Favorite Class?

[Teapot Salty]

Hey guys. So I'm thinking of giving 5E a shot, and I was wondering what everyone's favorite class was so far, and why. That's about it, go nuts.

[Quarterling]

Bards hands down. I love most of the classes but bards really shine in this edition, mainly because they feel so "open" to play from having so many skills and access to spells or an extra attack. you can do so much with them and lay them very differently it's a lot of fun

[RedMage125]

I'm currently playing in one 5e game (Dragonborn Valor Bard), and DMing another.

I also like the Bard so far. Especially because a Bard can completely replace a Cleric as the party healer, which is good, because no one need feel "forced" to play the party Cleric. Druids also work just as well as Clerics in this edition.

From what I've seen as a DM, Monks seem pretty strong and a lot of fun to play. The guy playing a Rogue in both games I play in are also enjoying their class.

[Shadow]

I've always been a thief/rogue at heart when gaming, but I almost invariably multiclassed into some spellcasting. The 5e rogue offering a partial caster option right out of the gate hits it out of the park for me. My favorite character so far has been a gnomish arcane trickster with a wiz1 splash (for more cantrips, a little bit more diversity in spells, and a couple of rituals).

[AstralFire]

Also playing one and DMing another. I really like almost all of the classes, which is the first time that's been true of any edition of D&D for me. But if I had to pick just one, it'd be Bard. Ranger is probably my least; Beast Master just seems super awkward at levels 3 and 4.

[Gwendol]

I've tried the bard, which is the epitome of versatility, paladin, and ranger. The paladin feels very solid.

I'd like to roll up a monk at some point, or try my hand at a barbarian.

[Thrathgnar]

There are a ton of really fun classes this edition. I personally enjoy the barbarian for melee and warlock for magic the most, but there really isn't a single class I don't like. Bards are also epic, haven't gotten the pleasure to play one yet

[Ohnoeszz]

Not a single class, but I'm loving my Rogue/Warlock multiclass.

Mask of many faces (warlock invocation for disguise self at will) is by far my absolute favorite single ability in the game. I constantly have opportunities to frame enemies for theft, gain access to restricted areas, or advance through a keep by becoming one of its guards.

Most recently I found our group a back door to a dungeon by disguising myself as a lieutenant, approaching another lieutenant and informing her of intruders as my group waited in ambush in the previous room... She hits a switch, runs over to a secret passage and leads us directly to the boss we're trying to find.

Other classes I see doing well:

Fighter (Battlemaster) - if you're all about combat, look into this guy. He has a lot of interesting abilities.

Bard - he's anything you want him to be. You just need to get over the fact that you play a banjo while your group is in battle.

[Shadow]

Bard - he's anything you want him to be. You just need to get over the fact that you play a banjo while your group is in battle.

:biggrin:
That's fluff. You can just as easily buy a component pouch and stop playing the banjo any time you like.

[silveralen]

That's difficult. Of the classes I've played, my favorite is paladin so far.

Second place is my rogue/fighter multiclass, but the problem with including that is I wouldn't enjoy it nearly as much without the fighter or rogue components. They complement each other perfectly for what I want. Otherwise... yeah it'd be hard to pick between this and my paladin for most fun so far.

Monk is the class I really want to try, but haven't had a chance play. It looks fun though, just not sure if I'd like shadow or open hand better.

[ericp65]

In every edition of every game I've ever played, Ranger (or equivalent) has always been my favorite class/profession/schtick for a character...although some races make better Rangery characters than others.

[Iximaz]

I haven't played 5e yet, but I'm itching to give a wizard a try. Spell slots, woo-hoo! I've always played a wizard in every campaign I've done. Besides, what's not to love about the class that tells the laws of physics to sit down and shut up? :smallbiggrin:

[Ashrym]

Bard. I like versatility and subtle impact.

I also really enjoy tome warlocks, thief rogues, and either champion (melee) or battlemaster (archer) fighters.

Lately I have been playing around with monks and I like the open hand monks.

The real question is what do you enjoy doing when you play?

[TheOOB]

Wizard is traditionally my favorite class, but I think Lore Bard edges it out in this edition for me.

I don't know why, but I have a thing for playing the character who controls the battlefield while letting his allies actually kill things.

[Felvion]

Refering to the op, i've realised one thing about 5th edition. Whatever class you liked in 3.5 (i haven't played 4rth) you will find it in the 5th and you'll like it more.
I mean, take the rogue. It's more fun, capable of more things. Subpaths can cover the roles of the most popular PRC. I really wonder if there is any rogue player unsatisfied out there.
Take the fighter. Lot's of versatility and awesome new defensive abilities. What i like most is that it no longer requires a feat to shove someone and you can grapple as one of your many attacks, things that a fighter should be capable of doing by default!
The cleric is still powerfull as a full caster and reliable in melee. The paths and the channelings offer moch more than the "old" domains and really diversify clerics. Now the cleric is more thematic than ever!
Wizard... He's still the god of the game (imho). Some people were disapointed cause they were used to more spell slots at early levels but really this guy can break the game. You can specialise without any cost, taking flavorful abilities instead of just slots and spells. Cantrips are now at will (how could one possibly run out of light?) while the damaging ones stay usefull even during mid game. Also, something i really like is that your dc is calculated regardless the spell level and that spell attacks are based on your casting stat!

Those four classes (the most dnd iconic ones) are far better to play in 5th. Also, everyone can have a background that adds skills and knowledge regardless of his class which i find realistic.

My overall point is that this edition offers more capabilities to whatever character you wish to play and ensures that almost everyone stays competitive and potent no matter what he choses to play. Staying away from multiclassing is the safest choise to make this almost go away. I can accept that some people may not like the new mechanics or the new rules but just when you compare the class capabilities this edition is better than, the most popular that far, 3.5.

[ghost_warlock]

Perhaps obviously, my favorite class is warlock, specifically Old One tome warlocks. Bard is also quite good. I still think that wizard is the most powerful class with the largest variety, and nicest, toys to play with. But at least other classes have a few nice baubles they can play with.


Refering to the op, i've realised one thing about 5th edition. Whatever class you liked in 3.5 (i haven't played 4rth) you will find it in the 5th and you'll like it more.

Except if your favorite class is psion, binder, artificer, factotum, wilder, etc. :smalltongue: I suppose you could play a fake beguiler or dread necromancer as a wizard, but sorcerer doesn't really do the trick for either of those and you'd be shifting to an Int-based class if you went wizard. Sorcerer would probably work well enough for a warmage, though.

[Teapot Salty]

Refering to the op, i've realised one thing about 5th edition. Whatever class you liked in 3.5 (i haven't played 4rth) you will find it in the 5th and you'll like it more.
I mean, take the rogue. It's more fun, capable of more things. Subpaths can cover the roles of the most popular PRC. I really wonder if there is any rogue player unsatisfied out there.
Take the fighter. Lot's of versatility and awesome new defensive abilities. What i like most is that it no longer requires a feat to shove someone and you can grapple as one of your many attacks, things that a fighter should be capable of doing by default!
The cleric is still powerfull as a full caster and reliable in melee. The paths and the channelings offer moch more than the "old" domains and really diversify clerics. Now the cleric is more thematic than ever!
Wizard... He's still the god of the game (imho). Some people were disapointed cause they were used to more spell slots at early levels but really this guy can break the game. You can specialise without any cost, taking flavorful abilities instead of just slots and spells. Cantrips are now at will (how could one possibly run out of light?) while the damaging ones stay usefull even during mid game. Also, something i really like is that your dc is calculated regardless the spell level and that spell attacks are based on your casting stat!

Those four classes (the most dnd iconic ones) are far better to play in 5th. Also, everyone can have a background that adds skills and knowledge regardless of his class which i find realistic.

My overall point is that this edition offers more capabilities to whatever character you wish to play and ensures that almost everyone stays competitive and potent no matter what he choses to play. Staying away from multiclassing is the safest choise to make this almost go away. I can accept that some people may not like the new mechanics or the new rules but just when you compare the class capabilities this edition is better than, the most popular that far, 3.5.

I've heard stories that ranger (my general favorite flavor and almost always the first character I make in a new addition) is still rather bland though, is that true?

[AstralFire]

I've heard stories that ranger (my general favorite flavor and almost always the first character I make in a new addition) is still rather bland though, is that true?

Bland, I'd say not. A lot less so than 3.5. Awkward, though...

[Shadow]

Bland, I'd say not. A lot less so than 3.5. Awkward, though...

It's only (arguably) awkward for two levels if you take one specific subclass. And I don't even agree with that assessment.
The claims that Ranger sucks are completely theory based and come from people that haven't actually played the class mostly. Very few of those complaints are bound in actual experience.
Ranger is improved overall, just like almost every other class.

[Ohnoeszz]

It's only (arguably) awkward for two levels if you take one specific subclass. And I don't even agree with that assessment.
The claims that Ranger sucks are completely theory based and come from people that haven't actually played the class mostly. Very few of those complaints are bound in actual experience.
Ranger is improved overall, just like almost every other class.

I've played in a group that had ranger. He was underpowered and bored. Part of it had to do with a game style where survivalism was unimportant but generally the ranger felt like all he did in combat was role dice to hit with his bow and he had nothing to do outside combat. It seems like a really narrow class that is better in low fantasy.

[Feldarove]

My favorite class I've played is Warlock. I played a Tome Warlock who took the Fiend Pact. I felt like I couldn't be touched!

My favorite class I have seen played by a fellow player is Barbarian. Its just so freaking beastly. Regardless of theoretical DPR, it often just seems like you do 10 million damage (especially when critting).

My favorite class I have seen played by a player when I am dm-ing is rogue. They definitely define your role and tools better in this edition. The rogue seems like he is almost too good and too many things.

[Shadow]

I've played in a group that had ranger. He was underpowered and bored. Part of it had to do with a game style where survivalism was unimportant but generally the ranger felt like all he did in combat was role dice to hit with his bow and he had nothing to do outside combat. It seems like a really narrow class that is better in low fantasy.

I could see that as a valid complaint for a fighter, but in that case I'd have to ask the player why he chose fighter to begin with.
I do not find that a valid complaint for an half caster with a whole slew of class abilities.
It sounds to me like he wanted to play full a caster and rolled up a ranger anyway.

[silveralen]

I've played in a group that had ranger. He was underpowered and bored. Part of it had to do with a game style where survivalism was unimportant but generally the ranger felt like all he did in combat was role dice to hit with his bow and he had nothing to do outside combat. It seems like a really narrow class that is better in low fantasy.

AFB, but doesn't ranger have a pretty good collection of utility spells, like talking to animals or various detection spells, plus amazing stealth spells like pass without trace? Probably wasn't the best choice for a city based campaign, but I have a hard time seeing someone unable to find cool stuff outside combat with a ranger.

Are you sure he wasn't playing one of the non casting fighter variants with a bow? That'd make more sense, though the obvious solution would be to play a eldritch knight or ranger since that apparently bothered him.

[Ashrym]

I've played in a group that had ranger. He was underpowered and bored. Part of it had to do with a game style where survivalism was unimportant but generally the ranger felt like all he did in combat was role dice to hit with his bow and he had nothing to do outside combat. It seems like a really narrow class that is better in low fantasy.

I played a ranger a didn't feel underpowered or bored. Especially outside of combat.

I invested time playtesting every class after the PHB came out and didn't have any issues with underpowered or feeling I wasn't useful. I don't care for the flavor in some cases but I could work with any of them to feel like I was contributing.

It's too bad survival wasn't important in your DM's game style but even then the class is solid in combat, has an extra skill plus additional skill benefits, and is good with setting up and avoiding ambushes. Plus some spell odds and ends.

Any idea what your friend specifically expected to do outside of combat?

[Falling Icicle]

Warlock. The class has so much flavor, and I absolutely LOVE the pact of the tome. I'm a big fan of cantrips, and being able to learn every ritual spell in the game is just amazing.

[Thrathgnar]

The group I'm Dming has a Ranger, and so far he has proven one of the most useful in and out of combat. I can see how they would be a bit underwhelming in a campaign with no nature, but in most campaigns they are great. I'd say they are the best class for portraying the classic Wood Elf

[Ohnoeszz]

I played a ranger a didn't feel underpowered or bored. Especially outside of combat.

I invested time playtesting every class after the PHB came out and didn't have any issues with underpowered or feeling I wasn't useful. I don't care for the flavor in some cases but I could work with any of them to feel like I was contributing.

It's too bad survival wasn't important in your DM's game style but even then the class is solid in combat, has an extra skill plus additional skill benefits, and is good with setting up and avoiding ambushes. Plus some spell odds and ends.

Any idea what your friend specifically expected to do outside of combat?

His survival skills simply never came to bear in the campaign (which ended prematurely, so don't think this anecdote bears any weight on the higher levels). I don't remember what his favored terrain/enemies were but they rarely came up (terrain did once but I believe he just moved a bit quicker and that was it). He went with the Hunter subclass and Colossus Slayer got him a extra damage die a few times. His fighting style was archery and he was using hunter's mark a lot.

Combat-wise it was less that he was ineffective (though others were clearly doing better) and more that he found it boring. His character was tactically narrow.

Outside of combat, I was playing a rogue with expertise in stealth and perception - I was a better scout in most circumstances. In the wild, our wizard could just use find familiar for an owl, which is a far better scout than either of us. He didn't have charisma or social skills. I think most of his skills were wisdom based but I can't recall exactly what.

He is now playing a Battlemaster, pole-arm master (getting sentinel next) and is much happier with it. As I see it, he wanted somewhere that his character shined beyond simply rolling dice. Now he has the utility to help his group maneuver in combat and it's a more interesting and intricate playstyle, with more interaction with the group. This has little to do with the class itself but outside of combat he also swapped the classic reserved ranger personality for a hardy drunk with a high opinion of himself(much more conducive to interesting social situations).

I wouldn't say you can't have a worthwhile and fulfilling ranger, but I definitely think it falls short (mainly speaking about the Hunter subclass) in a comparison to virtually any other class:

- A rogue for instance gets uncanny dodge by level 5 and evasion by level 7. A Hunter chooses ONE of those or another option at level 15.

- Vanish - a level 14 ability - lets the Hunter use a bonus action to hide. That is something a rogue can do at level 2 while also getting dash and disengage as alternate options.

- The spellcasting is underwhelming to me considering the lack of spell slots and lack of spells known. Higher level spells don't exist until you've leveled a lot. The 10th level ability Hide in plain sight is also fairly redundant with pass without trace (one of the best low level ranger spells). To be clear, I wouldn't want them to have better casting, but rather better abilities.

- Many abilities are passive and setting specific. This leaves a lot of room for them to fail based upon the campaign.

The level 11 Multiattack seems like the best thing the class has to offer aside from 5th level spells that come late in the class progression. Many of the Hunter's abilities seem to have comparables that are gained at an earlier level for another class. Hell, the Bard can grab the 5th level Ranger spells earlier too.

[Freelance GM]

Hey guys. So I'm thinking of giving 5E a shot, and I was wondering what everyone's favorite class was so far, and why. That's about it, go nuts.

There isn't a single class I haven't liked from just reading the rules.

My personal favorite seat at the table is DM, so I don't always play, but when I do, I play a Variant Human Dragon Sorcerer.

Necromancer and Battlemaster are tied for second place, though.

[pwykersotz]

I'm usually the DM, but so far: Paladin. Specifically the Oath of Ancients.

[One Tin Soldier]

I've been particularly enjoying playing a Barbarian. There's just something satisfying when, at level 2, you can stay standing after 3 hits from an attack that would one-shot literally anyone else in the party. :smallbiggrin:


Except if your favorite class is psion, binder, artificer, factotum, wilder, etc. :smalltongue: I suppose you could play a fake beguiler or dread necromancer as a wizard, but sorcerer doesn't really do the trick for either of those and you'd be shifting to an Int-based class if you went wizard. Sorcerer would probably work well enough for a warmage, though.

See also: Swordsages. You can replicate them with Monks (with a touch of rogue for Shadow Hand, my favorite discipline), but they still just aren't as versatile.
Still looking forward to recreating mine, though.

[Yagyujubei]

In my main game I'm rolling a shadow Monk/Warlock and I have to say it's ridiculously fun and considerably strong/versatile. I was on the weaker dps side for a few levels due to the multiclass(5-7), but even then I had alot of cool tricks and stuff I could use to control battles, and when I hit level 8 everyone was like "WTF, how did you get so strong all of a sudden?"

plus I'm heavily flavoring and RPing him as a Ninja and it's been alot of fun.

I'm also really enjoying my arcane archer style valor bard and my JOAT cleric/bard/arcane trickster though.....honestly the classes are so well done every one of them is great fun

[Invader]

Refering to the op, i've realised one thing about 5th edition. Whatever class you liked in 3.5 (i haven't played 4rth) you will find it in the 5th and you'll like it more.

This might be your experience but certainly is foolish to think everyone feels this way.

Druid has always been my go to favorite class but in the edition it's entirely lacking imo. It's poorly written and poorly balanced at least on the wildshape side.

From what I've seen in our group both bard and warlock looked like fun to play.

[AmbientRaven]

Bard
So versatile, and, I love support classes in D&D. I don't kill things, but, you wouldn't kill things without my help ;)

[Heartspan]

I like cleric and warlock. Warlock has alot of cool things it can do, and it's great for campaigns where you can't long rest for awhile

[CrusaderJoe]

Hey guys. So I'm thinking of giving 5E a shot, and I was wondering what everyone's favorite class was so far, and why. That's about it, go nuts.

Every class in 5e is useful in their own way so from a base "am I a waste of space" question I have to say I like every class. I guess there is a subclass or two that makes you a waste of space based on preference but not mechanically (well... Barbarian can still kill themselves -_-).

My favorite build right now is my level 10 character.

Vuman Monk 5/Druid 5

Thorn Whip = fantastic. It really helps me turn my enemies into a life size yoyo.

Wildshape = sneaky get the hell out of dodge option. Or "Rawr I'm a Lion" then "Rawr I'm a Monk" is a good way to deal with pretty much any enemy. Wisdom is my primary stat and I have shillelagh when I'm not in beast mode.

HP could be better but all those temps make up for base HP.

This may not be the most optimal in PvP but it is damn strong versus the game.

[CrusaderJoe]

Druid has always been my go to favorite class but in the edition it's entirely lacking imo. It's poorly written and poorly balanced at least on the wildshape side.


:smallconfused:

What edition are you comparing it to? If you are comparing it yo the 4e druid then I agree... This druid is poorly balanced. The 4e druid is fantastic with flavor, mechanics, and balance.

But if you are comparing it to the 3.5 druid... Or 3.0 druid I don't see how you have an issue with the 5e druid. The 5e druid is, relatively speaking, more balanced than the 3e druid. 3e druids are broken without splat.

The 5e druid isn't lacking at all... Even without an animal companion they are cold blooded killers.

[Person_Man]

Every class is interesting and has cool things to do around levels 2-7ish. I'm particularly fond of the Rogue at those levels, whose abilities are particularly well written, useful, flexible, interesting, etc.

At mid-high levels I've observed that full casters tend to be the most interesting and flexible, whereas non-full casters tend to be locked into the same tactical options they had at low levels.

I dislike how the Ranger is written for a variety of reasons; no combat options at first level, Favored Enemy/Explorer can't be changed, many abilities overlap with the abilities of classes (who often get better versions of them earlier in their progression), too few spells known, not enough unique spells, the unique spells he has can be cherry picked by the Bard, can't change spells known between Rests, Animal Companion is much worse then Conjured/Animated creatures, and underwhelming high level abilities.

[CrusaderJoe]

I dislike how the Ranger is written for a variety of reasons; no combat options at first level, Favored Enemy/Explorer can't be changed, many abilities overlap with the abilities of classes (who often get better versions of them earlier in their progression), too few spells known, not enough unique spells, the unique spells he has can be cherry picked by the Bard, can't change spells known between Rests, Animal Companion is much worse then Conjured/Animated creatures, and underwhelming high level abilities.

Goodberry alone takes a maul to the ranger's toes. Want to be a ranger?

Vuman with 2 druid cantrips and Goodberry. Pick any class, no really, any class. If you go with attack cantrips (thorn whip is my favorite) then you want a higher wis... But if you go with fluff or support cantrips then you can dump wis all you care to (I never dump wis...).

You are now more of a ranger than the ranger.

Ranger has some neat low to mid level tricks (kill moar) but so does everyone else.

[Felvion]

This might be your experience but certainly is foolish to think everyone feels this way.

Druid has always been my go to favorite class but in the edition it's entirely lacking imo. It's poorly written and poorly balanced at least on the wildshape side.

From what I've seen in our group both bard and warlock looked like fun to play.

Well, you may be right. Of course it's a thread that everyone is saying their opinion and that was mine. I've seen lots of people who agree with me but it doesn't change the fact that it's totally subjective whether you enjoy one edition's class or not.
Speaking of the druid, it used to be my favorite class back in 3.5. In fact, when I laid my eyes on the 5th ed PHB the first thing i did was to run to the druid page. When i saw the "new" version i was disappointed and rejected the edition as a whole! The loss of the animal companion was too much for me! So, i can see that dedicated druid players may be a bit disappointed. On the other hand i soon realised that the class has kept its "brokeness" through onion tactics which probably resulted to more fans reviving CODzila eras...
Yet in my eyes the druid will never be the same and i have to give you this one! I forgot this long loved friend of mine (yeah, i'm refering to the druid) because i'm too fed up playing this class and maybe got too excited from all these new possibilities. Now even a full 20 fighter is playable, let alone the monk! You have to admit though, that druid is still one of the strongest and most flavorful classes in the game and if one judged it without 3.5 bias he would find it awesome.

[JAL_1138]

Bards. Hands-down.

See that little guy over there? The scrawny guy with the funny hat and stupid clothes? With the lute?

He can turn into an Ancient Gold Dragon and burn everything you know and love to ashes.

[CrusaderJoe]

Bards. Hands-down.

See that little guy over there? The scrawny guy with the funny hat and stupid clothes? With the lute?

He can turn into an Ancient Gold Dragon and burn everything you know and love to ashes.

How's that different from a wizard?

[Rfkannen]

How's that different from a wizard?

the wizard does not have a lute.

[JAL_1138]

How's that different from a wizard?

It's hilarious that it's a Bard doing it, mostly. :smallbiggrin:

He can also get skill expertise, Jack of All Trades, extra attack, has some weapon and armor proficiencies the wizard has to burn feats or dip a couple levels in another class to get, can hand out extra dice like candy, can poach spells the Wizard can never cast, and natively has access to some (most) of the best support spells in the game.

EDIT:
Also, this.

the wizard does not have a lute.

[CrusaderJoe]

the wizard does not have a lute.

Conjurer (or any wizard with money) says otherwise.

[Invader]

:smallconfused:

What edition are you comparing it to? If you are comparing it yo the 4e druid then I agree... This druid is poorly balanced. The 4e druid is fantastic with flavor, mechanics, and balance.

But if you are comparing it to the 3.5 druid... Or 3.0 druid I don't see how you have an issue with the 5e druid. The 5e druid is, relatively speaking, more balanced than the 3e druid. 3e druids are broken without splat.

The 5e druid isn't lacking at all... Even without an animal companion they are cold blooded killers.

The 5e moon druid is exceptionally powerful from 2-5 then steadily falls behind until 18-20 when he can cast and gains unlimited changes in which case he becomes overpowered again, that's not balanced.

In what way are you claiming 3e Druids are broken without splats im confused what splats do other than giving them options.

[MeeposFire]

The 5e moon druid is exceptionally powerful from 2-5 then steadily falls behind until 18-20 when he can cast and gains unlimited changes in which case he becomes overpowered again, that's not balanced.

In what way are you claiming 3e Druids are broken without splats im confused what splats do other than giving them options.

A common mistake that a lot of people make is that they think various classes became broken when they added books since more options means more power. While it is true that you get more power some classes were broken right out of the gate. One such case is the 3e druid with its ability to cast spells in wild shape, 9th level casting, and wild shape itself.

[silveralen]

The 5e moon druid is exceptionally powerful from 2-5 then steadily falls behind until 18-20 when he can cast and gains unlimited changes in which case he becomes overpowered again, that's not balanced.

In what way are you claiming 3e Druids are broken without splats im confused what splats do other than giving them options.

Lvl 10 gives them elemental forms, that's fairly exceptional. At least keeps them even.

If I had to guess, it makes the melee classes able to actually match a 3.5 Druid I'd suppose.

[Invader]

A common mistake that a lot of people make is that they think various classes became broken when they added books since more options means more power. While it is true that you get more power some classes were broken right out of the gate. One such case is the 3e druid with its ability to cast spells in wild shape, 9th level casting, and wild shape itself.

This is what I assumed he meant but wanted to clarify it first before I pointed that out lol.

[Kane0]

This is the first edition where i have been excited to play a fighter. I'll let that speak for itself

Other than that, wizard and bard are tons of fun, as are druids and warlocks for me personally.

[Felvion]

A common mistake that a lot of people make is that they think various classes became broken when they added books since more options means more power. While it is true that you get more power some classes were broken right out of the gate. One such case is the 3e druid with its ability to cast spells in wild shape, 9th level casting, and wild shape itself.

Let me add here that at low levels some classes were totally outshone by just the druid's companion...

[treecko]

I find that I really love playing a cleric. The cleric can go from a dex based fighter, to a pure wisdom build, to a strength based build. Also they can play at being sorcerers, druids, and necromancers, all while being the best healing class in the game. Also, bless.

[RedMage125]

I've had a few more sessions since I last chimed in, and I just have to reiterate how much I love my Bard.

[GiantOctopodes]

Rogue, thus far, because that's what I've played :smallbiggrin:

I am the lord of combat, out damaging everyone else with ease, and out of combat act as the "face" of the party, the scout, the master of contracts / forger (surprising how often those duties overlap), or assassin as needed. I often have to take a step or three back, and ensure I allow other players their time in the spotlight, as I often feel I am responsible for too much and am a bit too powerful. Part of that is other party members making sub par choices, part of it is people taking odd roleplaying choices, but a lot of it is that Rogues are just that good. I'm *really* excited to try other classes, though, especially the Ranger, Monk and Warlock, as I think they offer a lot and I certainly feel like there's no bad classes in 5e (though it's certainly possible to play a class poorly).

I will say that, as many have previously hinted, the Bard is by far the strongest and "best" class, and both the class best suited to solo play as well as the strongest contributor to the overall strength of a party. No party is complete without a Bard, but I'm happy to let someone else play him, personally, I've yet to come up with a concept that makes me really yearn to play one, and since their fundamental role is making those around them better, I certainly don't begrudge the Bard the chance to take some jobs off my plate or to contribute "more" than I am, rather I'm glad for the overall improvement in the strength of the team.

[golentan]

It's a tossup between Druid, Warlock, and Wizard for me, but there are very few classes I don't like.

Honestly, the bard seems a little ridiculous in this edition, so that's my least favorite.

[ad_hoc]

Whatever class you liked in 3.5 (i haven't played 4rth) you will find it in the 5th and you'll like it more.
I mean, take the rogue. It's more fun, capable of more things. Subpaths can cover the roles of the most popular PRC. I really wonder if there is any rogue player unsatisfied out there.

That would be me.

Rogues are much better in combat, sneak attack is much better. Their other abilities suffer because of this.

I was hoping for sneak attack to only be in subclasses so I could play a rogue without it. I want to be the ultimate trap disarming, sneaking, disguising, etc. character. Now other characters can do that. I can pick a couple skills to have expertise in, but that's it until reliable talent at 11th. That is just too late for me.

I don't want to play a rogue to be the king of combat.

So now I love the bard. Bard is the new rogue as far as I'm concerned. (Though I do like the arcane trickster)

I also like the design of the paladin and fighter.

[KiltieMacPipes]

Warlock, for sure.

Specifically Akmemnos, my tiefling Bladelock. He died due to some terrible decisions in the group over which I had no control, and not a little grudging animosity remains amongst the group to this day. I'm trying to talk my DM into letting me bring him back later with some kind of Constantine-esque deal with his patron, Asmodeus.

Thinking about it, i'm not sure if it's my favorite because it let me blow a guy in half mid-negotiation, or just 'cause i'm so attached to the character.

[Shining Wrath]

I like the fluff of Ancients Paladin, and they are very solid mechanically.
I like the feel of Dragon Sorcerer, and they are solid as well - not quite up there with the pally, but there.
I don't really like the Lore Bard too much fluff-wise, but ye lords of thunder! the versatility.
Ranger seems very meh both fluff and crunch wise.
I like the fluff for Great Old One Warlock but I haven't played one to high level; I'm concerned that having exactly one spell chosen for levels 6 through 9 might become frustrating.

[Tenmujiin]

Cleric. Specifically tempest domain.
I've been playing a tempest cleric lately and he combines all the support-y goodness you'd expect from a cleric with the ability to backup mele decently and enough blasting from domain spells to take down the swarms that are so powerful this edition.

I should probably also mention that clerics bored me in 3.5

The biggest letdown in this edition for me is the warlock, sure its a fine class but as someone who, once I found the classes, only ever played warlocks and dragonfire adepts in 3.5 the way that 5e warlocks work just doesn't feel right to me.