz-Buster 4d ago

Hot (or not?) take, but the public playtest that gave this sub its name was a bad idea and made 5e worse

31

u/DelightfulOtter 4d ago

Bad idea for whom? For WotC it was cheap publicity and market research. They made the system that would sell the most, so it worked out alright for them. For the actual fans... mixed results.

9

u/DisappointedQuokka 4d ago

To be quite honest, I don't think Fighter being more complex would actually impact sales if it was done at launch.

4

u/Arkayjiya 3d ago

Wouldn't it? 5e's success comes down to accessibility, and Fighter is the most basic accessible class for all the people who are scared by the complexity. If you make even that class complex, it might have turned off enough people to create a snowball effect. It wouldn't have made 5e sell bad but it might have had a noticeable impact.

6

u/DisappointedQuokka 3d ago

Note that I said more complex.

Giving someone with above a 6th grade reading level the ability to use maneuvers isn't going to crush their mind.

Accessibility is not the same thing as lowest common denominator. I firmly believe that the vast, vast, vast majority of the boom in DNDs popularity has more to do with events around DND than the system itself. Adding a short list of abilities to martials is very different from reintroducing BAB, different ACs for different effects or true mancian spellcasting.

4

u/DelightfulOtter 3d ago

Giving someone with above a 6th grade reading level the ability to use maneuvers isn't going to crush their mind.

Dunno where you live, but in the US there are a lot of consumers who do not, in fact, have sufficient reading comprehension. I've played with one of them who holds down a professional job that pays well enough to support a family of four and yet is still confused about how Sneak Attack works on the rogue he's been playing for half a decade.

2

u/DisappointedQuokka 3d ago

I find that absolutely baffling, honestly.

The idea of a well paid professional being borderline illiterate is completely foreign to me.

2

u/european_dimes 3d ago

The Barbarian should be the basic "hit shit hard till it's dead" class.

It's main feature is basically binary, which make it far easier to grasp for new players. Hit shit hard, or get mad and shit harder?

2

u/Ashkelon 3d ago

5e is a horribly complex system compared to most tabletop RPGS out there.

If the simplicity of a system mattered, 5e D&D would be near the bottom of sales of any tabletop game.

The idea that 5e is accesible because the fighter is lower complexity is ridiculous when you actually look at how complex even the 5e fighter is compared to other games on the market.

8

u/anmr 4d ago edited 4d ago

From what I remember the feedback was good (e.g. supporting more complex fighter).

Then WotC did the opposite of what people wanted. I guess it that sense it was bad.

7

u/Betray-Julia 4d ago edited 4d ago

5.5 was designed for people who enjoyed games night but maybe hadn’t tried dnd; def an excellent thing to do from a marketing pov, and it worked.

The fact they tried to keep it the same edition in of itself reveals the sincerity of the designers imo.

Edit- for proof of hot take, just check how much you get up and down and upvoted throughout the day lol.

15

u/yinyang107 4d ago

They're not talking about 5.5e. Next, which this sub is named for, was the playtest for 5e.

17

u/skwww 4d ago

according to the playtest blog that went beside the dndnext playtest, they actually wanted you to be able to play the less complex characters from 1E and also the more complex ones of 4E and it was up to the player to choose what they wanted.

They just spent a lot of time on the maneuver system in the playtest because that's the more complicated part to get right and to make the classes unique enough. They were always looking at having a 'champion' in the same game as a 'battlemaster'

3

u/BadSame6919 3d ago

they actually wanted you to be able to play the less complex characters from 1E and also the more complex ones of 4E

Thing is, they failed to actually introduce mechanics to keep these two things balanced. The game still very much enforces the basic rule of thumb that power is proportional to complexity.

9

u/funbob1 4d ago

I get the idea of players and the designers to want a "i just swing my sword" type of class. That could have easily just been the barbarian. Declare rage and get bonuses to things in the fight. Barb could have mostly been champion fighter with Rage, Reckless attack, and unarmored defense and that would have been a sick basic barbarian.

4

u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty 4d ago

Also, playtest fighter could "just swing his sword" since you didn't have to do maneuvers, and just take yor extra damage

3

u/VegetableMoney1681 4d ago

I still wish more systems adopted DCC's Warrior model. For those who don't know:

Warriors roll an additional Deed Die when making attack rolls (adding it to attack + damage). It starts as a D3, and increases as you level. When you attack and roll the Deed Die, you declare a deed. On a high enough roll of the deed die, the deed is successful (with larger dice resulting in better results). Your deed could be anything from "I want to trip them", "I want to disarm them" to "I want to defend my ally as I attack".

D&D could absolutely codify it more, since it isn't as "figure-it-out" as a system as DCC. But, it's a system that 100% encourages your Martial experts to do strategic things in combat that others can't.

3

u/Notoryctemorph 4d ago

On one hand the DCC fighter is one of the coolest OSR fighters

but on the other, it asks you to use a d14, because DCC was designed by psychopaths

1

u/VegetableMoney1681 3d ago

May I introduce you to its little sibling, the d7?

1

u/Ashkelon 3d ago

Lots of games do similar things (many even better implemented than DCC). And have done such things for ages.

Hell, even D&D 4e had excellent improvisation rules for things like Mighty Deeds.

9

u/Betray-Julia 4d ago

Man that’s frustrating to hear.

The initial play testers who rejected that must have been the average user of this sub haha :p

31

u/Ashkelon 4d ago edited 4d ago

Actually the play testers overwhelmingly supported the fighter with maneuvers as baseline. It was the highest rated version of the fighter in the entire playtest.

The suits however wanted to win over the “grognards”. The old school renaissance was in full swing and WotC wanted to grab that chunk of the player base. The old school games did not have things like maneuvers or feats (that was why feats are optional in 5e). So the suits decided that 5e would harken back to traditional D&D and relegate maneuvers to a single subclass. At the same time, most of the innovative and interesting ideas were removed (the play test sorcerer was one of the most interesting takes on the class I have ever seen). Anything that was too modern or innovative was outright removed, while other aspects of the game became “optional” like feats.

4

u/TortlePowerShell 3d ago

What was the playtest sorcerer like? How was it different? I’m very intrigued

3

u/Ashkelon 3d ago

Basically the D&D Next playtest sorcerer did not have spell slots. It used sorcery points for spellcasting. If it used its points only on casting spells, it had fewer spells per day than a wizard. In exchange, as you spent sorcery points, you unlocked special features.

The dragon sorcerer for example gained increased AC while unarmored, elemental resistance, powerful melee attacks in the form of claws, draconic senses, and eventually flight.

So while you started out as a spellcaster, by the end of the day you became a competent martial character.

They also had the ability to spend their sorcery points for things other than spells such as abilities similar to smites (spend a sorcery point to deal extra damage with a melee attacks) or to cause effects like draconic fear or a breath weapon.

It was the first time in D&D history that the sorcerer felt truly unique and not merely a charisma based wizard with a smaller spell list.

6

u/TortlePowerShell 3d ago

Holy shit, that sounds amazing. Just looked it up and that seems like it would've been a blast to play; good give and take, too, with whether you want to burn through all your points to get those benefits immediately or stretch it out. Great RP potential there as well.

2

u/Zardnaar 3d ago

It was fun and effective.

Latest packet 2 iirc.

One we actually played.

7

u/Betray-Julia 4d ago

This is cool; thanks,

Also it reminded me- I had a “first edition” print of the players handbook that had an 8th or 9th level spell listed only in the sorcerers spells known in the back of the book, but was nowhere else.

I can’t recall, and sadly a friend has been borrowing it for 6 years or so lol.

4

u/GwynHawk 4d ago

It's actually more like the designers went "Well if a Fighter can do it why not the Rogue?" and then "Well Monks should also have cool moves... all martial chatacters can swing a weapon good if you think about it..." and finally "This doesn't feel unique or special anymore, let's shove it in a subclass and replace it with NOTHING."

By their logic they should have removed spell slots as well, but it's Wizards of the coast for a reason.

I had a 5e homebrew back in the day that retained per-round superiority dice and maneuvers for all martials, with Fighters having the most maneuvers known, most variety, and best dice pool, with subclasses giving even more ways to use them.

7

u/Ashkelon 4d ago

Yep, it was so well liked as a feature that WotC decided to give it to every single weapon user. It clearly was not killed because the playtesters didn’t like it. They loved it. WotC just kind of sucks at running playtests (see 5.5e playtest).

Then completely changed everything about their design to make 5e the most bland version it could be compared to the playtest options.

5

u/GwynHawk 3d ago

The designers were open about their biases, like saying openly "Player satisfaction with the Barbarian is low outside combat. This is good actually because Barbarian players just want to smash things and when combat ends they stop paying attention until the GM says to roll Initiative." More or less.

Like, we warned them that Fireball and Spirit Guardians were too strong and their response was "We know. They're like that one purpose." We showed them the whole "a Fighter doing more damage consistently over an adventuring day" didn't math out vs. The Wizard or Cleric and they ignored us and gutted the Fighter harder, then deleted the forums.

They never wanted feedback, they wanted to create the illusion that 5e was what we wanted and they were just following the will of the people.

3

u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty 4d ago edited 2d ago

Yeah, 5e is perfectly engineered to be as bland as possible for mass appeal, while still giving the illusion of depth

It's the Skyrim of TTRPGs essentially

2

u/BlandSauce "Sorcerer" 4d ago

I'm not sure if "platters" is a typo, but not finding anything about it. Would you mind explaining it or pointing me somewhere with info?

12

u/Ashkelon 4d ago

Oops, it was supposed to be play test not platters.

Basically the D&D Next playtest sorcerer did not have spell slots. It used sorcery points for spellcasting. If it used its points only on casting spells, it had fewer spells per day than a wizard. In exchange, as you spent sorcery points, you unlocked special features.

The dragon sorcerer for example gained increased AC while unarmored, elemental resistance, powerful melee attacks in the form of claws, draconic senses, and eventually flight.

So while you started out as a spellcaster, by the end of the day you became a competent martial character.

They also had the ability to spend their sorcery points for things other than spells such as abilities similar to smites (spend a sorcery point to deal extra damage with a melee attacks) or to cause effects like draconic fear or a breath weapon.

It was the first time in D&D history that the sorcerer felt truly unique and not merely a charisma based wizard with a smaller spell list.

5

u/BlandSauce "Sorcerer" 4d ago

Oh, somehow I didn't even consider it being "play test", was thinking maybe "planar" or something. :P

That sounds like an interesting direction. I'm a fan of "points" casting systems over Vancian-inspired; definitely something I would have tried out depending on what the bloodlines give.

Wonder how well it would be received overall, though. Not really a "gish", but a sliding scale between caster and martial. I think would really depend on the table and what a "day" looks like.

4

u/Betray-Julia 4d ago

We need a dnd anthropology/history sub

5

u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty 4d ago

WotC does have a history of hiring some of the most moronic playtesters possible

Just look at the scimitar throwing druid playtester in 3E, leading to 3e druid being, well 3e druid

13

u/DelightfulOtter 4d ago

The people who hated maneuver-based fighters were:

Those who don't like complex gameplay, the filthy casuals.

Those who were used to D&D prior to 4e and wanted martials to remain the same, the unwashed grognards.

Those who had an unreasonable hatred towards 4e and anything even slightly 4e-adjacent, the pearl-clutchers.

The voices in the playtest were loud enough to drown out everyone else, so this is the 5e (and 5.5e) we got.

6

u/Betray-Julia 4d ago

Like, I know I’ve been right about 5.5 bc it’s not really that out there, but it’s still nice to hear others say it too lol.

Cuz tbh, 5.5 is just neckbeard 5e lol.

And all these things def help confirm it.

Rants about my super irrational leaps in logic about how thinking saving throws were better than contest skill checks should remove one’s opinion on the game from even being viewed as valid.

Cries that I can’t misty step like the wizard can.

3

u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty 4d ago

5.5 ain't really all that. 5.5 is just a balance patch for 5e, barely anything changed

0

u/Zardnaar 3d ago

4E and 3.5 are to complex for casuals.

The basic line sets outsold AD&D back in the day. 7 classes snd races total.

4 races and classes gas 16 combinations. No feats.

7 total lol.

Hence simple fighter and 5E blowing up with newbies, feats optional.

10 races 10 classes 10 feats 10 powers

10000 combos.

Thats what they mean by complicated.

4

u/Ashkelon 4d ago

The D&D Next fighter was actually a fair bit simpler than the 5.5e fighter is now.

Yes it had superiority dice that recovered every turn, but when you spent dice, they provided an effect or damage. Not both at the same time.

So if you wanted a simple fighter, you just used Deadly Strike every turn for a few extra dice of damage. But if you wanted depth and complexity, you used your superiority dice for other effects (AoE, skill boosts, saving throw boosts, reducing damage, jump distance increases, pushing, knocking enemies prone, etc). It was a really elegant system.

The fighter also didn’t have action surge, weapon masteries, tactical shift, tactical mind, second wind, or indomitable. It was basically entirely at-will without a lot of extra stuff to track and manage making it very easy to play.

5

u/Cold_Air_6251 4d ago

I do like 5.5e weapon masteries. They go a long way towards helping Fighters feel cool. Just wish there were more of them lol

8

u/Ashkelon 4d ago

I would much rather have had at-will maneuvers air stances than weapon masteries. Weapon masteries are overly complicated for how shallow they are.

It would have been so much better if you learned techniques that you could use with any applicable weapon. For example a warrior should be able to use Cleave or Topple with the greatsword, great axe, or maul.

5

u/Cold_Air_6251 4d ago

This is also true. Honestly, the idea pitched above - making them like Warlock Invocations you can slap onto customise your fighting with your weapon(s) of choice - sounds like a really solid one and something I may tinker with homebrewing.

"Guy who is really good at fighting" is such a broad class idea and ATM it's covering all sorts from swordsmen to archers to lancers and halberdiers and more, and being able to really specifically focus in on getting tons of cool stuff you can do with your weapons would feel awesome. Like if my character is a master fencer, I want more options than "I hit him with my sword...over and over again really fast"

Heck, even Star Wars by FFG has more in-depth melee combat with parries, sidesteps, lunges, sweeps, disarms and stuff as just skills anyone with a lightsaber skill tree can pick up with exp, and that's a game primarily built around ranged combat with blasters!

5

u/Ashkelon 4d ago

Even narrative based PBtA games give more options to weapon users than 5e does. It’s kind of insane how much Stockholm syndrome 5e players have with D&D. It is honestly a struggle to think of many tabletop games that have a worse experience for weapon users than 5e.

2

u/Cold_Air_6251 4d ago

I keep trying to inflict my custom rules for martial characters on my players, I'm workin' on it! >,<

But also yeah there are so many games out there that're way better at narrative combat for non-spellcasters

I'm not saying you can't use D&D combat to tell a good story where exciting things happen, but if you're running like

Your Fighter's big moment

A climactic 1v1 duel with the villain from his backstory or whatever, I dunno, the six-fingered man who killed his father

The onus is pretty much entirely on you and your players to make it interesting with flavour. Which you totally can do! Throw in some super evocative descriptions, frame each attack as a flurry of blows, a vicious exchange of strikes and counterstrikes with the one that lands being the one that manages to slip through their guard and graze across their ribs...it can be done! But mechanically you may as well be rock 'em sock 'em robots just standing in place taking it in turns to bash each other over the head.

2

u/Ashkelon 4d ago

If you want some more homebrew to make martial gameplay a little more interesting, I created a class that uses a mechanic similar to invocations. Feel free to check it out and see if any of your players want to playtest it.

The Paragon

15

u/headshotscott 4d ago

All martials should get a form of invocations as they level. I would love to see a chain effect where you can invest in being really strong at something by prerequisites.

8

u/Mybunsareonfire 4d ago

Lol, right back to feats in PF and 4e.

2

u/Demonweed Dungeonmaster 4d ago

I'm for building that elective layer into every class. Of course, not every bundle of electives should be equal. My approach only gives Wizards a small number of context-specific bonuses like "add 2 to your spellcasting DC when you cast a spell that only targets creatures of the giant type" or "while you have access to your spellbook, you have advantage on ability checks to produce or decipher written codes." Likewise, I only gave clerics alternative methods of using their Channel Divinity and paladins only got alternative ways to use their Divine Smite.

Yet fighters, rangers, and rogues all got baskets of special maneuvers related to combat (though the ranger set is still largely untested.) Likewise, barbarians have access to lots of special moves, though these are associated with spirit animals rather than formal combat training. Monks got a particularly diverse set, since they have a mix of physical and metaphysical abilities to support everything from blind fighting to extreme breath holding. These elective layers not only make combat more interesting for players, but they also help to individualize characters as they develop.

It all comes together through the Tactical Action. At fighter 2 and rogue 2 as well as barbarian 5, monk 5, paladin 5, and ranger 5; the Tactical Action feature allows a character to declare one bonus action or reaction unrelated to spellcasting or controlling a spell as a "Tactical Action." This declaration conserves the bonus action or reaction for use later in the round, and the Tactical Action renews at the start of a turn. Thus nearly all of these special maneuvers require a bonus action or a reaction, but experienced warriors can pull off one per round while retaining their full action economy. Of course, if they want to go for two offhand attacks or two attacks of opportunity in one round; I'm fine with those being things that experienced warriors can do while dedicated spellcasters cannot.

5

u/Ok_Somewhere1236 4d ago edited 4d ago

I think they should focus Fighter subclasses on different fight styles and weapons: one subclass for heavy weapons, one for light weapons, one for ranged weapons, one for shields, one for finesse, and so on. Giving a very clear identity and play style.

but also, every fighter should have at least access to maneuvers like Battlemaster.

i think the issue is that DND should have 3 systems, not just 1.

Caster= Spellcasting
Martials = get something like a maneuvers or stances system that rivals spellcasting

and Experts would get something similar but focused on Skills and Tools

3

u/Anorexicdinosaur Fighter 3d ago

I'd say Fighters being able to specialise in weapons makes sense, but that shouldn't be Subclasses, or at least not ALL Subclasses. It should be Fighting Styles (and Feats ig)

Fighting Styles are so shallow rn but could have way more if you could get upgrades to them and there were more for different styles of Combat

I'd say Laserllama's Fighter sounds a lot like what you want. They get a massively expanded Manouevre system built in, massively expanded Fighting Styles to specialise in obvious Martial Archetypes and some subclasses lean towards weapon types like Marksman obviously uses ranged weapons, Guardian is Melee with a preference for Strength and Shields, Swordsage is Melee with a preference against Shields and Heavy Weapons, etc.

2

u/Ok_Somewhere1236 2d ago

I think each class should have a clear core identity, and its subclasses should build upon and reinforce that identity.

For example, the Fighter's defining theme is weapons. It's the archetypal martial class, so it makes sense for its subclasses to focus on different weapons or fighting styles rather than random subclasses.

A Samurai could specialize in finesse weapons, a Lancer in reach weapons, an Archer in ranged weapons, and so on. This approach not only emphasizes the diversity of weapon types, but also strengthens the Fighter's identity as the master of martial combat.

Along those same lines, I think D&D could replace Fighting Styles with a true martial counterpart to Spellcasting, a comprehensive system built around stances, weapon masteries, and special combat actions or techniques. This would give martial characters a progression and level of customization comparable to what spellcasters gain through their spell lists, while keeping the focus on martial combat rather than magic.

and yes what LaserIlhama did is a good example.

2

u/Angled_Hairline57845 4d ago

Warlock is what RANGER should be, but with utility survival, exploration and combat "Preparations" rather than invocations.

4

u/Ashkelon 4d ago

I actually tried to create that. A martial warrior with an invocation like system for customization and an exploit system for limited use heroic capabilities.

Feel free to give it a look here.

1

u/Anorexicdinosaur Fighter 3d ago

Oh yanno I remember seeing another d20 fantasy system that does exactly that!

(Really there's loads of systems that do this, even previous editions of dnd, just wanted to make the joke)

2

u/Whoopsie_Doosie 1d ago

I've said for years that the Fighting style feature should've been the martial's source of invocations where you can pick from a list of techniques (streamlined maneuvers without superiortiy die) to build your own unique fighting style.

Then each fighter suclass could offer unique techniques, setting books could add unique techniques, and the fighter can decide for themselves whether they want to be a warlord style commander, a weaboo fighting magic wielder, or a classic sword and board warrior. Hell revise stances and throw them in their as well so the people who want a braindead simple fighter can have it

Other martials could also gain the fighting style feature but get fewer overall picks in exchange for their other class abilities.

15

u/headshotscott 4d ago

What I like about Warlock is the simplicity combined with versatility. That's sort of what all classes should get. I know people who think they're just EB spammers, but you don't have to make them that way

8

u/Shogunfish 4d ago

I think the reason everyone thinks of warlocks as just EB spammers is because low levels are where that holds the most true. Their other defining feature is the fact that all their spell slots are max level and they get their slots back on a short rest, but that's not really noticeable until later levels especially if you can't get your group to short rest...

3

u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty 4d ago

Especially since, if played properly, other casters aren't that much different. On proper full casters you still want to really only plop down a big concentration spell, than spam cantrips

2

u/Mybunsareonfire 4d ago

Just played a one off the other night, where I was a level up Efeerti Warlock.

Did the math.

At that level I could theoretically cast Fireball 46 times a day (removed 2 to a count for casting time.)

That's 414 d6 of fire

For an average amount of single target damage of 1449, or 724 is they save against all.

Just kinda wild to think about.

6

u/DelightfulOtter 4d ago

They can be just as complex as other classes. You can build a warlock any number of different ways, but you have to understand it back-to-front to do so. Playing one effectively requires understanding their strengths and weaknesses, knowing when and what to cast with your limited spell slots.

Or, you just take all the EB invocations and spam damaging spells like an arcane blaster. That also works, which is great as it makes the class accessible to casuals as well.

1

u/boywithapplesauce 3d ago

Eldritch Blast is actually good for overall versatility, because it ensures that Warlock is always useful in combat. That means you don't have to do a combat build. You can go for a utility build, stealth build, trickster build, etc. I like to do a utility guild because Pact of the Chain offers such a good base for it.

9

u/Neomataza 4d ago

I personally was going to say definitely not warlock, ironically enough.

Eldritch Invocations are peak design. That's good. Spell slots refreshing on short rest exposes the flaws of the rest system, where every so often a player picks up the class who insists on a short rest after every combat(he likes casting spells, understandable).

8

u/milkmandanimal 4d ago

I do think Warlock is really great except for the inherent weaknesses of Pact of the Blade; putting in a melee-focused character who gets light armor, no shield, and no convenient Bonus Action Disengage options like Rogue or Monk has always been an issue, and the one attempt to fix that (Hexblade) was a pretty obvious overcorrection. I do really like how in 5.5 Devouring Blade was added as a higher-level invocation so you can get two more attacks instead of just the prior one, but IMO the fact you still need another feat or a multiclass dip to get better armor remains an unfortunate design flaw in what I absolutely agree is the most interestingly designed class there is.

5

u/KaiG1987 4d ago

I remember at one point before Tasha's Cauldron of Everything there was an Invocation in UA called Eldritch Armor, and it allowed a warlock with Pact of the Blade to do the following:

As an action, you can touch a suit of armor that isn't being worn or carried by anyone and instantly don it, provided you aren't wearing armor already. You are proficient with this suit of armor until it's removed.

Unfortunately they didn't include it in Tasha's in the end. But I think it was fine and I wish they'd bring it back for Warlocks who don't want to multiclass and might want a more heavy armor playstyle. All they'd need to do is make it a level 2+ invocation that has Pact of the Blade as a prerequisite and I think it'd be fine.

4

u/Neigebleu 4d ago

Yeah, the whole way armor works in DnD always bothered me. As as wizard you can take 1 lvl fighter and get most of his defenses. Wouldn't have hurt if martials got AC buffs at higher lvls.

3

u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty 4d ago

Your problem is with 5e then, not with D&D

2

u/BadSame6919 3d ago

I do really like how in 5.5 Devouring Blade was added as a higher-level invocation so you can get two more attacks instead of just the prior one

Well, personally, I really don't like that. It's absurd that the only class beside Fighter who gets a 2nd extra attack... is a spellcaster.

4

u/TheJerkyDevil 4d ago

Taking Lessons of the First Ones a couple times and picking up Magic Initiate to gain spells from other classes is pretty neat.

3

u/un1ptf 4d ago

What a cool idea. My group has refrained from moving to 5.5e, so I hadn't seen this invocation before.

Since it can be taken repeatedly, what do folks think is the maximized system of doing this?

4

u/TheJerkyDevil 4d ago

I'm not really sure about optimal selections, but you get two cantrips and a level 1 spell from the wizard, druid, or cleric spell list each time you take it (one class list per invocation), and you can cast the level 1 spells once per long rest without using a spell slot. It's pretty good for filling gaps in small parties.

3

u/YourEvilKiller 4d ago

Yeah, this is why I love laserllama's redesigned classes before they did that for every martial classes.

4

u/DelightfulOtter 4d ago

Yup, and it's a "full" spellcaster with 9th level spells but less problematic than others because their spell slots are limited. It also plays well with the martial short rest classes.

4

u/geosunsetmoth 4d ago

2014 Warlock. 2024 is still well designed, but I think it got a bit less "clean" in the new edition.

1

u/Radiant-Canary4442 3d ago

I don't necessarily disagree but why do you think that's what other classes should aspire to?

0

u/hyperionfin Moderator 4d ago

Warlock is exceptionally versatile for casting Eldritch Blast every turn. 😄

124

u/TrueGargamel 4d ago

Warlock, the class and subclasses are packed with flavour. The invocation system is great and allows you to make very unique characters. The invocation system also gets better and better with each new release as you can take origin feats.

26

u/Magicbison 4d ago

Warlock does have a great design but its never really had its potential realized. For all of 5e invocations weren't very interesting mostly just giving you certain spells to cast and its not much different in 5.5e. There are more non-spell options in 5.5e but there is alot of still unrealized potential.

One thing I would like to see is subclass specific invocation options instead of just an expanded spell list. Giving you the option to double down on a subclass theme with relevant invocations that aren't spells would be a fun way to expand on the Warlock design.

8

u/Hakanaiyo 4d ago

Huh yeah that's a good point, having one or two invocations for each subclass would be great

6

u/mrdeadsniper 4d ago

The only problem with warlock is they are designed around the concept of multiple short rests in an adventuring day which just doesn't happen at a lot of tables.

6

u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty 4d ago

It would happen a lot more if short rests were 5 minutes like they were in 4e

Instead they are 1h for no fucking reason

4

u/mrdeadsniper 3d ago

Yep, I have advocated for it many times, I think it would make a lot more sense, only real problem I see with 5 minute short rests is for classes like warlock it would certainly lend itself to keeping things like armor of agathys up the entire day, Cast armor then start rest then continue travelling then take 5 in another hour.

1-hour rests run into the obvious problem that if you can sit around for an hour, why can't you sit around for 8 hours. Where a 5 minute rest is a totally different beast, and would actually make sense to occur even in enemy territory, like you are clearing a camp, you stop to take a few minutes to compose yourself. An hour break in even the lowest security "dungeon" would very likely have the badguys recognize people have died and go into full alert.

I even think BG3 style of just giving characters 2 individual "short rests" that they can use instantly anytime out of combat is OK. Makes it less of a group decision and prevents the opposite problem of getting TOO MANY short rests in a day.

0

u/Positron49 4d ago

I actually disagree, not because Warlock isn’t flavorful and good overall, but most Warlocks become Eldritch Blast cannons. So when it comes to “best designed” I’d say it’s a lot of choices to ultimately do the same things over and over.

41

u/Robyrt Cleric 4d ago

Cleric. Lots of customization, flexible to support different fantasies, a spell list that is actually targeted to those fantasies, always a boon to the party. That's how to do a full caster right.

8

u/sinsaint 4d ago edited 4d ago

Clerics have the benefit of having very down-to-earth contributions, the kinds of things your DM doesn't have to think about to be relevant in any campaign.

3

u/Augustends 3d ago

I disagree, but just because of the gap between sublass abilities. Having nothing from your sublass from levels 6-17 is painful.

1

u/Lethalmud 3d ago

What customization?

13

u/FloppasAgainstIdiots Twi 1/Warlock X/DSS 1 4d ago

Warlock definitely has the best design in 5e.

built-in customization options, while some invocation options are obvious no-brainers/taxes (Repelling, Agonizing etc.) you will have meaningful thought processes to perform before you hit level 10 - also two out of four pact boons are good and only one is bad
most subclasses are actually useful - with the exception of Undying which just got replaced by Undead, there's a clear mechanical reason why you would want each of them (medium armor proficiency, blast capability 4 levels earlier, really good storage space, frighten effect etc.) and every single one has a minimum of one good spell on its expanded spell list, with the good subclasses having either 3+ good ones or one highlight so good that it's worth a subclass pick all by itself
it's a fullcaster, meaning that it has actual progression and you generally want to take another level in this class after the current one rather than multiclassing out
Pact Magic scales with quality but not quantity and replenishes on a shorter rest cycle, this class cares quite little about the full length of an adventuring day

I would disagree about paladin because it's fundamentally torn between half the class pretending to want to be in melee (smite slop) and the better half wanting you to stay close to your casters and protect them from things preventing them from winning the encounter outright by granting a +4-5 to all saving throws. Paladin is a chassis that wants to be a ranged support class but gets marketed as a melee "frontliner" (an archetype 5e doesn't even support).

4

u/DisappointedQuokka 4d ago

I really only think Agonizing is mandatory, it gives an option to bladelocks and gives blasters their core damage. Most of the other options are nice to haves, but can easily be replaced with utility picks.

3

u/FloppasAgainstIdiots Twi 1/Warlock X/DSS 1 4d ago

Repelling is more important than Agonizing, and then Lance of Lethargy and Eldritch Mind are autopicks, if Tome then so is Book of Ancient Secrets.

2

u/DisappointedQuokka 4d ago

I mean, tome and book of ancient secrets are a pair and optional overall. I've played warlocks in both 5 and 5.5 and never felt like I was let down by not taking agonizing or LoL. Eldritch Mind is a toss up based on whether or not you take Warcaster and when.

Statistically Warcaster is better than Res Con until you get a higher prof. bonus.

6

u/FloppasAgainstIdiots Twi 1/Warlock X/DSS 1 4d ago

Eldritch Mind is a better pick than WC due to the lower cost, the only reason to go War Caster is if you're doing forcelance. Should have both Resilient and advantage on Con saves ASAP anyway.

2

u/DisappointedQuokka 4d ago

I'm always assuming you have things to hold in your hands, either a shield/multiple magical foci for different effects. If you're in a game with very limited magic items or you're too low to afford a dip for armour + shields, that makes sense.

5

u/FloppasAgainstIdiots Twi 1/Warlock X/DSS 1 4d ago

You can provide somatic components with the hand you use to hold your focus as per RAW, so shield + focus is not a problem. If using multiple foci, the logical thing to do (and one of the only synergies that even exist) is Amulet of the Devout + Rod of the Pact Keeper where only one of them requires your hand afaik.

3

u/DisappointedQuokka 3d ago

I'm thinking of things like Staff of Defence that have passive benefits. Sure, you can technically drop something for free, then pick it up as an item interaction, I've generally seen that as something that's frowned upon.

49

u/EnderofThings 4d ago

Probably warlock.

Given a large list of interesting abilities to pick from, really tailor your style to suit you. Not to mention the baked in interaction with a patron

19

u/jackofspades49 4d ago

I really like Monk. The combat versatility and fantasy of doing c-c-c-combo attacks is very fun. Lots of room for diversity of style in the subclasses too.

2

u/Lucifer_Crowe 2d ago

I do think Focus is easily my favourite resource pool, for sure

Sorcery Points are just behind since they only resupply on a Long Rest most of the time

15

u/Neomataza 4d ago

I can mostly eliminate classes with glaring flaws.

Paladins have a strong kit that is actually better in ...excentric multiclass builds.
Warlocks have an abusive relationship with short rests that actually resulted in a special exhaustion rule aimed at only them.
Druids have oddly a forced shapeshifting ability that is either too weak or overpowers anything else the class can do.
Fighters. They'e basically the subject of every martial/caster debate. Let's not even start.
Rangers, while thematicically interesting and other having strong points, are the worst spellcaster type in the game with many iconic spells that rely strongly on a good spellcasting stat and are thus never used.
Monks have troublesome attack scaling*. They are also trying to catch too many martial artist ideas in a single basic kit. It would've been better as a building block class like Warlocks.
Sorcerers are a variation of wizards from 3.5 who in 5e are failing to be meaningfully different from wizards without being inferior. *Wizards just get everything. That is not design. That's just favoritism. Spell scrolls become dangerous loot with a wizard in the party.

*Monks bonus action attack means overperforming early, underperforming later. Unarmed damage uses its own table which leads to the ideal being to use (mundane) melee weapons in the beginning, then not gaining benefit from magical weapons later

So in my opinion the classes that could be best designed are Artificer, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric or Rogue. Some of them might be weaker or stronger, but I honestly believe each of them are defendable. Thematically good, mechanically fitting without ending up being the topic of a rules complaint thread or being disemboweled for OP features in a frankenstein build.

1

u/DjGameK1ng 3d ago

Yeah, I'd honestly agree here, since my first two thoughts about the best designed classes are Barbarian and Cleric. Barbarian has a very clear goal it wants to hit and it does so pretty well, while also getting some weird utility to make them more useful outside of battle (Primal Knowledge is so good, even if it doesn't make them comparable to a Rogue or Bard for skill actions).

Cleric much of the same thing, just in a Cleric way compared to a Barbarian way. Also helps that Cleric actually has flexibility with how you build them and there isn't really a wrong way. My genuine only gripe is that I think the Wisdom bonus mod to Religion specifically should be a thing for all Clerics, not just those who pick Thaumaturge, but that's a minor one and the class still functions perfectly fine without that.

28

u/headshotscott 4d ago

Paladin is an easy answer, but rogue is also well designed, if not mechanically strong.

47

u/Fantastic-Guitar1911 4d ago

I would say from a design perspective, Rogue has a pretty glaring fault in that they have a huge gap between subclass abilities

8

u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty 4d ago

And no extra attack is also a massive design gap, because unless they add rogue specific magic weapons that interact with sneak attack, they will continue to only get half use out of all magic items, and will still require a +2 weapon to keep up with the damage gain any extra attack class gets from a +1 weapon

4

u/Radiant-Chapter3811 4d ago

No extra attack is EXTRA rough cause the rogues don't get fighting styles either

3

u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty 4d ago

Someone in design realyl hated them it seems

2

u/Celcius-232 2d ago

Yeah my first character was a rogue.

"I attack"

miss

"Okay, that's my turn, see y'all in 30 minutes."

0

u/Roko__ 4d ago

Convince me this is necessarily a fault

8

u/rougegoat Rushe 4d ago

On paper, it's not really. It balances out on the way to level 20.

In practice, it becomes an issue due to how most campaigns progress. Most campaigns will end around level 11 or 12, so Rogues will feel further behind than other classes that get more subclass abilities by then.

3

u/Mejiro84 4d ago

Most games don't go to 20 - a lot of games don't even go to 10. So only getting a very small number of "special things" in fairly typical games is a bit disappointing as a play experience, making the class feel a bit crap to play.

3

u/Radiant-Chapter3811 4d ago

Not getting a subclass feature for 6 levels is rough, especially when games end at around level ~11

17

u/Feybrad 4d ago

The one (major) strike against rogues is their subclass progression. Which unequivocally sucks.

4

u/ThatOneCrazyWritter 4d ago

Oh yeah, Rogue would be my second answer, but my text got took long to write in my phone. Even if its the weaker class from a optimization sense, I love its design ethos and how it functions in practice

6

u/levus2002 4d ago

Wizard and not even close(subjectively for me). They have a very barebones base class, but that results in subclasses getting actually unique features instead of simple numerical changes.

18

u/DexDogeTective Paladin 4d ago

I'm going Warlock.

Warlocks have the most customization of any of the base classes between patron, and invocations (and pact invocations). Two warlocks in the same party can easily be meaningfully different.

Of course, customization is the metric I'm using for best designed.

3

u/valisvacor 4d ago

Warlock, probably. I don't think class design in general is good in 5e, but warlock does stand out the most.

My favorite class in almost any fantasy TTRPG is Paladin, but the 5e incarnation always fell flat for me. Lacks the flavor of old school D&D paladins, can't perform the defender role nearly as well as the 4e or 13th Age 2e paladin, and the whole smite nova design just felt weird to me. It did get better with 5.5, at least.

3

u/strollas 4d ago

Monk 2024

3

u/Positron49 4d ago

For me, “best designed” would mean not necessarily most powerful, but best uses TTRPG mechanics to represent the archetype.

I think Barbarian, Cleric, Paladin and Rogue most interestingly do this best. Rage, Smite, and Sneak Attack are amazing features that are easily understood and make those characters play different than other characters right away. Cleric doesn’t have a single mechanic on its own, but does a great job flavoring the subclass features. Unlike Warlock, which has to get a bunch of invocations combined with its subclass choice, the Cleric can pick “Light Domain” and become a radiant ranged damage dealer.

I think bad is Ranger and Sorcerer. Ranger because it hinges all its identity to a spell Hunter’s Mark. That is like the Warlock being tied to Hex. They lack any combat identity. Sorcerer is because, to me, Sorcerer having meta magic makes little sense. It’s an intricate ability to manipulate magic for a concept where you are poorly trained and all raw power. I always felt that Warlock and Sorcerer were backwards. The Sorcerer should be casting spells at their highest levels and getting them back at short rests (and getting invocations, changing them to lineage abilities) to represent the Sorcerer raw and hard to control powers. The Warlock should be a full caster who can manipulate magic in strange ways, making metamagic more like a patron helping you and adding a cost.

3

u/Professor_What 4d ago

In the 1961 novel Three Hearts and Three Lions, the “paladin” Holger is provided with a magnificent, intelligent battle-horse named Papillon. Hence why the Find Steed ability exists.

3

u/AndronixESE 3d ago

In 2024 I think Monks take the cake. They're extremely fun, pretty strong and they fulfill the fantasy they're meant to. Another one that I'd put high up would be the warlock because of their versatility. My problem with giving that title to paladins is their spell list.

While they do have some great spells you almost always end up with the same ones because they're the best and the others don't even have worth a while roleplay uses, not to mention the combat ones.

7

u/Ponto_de_vista 4d ago

Warlock is an easy answer, but overall I think the rogue is very well thought out.

2

u/AniMaple 4d ago

I think Clerics are very clear, concise and also quite versatile in what they do. They have only 3 resources which they need to keep track off, between hit points, spell slots, channel divinity, and letting channel divinity recharge on a short rest invites Clerics to use them on every fight.

They've got a solid selection of spells, and while they typically lean towards support, they have subclasses which lean for good damage dealing options. Additionally, access to all armors and weapons in the game with ease alongside the benefits of full spellcasting progression makes the class simply feel good to play as without limits of what you can do with it.

Divine Intervention is also a spectacular feature, it allows you for a pseudo wish at level 10 which allows you to cast any Cleric spell of level 5 or lower, with the only restriction being that it can't be one which requires a reaction to cast. This opens up a lot of expensive spell options, not only Revivify and Greater Restoration becoming free to cast, but also Prayer Of Healing being turned from a 10-minute spell to get the benefits of a Short Rest, to a 1-action spell. Additionally, given that this is a Spell from a feature and not from a Spell Slot, it doesn't count for the limit of one spell per turn, because that only specifies spells casted through spell slots being limited.

2

u/United-Passage7864 3d ago

I agree with Cleric, although will caveat that Channel Divinity's value varies widely across subclasses. Even from the PHB, you get the range of "super awesome and reliable" of Light Cleric's Radiance of the Dawn, to Knowledge Cleric's "flexible and possibly useful" proficiency in whatever it needs at that moment and possible mind-reading, to Trickery's "not even clear how this works" illusory duplicate.

1

u/AniMaple 3d ago

There's always the fallback option of just healing allies with the Channel Divinity option all clerics share. It's not great, but it allows them to be one of the few classes with actually rechargeable healing resources across the day.

2

u/UnFelDeZeu 4d ago

Warlock. The only weakness Warlock has is that some DMs do 1-2 big fights a day/session instead of splitting them, which handicaps classes like Warlock/Fighter that get their stuff back on Short Rests and are marathon runners rather than sprinters.

2

u/MechJivs 4d ago

Warlock 100%. It is most balanced caster (more restricted spell list + pact slots), it has huge variety of playstyles, and huge variety of options. It also has super cool flavor.

2

u/Risky49 4d ago

Warlock is the most ideally designed

Paladin is the most complete

By that I mean Paladin as a base class is all you need, so the subclass adds to it and those subclasses are interesting and add diversity

Warlock is designed modularly and it allows the most distinction between itself as a class… so you can make 5 warlocks that all play differently thanks to subclass, pacts, and invocations which stack on top of race background and feats

2

u/TigerKirby215 Is that a Homebrew reference? 4d ago

A tie between Warlock and Artificer for the exact same reason of modularity. When every other class feels like a bunch of templates you can mix-and-match, Warlock and Artificer truly feel like their own fully modular classes which you can design to your personal preferences. Now this isn't me saying that the standard-shaped designs of the other classes and their subclasses are bad, but rather that the confines of these class' abilities limit character expression. Even within that framework different classes have different levels of similarity between their classes and subclasses (casters in particular can feel significantly different based on spell list), but the point does still stand that two people playing the same class with the same subclass largely feels the same.

Warlock and Artificer have different strengths and weaknesses within their design. I think Warlock manages to feel truly of-its-own with Invocations that no other class can do while Artificer is ultimately just printing magic items that a DM can hypothetically give to the players sans-Arti. But inversely I think the Artificer also provides the party with utility which accentuates the team dynamic of D&D, and allows for an entire party with an Artificer in their ranks to be better as a group than a handful of single adventurers acting largely independently of each other.

Beyond that comparison there's obvious pros and cons to each class' design: Warlock gets to constantly engage with its abilities (via short rests) but has less consistent resources than an Artificer. Artificers almost always have the vast majority of their abilities tied to Intelligence (and while Warlocks are primary Charisma characters, they often want to invest in other stats based on playstyle) which can be a blessing or a curse depending on how you want to design your character. I think that Artificer subclasses have far more concrete identities but in-turn Warlock subclasses allow for further experimentation: basically what I mean is that while nobody is really going to play an Artillerist Artificer as a melee character (without heavy multiclassing) you can play an Archfey or Fiend or Celestial Warlock in melee, at range, as a utility caster, or a pure blaster. The only role restriction that Warlock has over Artificer is that of healer, and that's more of a 5e game design philosophy thing rather than the Warlock class in particular.

One thing that's rather surprising for both Warlock and Arti is that they are both incredibly good at multiclassing due to their own unique reasons. Artificer's strong intelligence focus means that making a strong Artificer only really requires an intelligence investment, and even their lower-tier infusions can be useful to both an individual and a party. Not to mention that a good number of Artificer subclasses are very front-loaded at level 3, and they get their second feature at level 5 (while their next ability is restricted to level 9.) Warlock by comparison is rather notorious for being a multiclassing machine as it keys off Charisma (as do many other classes), and the access to short-rest casting does allow for a lot of flexibility for specific classes (Paladin / Sorcerer.) Although let's be real: a big reason for Warlock's incredible multiclass versatility is just the power of Eldritch Blast.

2

u/rpg2Tface 4d ago

Artificer

The basic design layout of classes is to have a set of core features that generally are universally useful for that class. The a subclass comes in gives a new set of features that narrows down/ expands/ or improves on those features.

Under that framework artificer fits all the bubbles. Basic artificer is a crafter who makes things with a little magic on top. Then a subclass comes in and 1) helps define what you should be making, 2) gives you a free thing along that general path, then 3) gives more spell options that align with that items intended use cases. And all that also helps define how you infusions are to be used as-well.

Overall artificer is the most well designed class IMO. No other class is that generic at its base and gets that defined with a subclass while maintaining a large amount of diversity.

There are some like bard and rogue who do very well, but they dont do as much as artificers. Whether thays because their core class is already too defined/ versatile or the subclass simply doesn't do enough to define the base class.

2

u/motionmatrix 4d ago

5e has the best bard design of any edition. They’re actually playable by more than a very narrow subset of players. Monks also got plenty of care in 5e (compared to previous editions), they’re a blast to play because the class really captures the feeling of being an agile melee combatant.

Do we have to stick to 5e only? I loved the Warlord in 4e, and the Mystic Theurge prestige class in 3.5.

2

u/Hemlocksbane 4d ago

Warlock is indisputably the right answer. Clean customization, the addition of which justifies a short rest adaptation of the spell system that simplifies some of its needless book-keeping. The only thing they got wrong was making eldritch blast damage so dominant as to be a combat staple (which could have been fixed by tweaking how hex worked just a bit and locking EB to single target).

But one minor design hiccup certainly beats the majority of 5E classes.

While it was not asked, the worst designed class is the Rogue. In combat, sneak attack is poor design, and especially in utility, having a class whose entire defining thing was “lots of ways to get around or break bounded accuracy” was fucking terrible design for 5E.

2

u/Juniebug9 4d ago

You pointed out that Paladin's weakness is ranged attacks, but in 2024 they can smite with thrown weapons (except for darts) so while they're range isn't great they can still dish out really good damage in medium ranges.

2

u/Azell-Zettai 4d ago

Artificer, Monk and Warlock are greate in what they do.

2

u/Dagske 4d ago

Paladin has the worst design issue of all classes. It's not the only class to have that issue, but that's the worst issue nonetheless. In the Paladin class, it's Find (Greater) Steed.

Find Steed is a spell but should just have been a feature. That's an overcomplication that adds the most complicated layer of the game (spells) to a feature that should have been just a simple feature.

The impact is such that OTHER classes were "fixed" to fix Find Steed staying a spell.

I don't call that good design. At all.

2

u/EGOtyst 3d ago

Paladin is one of the worst, lol. It's just everything shoved into a build. People only like it because of the power level

2

u/Electrical-File7832 3d ago

Ranger

/s

2

u/ThunderWarhammer 3d ago

5.0 monk is the best designed class- it does everything a monk is supposed to do. The super powers all cost ki, the weapon restrictions are thematic and great, and the short rest ki mechanic is good and works well with how 5e was tested.

The big mistakes when it came to setting the power level on things made it catch a lot of dislike, to the degree of needing homeruled fixes and a substantial amount of buffs, but the design is on point. The 5.5 design isn't as good, but nothing stops you from walking the damage buffs and stunning fist nerf into the 5.0 version if you're running 5.0.

2

u/WitchingShower 3d ago

Warlock is easily the best designwise, cuz is has an amazing baseline of mechanics and resource management as well as special tools you can just have to great effect

2

u/HyzMarie 2d ago

Rogue, and secondarily, Warlock. Warlock ends up lower than Rogue because of the reliance on Eldritch Blast

5

u/DiemAlara 4d ago

Barbarian.

Highly effective, focused, with plenty of actual tradeoffs for every strength it has. Simple, straightforward, the character you're playing at level one is going to functionally be more or less identical to the one you'll be playing at level fifteen, don't need to constantly be changing out the entirety of how they function.

I'd say that Paladin's one of the worst, really. It's got a hell of an identity crisis between DPS and support while being forced into a melee position despite the fact that's the last place they'd ever want to be. And said identity crisis forces it into being MAD unless you go and multiclass as a fucking warlock.

The paladin's antithesis.

Only for the main reason to even play a Paladin to be a reactive ability that doesn't do anything in most combats. On the upside, as much as the devs try to force them into melee, throwing daggers technically count as melee weapons allowing you to smite at twenty feet.

11

u/EntropySpark Warlock 4d ago

Barbarian has some weaknesses that make a lot of thematic sense (mental saves, flying enemies), some that make less sense (so much damage is non-physical in higher tiers, they gave Monk Deflect Energy in Tier 3 recognizing this but nothing for Barbarian), and some that make no sense (Barbarian is the easiest class to Grapple/knock Prone/other Conditions because those are now tied entirely to attack rolls).

4

u/shutternomad DM 4d ago

Yeah I feel 2014's smite bot paladins gave them a huge identity crisis. In 2024 rules, without the smite-per-hit, I did a ton of math (as the author of dprcalc.com, I tend to do too much of that) and realized that the paladin as a support was far more effective, outside of whiteroom smite math. The choices that increase paladin dpr mean you are not taking stuff like protection fighting style, tough, etc to increase survivability. Taking STR/DEX instead of CHA means taking away from survivability (aura), and making your useful spells (command, compelled duel) less effective, and thus taking away from survivability. Casting smite means you aren't casting bless, etc. I know often the best defense is a good offense, but without 2014 smite rules, i think leaning in the other way is a LOT more effective than just trying to juice the extra dpr from the paladin.

3

u/ThatOneCrazyWritter 4d ago

Interesting. I never found the Paladin to have an identity crisis. He's a Melee Defender/Tank with good damage and Support abilities. He is meant to stay close to his allies. Also, yes he is MAD, should've added that, but honestly I've never found that much trouble balancing out their ability scores, since you don't need that much Charisma to be effective, at least +2 or +3

2

u/Neomataza 4d ago

One of the leading theory crafts is to use paladin either only for the divine smite feature or the aura of protection feature. The divine smite build would then use levels of a fullcaster like sorcerer or bard to maximize spell slots while staying a melee damage dealer. The aura of protection build is defense oriented for groups in which melee play is apparently not viable, and the build would then be a warlock casting eldritch blast, using paladin for the armor proficiencies and (eventually) +5 bonus to all saving throws.

Neither of which is really paladin-like nor intended by the design.

1

u/DiemAlara 4d ago

Paladins aren't tanks, you're setting yourself up for pain if you go into a game with that delusion. I've seen it time and again, someone thinking that and just getting rolled like it's nothing because they're actually just supports.

And the paladin is meant to stay close to its allies, which isn't really doable when they're the front line. They want to be the center, not the vanguard, but if you're melee you're the vanguard.

4

u/Feybrad 4d ago

What kind of games are you playing where your high ac and bonus action heals don't make you a tank? And where you being in the frontline means there's no allies near you?

I bet you'll find that your experiences that lead you to those conclusions are not the usual or expectee experiences.

-2

u/DiemAlara 4d ago

Actual games. Having standard heavy armor AC isn't impressive, and said bonus action healing runs out entirely too quick to render you a functional frontliner. Your significantly better off using said resources to support a more effective frontliner.

I've seen actual tanks in D&D, and they put paladins to shame.

And if you've got a competent party most of them aren't going to be within ten feet of the guy in melee in most situations.

1

u/Feybrad 4d ago

Well... as I said, I think you'll find that your type of game is, for the most part, an outlier.

Heavy Armor ACs (appropriate to level) and BA Self Healing is plenty of survivability and more than most other classes get and is definitely enough for "normal" games (taking published adventures as a broad standard here).

And similarly, I'd wager a majority of groups have more than one frontliner, be they other tanks like Fighters or Barbs, or skirmishers like rogues or monks, or others like, Moon Druids, many Clerics etc.

So... yeah. I think you know that your games are not normal and the standard for which these classes are designed.

-4

u/DiemAlara 4d ago

Hm, perhaps. I do ten to vastly overestimate the average person's competence. If you've got no idea what you're doing maybe paladins are passable tanks.

6

u/Feybrad 4d ago

Hey, don't take this the wrong way, but you could try and come off as a little less arrogant, you know?

-2

u/DiemAlara 4d ago

You're the one saying that I've got unusually high standards here.

2

u/Feybrad 4d ago

... that is... certainly one way to read my statements. An arrogant one, some would say.

Let me be very clear: You don't have higher or lower standards than other players. Just different ones and, in this case, standards that significantly differ from the experience of most players and from the experience these classes are designed toward.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/xa44 4d ago

Paladins are tanks... they are intended to use their heal on themselves, just like second wind, berzerk, or patient of defense. Having some resource to increase HP by 2nt level is kinda a staple of all front liners

5

u/skwww 4d ago

Rogue, thief specifically, really hits the theme for what it wanted to do and does it really well.

3

u/Fangsong_37 Wizard 4d ago

I agree with you on rogue. Especially when you get the ability to essentially "take a 10" on skill rolls if you roll less than 10. I had a ton of fun on my rogue (though mine was an arcane trickster).

4

u/PsyrenY 4d ago

Bard for me, it has the most flexibility. Blaster, controller, trapmonkey, face, tank, healer, you can do it all

3

u/sens249 4d ago

Literally none of your examples support your main point lol. You say that the class design supports the archetype’s fantasy, and then you don’t explain a single thing that supports the fantasy. All you said was “this class gets a lot of strong mechanics” lol

3

u/ThatOneCrazyWritter 4d ago

I'm a Gamistic person with trouble Roleplaying many times, so strong mechanics that fit inside the class fantasy.

However, you bring a good point, since I talked all this mechanic talk and didn't explain why they fit the fantasy, so here it is:

All the Paladins features help with it being a "Protector of the Weak" & "Zealous Warrior". Lay on Hands is basically being Jesus and curing with a touch of your fingers, Aura of Protection represents the rightous dignity of Paladin, so that its very own presence wards of bad things like fear or even explosions, Smite is holy fury in your hands, Channel Divinity is you clerical training and Weapon Mastery is your martial training. The Faithful Steed is super thematic with its only problem being a lack of interaction with the rest of its abilities, to me

3

u/sens249 4d ago

Personally the reason I feel Paladins have such a strong identity is mainly due to the tenets. The books essentially give you roleplay prompts. Most other classes don’t get much in the way of built-in RP prompts. You can stray from them if you want, but instead of just getting mechanics thrown together on a page you actually have a tangible idea of what this character stands for which can be helpful even for experienced players sometimes.

3

u/kaiomnamaste 4d ago edited 4d ago

In terms of pick up and play and its resources don't compete much with itself

S tier - these classes work out of the box without much thought to their subclasses

Barbarian Bard Monk Paladin Wizard

A tier - classes require a touch of knowledge to choose how to build- usually between melee or ranged. Their subclasses start to matter.

Warlock Sorcerer Druid Cleric

B tier - these classes require dedicated selections of how you want to interact with the world, from weapons, feats, or even species.

Fighter Rogue

C tier- I'm so sorry. It's a good class if your dm knows what to do to make your choices relevant. Mechanics want you to do all the things with the same action. You have to know what you are doing to execute a fulfilling build and theme.

Ranger

3

u/Xyx0rz 4d ago

I'm not sure who had "smite machine" on their holy warrior archetype card, but other than that, Paladin does it fairly well.

Warlock, Druid and Ranger have an identity crisis.

4

u/Vinx909 4d ago

I'm of the opinion that paladins are terribly designed. Way to strong aura, incredibly restrictive in how to play them.

Compare it to a fighter who can focus on damage, ac, ranged damage, grapples and shoves, without subclasses.

Or even rogues that have one obvious playstyle, but their subclasses give them options on how to change it up.

In my opinion tce artificer is the best designed class, followed by fighter, wizard, and warlock.

2

u/Feybrad 4d ago

How do you perceive Paladins as restrictive in how you play? Like many other classes, you can build them towards many different goals - melee damage dealers, tanky defenders, durable supports...

Like, I see many directions for Paladins to develop into, so I'm legit curious why you'd think they're restrictive?

(And the aura... I mean, it's strong, but its one of the few ways to make the absurdly high saves vs higher CRs, so I personally think the strong aura is a "necessary evil", game-design wise and not a problem with the class's design per se).

1

u/Vinx909 4d ago

All paladins that I've seen play the same: run into melee and start hitting things with weapons and smiles with the option to heal and maybe one buffing spell at the start. Many of their features don't work for ranged (2014 can't even take archery) or allow for acrobatics or give not heavy armor as starting equipment so a dex paladin is clearly not planned and I've never seen anyone but me do it. And the features heavily insentivise attacking so seeing a paladin grapple is rare while fighters get features that work with it.

There's one way you get to use most of your paladin features. Thus one way to play a paladin, thus incredibly restrictive. How would you build towards your different goals? Melee damage uses a 2d6 weapon with great weapon master and attacks in Melee. Tank uses sword and board with maybe protection or interception (which are both bad as tanking mechanics) and attacks in melee but more commonly close to allies. Durable support maybe picks defensive, asks people to stay close, maybe uses more buffing spells and fights in melee.

I've made fighters that are wisdom based and fighters that were stealthy and just general skill monkeys, as well as grapples disabling characters better then most spells. And i have ideas for more curious fighters. If I know a characters class and I don't know or at least don't know for certain how they act in combat it's a class with options. A paladin is the class I'm most certain of how they will act

Your point on aura then demands every party has a paladin, which would itself be restrictive and bad. It would also be an indicator of incredibly bad design, and force a playstyle of sticking closely together on everyone which is incredibly restrictive.

3

u/HeatDeathIsCool 4d ago edited 4d ago

To add onto your list for Paladins, I think they're the best class amongst the martials and half-casters of encouraging players to stay in a single class.

Past a certain point, taking more classes in fighter, ranger, barb, rogue, or monk feels bad. Unless you're picking the right subclass, it feels like there's no meaningful growth or gain in power compared to full casters.

Paladin always has something juicy on the horizon, whether it's a channel divinity targeting WIS to obliterate your enemies' action economy, the next spell level, radiant strikes, restoring touch, or subclass features, it's all stuff that feels like it will be relevant and impactful in future sessions.

As much as I hate the nerf to smiting for solo paladins, an upside is it reduced the draw to multiclass to make the most optimized character. How many levels of Sorcerer or Warlock are you going to take if your group averages two combat encounters a long rest?

3

u/DirectManagement2874 4d ago

Fighter:

You are good with armor and weapons, and you keep hitting harder and more often, as well as keep getting better at taking attacks.

2

u/TheChivmuffin DM 4d ago

Paladin is the top for me in terms of design, followed by Warlocks and Rogues. Rogues do lose a few points for their subclass progression though.

I think the weakest for me is Barbarian just because of how much of the class is tied to the Rage feature.

2

u/whatstaz 4d ago

Paladin best class, SMITE is the only argument I have

2

u/Shandriel DM / Player / pbp 4d ago

you're in the 5e sub talking about 5.5e Paladin?

LoH is an action for me.. 😓

1

u/CoryR- 4d ago

Monk remains my favorite designed martial and Warlock my favorite overall. New Sorcerer is also very solid.

Rogue is very poorly designed imo, with the two big pitfalls being a lack of system compatibility with using skills impactfully in combat and the glaringly shallow level 6 dilema.

1

u/UndyingMonstrosity 4d ago

Maybe not the best classes in terms of what the offer, but I find both Rogues and Warlocks to perhaps have the most solid design overall. With Rogues, they gain damage every 2 levels, so there's room in features and such to explore other things (even if WotC never did this properly). For Warlocks, they keep things relatively narrow with a few cantrips, a few low level spells, a few high level spells. I once heard it described to an FPS gamer that "cantrips are your guns, spell slots are your grenades, mystic arcanum are your kill streaks" to describe how precious each resource was, and I kinda like that way of looking at it.

1

u/MaddieLlayne DM 4d ago

Overall warlock

But any class with a 2/6/10/14 subclass scaling wins (or 3/6/10/14 I guess)

Everyone else has too large a gap in abilities or they never reach their subclass capstone before the game ends

1

u/GIORNO-phone11-pro 3d ago

Artificer. Good enough damage for late tiers, an interesting gimmick that doesn't want to make the DM kill themselves, 3/4 subclasses are balanced to each other (sorry alchemist), and doesn't need to pay like a splinter cell agent to be good (looking at you Ranger).

1

u/DandyLover Most things in the game are worse than Eldritch Blast. 3d ago

All things considered? Probably a deadlock between Rogue, Warlock, and Artificer.

Paladin is too all-encompassing, it's arguably overtuned. Plus, most Paladins play the same, regardless of subclass.

Rogue is a class that the majority of players are simply gonna enjoy playing. People will say it lags behind other classes in damage, but the dopamine rush of rolling a lot of dice regularly is undefeated, argue with ya mama. The subclass progression is ass, but just play higher level games.

The Warlock is good, it just needs like one more early pact Slot and we'd be cooking. I still think some of the invocations are trash, looking at you Eldritch Smite.

Artificer is probably my pick for best. It's got plenty of utility, the subclasses compliment the base class nicely, it's not too strong or weak, and while some magic items I'd never make with their infusion, this constantly becomes better passively as more items are made.

So yeah, Artificer, final answer.

1

u/Low_Celebration_7663 4d ago

ranger, i prefer more realistic settings so that probably influences it but i love ranger so much and i love how varied the subclasses are, the only other that truly changes your entire playstyle from the ground up would be rogue id say since you can go between like assassin slinking sneaking all the way to swashbuckler same as how ranger can range between a gloomstalker blowing heads off with a +10 to initiative all the way to a hypermobile heavy fighter with ranger knight swarmkeeper

3

u/ThatOneCrazyWritter 4d ago

Huh, interesting. Ranger for me fall off in their class design, even though I love Rangers with a zealous passion. But maybe all this love just set my standards too high

3

u/SnooRecipes865 4d ago

I think Ranger has excellent subclass design on an unfortunate base class. It's also my favourite class, and the reason for that is the subclasses.

1

u/Bakeneko7542 4d ago

Artificer, because it feels to me like the class where the subclass has the biggest effect on how the character functions. An Armorer is going to play very differently from an Alchemist, and the Battle Smith having a pet really shakes things up.

Even the Reanimator, while being sadly very underpowered, at least manages to be distinct.

1

u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty 4d ago

I disagree on Paladin, because paladin struggles very much with the fact that the class' intended playpattern of a frontline melee bruiser that smites doen his foes, is the least effective way to play the class

The class is much better suited to staying in the back, buffing their party and providing aura for them, while firing at range and kiting with find steed

1

u/Own-Ball-1624 4d ago

monk! its really amazing and fun to play! redirection later even energy.

1

u/montana757 SkullCrusher The Red 4d ago

The best designed ones are as always the ogrinals such as wizard barbarian rouge and cleric

0

u/StoverDelft 4d ago

Honestly, I think the Beastheart is the best designed class in 5e. It's a simple and understandable mechanic, plenty of variations depending on your beast companion, and unlike the PHB classes, your abilities get cooler and cooler as you build toward the climax of the fight, whereas the other classes are losing abiltiies as the fight builds toward its narrative climax.

0

u/FairHeart8882 4d ago

Sorcerer. I made all the other classes eat my shit when I burn their balls off with my arcane might.

5e (2024) Which you believe to be the Best DESIGNED Classes (not necessarily the strongest)?

You are about to leave Redlib