Making Boring classes fun

[Bannan_mantis]

I was thinking to myself about something, most people hate on classes that are for most people boring, main example being the champion fighter. I will admit that the champion fighter was pretty boring to me but I was talking to a friend who said he loved the champion fighter, he says this with him playing a highlander type and he felt the champion fighter worked as Strongman with full plate and a brutalist combat style. This made me think, what ways can you optimise classes or subclasses that are normally boring into being fun and enjoyable. Any thoughts and previous experience with this and I understand that the champion fighter is meant to be a just "get really good at using your sword" type of subclass but I would like to see characters built out of it that are pretty enjoyable. Also if anyone has changed certain parts of a class which made the class feel more fun say that too.

[Tanarii]

Backgrounds for off-stat proficiency for funzies. Start with a 13 and support it with a half-feat later on.

Champion Fighter Charlatan / Entertainer with 13 Cha + Actor.

Barbarian Sage / Hermit with 13 Int + Linguist.

Warlock Soldier (pact of the blade) with Str 13 + Athlete.

Sorcerer Gladiator with Dex 13 + Weapon Master.

Wizard Acolyte with 13 Wis + Observant.

[Magzimum]

[...] fun and enjoyable. [...]

Define "fun and enjoyable".

Being useful in a fight?
Not being overly complicated?
Giving sufficient options for strategic considerations?

Different people enjoy different things. This is why it is great that D&D 5E gives us different options in classes, ranging from simple to complex, with many roleplaying opportunities as well.

[Bannan_mantis]

I'll just leave this subjective, what classes and designs would you like to play as that are based around normally boring classes and subclasses. If it's statistically bad, is something most people don't enjoy using or something that you enjoy but most other people don't then who cares, this is purely for fun.

To give a example: I have seen many people say how the mastermind class isn't very good and in combat it doesn't hold up to the other rouges but in my opinion I love it, I played a half-elf gang leader with it and had a blast even thought I've heard people say it's a bad choice.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm a simple man.

In 4 years of 5e I have yet to have one time where Rage+Reckless Attack wasn't fun. Even when I was being beaten to a pulp due to giving Advantage to my enemies.

[MilkmanDanimal]

I'm a simple man.

In 4 years of 5e I have yet to have one time where Rage+Reckless Attack wasn't fun. Even when I was being beaten to a pulp due to giving Advantage to my enemies.

Yeah, I fling Eldritch Blast in combat and do pretty much nothing else with a Fiend Tomelock 5/Bard 1 (will go Lore at 3). The character is the party face who's good at lots of things (Book of Ancient secrets, loads of cantrips), and I do one thing in combat pretty much all the time. It's a fun character because I play him as a well-meaning, clueless twit, and he's one of the most fun characters I've ever had.

I really fail to understand how being able to do a few maneuvers per short rest as a Battlemaster or giving yourself occasional advantage as a Samurai. You're a fighter. You hit things with a pointy stick, and I've never really understood how a Champion is somehow "boring" compared to other hitting things with a pointy stick.

[GlenSmash!]

Yeah, I fling Eldritch Blast in combat and do pretty much nothing else with a Fiend Tomelock 5/Bard 1 (will go Lore at 3). The character is the party face who's good at lots of things (Book of Ancient secrets, loads of cantrips), and I do one thing in combat pretty much all the time. It's a fun character because I play him as a well-meaning, clueless twit, and he's one of the most fun characters I've ever had.

I really fail to understand how being able to do a few maneuvers per short rest as a Battlemaster or giving yourself occasional advantage as a Samurai. You're a fighter. You hit things with a pointy stick, and I've never really understood how a Champion is somehow "boring" compared to other hitting things with a pointy stick.

I can see the appeal in having lots of buttons to push.

For myself, I like a fewer buttons. The UA Fighter Scout is probably my favorite option in 5e as it really gets 3 things beyond the base Fighter: Use superiority dice to improve to Hit, improve AC, or improve certain skill checks.

I could play it all day every day.

[GlenSmash!]

Oh I should probably add to the topic while i'm in here.

I often play up my background. My current character is an Uthgardt Tribe Member turned Mercenary Veteran (using the Mercenary Veteran feature) and is always playing up his Traits and Bond and hopefully gets more chance to play up his Flaw and Ideal too.

[ImproperJustice]

Yeah. Our Champion does not complain about boredom. He built his character to do more than combat, so that could be a big part.
There is a lot of role playing as well.

[MrStabby]

Yeah, I am really into the "lots of buttons to push" category.

I want:

a) something to make me feel special - a role I excel at; and
b) to be doing a variety of different things each turn in combat

If I am building a "warrior" type character it will probably involve a lot of shoving and grappling. To make it more "fun" for me it comes down to feats or dipping other classes. If I am doing the same thing more than two turns in a row it is probably not a character I will enjoy.


Ritual caster sometimes works if the campaign isn't too combat heavy.


One of my DMs (I wish she would DM more) is pretty on board with me swapping in features from other classes - fighters with bardic inspiration or rogues with manoeuvres. It lets me fill some roles whilst still having fun.

[Anonymouswizard]

I can see the appeal in having lots of buttons to push.

For myself, I like a fewer buttons. The UA Fighter Scout is probably my favorite option in 5e as it really gets 3 things beyond the base Fighter: Use superiority dice to improve to Hit, improve AC, or improve certain skill checks.

I could play it all day every day.

I find myself in an interesting position with 5e. I find that low level martials have too few options, while high level casters have too many. At the end of the day it's really the half-casters and Warlock that are my jam, because in the level 4-12 sweet spot they have just enough options without too many.

Now I don't have this problem with a lot of other games because most games I play don't automatically give you more abilities as you get more powerful. If I want my wizard to just improve their paralyze spell instead of learning a new one I normally can, but in 5e, and even 3.X and 4e, every single level I have some new thing to remember, or if I'm lucky an upgrade to a previous thing. So I can start with ten buttons to push and end up with sixty, or I can begin with one or two but end up with twelve. If I know beforehand a campaign will finish at about level ten I can go for a half-caster, but otherwise I start running into the same problems as the full casters.

My favourite character to play began play with twelve spells and no activated advantages (but a handful of passives which just got integrated into stats), and ended the campaign with thirteen spells (I bought one new one when I realised it would be important). Although he was also fun due to being insanely overconfident and tactless, which made that group nervous whenever I said the words 'cleric' or 'paladin' (and glad when my next character was back to being more like my shifty intellectuals).

[Millface]

Feats and multiclassing are my favorite way to do it.

Take Champion, for example. The champion's biggest boon is the 19-20 critical chance, so, you find something or somethings that play well with that and sprint in that direction.

Things that help you exploit that crit chance:

Elven Accuracy gives you trivantage
Barbarian Reckless Attack gives you advantage ALL THE TIME
Shield Mastery lets you create your own advantage without a multiclass
Rogue Sneak attacks give you much bigger crits
Paladin smites give you much bigger crits

So instead of playing a straight champion, you play a Champion 11/Barbarian 9 or Paladin 14/Champion 3 or Champion 11/Rogue 9.

Might not be the answer you're looking for but in my experience the "boring" classes are the ones that are more suitable to dips or half and halfs. Every class has good stuff, you just have to find it and, sometimes, lean pretty heavily into it to make it fun.

The Conquest Paladin didn't look very fun to me until I read the guide that's on the front page here and saw what all you can combo with that Fear aura. If you build around it it actually looks crazy fun and absolutely nasty in combat. That being said, "fun" for me is mostly either combat based or deep RP based. The deep RP can come from any class, class is ~25% at most of your character's whole personality. So, fun means it has to do something optimized in combat to fill a role that the party needs to succeed when they're bashing baddies.

[KOLE]

[QUOTE=Millface;23390433]Feats and multiclassing are my favorite way to do it.

Take Champion, for example. The champion's biggest boon is the 19-20 critical chance, so, you find something or somethings that play well with that and sprint in that direction.

Things that help you exploit that crit chance:

Elven Accuracy gives you trivantage
Barbarian Reckless Attack gives you advantage ALL THE TIME
Shield Mastery lets you create your own advantage without a multiclass
Rogue Sneak attacks give you much bigger crits
Paladin smites give you much bigger crits

So instead of playing a straight champion, you play a Champion 11/Barbarian 9 or Paladin 14/Champion 3 or Champion 11/Rogue 9.
[\QUOTE]

Just a quick quibble; reckless attack only works with strength attacks and elvish accuracy only works on Dex and Cha attacks, so the two are mutually exclusive. Tried to make the ultimate crit fish this way but got a little sad when I read Elvish Accuracy a little closer.

That being said, Champ Barbs are amazing, and Barbarogues are my favorite multiclass in the game.

[Millface]

Just a quick quibble; reckless attack only works with strength attacks and elvish accuracy only works on Dex and Cha attacks, so the two are mutually exclusive. Tried to make the ultimate crit fish this way but got a little sad when I read Elvish Accuracy a little closer.

That being said, Champ Barbs are amazing, and Barbarogues are my favorite multiclass in the game.

I know, it was disappointing. Those examples weren't all meant to go together, just a list of things that benefit greatly from the 19-20 crit range that Champion offers.

Somewhat off topic but at the moment I'm really liking the idea of the Conquest Paladin mixed with Champion. Aside from being a little MAD needing at least decent strength AND dex to work with EA, shield mastery on a feared target to knock it down, it can't get up because it has 0 movement and you trivantage smite crit forever.

Which reminds me. Another way to make boring classes fun is to get with your fellow players, if possible, and talk about abilities/spells that can combo with you to help you. Some class abilities are just meh, but when combined with certain spells become godlike. Spike Growth, for example, is a pretty good spell. If you combo it, however, it becomes insane. Repelling Blast, Thunderwave, Lightning Lure, Thorn Whip... all just ok in their own right but use them together and you have a level 3 combo that shreds just about anything in your path. There are hundreds of combos like that, and I've found that I'm always having fun as long as I feel like I'm party of a well oiled machine of a party.

[GlenSmash!]

Yeah, I am really into the "lots of buttons to push" category.

I want:

a) something to make me feel special - a role I excel at; and
b) to be doing a variety of different things each turn in combat

If I am building a "warrior" type character it will probably involve a lot of shoving and grappling. To make it more "fun" for me it comes down to feats or dipping other classes. If I am doing the same thing more than two turns in a row it is probably not a character I will enjoy.


Ritual caster sometimes works if the campaign isn't too combat heavy.


One of my DMs (I wish she would DM more) is pretty on board with me swapping in features from other classes - fighters with bardic inspiration or rogues with manoeuvres. It lets me fill some roles whilst still having fun.

I love the grappler and shover. It's my favorite Martial archetype. It's why I like the Fighter Scout so much since being able to add half a proficiency die roll to an athletics check adds an element to grappling that we haven't seen in any published material yet.


I find myself in an interesting position with 5e. I find that low level martials have too few options, while high level casters have too many. At the end of the day it's really the half-casters and Warlock that are my jam, because in the level 4-12 sweet spot they have just enough options without too many.

Now I don't have this problem with a lot of other games because most games I play don't automatically give you more abilities as you get more powerful. If I want my wizard to just improve their paralyze spell instead of learning a new one I normally can, but in 5e, and even 3.X and 4e, every single level I have some new thing to remember, or if I'm lucky an upgrade to a previous thing. So I can start with ten buttons to push and end up with sixty, or I can begin with one or two but end up with twelve. If I know beforehand a campaign will finish at about level ten I can go for a half-caster, but otherwise I start running into the same problems as the full casters.

My favourite character to play began play with twelve spells and no activated advantages (but a handful of passives which just got integrated into stats), and ended the campaign with thirteen spells (I bought one new one when I realised it would be important). Although he was also fun due to being insanely overconfident and tactless, which made that group nervous whenever I said the words 'cleric' or 'paladin' (and glad when my next character was back to being more like my shifty intellectuals).

i can see this.

Lately I've been contemplating an Eldritch Knight that has almost no great for combat spells, but a bunch of out of combat utility spells. In a fight he'd be swinging a sword and action surging, but out of it he'd be mending, creating bonfires, or molding earth.

I think that would give me more buttons than I am use to, but not so many that I'd feel overwhelmed.

[Anonymouswizard]

Another thing to remember is that 'boring' classes get more fun the more the GM allows unwritten options. A Champion Fighter with +5 Intimidate, +3 Sleight of Hand, Tavern Brawler, and something like Actor, Keen Mind, or Linguist becomes a lot more enjoyable when the GM allows occasional Intimidate checks to impose disadvantage (I'd rule only within the first round or two), for Tavern Brawler to make you more adept at handling small items, and for you to create reasonings as to why your feat might help you.

They become less fun the more the game is run as RAW as the various 'free form' buttons that make up for their innate lack of buttons to push start to go away.

Note that the inverse isn't true, that 'interesting' classes get less interesting as GMs allow more free form choices, because such classes tend to have at least as much ability to interact with free form choices. What it does is provide a pool of options that anybody can draw from when they don't like the ones on their sheet, which makes everybody more fun but has a larger impact the fewer or the more focused your innate buttons are.

Although I'm of the opinion that some more in-depth grapple rules would make straightforward melee fighters a bit more fun as well. Not anything you'd have to build towards, but the ability to use your body to restrict and/or control foes' movement and a few similar things.

[Asmotherion]

I Always found mundanes (non-full casters) boring. Then I found a way to enjoy one:

-Magic Initiate gives me 2 cantrips. Also a single 1st level spell of choice.
-Ritual Caster gives me plenty of Rituals to work on.

The harders part is not having an Ranged attack roll cantrip. I specifically Dip Warlock for that (I just love Blasting Things with Magical Beams). But, all in all it's not thaaat bad, since you can still light fires with Prestidigitation among other minor effects, and have a choice between Minor Illusion for being a pseudocaster or Mage Hand for minor telekinesis to feel beter about yourself. By level 3, you get more options since most mundanes have a magical path.

Otherwise, I wouldn't mind playing a Warlock 2 multiclassed in just about anything, as long as I can Blast Things with my Magic Beam from time to Time.

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing I've been working on is a fix for Fighters for those players who want something a bit more complex. I'm also not a huge fan of Action Surge. It's a cool ability, but there's not much strategy involved with it.

I drew on some inspiration from the Martial Adept feat, and found it severely wanting.

So my full solution is to add an additional Superiority Die to the Martial Adept feat, on top of making Fighters to automatically get that feat at level 2 rather than Action Surge, and they instead get Action Surge at level 6 rather than their normal Feat/ASI.

This basically means you get two signature moves that you can do twice per short rest rather than an Action Surge. I'd say that power-wise, it doesn't change the Fighter much, but it definitely makes it a lot more interactive without being much more complicated. Since this kicks in at level 2, this gives you a lot of versatility/decisions to make right off the bat rather than just choosing when to hit harder.

As an added bonus, this makes Martial Adept a competitive feat. I'd feel comfortable picking it as a Rogue, Ranger or Barbarian, which opens up a lot of build opportunities for classes that otherwise don't rely on too many feats. I'd *really* like to grab both Feinting Attack and Riposte for my Rogue, but the once-per-short-rest clause makes it too underpowered for it to be considered ATM.

I'm still working on a solution for the Barbarian, but that's proving to be a lot more work.

[napoleon_in_rag]

There are no boring classes, only boring players.

[Man_Over_Game]

There are no boring classes, only boring players.

I hear people say that, but you can't judge a player, because everyone's different. You can, however, judge the number of skills, abilities and relevant uses for them within the normal scope of an encounter and judge that.

Look at how many RP/Combat scenarios a Knowledge Cleric can perform in. Now compare that to a Barbarian. Look at the possible number of relevant skills available to each that scale with your investments into that character.

A Knowledge Cleric can choose to be boring, but a Barbarian cannot choose to be complex. A perfect player could play both and make both exciting, but an inexperienced player would have many more hurdles with the Barbarian than the Cleric.

I've played a few Barbarians, usually because it's what my teams needed at the time. Athletics checks and the occasional Intimidate were not always relevant to every situation, but the Wizard always had something that was. Even if you are an amazing carpenter, it makes a world of difference between having the tools and not.

[Anonymouswizard]

There are no boring classes, only boring players.

As has been explained above me, a lot of this is to do with versatility and out of combat play, and due to how 5e is set up a character can very easily have no reason to engage in a noncombat encounter due to subpar skills (especially at higher levels, where you'll be competing a -1 to +2 against a +9 to +17). Spellcasters, especially ones which prepare their spells, sidestep this by potentially having a tool for every situation (with the wizard still having the largest list in the game).

Can you solve this disparity? Yes, but it takes one of three things:
-Give mundane characters more abilities designed to be used out of combat
-Weakrn utility spells so that a focused skill user beats them.
-Give spellcasters less spells available.

Now my personal favourite is option 3, and it can be seen already in how Bards, Sorcerer's, and Warlocks must divide their picks between being better in combat and being more versatile outside of combat. But it's difficult to do it with 5e's prepared casters.

But there's another thing, if we take two characters who do the same thing (Champion Fighter versus Battlemaster Fighter), then in general to one with more options will let you make more choices, which will roughly lead to more enjoyment until you start hitting the upper end of your ability to manage choices. Whether this is strictly true or not will depend on who you are, but at least on this board it's a general trend.

[Man_Over_Game]

Spellcasters, especially ones which prepare their spells, sidestep this by potentially having a tool for every situation (with the wizard still having the largest list in the game).

Can you solve this disparity? Yes, but it takes one of three things:
-Give mundane characters more abilities designed to be used out of combat
-Weaken utility spells so that a focused skill user beats them.
-Give spellcasters less spells available.

Now my personal favourite is option 3, and it can be seen already in how Bards, Sorcerer's, and Warlocks must divide their picks between being better in combat and being more versatile outside of combat. But it's difficult to do it with 5e's prepared casters.


I see this disparity be a much bigger deal earlier into the game the players are, and gradually become less of a difference as players progress through levels. Part of this has to do with the fact that the number of prepared spells has a bigger level/spell ratio than later on, when the formula for Wizards is Int Mod + Wizard Level. At level 1, a Wizard can prepare about 5 spells, where at level 6, he can prepare 10.

There are 81 level one spells, 74 level two spells, and 65 level three spells, so as the Wizard wants to utilize specific spells later one (and will want to be able to cast at least one spell of each spell slot), the number of options he'll have prepared won't scale with the number of challenges that need to be solved at higher levels vs. lower levels.

Combine this with the fact that classes like the Champion get their abilities to assist out of combat at a medium-high level, and it's very clear that the early game RP belongs to the casters.

I don't agree with nerfing casters, though. Generally, when it comes to design in any game, it's better to raise others to the bar rather than lower the bar completely. One thing that constantly gets overlooked is carrying capacity, which is a really big deal but isn't ever utilized. Exhaustion is also not utilized on a regular basis. Both of these things should be a bigger deal, and your heavy warriors can help deal with those kinds of issues.

[KorvinStarmast]

I was thinking to myself about something, most people hate on classes that are for most people boring, main example being the champion fighter. My level 14 Half Orc Champion disagrees with you. The problem's with the player, not the character class/sub class.

[Man_Over_Game]

My level 14 Half Orc Champion disagrees with you. The problem's with the player, not the character class/sub class.

A perfect player can play anything perfectly. But sometimes, it helps to have tools. Some people choose not to have the tools for an added challenge, but it's still very obvious that a Battlerager Barbarian has fewer tools than a Knowledge Cleric.

[MrStabby]

My level 14 Half Orc Champion disagrees with you. The problem's with the player, not the character class/sub class.

I have to disagree. It is neither - it is the mismatch between the two. I don't think blaming the player for the class not meeting their wishes is really fair. There are plenty of classes that are fine, but that just don't meet the desires of every player - which is OK and it means different people can play different things.

Of course there are some who are pretentious about this - "a real roleplayer doesn't need class features to drive a story forwards" crowd (to be clear I am not saying you are part of this faction - not at all). To some it is some kind of badge of honour that their PC is devoid of features because obviously they are so much more creative and in tune with the game because they don't need these features. looking down on those that enjoy them is part of the joy of D&D for some people.

Usually the type of person who without any kind of irony can say something like "No I don't play a fighter; I play Arnold the Savage - I play a character not a simple race class combination."

I am still puzzling over why occasionally you see these people about in D&D when there are other more rules light systems better suited to their attitudes.

[GlenSmash!]

I have to disagree. It is neither - it is the mismatch between the two. I don't think blaming the player for the class not meeting their wishes is really fair. There are plenty of classes that are fine, but that just don't meet the desires of every player - which is OK and it means different people can play different things.

Of course there are some who are pretentious about this - "a real roleplayer doesn't need class features to drive a story forwards" crowd (to be clear I am not saying you are part of this faction - not at all). To some it is some kind of badge of honour that their PC is devoid of features because obviously they are so much more creative and in tune with the game because they don't need these features. looking down on those that enjoy them is part of the joy of D&D for some people.

Usually the type of person who without any kind of irony can say something like "No I don't play a fighter; I play Arnold the Savage - I play a character not a simple race class combination."


Indeed. I like the simple options. It's not boring to me because it satisfies my expectations. I don't expect someone to match my expectations for their character.


I am still puzzling over why occasionally you see these people about in D&D when there are other more rules light systems better suited to their attitudes.

That's easy. Popularity.

All in all WotC was pretty smart to bundle simple and complex character options into the game.

[Man_Over_Game]

All in all WotC was pretty smart to bundle simple and complex character options into the game.

I agree. I really just wish they had a complex Barbarian. Maybe in Ravnica.

[Rebonack]

I feel like it's totally okay for the Champion Fighter to be 'boring'. But something can be mechanically simple without being unsatisfying. It isn't terribly uncommon for whole sessions to go by without a Champion ever getting a chance to use her archetype feature because she never rolls a 19.

My favorite fix is two-pronged. First making the various fighting styles a little more generalist. Stuff like-

Accurate: You gain +1 on your weapon attack rolls.
Brutal: You gain +2 on your weapon damage rolls.
Defense: You gain +1 AC while wearing armor.
Guardian: Allies adjacent to you gain +2 to their AC.
Careful: Your weapon attacks are never made at disadvantage.
Warden: Enemies treat your threatened area as difficult terrain.
Combat Reflexes: Opportunity Attacks do not consume your Reaction. You may take two OAs per turn.

And the Champion, rather than getting a slightly expanded crit range, simply gets more benefit from their Fighting Style. This serves to make three of their features (better style, even better style, extra style) far more impactful both from a mechanical standpoint and a player choice standpoint.

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing I thought about doing was changing the Fighting Styles to Fighting Actions, which were tactical abilities you could make.

Like:

Power Shot:When you make the Attack action with a ranged weapon without the Loading feature, you may give it the Loading feature for the round and add your Strength modifier to the hit roll and the damage. This stacks with the standard modifier for that attack.

Guardian: You watch allies within a 10 foot radius. If one of them is attacked or is forced to make a Dexterity or Strength saving throw that does not affect you, you can spend your reaction to move up to your speed to be adjacent to your ally, and the attack or saving throw now targets you instead. If there is an enemy adjacent to you after this movement, you may use the Shove action on them. You must choose to spend your reaction before any relevant roll is made.

Watcher: When you take the Dodge action, your reach until your next attack for the round is increased by 5 feet. If you do not take damage by the start of your next turn, you can spend your reaction before your turn starts to attack an enemy within your reach.

Little things that have a lot of influence in how your playstyle is each round.

[GlenSmash!]

I agree. I really just wish they had a complex Barbarian. Maybe in Ravnica.

That's a fair idea.

Something like the Rune-scarred Berserker that carves spell like runes in his flesh could offer a lot more complexity.

[Man_Over_Game]

That's a fair idea.

Something like the Rune-scarred Berserker that carves spell like runes in his flesh could offer a lot more complexity.

Something like being able to concentrate while raging, and gets advantage on concentration checks, but can't actually cast spells while raging, and making it a Wisdom-based caster. I could REALLY get into that.

Basically a Barbarian that charges into battle with his summons/transformations and never loses them. For simplicity and to match thematics, it gets a spell progression similar to the Warlock, but uses spells from the Ranger class list.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have to disagree. Good, Disagree. There's more to a character than what's printed on a character sheet. I responded because I find the broad generalization posited in what I respond to a reflection of a symptom rooted in player PoV.
But ... on this you are right: not every class is a good fit for every player.

We had a Warlock thread that ran many pages with this problem being foremost a few weeks ago: the condemnation of an entire class erupting out of the discussion is a symptom of the same problem. Someone didn't like the feel of the class, and so condemned it.

EDIT TO ADD:

I just started my first sorcerer. Shadow Sorcerer. As has been discussed in a number of threads, this is a class that takes a bit of thinking to figure out, since choices made are important. Unlike a cleric or wizard, the flexibility in spell choice isn't there. If he gets to level 5 (who knows how long this campaign will last) I may hit the boards here for advice going forward.

[Scripten]

I just started my first sorcerer. Shadow Sorcerer. As has been discussed in a number of threads, this is a class that takes a bit of thinking to figure out, since choices made are important. Unlike a cleric or wizard, the flexibility in spell choice isn't there. If he gets to level 5 (who knows how long this campaign will last) I may hit the boards here for advice going forward.

I had an incredibly fun Shadow Sorcerer I played in a mini-campaign. She mostly relied on casting Darkness and then twinning Chaos Bolts from the safety of her magical darkness field. It was hella fun, but my DM hated her... and so did the party when she was (consensual on both parties) mind controlled into a villain.

[KorvinStarmast]

I had an incredibly fun Shadow Sorcerer I played in a mini-campaign. She mostly relied on casting Darkness and then twinning Chaos Bolts from the safety of her magical darkness field. It was hella fun, but my DM hated her... and so did the party when she was (consensual on both parties) mind controlled into a villain. that unlocks at level 3, and burns a lot of resources for one fight. (but hella fun it appears to be ... ) I'll see what things look like when I get to 3.

[Sigreid]

The only problem with this thread is the definition is a personal perspective. What's fun for me may be boring, pointless or frustrating for another. And vice versa.

[Man_Over_Game]

The only problem with this thread is the definition is a personal perspective. What's fun for me may be boring, pointless or frustrating for another. And vice versa.

That's true, but there is a quantifiable number of options for each class. You can choose to play a wizard without much thought (Evocation/War Mage). You can't really choose to play a Barbarian with complexity, regardless of which archetype you pick.

Sure, you can roleplay aspects to add on, but that's not specific to that class. That could be any class that you're able to add flair to. But for the mechanics that are given, and how most DM's run their campaigns, Barbarians have fewer options than other classes.

Here's a breakdown of standard Barbarian tactics based on Archetype:

Berserker: I HURT SO I HURT THINGS MORE.
Totem: I HURT LESS OR MOVE MORE. SO....I HURT THINGS.
Storm: STAND THERE AND HURT THINGS.
Ancestral Guardian: HURT THE BIGGEST THING.
Zealot: THINGS HURT ME, I NO CARE, I HURT THINGS.
Battlerager: I HOLD THINGS TO HURT THEM.


Even the most complex Barbarian is very limited with the number of choices provided by the class.

While everything else is an opinion, THAT is something we can try to fix.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's true, but there is a quantifiable number of options for each class. You can choose to play a wizard without much thought (Evocation/War Mage). You can't really choose to play a Barbarian with complexity, regardless of which archetype you pick.

Sure, you can roleplay aspects to add on, but that's not specific to that class. That could be any class that you're able to add flair to. But for the mechanics that are given, and how most DM's run their campaigns, Barbarians have fewer options than other classes. Even the most complex Barbarian (Storm) is just an upgrade from HURT THINGS to STAND THERE AND HURT THINGS.

While everything else is an opinion, THAT is something we can try to fix.
I like playing clerics. There is some complexity in that class due to having to decide "what do I prepare to day, and why?" For a beginning player, I'd recommend against the wizard. The spell list is too long and making that choice at level 1 can be an obstacle to early game fun. (In otherwords, DM's are advised to give a lot of help/coaching to first time players who are wizards).

rogues and fighters need less maintenance. (I have taken a shine to battlemaster lately).

Example of wizard as a questionable starter class:
In a game where the mage player never used anything but firebolt for the first three combats. Used no other spells. Had not chosen all six beginning spells until well into level 2. Has had to be coached to take advantage of arcane recovery. However, we are all friends, and when gently offered accepts coaching.
Have another player who has been at D&D over 40 years; he likes to play barbarian. He does this for fun, not as another way to add more work to his life. Barbarian is for him the perfect kit, and his role playing is insane good fun for the rest of us. he really gets into it.
He could play any character in the book.
He has played and DM'd every edition of the game.

[Sigreid]

That's true, but there is a quantifiable number of options for each class. You can choose to play a wizard without much thought (Evocation/War Mage). You can't really choose to play a Barbarian with complexity, regardless of which archetype you pick.

Sure, you can roleplay aspects to add on, but that's not specific to that class. That could be any class that you're able to add flair to. But for the mechanics that are given, and how most DM's run their campaigns, Barbarians have fewer options than other classes. Here's a breakdown of standard Barbarian tactics based on Archetype:


Berserker: I HURT SO I HURT THINGS MORE.
Totem: I HURT LESS OR MOVE MORE. SO....I HURT THINGS.
Storm: STAND THERE AND HURT THINGS.
Ancestral Guardian: HURT THE BIGGEST THING.
Zealot: I HURT THINGS MORE.
Battlerager: I HOLD THINGS TO HURT THEM.


Even the most complex Barbarian is very limited with the number of choices provided by the class.

While everything else is an opinion, THAT is something we can try to fix.

My point was that there are people that want that and just that and it harms no one else in any way for them to have that option. It just means others wont select that option. No reason to ruin the option for those that want it.

[Man_Over_Game]

My point was that there are people that want that and just that and it harms no one else in any way for them to have that option. It just means others wont select that option. No reason to ruin the option for those that want it.

I'm not saying ruin the option. I'm saying Barbarians don't get the choice in the first place.

You can play a complex Fighter. Or a simple Warlock. Or a versatile Ranger. You can actively make choices to make your class fit the complexity/simplicity you're looking for.

What's the most complex you can make your Barbarian? Go from HURT THINGS to STAND THERE AND HURT THINGS? (Storm Barbarian).

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm saying Barbarians don't get the choice in the first place.

You can play a complex Fighter. Or a simple Warlock. Or a versatile Ranger. You can actively make choices to make your class fit the complexity/simplicity you're looking for. What's the most complex you can make your Barbarian? Go from HURT THINGS to STAND THERE AND HURT THINGS? (Storm Barbarian). There is more to that character than what's printed on a character sheet, if you'll take off the blinders.
As noted above, my friend who now prefers to play barbarians isn't interested in the extra overhead to play spell casters.

[Sigreid]

I'm not saying ruin the option. I'm saying Barbarians don't get the choice in the first place.

You can play a complex Fighter. Or a simple Warlock. Or a versatile Ranger. You can actively make choices to make your class fit the complexity/simplicity you're looking for.

What's the most complex you can make your Barbarian? Go from HURT THINGS to STAND THERE AND HURT THINGS? (Storm Barbarian).

I disagree that every class has to have sufficient options to appeal to everyone. If barbarian doesn't have options that satisfy you, your barbarian can easily be a fighter, ranger, rogue or something else that satisfies your itch. Based on my reading of the forum over the past few years, lots of people love the barbarian as it is. I think they should be allowed to keep it.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding when I say that Barbarians lack something. I'm not implying that the class needs a whole rehaul, I'm just saying that it's definitely lacking an Archetype that matches what other classes provide.

Take a look at the Fighter archetypes. Some are simple, some are versatile, a few are complex.



In comparison, the Barbarian has nothing like that. Why not? It doesn't take away anything that everyone already has.

[Sigreid]

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding when I say that Barbarians lack something. I'm not implying that the class needs a whole rehaul, I'm just saying that it's definitely lacking an Archetype that matches what other classes provide.

Take a look at the Fighter archetypes. Some are simple, some are versatile, a few are complex.



In comparison, the Barbarian has nothing like that. Why not? It doesn't take away anything that everyone already has.

Ok, we are starting to speak the same language here. I don't, in principle, have a problem with a subclass of barbarian that has different options. It might be difficult to resolve some fancier things with their rage monkey status though.

[Whit]

You can make any class fun based on role playing period.

[Man_Over_Game]

You can make any class fun based on role playing period.

But does choosing a Barbarian help your cause? Does the Ranger/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Fighter/Sorcerer/Warlock/Bard or literally every other class have fewer tools to RP with than the Barbarian?

You can MAKE Roleplaying with a Barbarian, but it does not help you get there. Not at all compared to what every other class gets.

[GlenSmash!]

This is the peril of titling a thread something like thread "Making boring classes more fun".

For example "Adding complexity/versatility/options to a Barbarian" would probably not have resulted in people saying "Barbarians are already fun" "Barbarians aren't boring" etc.

You probably still would have got the same answered we already got like Ritual caster, Magic initiate, non-standard feats, non-stand and backgrounds, simple multi-classing dips, lobbying WotC for a more complex Barbarian Path etc.

[Ignimortis]

I'm not saying ruin the option. I'm saying Barbarians don't get the choice in the first place.

You can play a complex Fighter. Or a simple Warlock. Or a versatile Ranger. You can actively make choices to make your class fit the complexity/simplicity you're looking for.
.

What would a complex Fighter look like? Because the most complex a Fighter ever gets is when he gets magic, so, EK. Right behind him is the Battle Master and other superiority dice-using archetypes. Champion is the simplest of simple. Neither of these are anywhere near as complex as a Wizard or Cleric at their lowest complexity.

On topic, though: all those posturings about "players are boring, not classes" are, frankly, BS. You can attempt a lot of things in 5e, sure, but they're often suboptimal or inefficient. 90% of the time the best thing to do is to A) if in combat, do damage B) if not in combat, allow those with most chances of success to do their thing. As a martial character, you usually don't have the stats (Charisma, Intelligence, Wisdom) for non-combat tasks, and rarely have the skills as a non-Rogue.

Solutions:
For combat: find some way to still do useful damage (not less than casters' cantrips) and also apply some effects. Most people can lose 20-40% of their DPR if they can do other things at the same time.
Alternatively, give every martial character a few maneuvers like BMs have, and remove the damned superiority dice, both as bonus damage and as a limit. 3-4 maneuvers per character, BMs gets double or even all of them. This way you can do stuff every turn.

For non-combat: frankly, I have no idea. Allowing everyone to roll for X without consequences for failure might break the game. Then again, it might not.

[GlenSmash!]

For combat I happen to love grappling and shoving and would love to see an expansion of that, or maybe other forms of contested rolls. Alternatively ways to use skills in combat like the Inquisitive Rogue could open more options.

Non-combat I find the divide is mitigated by DM style. When I describe a scenario I ask an individual player "What do you do?" They tell me what they do, I determine if a roll is called for.

A Barbarian or a Champion has just as much of a chance for success without rolling (or failure for that matter) as a Wizard since I will try to stack things in the players favor if they try to tie their approach to their background, or to something that occurred earlier in the game etc. etc.

If it comes down to a check casters probably do have an advantage on the Metal ability checks, but Athletics, Acrobatics, Slight of Hand checks all seem to pop up petty frequently. Even straight Constitution checks (If the party likes to engage in drinking contests for example) happen.

Still I admit that not every 5e DM runs the game that way. And a lot of checks can be outdone by spells, and of those some can be done as rituals so there is not even a spell slot cost. But I have been surprised by how much it does actually mitigate.

[Asmotherion]

There are no boring classes, only boring players.
I disagree. I think something can be boring for someone without making that person boring.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is the peril of titling a thread something like thread "Making boring classes more fun". And that's why I responded as I did.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves- that we are underlings.

Making a broad and general declaration that "such and such a class is boring" means that whomever posted that is lacking in imagination, and has chosen not to use the background feature to its fullest (for starters).