"Barbarian is the best class for detect and destroy traps in dungeons" Said the barbarian in my campaign, single handly stepped on 12 beartraps and triggered 7 poison dart and still make it alive
One problem though is what about traps with automatically resetting ammunition or repeatable magic effects? The Barbarian handling traps is only viable for one-time-use traps.
@@CrownlessStudios Yes, that's valid in many cases. I was particularly thinking of some I've come across such as the trapped chest that had a Wizard's tomes in it, protected with an acid spell trap that will repeat each time someone fails to pick the lock (or find and use the key).
@@ryadinstormblessed8308 How would a Barbarian deals with a repeating trap? They smash the trap mechanisms till they stop moving and thus can't repeat anymore. Example: Barbarian rushes through and smashes every repeating crossbow in the arrow trap hallway, then turns to the party as he's riddled with crossbow bolts and gives a thumbs up to the rogue. "Hah! Trap disarmed!"
I think monks are great! They’re the only class that can still do 99% off what they normally can do when they’re butt naked and in an anti magic zone. Tell me what other class can do that? You keep playing your monk and enjoy it.
One simple fix for monk kipoints at low levels is adding the wisdom mod to the total equation of how many kipoints you have. Its not much difference on high levels but biiiig diferrnce at low levels Is like the main down of the monks: so few kipoints at low levels, use that fix, is like 3 point per short rest, there, fixed
@@reloadpsi What a joke. You really would give monks an A for CC because of stunning strike? At most, a monk can stun 3 things in a round unless its all perfectly set up for him. And then he would be out of ki... mean while, spellcasters can CC half the room with one spell... and then CC the other half next round.
@@dexasmoru8333 I have to agree with this. Recently my Cleric and the party Druid had a combat where we locked down the enemy in Spirit Guardians with no ability to move out. I cast Spirit Guardians, Druid cast Bed of Thorns. 25% move speed for all creatures, 2d4 damage per 5 feet of movement, and extra damage at the start of their turns. Hypnotic Pattern, Web, Sleep, Hold Monster, Hold Person, and many many many other spells are great for long term CC as opposed to the one turn of Stun from Stunning Strike.
On the Monk, my friend had the best comment when his son was thinking about a Monk. He said that the Monk is like a keyboard player in a classic band structure. They add to what’s there, but they can’t replace any of the other core roles.
I can definitely see where that's coming from, but I do disagree. Monks imho make *phenomenal* scouts and exfiltrators. I think the only notable problem with monks - when comparing their strength to other classes - is that the players expect Monks to be Fighters, and complain about stuff like "low damage" while never utilizing features like: * the _increased speed_ (which you can't use if you just plop yourself into melee and stay there), * _deflect missiles_ (most DM's wont shoot into melee, they shoot at the targets keeping their distance), * or _slow fall_ (a level 4 monk can completely ignore a 30 ft drop with a reaction, and a very lucky monk can survive a 200ft drop taking no damage).
I’ve been in two games where the monk was the mvp until about level 5, at which point one player left the game and the other decided he wanted to play a wizard. I think there was one or two times where they were out of ki points, which I could see being problematic.
Those classes combine well..both Dex- based..then Wis for the Monk abilities, AC ..the Sneak Attack dmg is helpful..as is Cunning Action.. Expertise in Stealth and Hide makes you a mobile ghost..😉
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 the problem with ki based abilities is that from lvl 1 to 5, you don't have enough ki points to use them to their full potential. From lvl 6 to 12, you have enough ki point and some abilities are good enough to make you feel really strong. After lvl 12 tho, your abilities will be outclassed by anything spellcasters or some martial subclasses can do. Meanwhile, you will be decent at damage and tanking, but not crazy strong either...
Love that y'all took another look at this. The only annoyance is why assume spellcasters choose the good spells but not assume artificer and warlock choose the good options as well. It's really easy to make a useless bard, just like it's really easy to make an explorer Artificer. It's all part of the build
I think because with warlock and artificer there is less wiggle room with invocations and infusions, you have too many options and not enough choices. With spellcasters you’d have to be more intentional about choosing bad spells because of how many choices you get. A bard has you be almost purposeful not to take charm person for example
You can change them literally every level though, and Artificer just makes magic items. You have to be purposeful NOT to pick something useful for Artificer.
@@nathanielleon4163 oh yeah I agree. But I think to be useful in exploration as an artificer you can only take certain infusions which immediately hamper your abilities in other areas if that makes sense
I'd say that for most of the full casters (especially wizards) the consideration of the spell list so heavily is because that is nearly the only choice you get to make as the character. Artificers get their infusions, with different numbers at different levels, each time providing different character variation. Same for warlocks, except with invocations. Wizards choose their subclass at level 2, the blade singer gets to pick a weapon to be proficient in, and then the next choice a wizard makes that isn't "what spell do I take?" is their 18th level Spell mastery feature. 90% of the entire class is their spell choice, and the character's use will be made or broken by that exclusively. A bard can pick crap for spells and still have a handful of useful class features. If a wizard picks crap spells they *might* have *2* features that are still going to be useful.
I am happy to see Rangers getting some love. My first DND character was a lizardfolk Gloomstalker, and he might be the strongest character I've built so far. And since playing a Gloomstalker/Twilight Cleric and a Swarmkeeper, they've become one of, if not my favorite classes in the game.
Yeah, I played an OG Dwarven Hunter in my first 5e campaign and our group did MVP after sessions and he won it multiple times. Part of that, I humbly admit, is the skill of the player, but without the proper tools, you can't shine.
So, I was curious and aggregated an average of both of your scores. I mostly wanted to know how the classes faired if you value versatility and being able to perform well at multiple fields. For sorting I changed D-S to 1-5. Bard 3.643 Druid 3.214 Wizard 3.143 Artificer 3.143 Sorcerer 3.000 Rogue 3.000 Paladin 2.929 Cleric 2.857 Warlock 2.857 Ranger 2.857 Fighter 2.000 Barbarian 1.857 Monk 1.714 I think this aggregated list is maybe a little more unfair on the monk, as effectively the list is sorted by who can excel at more roles within the party and the monk just doesn't excel at any, so comes in last. I'm not sure this is useful for anyone, I did it for myself as I value versatility and filling holes within a party more than just about anything else. The main thing that did surprise me was how high up Druid came on the list. While I've had fun as one in the past, I guess I just know I'd want to just make a Moon Druid and ask my DM if I can just flavour everything to be turning into a Warewolf and raging to bring those Werewolf the Apocalypse fantasies into D&D (Shifter Race and Beast Barbarian just doesn't cover the full Garou range, plus Druids get spells! Garou Mage! nothing can go wrong...)
@@jamesmerkel1932 Going great! We’re doing a Spelljammer campaign I went with a Rock Gnome Artificer with the Battle Smith subclass. I took the shipwright background to be the tinkerer who pilots and knows the ins and outs of the spelljammer ships. I’ve only played about five sessions, but having so much fun.
WotC needs to give some love to the Monk in "One"/5.5. No class should be this bad. I think a few feats aimed at unarmed combat and some balance changes to their overall kit would go a long way from making them a middling choice to a decent one.
What specifically is lacking in the Monk class to you? I know the dudes always state monk is underwhelming compared to some others, and i see its generally an accepted statement. As a DM my PC monk at my table is always the one that makes me think that monk seems to be in a fine state. Of course outside of combat there isnt much there, but man does he shine in combat, as well as some of the monk features have been incredibly useful for traps/exploration. For clarification our campaign has been going for nearly 5 years now and they are level 14.
@@rj595 Really, what the Monk lacks is a feature that *they* excel at. The base class is decent, but honestly - they have no support. No feats geared at Unarmed combat. No -5/+10 feat. No spellcasting (for the subclasses that focus on it). I also played a Monk & had a blast, and there is fun to be had with the class! However, I do think they just need a little more. Maybe it's more damage for some subclasses, damage mitigation for others, spellcasting... personally, I would like to see more flavor, specific flavor, per subclass. I don't wanna write an essay, hahaha. But yeah - just tick them up a bit. Maybe give them Third Attack, as well - even if it's tied to a Monk-only feat taken at a specific level.
@@rj595 Like you said, the class is focused on combat and yet, they are awful at it. First, Martial Arts is just awful, the die scales far too slowly and you'll spend the vast majority of the game just using a monk weapon rather than going unarmed. There is also very little in the way of magic item support for unarmed playstyles. Then, without Flurry of Blows, you're just doing dual-wielding damage, which is generally inferior to virtually any other combat because bonus actions have many ways to be weaponized for much more effect and the hits in the Attack action are weaker than 2h attacks. Next, Flurry of Blows starts to make them decent but, because of the MA die scaling, it just doesn't keep up and the Ki cost makes it so that it needs to be used sparingly. Second, the Monk's defense is absolutely atrocious. They get their WIS bonus in place of being able to wear armor and cannot wield shields. This can work out decently if you forgo all feats and just take ASIs to maximize your DEX and WIS, but then you lose out on feats and it doesn't make the Monk incredible in any way, just decent. They simply need to get something more significant out of that much investment into their ability scores, and if you don't invest in them, then you come away below par. Because of this low AC and having low HP, Monks are a melee class which simply can't survive in melee combat. Rogues have a similar problem with melee, but not only do their class mechanics also work at range, but they have Cunning Action and can always move in and out of melee combat at will. Monks can potentially do so... but again it not only costs them some of their already very average damage by taking away their bonus action, but also costs Ki which means they'll lose out on more damage on other turns. By this point, you can probably guess the third major problem. Virtually everything the Monk does costs Ki so nearly every class feature, including subclass features, competes with every other class feature. Most classes have features which do not compete with each other. Every Ki point you spend that isn't spent on Flurry of Blows is less damage that you can deal from an already very meh damage output, when combat is the only thing they do. Getting Stunning Blows is nice, but because it's a CON save (generally the highest monsters will have) and WIS likely isn't your highest ability score, it's generally going to cost you multiple Ki points to land, which essentially turns the Monk into a one-trick pony to stun the big boss who just can't effectively contribute the rest of the time.
You're meant to use Paladin's Divine Sense primarily for intrigue situations. Something I unfortunately learned when I happened to put an invisible undead enemy in the same room as a group of nobles... one of whom was secretly a rakshasa that was supposed to be revealed later in the campaign. Suddenly the plot by the Lords of Dust to take control of stormreach got really really derailed.
One aspect that has been overlooked is the ability of rogues and monks especially to operate in places/enviroments where magic doesn't work or is dangerous to use/wild. Yes this is somewhat niche, but it's something that does crop up now and then. They also can get things done, like mobility and unlocking quietly, even casting spells that don't make a loud noise like knock, do require at minimum, hushed speech, a stealthy monk can run up a wall silently, a rogue can open a door silently (potentially). They can also do these things without spending resources, or in the case of the monk, 1 Ki maybe, if a major fight is in the wind, using even a 2nd level spell is not nothing if it can be avoided. Lastly, I think that stunning strike as a significant battlefield control ability was rather ignored. A caster using hold person, that's their entire action, and if the target makes the save, not only is it depressing for the caster, their turn did nothing and they spent a long rest resource. A monk might have a slightly lower DC on their stun, but they can attempt multiple in a single turn, and do damage, and maybe do something else (eg Open Hand effects from Flurry), so even if they try 2, 3 or even 4 stuns and they all fail to stick, they will have done somedamage and maybe knocked an enemy over, or they may have been lucky and stunned 2 enemies, done damage and knocked them over. My 5th level Wizard recently cast Slow at a mini boss, it made it's save, next round, honestly, with not having expected combat and so limited combat spells, and the boss had a nasty multi attack, I went for slow again, and again it didn't stick. The boss moved out of line of sight and the combat ended before I got to attempt anything else. I'd used both my 3rd level slots, and had zero effect in the entire combat. Yeah, suck it up, that can happen, my point is a monk could have kept up much better, attempted more stuns, done some damage, and not have burnt through long rest resources. Is moving a monk from D to C for battlefield control a pretty minor 'upgrade', sure..is it even a cut and dried argument, no, but it's at least worth a thought imho. (The boss escaped with a high speed and a disengage, had the slow hit, we'd probably have killed it instead. Is the wizard a supreme controler, yes, but, they are a very hit or miss class, if the target makes it's save, you've not only wasted your action, but a valuable resource too and done exactly nothing else. The one other aspect of the wizard that is always forgotten, is the cost. Buying new spells, ink, paper is a giant gold suck that no other class faces in the same way, getting those 'unusual spells' costs you (cos I have to assume your taking conventionally useful spells (like Counterspell and Slow) as your free level spells. A Monk needs, bracers of defence, after that any other magic item is kinda gravy, a +1 dex melee weapon and +1 studded armour, and most rogues are fine, and it's not like wizards don't need/want magic items as well, on top of their book keeping costs. I LOVE wizards, I've always lent towards Int based casters, but I think the action economy of rogues and monks is an aspect you forgot, the cost of wizard learning, the resource use, and the non casters ability to operate in places magic can't. (Sorry, as ever I ended up rambling)
Ranger: With all subclasses other than Fey Wanderer, i agree that they are bad negotiators. But with Fey Wanderer, they are allowed to add their wisdom modifier to their charisma modifier for ability checks (but not saving throws). The net result is, that they end up with an charisma modifier that is either on par, or sometimes even better than that of charisma based classes. So just based on the modifier alone (and the charm person spell they get for free), they deserve at least a B rating in negotiation. Which probably makes the Fey Wanderer the best all-around subclass for ranger.
and if minmaxed with a few levels in rogue role a minimum of like 32 on rolls with no magic items which idc what magic your using if you ever have to roll above 35 the dms saying screw you specifically
@@Lich-x2g I wouldnt rate the overall ranger higher. But that subclass boosts the rangers social capabilities so much, its almost criminal to not mention it. I personally would have just added a B within brackets. So ranger gets D for social, [B] if fey wanderer. Multiclass? Easy [S], you pass every social check by default, unless you roll a 1. Just to give an example, a lvl3 Fey Wanderer can have +6 on all social skill checks, while also having +7 on Perception. Thats very high for a lvl3 character, with just a +2 proficency bonus.
I have a Way of Mercy monk, and they're so much fun to play. They're a legitimately useful healer in combat, being able to quickly raise fallen allies.
Wizard is also my favorite class in the game. They can learn all the spells so they aren’t limited in their magic. For every single rank that they received below a tier, there’s a spell for that. The way wizards can interact with magic in the world is just S tier. It also helps if you have a DM that allows you to find spells and do cool stuff with downtime. When you think of magic in D&D you think of the wizard. All the other spellcasters are variations on coming close to what a true master of magic looks like. For arcane casters anyway.
In terms of Cleric being a support no matter the build it's crazy that the Light Cleric which gets FIREBALL also has a great support ability with Warding Flare
Exactly what I was thinking. That path is absolutely one of the best, if your DM lets you do stuff "off screen" having a beast barbarian perform as a scout works really well when you consider their immense mobilti.
I'm currently running a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 2, and am genuinely struggling with what class to level up in next. The only reason I'm considering Paladin is to be more tanky and because the Oath would be important from an RP perspective. Because MAN, it is nice having actual spell slots. 😅
Divine Sense is usefull. You need it to: 1) know if that NPC is a devil/fey/undead in disguise (and only one spell and one magic item is going to save against that detection); 2) know where is an enemy of that type on battlefield, because that type of supernatural cratures often has an invisibility; 3) know if there is an ambush, because not every cemetry or graveyard filled with undead, and if you have some doubts you can solve that thought; 4) also knowing the enemy's type will help your with simple understanding like damage resistances (like you know, fiends - fire, feys - charms, undead - necrotic res, radiant vuln usualy). It is really usefull feature if you know how to use it properly... And the campaign and surrounding area are for it. Like every other feature
Even hearing them again explaining what each ranking means, still fills me with feeling that they are wrong with Ranger as frontliner. They gave him B/C ranking in that role. Class that has (without any specific choices or feats, so it is general class characteristics) AC up to 19 from lvl 1 (20 from 2 with fighting style), hit dice d10, healing spells, resistance to elemental dmg (through Absorb Elements), source of multiple temporary HPs from lvl 10, ability to turn invisible during combat (disadvantage for attackers and makes them impossible to be targeted by certain spells), in most cases ability equivalent to Uncanny Dodge,… And many subclasses (not only one) provide bonuses - sturdy melee companion (Drakewarden, Beastmaster, Fey Wanderer), AC bonus (Hunter), increased spell defenses (Gloom Stalker, Monster Slayer), ability to overcome difficult terrain (Horizon Walker, Swarm Keeper),… Does this really look like C tier to you? Not to me!
The issue is that they like to use ranged weapons, unless you take the crossbow expert feat you cannot be to close to enemies, they also don’t get other features that other classes do such a rage or second wind that allow the true front liners to tank so well
@@itzgladgatorgonegladitzmad9701 They like to use ranged weapons? Can you explain that? I have played like 5 Rangers and I never used ranged weapons… Rangers are one of the best classes with S&B with Shield Master feat (because that have both Expertise and Extra Attack. And they may not have Second Wind, but as I said - they have Nature’s Veil which is even better, because it can turn them invisible for several rounds a day and they can gain temporary HPs PB times per day equal to 1d8+WIS (so average 7 per use), which is comparable to Second Wind. And they have healing spells on top. Apart from all of that, they have Medium Armour and Shield prof., which makes them the best class for Heavily Armoured feat (which can also raise their STR to 18 at lvl 4), so they can easily reach AC 21. And if you are talking about Rage or Second Wind here - no one is saying that Ranger is as good as Barbarian or Fighter. Those classes gained S/S and A/A ranking, I am just saying that Rangers deserve at least B/B or maybe even A/B, but they were given B/C, which makes them worse than Druid (apart from Moon they suck in melee), Cleric (with d8 hit dice) or Artificers. This doesn’t seem right at all…
@@JuckiCZ both of those classes got an A in front lining, the only S class front liner is the paladin. Rangers generally like bows because they want decent wisdom and dex and dex based weapons do not benefit from great weapon fighting but bows can benefit from sharpshooter. A subclass like Gloomstalker also prefers long range since they can attack from anywhere in the darkness. Also the invisibility really depends on what your DM rules with for the invisibility because it can be easily justified it works like the invisibility spell ending when you attack anyone. Really the Ranger has great support and damage options but you can’t have the stats necessary to frontline with having to choose from con, dex, wis, and str because if you go for str and con you are better off going Eldritch Knight. While Rangers can front line some of the better damage spells like Lightning Arrow and Hail of Thorns use ranged weapon attacks. It is also easier to abuse stealth from range attacks since it can be easier to stay out of blind or even true sight with the range you get.
@@itzgladgatorgonegladitzmad9701 You should study Ranger class more, because you miss so many things! You don’t have invest in DEX as melee Ranger, you can just have STR, CON and WIS. Even WIS is not necessary, because the best spells don’t need it (Zephyr Strike, Guardian of Nature, Pass Without Trace, Conjure Animals,…), so you can even invest in DEX if you want to and leave WIS on 12-13. And you have access to Martial Weapons so you can easily take GWM feat and use it with Nature’s Veil or GoN to gain advantage (I do that with most of my Rangers). Did you know that STR variant of GoN is much better than DEX variant? 1d6 bonus dmg to each hit is great. And if any DM rules Nature’s Veil as Invisibility, he needs to be replaced! The duration is till the beginning of your next turn, nothing more, nothing else! It is more like Improved Invisibility. And argument that Eldritch Knight is stupid as well. What does this have to do with Ranger rankings? Fact that EK is better tank means, that Ranger should be ranked under Cleric? Really?
I used Divine Sense in my campaign almost constantly, and it was invaluable to find invisible undead or fiends that were lurking either in ambush or spying on our party (like imps or vampires in heavy fog). It is kinda niche but in campaigns like CoS which are undead/fiend heavy it is actually very invaluable. I don't know if you might have forgotten this with Divine Sense, because it actually specifies you know the LOCATION of any fiends or undead or celestials not in full cover until the end of your next turn, which is a way to counter invisibility from Level 1 itself with no enemy saving throw (unlike Faerie Fire)
For several editions now, I have said the Druid makes for the best assassin class. As such, I completely agree with the take that the Druid is one of the best creative problem solving classes available. In a Pathfinder game, the alchemist and I pretty much single-handedly pushed out a foreign occupation by way of making it look like the gods turned against the occupiers. We completely hamstrung a few hundred enemy soldiers by me sneaking in as a monkey to cut bowstring, alchemically glueing weapons in sheaths, cementing arrows in barrels, saturating alarm fires in water, breaking signal horns and then sneaking into the prison mines to free allied soldiers having delivered a portable hole full of weapons and armor. The alchemist developed an explosive gel that I smeared across the podium used by the enemy head of state the night before he would need to use it to calm the panicked citizenry. Then I called lightning on him, causing a huge explosion and a message in oil to ignite saying the invaders will suffer the gods wrath. It was such a fun game.
I think that the good Wizard is that type of character that waits the party to find the solution, and if there isn't one he will solve the problem just using one of his precious slots. But this is wanderful, to play a good wizard you must maximize and comprehend what your party can or can't do, and just giving them the way to do what they can't. It's on some way the counter part of the cleric but on utility instead of supporting. The cleric is the guy that when you are falling, when you are failing, comes apon your side and says: "Go my friend, I am with you!" and you just raise and come back!
6:40 this is why y'all are my favorite DnD content creators on RU-vid. You really seem to listen to the community, and you strive to make sure everyone knows that your viewpoints don't invalidate anyone else's.
So one of the articles I read, way back in second edition, was making the fighter matter. Because "fighter fights", but what about preparing camp? It's the fighter that determines escape points, "fighting" against siege engines, setting up the battlefield, and other very mundane things that you would worry about in a fight, other than just hitting things.
Path of the beast main here, at level 6 being able to spiderclimb, breath underwater and swim at walking speed, ND a super jump adds a lot of utility outside of combat. As a reborn I picked stealth as a skill, and I get to add a d6 to skill checks. Making me an infiltration barbarian
I don't think this is spoilers - but here's some space anyways A definitive list 1. Bard 2. Wizard 3. Druid 4. Paladin 5. Cleric 6. Fighter 7. Artificer 8. Rogue 9. Sorcerer 10. Warlock 11. Ranger 12. Barbarian 13. Monk In truth the Warlock and Ranger have the sameish score - but I gave the edge to warlock for charisma casting being better for multiclassing and having better sustained damage. The scores in this ranking are the same though.
I took a level in Rogue, six levels in Way of Shadow Monk, and the rest of my levels to 20 in Swashbuckler Rogue and it's been a really fun ride. I DEX AC tank, I've got Extra Attack, I've got expertise in a bunch of stuff, I've got reliable talent, I can teleport shadow to shadow, I almost never lack advantage/and or the ability to apply sneak attack between teleport and the Swashbuckler suite of abilities, I've got uncanny dodge... it's great. The Rogue stuff installed teeth in the Way of Shadow abilities, and the Monk DEX tanking and ability to spam Stunning Strike with 6 ki points and regen on a short rest makes a really great ninja build. ...can't imagine trying to play straight Monk though. Oof.
I think the rogue levels are what's doing most of the work here though. Even with 6! levels of monk (that's a big commitment to a multi-class) you're still using the monk abilities as "support" for the rogue abilities.
Great video. This exercise was a lot of fun to listen to. I don't disagree to any degree that would wildly swing any of these assessments, but I had a good chuckle when you went over the barbarian and how bad the class is at negotiating and support. My players are nearing the end of their current big campaign milestone and have been together for a few years. Since my campaign is actually never ending, I get players and characters who come and go. When this happens, I allow for a single player to play multiple characters when the table is a little light. One of the players took over a barbarian from a previous mission as he's friends with that player's main character. When the group expanded, I suggested we drop him back to NPC status until they get to the BBEG, when each player will run multiple characters in a massive multi-session war. The player agreed and said, "You do his voice better anyhow, so just have him act as a companion." So the barbarian is actually their guide and delivers lore (like a bard or learned mage). helps them find clues (as an investigator), and often acts as a liaison to other NPCs (as their negotiator). The takeaway for any player should be that they can build and play any type of character they want and have a lot of fun with it. It doesn't matter if the class is primarily focused on combat skills, they can still be well rounded and bring a lot of other value as long as a player is creative and wants to take on the challenge. It's part of what makes RPGs so much fun.
I really wish someone notable in the D&D community could talk about how it's okay to want to play a "Cleric, paladin, Celestial warlock, or divine soul sorcerer" that actually enjoys the religious aspects of that class. Role-playing giving their deity glory or doing morning prayers... or trying to encourage a PC or NPC that has no previous religious focus to join the temple of whatever deity you follow. There is a huge stigma about these characters and a completely unnecessary comparison to real life religions or bad experiences in real life, that allows for people to just shut down other players choices or actions because it's so popular to hate stuff like that
My group tends to play a lot of “non-religious” clerics. I’ve taken a different twist with my current character, a Battlemaster who is a Roman Legionnaire. He is very polytheistic, and makes offerings and sacrifices every chance he gets. Every time he returns to town, every temple gets a visit. Before every mission, a sacrifice gets made. These gods are not “his gods” but he pays them all respect.
There is? While I knew that the agnostic/atheistic bent was popular among the wider community, I was unaware that the devoutly religious were _unpopular._ The comparisons is a bit odd, since most of them have at best a superficial semblance to real world religions.
I don't think there's an issue with a character being devout. The problems come when they're evangelistic, constantly attempting to impose their religion on everyone else, and/or when they're inflexible, refusing to work together with the party or haranguing them about their actions. D&D is a TEAM game and none of these actions are good for team goals or morale. Some great roleplaying can be had from WISE clerics who lead through example, and are able to advise other troubled characters who come to them for help. I've seen plenty of within-party conversions happen in this context.
I already have to deal with the Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door in real life. What in the world would make you believe that'd I'd enjoy re-enacting that interaction in my gaming time, and why did you think I'd be *less* annoyed?
Having a religious character in the group is fine, you can try to convince others once too, but if all your devout PC is doing is blabbering about the supremacy of their god and that you have to join their cult etc. its not only annoying, but you also heavily misunderstood the religious aspect of a PC. Even the most devout cleric of a god has a personality of his own and an upbringing and life outside of his religion, family, friends, maybe even lovers. If you can only play him as a cookie-cutter run-of-the-mill blank slate carbon copy of his gods tenets, you might as well just not play that at all.
I think Monty’s comment about the Wiz coming on-line in late Tier 2 highlights a potential need to have a second layer analysis based on tiers of play. For instance a rogue is the best in class at low levels when it can pick all those locks and before the wizard can actually reshape reality. And given the stars show most campaigns die before PCs reach level 12…
I've had a big discussion with friends. Magic melee builds specifically (Swords bard, bladesinger, hexblade, eldritch knight). Talking overall, which one does it best? (I know there's other classes that could. The take is here that the subclass is designed for the magic melee not saying another class could or couldn't do it)
The 6 member party is easy: Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, Rogue, Bard & Wizard. For the 5 person party you can drop the Bard and still cover all 7 roles. The 4 person party can be covered in all 7 roles by S/A classes Paladin, Rogue, Wizard & your extra pick of Bard or Cleric to double up on Negotiator, Investigator and/or Support. The 3 person party can be S/A covered by the Paladin, Rogue & Wizard in all 7 roles. And, as M & K said, your two person party covers 5 different S/A roles with Paladin & Bard or Paladin & Wizard.
Monk is truly the jack of all trades master of none (where as the bard is the master of all in 5e truly) they are the best at being annoying to the enemies on the field and provide some unique out of combat effects. They will never be the peak at anything, but they will never be detrimental to a party comp and can fill those roles if the party is lacking (except probably negotiator but even then tongue of the sun and moon can help with language barriers!). I just wish WotC wasn't afraid to give them the best subclass or give them abilities that elevates them. I think they are so afraid cause they don't need weapons to do damage but when a fighter and barbarian can have a 2d6 or 1d12 weapon at level 1, what's the issue?
Wizard does front lining better than any class in the game. They have spells like tensers that makes them have tons of hp or spells like fizbans palladium shield that gives them tons of resistances. They have many many ways of getting more than one concentration, combining these spells together gives you a class more tanky than barbarian, have better saves than a Paladin, do comparable damage to fighters and STILL out class all other full casters. The only thing they cant do very well is healing, even then they do have access to some weaker healing spells.
The monk i agree with. It doesn'tfit nicely with these roles. Its not a jack of all trades, but it provides a thing that no other class can provide. It has unmatched mobility so IT can do targetted strikes on key npcs, it can move across the battle field responding to new issues arising. They have solid HP, a decent AC that, and depending on the subclass they can function differently. I played a Sun soul monk with a speed of 90 ft that could increase even more. I was blasting everything and causing a nuisance for the enemy. The monk can synergize with various races that can make the monk incredibly powerful. But, high speed is very useful on its own. I do think it may be a little underpowered especially in damage, and I think it might need more ki and more abilities to use ki. But, I never had any problems with it. It was a lot of fun.
Happy to see the Ranger slowly gaining more traction over time. I've been enjoying my Tortle (St)Ranger Gloomstalker and he's excelled at almost everything but negotiations lol.
As a sort of fix, which will bring the Monk a bit more in line with other classes, something I do in my campaigns is: Monks add their proficiency bonus to their Armor Class. Monks are martial artists, they should be all about not getting hit, especially by non-martial artists.
I run a game for a two player party, two half-elf women travelling the world together, and I think they make a fantastic team: A paladin and a wizard. According to your ranking they could work together for an A or S in every single category (except maybe negotiation). And I can only confirm that watching them play. Negotiation isn't a problem either, the paladin built a little in that direction and it works just fine. Their actual big weakness is how bad both of them are at perception, I get to surprise them a _lot_ :D
Something I was thinking about during both the Barbarian and Rogue. Hp is a resource. I think of Barbarians as alright explorers just because many times you can survive the consequences of having the audacity to go where you please. On the other hand, Rogues may not have spell slots that deplete during the day, but taking a few points of damage here and there does add up.
I think part of the reason that Ranger was so heavily joked about coming into 5e is because the 4e Ranger just had absolutely absurd damage. 5e swapped a chunk of that damage for utility, and while that's fine, the initial implementation of that utility was really situational, and just didn't feel right. The buffs over the course of 5e's lifespan have breathed some more useful utility and better damaging options into the class, while not bringing back the sheer monstrosity that was the level 1 ranger with Twin Strike throwing out 30 dpr.
With the information you've provided, I would say one of the best four person parties would be the following: Vengeance Paladin, Twilight Cleric, Bladesinger Wizard, and an Eloquence Bard with a two level dip in Hexblade. Would cover all the bases while having an entire party that could throw down in combat. If I were to add a fifth character it would be a Clockwork Sorcerer who also had a two or three level dip in Hexblade.
Depending on what level they are - for anything with wish spells I'd go with: 4 Chronurgist Wizards. frontlining/dmg: unleash the horde of bound balors/mariliths/enter favourite extraplanar monster here. Utility- they're 4 wizards! Support - bound autumn eladrin or celstials with healing, plus they're 4 wizards! exploration: they're 4 wizards with endless planar binding options! Investigation: they're 4 wizards!
Loved the rankings. I would note that you rule out many of the rogue's strengths by definition when you in the beginning of the video ya'll said that skills can't be the thing that allow you to be the specialist in a given area. Definitely need the non-skill cheat codes to excel above the other classes like you said, though.
Best two person party is Wizard and Bard (Bladesinger and Lore/Eloquence Bard; or Divination/Chronurgy/Conjuration Wizard and Sword/Whispers Bard). Second best two person party is Wizard and Cleric (Transmutation and Storm/Forge Cleric; or Abjuration/Enchanter and Light/Trickery Cleric)
I think the fundamental problem of the Monk is that the class is built to have a little bit of literally everything... which means they are passable at almost nothing. Monks often CAN do something for any role that needs doing, it's just that almost any other character would be able to do it better than the monk can.
And the larger the group is, the more valuable specialists are and less important versatility is. Versatility is only a boon if they can also handle their key role adequately.
For artificer I gotta say they're high ranking in a lot of things because they're kinda skill monkeys and with infusions and prepared spells they can really do most roles well.
I think something that would actually need a video, is how a background can make a class that isn't good at something pretty good, for example my Wizard in my current DnD game has the criminal background and they have been very good at stealthing and sneaking into places like a rouge, in fact they often go with the rouge somewhere and is usually helping to distract guards with things like "gust" or since they are an Evocation wizard if they get detected they can be the emergency counter, using "fireballs", "thunderwave" and "fog cloud" to get themselves and the rouge out of tight spots. Does also mean that should the Rouge not be available or theirs two jobs that need doing that require stealth at the same time the Wizard can do the job.
I know a guy who played a wizard from lv1 to 14 and he acted as a tank. He was a abjuration wiz and took a single level of barbarian. He was the most effective tank in the party
My favorite kind of cleric is the Arcana domain. Gives a lot of explorer credit to that d ranking, and nothing feels nicer than using arcane eye to map the dungeon before you go in
Gonna pitch it again. I'd love to see a tier ranking video of the different monster types. You guys touched upon it in your top x-level monsters videos, but I'd like to see how the monster types fare as a whole. It'd be useful for new DMs to know too. 🙂
As I'm getting back into D&D after a looooong sebaticle (I played Basic, BECMI, and AD&D) - it's been about 30 years - I've been watching a lot of your character class & subclass videos, including some about multi-classing. The 'Absurd Character' was especially entertaining. As a thought experiment, I wonder if you would consider doing a video about multi-classing in all of the primary spellcasting classes - Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric. Those are the 5 that I found that spellcast starting at lvl.1, so I was curious what a combo of those might look like. Would you level them evenly, or take 1 level in some and concentrate mostly on 1 or 2? Or, alternately, what 3 of the 5 primary spellcasters would you multi-class together, and how? Anyway, it was just a thought that rattled around in my brain after watching the 'Absurd Character'.
Perhaps monk should’ve gotten a better score in support because of stunning strike? A stunned enemy can change a fight, and with 4 attacks a lv 5 monk can burn all their ki to to stun a crucial enemy. It’s not the best strategy but credit where it’s due. Even my monk where I didn’t care about my wisdom with a 13 save has had clutch moments stunning enemies to save the party, they can’t attack easy to hit and drop concentration on spells. I do think it’s silly that a fighter can be a better boxer then a monk (they get d8s at lv 1) but at least they have good mobility. And I think that mobility plays well with the stunning potential of the monk. So you aren’t dps you aren’t a tank but you help in all those rolls like you said.
Other caster's get so many control spells though. Grease, web, hypnotic pattern, banishment, wall of force, synaptic static, forcecage, sleet storm, plant growth, spike growth(is that what it's called?), repelling blast on warlock is at will, spirit guardians halves movement speed, dominate person/monster, hold person/monster, command, hideous laughter, mind whip, sometimes darkness. I'm sure there are a couple others as well. Most of those target better saves, multiple creatures, last longer, inflict similar or worse effects, or are lower level. Caster's have a lot more resources to use compared to monks as well. Stunning strike will only get worse, caster's will only get more options as they level.
@@ppleberrynd true but I’m not saying monk is a secret S tier I’m saying stunning a target for a round that can’t be dispelled is pretty good. And you can increase your odds of landing it with silvery barbs, lucky, etc (or 2 levels in divination wizard but no multiclassing for now). I mainly say it should be a support feature because 1) monk damage sucks ass so the paladin and barbarian get more out of it and 2) the spell casters get to auto fail dex and str saves and 3) suppose the first hit stuns a target, so then you move on down the line, up to 4 stuns a round as ki permits, not a true aoe but still potent. Honestly though I mainly bring it up because stunning strike is the only truly good feature monks have, everything else is eaither situational or underpowered.
Straight-classed Paladin, the Frontline rating I would drop to a B: they only essentially have decent AC (Heavy Armor, possibly a shield at the expense of damage) and decent HP. If you chart these out, they don't actually survive all that long on the frontline. Note, I consider the frontline an iffy category at best anyway, because being 'good' at throwing yourself into a blender isn't a particularly great thing - in terms of damage taken you will take less overall by far by just staying back (ranged damage from monsters is pitifully poor in 5e). If we take dips into play, a Wizard X/Cleric 1 has the same passive AC (armor and shield), while also having the Shield and Absorb Elements spell for active defence. HP is lower, but not actually by as much as you may consider. You wouldn't WANT to be a frontliner, but they can actually mitigate more damage than a straight-classed Paladin. If we take a Sorcerer/Hexblade dip for Paladin then the same defence is met, with some more HP. I would rate both these dips as A for frontliner, S for damage reduction if staying ranged (Eldritch Blast for Paladin with the Warlock dip). The damage for a straight-classed Paladin I would maybe drop to B as well: the lack of a ranged option really hinders it here. The damage is also not as good as a Fighter, but then Fighter I would give S. Still, that lack of ranged makes the damage both more unreliable and more risky, which isn't a good thing. Negotiator would agree with Kelly on a B: little options outside of Cha and proficiency. Support I would drop to a B, maybe A: the spell list for Paladins is actually pretty poor and largely selfish. Really, its just Bless here, with the occasional Protection from Evil and Good thrown in when appropriate. The Aura of Protection is what is doing near all the heavy lifting here - without it I would drop it straight to a C. One issue with the Aura is the range - targeting someone not in the aura is often completely viable. With the Aura, I would rate this as B if any melee are in the team, A if all are ranged including the Paladin - which puts straight-classed Paladin at B since they can't go ranged. So, for me, Paladin: B, B, D, D, C, B, B
I gotta agree on the diversity arguments for the fighter and barbarian. I played a fighter for my longest campaign, and being a very political and social kind of setting, I often found myself under utilized. I found when I took the "tactical assessment" maneuver later in the story, it was really refreshing because it was the first fighter granted ability I could use outside of combat. In contrast, I have a level 5 ranger now, who despite being built with a laser focus on damage optimization, still has lots of skills that are usable in non combat scenarios, making him a lot more satisfying overall.
Sorry if someone already mentioned this, but at 2:25, there's no link to the seven party roles video. I'll search for that video, but if you guys have time, you might want to add that link in the video or at least in the description. Thanks.
I think the problem with the rogue is that it has one subclass that is absolutely mind-boggling insane compared to the others. Arcane tricksters get booming blade and an invisible mage hand and limited spell casting. An arcane trickster with a Shadow blade using the booming blade can trip will out damage almost anything else that you could throw at your enemies against a single Target. Even their limited spell casting is such a force multiplier for what is already a rogue
I have long said that Rangers were one of the most fun classes in the game, and especially great for beginners. As the rankings here show, a ranger can participate and contribute in most situations, which is something that many other classes can't say.
From my one game of monk, I think its sleeper support as long as you have another support. Took mobile and spent most combats dragging the paladin back to the cleric after the paladin got crit to zero every fight. You are a great fire fighter.
Ran a level 3-20 campaign single class party of Paladins the only rule for character generation was you had to hit level 1 Paladin by level 3 and level 3 Paladin by level 10, ironically other than the huge village of undead the party skipped from level to level, encounter to encounter, Exploration, Combat, and Roleplay we had 2 pure Paladins, a Paladin Druid, a Paladin Sorcerer, and a Paladin Artificer. Was a great campaign but when I said so now which class do we want to do next they the general message was "I don't think we would have survived with a different class", everyone walking around with plate was interesting from a combat perspective
I'd up explorer on Barbarian to C. Your health is a resource higher than the rest. Running through traps and increased speed and constitution to keep running are helpful to the party at times.
My cleric with 21 AC, Damage every enemy turn and like 2 attacks on his turn, while healing and having lots of utility spells for roleplay, exploration, utility and using the power of his religion to help in negotiations: *slowly sips tea*
Monk is one of my favorite classes. In the current campaign I'm in, I'm acting as an avoidance tank, as long as he has Ki. Still fairly low level, so doesn't have that much of a Ki pool.
I played in a campaign with a guy doing that, I had a blast being the other tank alongside him. Between a cleric dip for Shield of Faith and some magic items he could get his AC up to 22-23. The player was also RPing his character as taunting the enemies, singing "Betcha can't hit me, Betcha can't hit me" the DM was usually both amused and annoyed.
As someone who primarily plays spell casters, my opinion is very biased, but to me it seems like for every problem there is a spell or wizard subclass that solves it better than anyone else. They just don't play by the rules, especially past level 10. Even tanking, both the blade singer and abjuration wizard are excellent at taking damage, but unlike the martial classes, they can shut down enemy spell casters as well with counter magic. Obviously they have the best AoE damage in the game other than maybe the cleric's spirit guardians, but if you use offensive concentration spells you out DPS on single target damage as well. And their vast spell list gives them arguably S in all the non-combat areas.
@@Miggy19779 Yeah, once you've burned through any legendary resistances, the martials may as well go home, because those two subclasses will just end the combat singlehandedly.
@@aldrinvendt8524 Indeed, and when you look at some epic monsters without legendary resistances like Balor, or even a Solar, it's just cringe, auto win a battle.
Love the video! It's great to see this class-by-class and summarize your thoughts on their overall packages, and in general, I think I agree with most of your assessments. I'm going to miss this series but can't wait for you both to do something just as engaging. I know I've vocalized before that I think the Bard a bit overrated in these rankings, and I still feel that way. The problem with the Bard is that you cannot choose to be great at everything due to the limited spells known (except Negotiator, imo, which deserves the S). I reaaaaally think that the Cleric and Druid get the edge in Support by the sheer virtue of being able to change their prepared spells. They both adapt so greatly. I will admit I'm a bit biased given I've played two classes more than the Bard, though, so who knows, maybe I could be convinced someday!
Bardic inspiration is incredibly strong though regardless of the spell choices. If the bard player uses that effectively, they can perform two support roles in a single turn, giving the warrior a bardic inspiration, and then casting minor illusion of a box around the rogue, giving them immediate sneak attack. The action economy of the bard's support ability is second to none. And that's just during combat encounters. Bards get support power during social/exploration encounters, with spells like suggestion or comprehend languages. Also, support characters almost never ever get the glory. And the bard very rarely is the one who stands head and shoulders above the rest. Instead, they're the one that tips the scales at just the right time to help the party succeed. Comparatively, when druids and clerics are relevant, they steal the show. In their specific situations, they're heroes. But they're not fantastic everywhere. There will be occasions when they think "ok, this isn't my time". Properly played, the bard is never not relevant. The problem with bards is that most players struggle to play them well. There's too much to decide to do. A good bard player is one who's studying the entire event especially when it's not their turn. A well-played bard is essentially the General of the team, tipping the scales wherever they need to be tipped. A badly played bard is basically a monk, someone who's not awful anywhere, but not really effective either. Something M&K mentioned in one of their videos is that the jack-of-all trades moniker is wrong. "Bards are the jack of all trades and the master of any two or three that they want". If the player can't handle thinking about all the trades, they're not going to be good at them. That being said, I've never played a cleric or druid and I freaking love playing the bard. I love seeing the joy on my party's face when I turn a fail into a success. And I have not experienced the joy unique to druids or clerics.
I do think that the bard’s damage dealing is underrated, with magical secrets you can get really powerful damage spells (such as fireball). Paired with animate objects which u use as a bonus action bards can do a lot of damage. Or if u a valour/swords bard you can use green flame blade and shadow blade and basically do divine smite amount of damage.
Druid is one of those classes where I think your subclass really matters. If you play a Circle of the Moon and are wildshaping into high damage beasts, then you suffer at the ability to offer support since you can't cast spells as an animal. This really depends on your game. I've played into too many games that end up being around one combat encounter before we get a long rest, and that shapes exactly what a class is going to be doing in that combat.
The one ranking I strongly disagree with is Wizard as a D in frontline. It's the combination of Mage Armor, False Life and Shield as level 1 spells. And on top of those Mirror Image and a concentration spell to make you harder to hit (starting with Blur), with Misty Step in your pocket to disengage with. Every spell I've mentioned is at max level 2 so cheap as chips to learn, which is what separates them from Sorcerer and Warlock here. At low level it's a lot of spell slots but worth it to not die, at mid levels that's much less of an issue and it's more the spell memorisation. But you can choose to take and often it's worth it. And that's just base wizard. Either a tanky subclass or level or two dip for shields and armor and they are the S class (Better AC than Paladin, better effective HP via upcast False Life, Paladin has better saves but Wizard has Counter Spell). Most wizards end up as squishy soft targets because their players assume they will always be squishy soft targets and don't feel it's worth investing the resources into not being that.
I remember playing the monk as my first class and I still had fun, but I could only continue to be jealous at all the stuff my other players had/were doing. Never gone back to the monk :(
I think it's fair to say the Monk doesn't excel in the party roles that have been layed out here, but imo that's because they actually fill a role that's unique to them. If you drop a party into a static room in front of a group of baddies, then the monk will do decently well but be outclassed by the likes of the fighter and other martial classes. However, once you introduce any kind of changing/evolving combat scenario, it becomes clear that the monk's mobility and ability to hit many targets makes them the most versatile and adaptable martial class. In a fight where the terrain changes, enemy reinforcements come into play, or the party needs to cover any significant distance, the fighter, barbarian and paladin are often gonna get siloed into a single front of battle, whereas the monk is gonna be able to adapt and cover multiple areas with a level of effectiveness that can only be approximated by a wild-shaping druid or a teleporting spellcaster. The monk is also surprisingly hardy with unarmored defense, the Evasion skill and the ability to dodge as a bonus action. Diamond Soul is a high-level skill, but it can't be overstated how much having proficiency in all saving throws increases the monk's survivability. At high levels, those abilities together are gonna let the monk breeze past attacks that could take down a fighter or a Paladin. Do I think the monk could use some more love, and do I agree that they especially need a better selection of subclasses? Absolutely. But I think their core suite of features actually has a lot of great things going for it that is often overlooked because they don't slot neatly or obviously into the roles we associate with other classes. I think it's especially unfair to say that a monk on average isn't gonna get as many cool moments as another class; that's incredibly subjective and dependant on so many other factors, and in the multiple campaigns I've played with monks they've been just as effective and had just as many moments to shine as the other classes.
Everything you said that the Monk is good at in the very specific, not at all everyday encounter you laid out, the rogue does better, and does real damage while they're at it. I found it especially funny when you pointed to Diamond Soul as making the monk "hardier" than a Paladin, who's had a better version of that ability since level 6 that he also gets to share with allies (Cha mod should be >= proficiency bonus until level 17, not to mention that the Paladin adds it to all saves, even the ones they are already proficient in).
having done a dwarf barbarian, just from background stuff mine would have been a solid C in investigation and exploration, even negotiation was a plausible C based on situations.... front line and dmg though spot on with A.... just make sure your magic users are NOT going to fireball when you rage and charge... we almost needed a new mage.... clerics are a unique class, everyone thinks they are not front line or big dmg dealers, but i've seen my share of clerics who "simply from what god they worship" are super awesome front liners.. and as for dmg, how many creatures actually take BONUS dmg from holy weapons and/blunt weapons "anything undead for starters"... fighters seem too similar to barbarians.... except i've never seen a fighter out dmg a barbarian... also since a fighter build is easy to basically copy MOST melee classes, i think their utility should be higher naturally... what kills me is how a fighter can also outdo a ranger in ranged dmg despite ranged weapons being a ranger focus MOST of the time.... speaking of rangers, my experience playing them is while fun, they are more of a roleplaying support/explorer character... and maybe my build was wrong, but front line for me would be a D, dmg would be a C... lets face it, rangers "especially low lvl" tend to be in same category as druids... they even get a few heals if needed.. and as i stated above, despite being ranged weapon focused, it dont take long for a fighter to out perform the classic ranged weapon specialist.. people expect their rangers to be like Aragorn or Legolas in LotR... its bad when a feat or 2 on a fighter makes Aragorn or Legolas on steroids....
You didn't want to break them down in tiers..... But I did based off of your scoring. D=0, C=1, B=2,A=3,S=4. Adding both your scores and diving by 2. Artificer = 14.5 Barbarian = 6 Bard = 16.5 Cleric = 13 Druid = 15.5 Fighter = 7 Monk = 5 Paladin = 13.5 Ranger = 13 Rogue = 13.5 Sorcerer = 14 Warlock = 13 Wizard = 15
Really, the simple fix for Warlocks so they don't have to take Eldritch Blast is to simply take all the Invocations that effect Eldritch Blast and make it for any damage related cantrip. So, instead of Agonizing Blast being Eldritch Blast only, make it effect any damaging cantrip. Eldritch Spear, change it to increase range of any damaging cantrip by 2.5 times. Grasp of Hadar, again, any damaging cantrip instead of Eldritch Blast only. Lance of Lethargy, same thing, any damaging cantrip. Repelling Blast, any damaging cantrip. This change makes Warlock far more interesting.
For barbarian I would argue Threats and intimidation and brute presence would be effective in negotiations And survival and being a triable out door natural Wander the concept of a barbarian would be explorer based at least in an outdoor setting
Cleric is overall supporter and great every time. Druid has connection with nature and simply does not excel in dead environments (yea, builded areas are really deadzones with mainly singular species). Druid can somewhat be even greater than a cleric in the nature, but inside dungeons or towns they are just seeking something that lives. Nurturing a sappling that sprouts out from the cracks of the street to a full grown tree in the city is just a druidic thing, specially if they stay in dead environment too long.
I would love to see a video where you consider how you would alter the classes a bit to improve the versatility of some of these one trick pony subclasses: the barbarian, fighter, and monk.
Limited spell casting....and yet you can turn spell slots into spell points and them turn those into other spell slots. Also at lower levels yeah staying out of the front lines makes sense but at higher levels with the right spells front lines is doing able. Take a shadow sorc who can see in their darkness spells and set the spell in a room and taking out all the enemies because no one else can see what is going on. As for Warlock my Hexblade always had eldritch blast because having a ranged attack when being melee is useful. Asking and Rogue/ranger/barbarian who uses a bow along side their melee.....except eldritch blast doesn't have ammo.
The Warlock tends to be an Eldritch Blaster with the Patron tacked on for flavor. It might be interesting to allow a variant that turns that on its head. This character MUST select the two Patron Spells before any other spells from that level, and may NOT take Eldritch Blast. However, they then select their Cantrips and other spells from ANY list, in negotiation with the DM based on what the Patron would likely teach. This really comes into its own at high levels. Why shouldn't a Fey Warlock be able to take Wall of Thorns, a Fiend Earthquake, or a Great Old One Maze?
If there was a Style category, the Monk would probably be an A or an S because nothing is quite as satisfying as being able to Bruce Lee something, and then Jackie Chan out of there.
Hey guys, you have a couple of times the full word of a label replaced with just the first letter (such as Rogue and Bard), just thought I'd let you guys know so you can see where in your process that slips under the table :)
