I love the concept of pairing Monk levels with Paladin levels, giving you A) the ability to dodge in heavy armor as a bonus action, B) Access to Find greater steed for a flying mount, and C) Access to Slow Fall negating an amount of fall damage equal to 5x your Monk level So you can fly on your steed until you're over the enemy, drop off the steed taking no damage, and either dodge or use the bonus action on a Smite - I recommend Thunderous Smite so you can land with a big boom. Essentially a major defensive unit that launches themselves like a missile behind/into enemy lines
Honestly, the paladin being the That Guy tier also fits considering how many of them play Lawful Good, misunderstand the context of their oath/god, and thus giving us the classific Lawful Stupid meme.
The "Lawful Stupid" meme also comes from the fact that in early editions Paladins could only be Lawful Good and would lose their abilities if they broke from that alignment, and when combined with a punishing DM which used to be the norm in the Gygaxian era it meant that you kinda had to roleplay the class as a moral absolutist nut, lest you give the DM even the slightest excuse to take away your abilities and turn you into a weaker version of a fighter.
I recently created an oath breaker lawful good paladin named grunduck. The reason behind his blind good nature is because he has 4 int and his race which is a very peaceful race. The reason he is an oath breaker is because he accidentally broke his oath without knowing it. He is currently level 4 and once he figures out he has undead related class features, he is going to do his absolute damndest to fix that. He punches things real good, and he tanks, thankfully he has a 16 wis so I don’t have to actually be stupid, he is a really long lived custom race so that is my reasoning behind his rather sometimes smart and correct statements, because he has seen it and experienced it before (he just doesn’t remember until he is experiencing it again lol) he currently has made the most gold in the party, having 450 gold at session 2, he proceeded to get a rad tattoo and now at session 5 has donated 350 gold to the nearest church which uses those funds to help the homeless and he still somehow had a 100 gold on him, until he bought an acid resistance potion because he is vulnerable to acid and we are fighting a acid wormling dragon. Our dm is adamant it is a TPK if we keep going but he doesn’t know the might of grunduck.
Ngl I saw the thumbnail and thought it was going to be about multiclass stereotypes, with a 'paladin/rogue' at the top. And I was like... yeah, that makes sense.
This is funny af to me cause my character I’ve been playing for a few years now was a redemption paladin rogue multiclass before we switched to pathfinder mid campaign.
Warlock being short rest dependent, doesn’t make them that guy. It is a mechanical issue that is built into the class, and thus something that a group/dm with a warlock player should respect.
Finally, someone who shares my view on the matter. Although I wouldn't call it an issue with the class, as martials have a similar problem. The problem really revolves around the traditional "adventuring day" format most player groups tend to do, and the perception of a short rest as literally taking a nap/meditating for races and classes that do that instead/otherwise doing absolutely nothing for an hour when RAW defines a short rest as simply non-strenuous activity.
@@HappyCatholicDane Eh, in most cases the amount of time a short rest takes is of no actual significance, other than for roleplay purposes. You can really just fudge it in most situations. The only scenario when it actually matters is when you're on a time limit.
@@VestedUTuber True, but the RP reasons aren’t inconsequential. It often feels wrong to short rest. But a good group will try to do it anyways, and a good dm will mostly allow it. However if the rules said 10 or 20 minutes, then it would be easier and more natural to do so.
Ehhh barbarians can also be dumbasses that look for fights, are quick to murderhobo their way through campaigns, and can rage like children when they don't get their way... probably c tier minimum.
This tier list didn’t have it, but I’d say they are like a C tier. Usually it’s just a dude that wants to have gadgets. The only horror stories I hear is when they try to make every session an argument over physics.
I enjoy playing my artificer in a way of "what if steampunk/ modern tech, but extremely efficient through the use of magic?" An example would be a steam powered vehicle that runs duper efficiently through the use of order fire. My character is also working on using something like gust of wind to make an early form of an air compressor.
Personally, I argue with a couple DMs to allow me to play the Alchemist subclass if they don't want to deal with gunpowder and magical bullshit that Artificers can do. No DM so far have disallowed the use of Alchemist, because it's the most fitting subclass for low magic settings. It's just someone making potions afterall.
I'm considering making a gnome druid/rogue, not actually a thief but just a rather small and quiet character who isn't noticed only because she doesn't leave much of an impression. More of a druid than a rogue, and uses her wild shape to turn into a mouse to scurry around and sneak most times, or escape bonds. I call her Dór, or Door Mouse, essentially a mouse themed character.
How can the bard not be #1? 🤣 I know its subjective, but for me horny bard is way more annoying then lawful stupid paladin. And id put rogue before paladin also because lawful stupid is less annoying the chaotic stupid, in my opinion. Also id switch fighter and barbarian, I don't know any bad stereotype for a fighter.
Artificer is probably B tier because they always want to build things or manipulate magic items and it's either something cool that helps the party in a fun creative way or they just want to build a nuke.
@@CoppermineTypeK DMs who do that either just suck at worldbuilding or suck at combat balancing. Artificers do not explicitly have to be technology related.
That looks more like a sorcerer behaviour. Most of people don't play as an evocation blaster wizard. Most use a divination wizard with a lot of utility/support.
So, some of the stereotypes that might have not been mentioned here: Barbarian: RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. A lot of Barbarian players are chill, but sometimes you see one that has taken the class to heart. It's rare enough that there's no change in tier, though. Bard: "I roll to seduce the dragon", "I roll to seduce the guard", "I roll to seduce the door". Even if they're not the kind of Bard that SAs the other players, they can often still be VERY horny. It's blatantly obvious that this is the kind of player Balder's Gate 3 was designed for. No change IMO, as while this kind of bard can still be very annoying, if the group is fine with it it can sometimes lead to hilarious, if awkward, situations. Cleric: I've seen a lot of people stereotype clerics as disengaged healbots, tierwhores or "only playing it because no one else will and we need a healer". The first one, the "disengaged healbot" is honestly a dead stereotype, I've seen more people go so out of their way to avoid the stereotype that they actually refuse to heal even when it would be beneficial. The second, "tierwhore", is a bit more difficult to shake because it's more of a perception than something the player actually does. Cleric is a very good class, I'd even argue they're THE best class from an objective, mechanical point of view. And some people play it because of that. And unfortunately, that kinda results in other people developing an association bias. Finally, going back to the "disengaged healbot" stereotype, that's also the cause of the third stereotype, "only playing it because no one wants to and we need a healer". First off, you don't _actually_ need a healer unless the DM is designing their encounters, loot and campaign around having one i.e. having really tough, grueling encounters, not giving healing items as loot and disincentivizing short rests. Secondly, even if you do, there are other classes that can do the job. Paladin and Celestial Warlock immediately come to mind. I think there might be a Monk subclass as well. Plus many classes have some sort of healing ability so you can always spread the healing duties around. IMO I'd bump it to A and attach a "stereotypes don't necessarily reflect reality" disclaimer to this placement. Druid: Circle of the Moon has its own stereotype that I won't elaborate on for fear of extremely hateful replies. No change. Fighter: Boring. No, I'm not saying your take is boring, the stereotype is that fighters are boring. Which is honestly VERY undeserved. However, the Champion subclass VERY MUCH deserves this. Every other fighter subclass gets all these awesome class features, and what does the Champion get? Improved crit rate. That's it. And that's all it gets until level 10 when it can take a second fighting style. And if the campaign goes long enough for the champion to reach level 15, they get an additional buff to their crit rate. It doesn't help that people who play fighter champion also typically end up giving their character the personality of cardboard. I'm not saying _every_ fighter champion is like that, but a lot are. But that's not the class's fault, that's the player's fault. No change. Monk: I've actually not heard of the whole "they're either very restrictive or go out of their way to defy the stereotype" thing with Monks. What I see a lot of with monks is people trying to recreate various shonen protagonists. And to be fair, Monk does very heavily play into doing so. Heck, there is a Monk subclass that literally gives you a stand from Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. So really, the stereotype is "weeb". But this is another case where the class stereotype is the fault of the players, not the class. Sure, the class does kind of allow for anime-esque shenanigans but you can do that in a tasteful manner. But some people go too far with it. IMO this _would_ bump Monk to C tier but it's not the fault of the class, so no change. Paladin: Yeah, Lawful Stupid is the main thing I can think of. Also "edgelord" and "tierwhore" for oathbreakers. No change. Ranger: I'm surprised there's even any horror stories for this class, because few people play it. And sadly, that's because the base class and its subclasses are extremely situational and don't fit the typical adventure style and the alternate options are just mediocre. There are classes that do ranger things but better. Druid pretty much trivializes survival with Goodberry. Pact of the Chain Warlock and Circle of the Shepherd Druid both do the whole "minion master"/"Pokemon Trainer" thing better. IMO this class should be D tier, because even though it can occasionally cause problems those problems rarely have a chance to happen. Rogue: ...yeeeahhhh. Seriously, when you have a horror story not involving SA, it's almost ALWAYS the rogue. And they're also almost always chaotic stupid. No change. Sorcerer: Narcissists. Yeah, that's the stereotype I've seen with them. Although, in all honestly that's a case of people projecting the character's personality onto the player. There's also the typical charisma character stereotypes, which are most commonly seen with the Bard, but honestly I think you got the big one. No change. Warlock: I'd love to go on and on about how the short rest issue is a symptom of a larger problem with the "adventuring day" format so many player groups insist on using and how it's not exclusive to warlocks, but this is about stereotypes so I'll stick to that. Anyway, the other big stereotype with Warlock is "edgelord", and especially a "devil worshiping nightmare edgelord who will inevitably betray the party". Honestly, out of all the stereotypes, this one is the worst in terms of how WRONG it is. Sure, you can _technically_ make a warlock like that. If you roleplay a Fiend Warlock to the letter of how it's described in the rulebook, without ANY reflavoring, you DO end up with a devil worshiping nightmare edgelord who will inevitably betray the party. But that's only one of many options. Your patron can be a celestial, the complete opposite. Your patron can be an archfey, who runs on "bacon and necktie" morality rather than black-and-white. Your patron can literally be Azathoth's grand uncle, who might not even know you exist or that you're tapping into their power. Your patron can be a sentient weapon, who's really just in it for the ride. And even if you _do_ go the fiend route, you don't have to make it a Faustian bargain. Heck, I've read a story of a Fiendlock who's patron was a succubus with a mommy kink, said patron ended up becoming the party's team mom. It was actually quite wholesome despite seeming a bit "magical realm"-y at first. No change. Wizard: "I didn't ask how big the room is. I said I cast fireball!" Automatic S tier IMO, this is the only class who's worst stereotype is "has a very nasty tendency to TPK because of a stupid action". I know the sorcerer can do this too but it's always been associated with the wizard.
Cleric: I didn’t put Spirit guardians on this spell list but I might as well use it. Seriously though when the strongest concentration spells are put before the cleric and then given 10 minutes of uptime not using it is quite literally shooting yourself in the foot. Moon Druid: I didn’t pick this subclass because it’s mechanically strong, I just want to transform into cool dinosaurs and treat my enemies as prey. No seriously that’s the only reason. Wizard: I didn’t ask how big the room is, I cast Gravity Sinkhole.
To answer your cleric-monk question, the subclass is Way of Mercy. My friend plays it and he routinely uses his chiropractic medicine to heal us. He is also straight recreating Breaking Bad right now.
Ironic about the Wizard. The only class with the stereotype about the TPK because of a stupid action is one of TWO classes with INTELLIGENCE as its central stat.
As a game master, the "That Guy" of my players was not the Rogue. The Rogue was a bit slimy and occasionally swindled the Barbarian by making him believe he was "managing his money", but that was more funny than annoying. No, "that guy" was the fighter. He min-maxed his character so much that he was sometimes one-shotting bosses, and was kind of a murder hobo, keeping the loot for himself, playing the rules lawyer etc... Funny to hear about the stereotypes ahah
@@DellikkilleD the problem is not that his character was powerful. Depriving the group of a fun bossfight by one-tapping it is bad, but I had some ways to prevent it most of the time. But when a player is too try-hard and tries to screw over the rest of the group to keep ahead of the curve, and also wants to kill everything with a life bar for that sweet exp, it's obviously annoying
I can sum up why I like fighter in just a meme: You play fighter because you want to be the over the top military man, I play fighter because I enjoy being the completely normal guy in a world full of wizards, dragons, and literal demons. We are not the same. In all seriousness though for me it's got that zero to hero appeal, being the normal dude who triumphs in the face of overwhelming adversity. It's way cooler to me to be the regular person who risks his life going toe to toe with deadly monsters than it is to be the Wizard who just goes "I cast Fireball" and vaporizes them.
I mostly agree with the list. Your reasoning is sound. Any stories that disrupt this usually are the sex pests and weeb types. No, these two aren't the same thing. They do go hand in hand at times. Mostly from people not seeing where a line is drawn.
7:30 yeah I see a lot of sorcerers get argumentative swearing up and down that they can use twin cast and quickened spell to cast 3 fireballs per turn instead of 1
@@Elias-ej6de well yeah that’s my point. But also not exactly. it is more complicated than that. It’s one of the most argued about rules and for good reason. Technically, you cannot cast another leveled spell during the same turn that you cast a BONUS ACTION spell. (In fact, you couldn’t cast reaction cantrips if they get introduced either. Only action cantrips) Additionally, twin spell does let you duplicate spells, but only single target spells. The combination of these two rules are what make sorcerers only able to cast fireball once per turn, but I’ve encountered many sorcerers who refuse to acknowledge this and try to make 3 fireballs in one turn. Interestingly, the spell limitation rule does not retrain you from casting multiple spells per turn if you don’t cast a bonus action spell. This means that reaction spells are fair game if you already cast an action spell, but not if you had cast a bonus action spell. Another peculiarity is that the bonus action limitation on spells applies even if the bonus action spell was a cantrip like magic stone, Amusingly, a spellcaster can take a two level dip in fighter for action surge to cast 2 action spells in the same turn, and of course use their reaction to cast a third spell like absorb elements or shield, to cast 3 spells in a turn. .
depends on the edition 3.5e, yeah you can in fact actually do that 5e, no you can't, and honestly I still don't get why twinned fire ball isn't allowed because holy shit let the sorcerer have the identity of being *the* blaster caster...which is still less useful than casting literally any other spell because guess what removing something from the fight from the get go is better than doing a lot of damage lol but seriously every edition sorcerer is actually a straight up downgrade from wizard because the rule makers don't let it *and only it* play to it's own identity for one reason or another and it's so annoying. ...Though that's honestly probably why I play sorcerer the most of all casters, I see it as a strictly worse wizard, so I don't feel as bad when I minmax a concept to hell and back with one
I played a Dwarf Paladin, Oath of Glory. He was the opposite of that guy. He was the supportive Gym Bro. He worshipped Hanseath, the dwarf god of drinking and merriment. I had reflavored his Lay on Hands to be him offering his homebrew beer as healing. Many great shenanigans were had with that paladin, and I would play that character again if offered the opportunity.
I usually go for the Paladin because I love the concept of holy-knights but my favorite is the good ol' "PURGE THE HERETICS" War cry I never been a "That's guy" type of guy, had some normal quarls here and there but they wrren't party-breaking or no longer friends types
I'm the Paladin at my table, and my DM has ironically called me out for being too *passive* as a Paladin. Even temporarily lost my powers for a few sessions because of it. I think it was an overcorrection on my end because I *never* wanted to be *that guy* when it comes to a fictional faith, or my real one.
8:20 is it even possible to play a warlock with a non-evil deity? Like the basic patrons are fiend, great old one and archfey. Which is basically choosing between lawful evil, chaotic evil or chaotic neutral. And the whole idea of a pact is basically you being forced to complete tasks and serve your patron in exchange for the power (unlike a cleric or paladin who can just heed the morals). Unlike them they can be 'good' under an evil patron, so they don't need to be evil, but do 'serve' something evil.
When it comes to the Great Old Ones, the creature is usually so alien that it doesn’t know or care that someone has made a pact with it. Not all warlocks must serve the patron: Curwen drawing power from Yog-Sothoth in The Case of Charles Dexter Ward is one of these, and likely one of the things the class is based on anyway.
I always find it funny when people reduce sorcerer to a fireball machine when, as someone whose most played class is sorcerer, I find the class is more useful doing literally anything else. you have the spells known to never actually cast fireball. In fact, I genuinely can't remember the last time I casted any blast spell with the class that wasn't pathfinder's Snapdragon Fireworks for a silly combo that results in 10 turns of save or be stunned for the round
Maybe just a coincidence, but i notice that most of the high tiers are occupied by classes that need a decent to great charisma score. Maybe something about people having a warped idea of what having a social intelligence means and just believing it allows them to do anything they want free of consequence
As someone currently aying a Rogue. I actually Agree. While aying as a rogue. You just want to be roguish. Or sarcastic, or cowardly. Or connoving. I've settled for slightly cowardly and sarcastic. But ensured he has a backstory and goal revolving becoming an adventurer and giving back to the world out of regret for that which he previously stole.
i never played a Paladin and i have seen so many "That Guy" storys with Paladins, that I really wanna play as one, just to show of to these people, how this class can and should be played xD
I mostly play Paladin all the time and agree with this list. I'm kinda chill and tank damage while supporting my allies so they can do the cool stuff. If I play Sorcerer, I'm starting 2 levels in Paladin anyway so I don't die and can cast spells in full plate armor. If I play Fighter, it's a Dexterity/Charisma based Battle Master with Rally/Riposte which has actually been the most fun character to play so far.
Worst person i ever had to play with wasn't playing a paladin, different system, but was totally sinking into that catagory. Declared their character would straight up refuse to work with... Not even a villainous character, more antihero type
My first character was a paladin and I thought it was the funest thing ever. Your held to a standard and that you must uphold. You aren’t meant to be some constant slayer of evil but just a really good and caring person :)
In my current campaign, all of use despite none of us being rogues (sorc+barb+cleric) were joking about multiclassing to rogue with how much we hoard treasure and greed for items, especially the cleric.
i play kalashtar paladin, as the shield or tank of the party i ensure that the most vulnerable members are protected even if i die and gotta get another character sheet.
Is it bad that i try to rotate and try out various classes, but end up gravitating specifically to just about all of the A-S tier classes here and not many others?
It’s funny you say sorcerer and warlock are powergamers. Be ause i only realized my current character i wanna try playing with is a drow entertainer sorceress. Sorry, wall of text below. I wanted a bit of a starry dancer, because dancing lights with the dark black/blue/grey skin (whichever i roll for lmao) would probably accent well, especially if i also casted Faerie fire, both of which a drow gets inherently. I figured i could add more variety to the starry dance routine, so I looked through conjuration spells and found melf’s minute meteors and crown of stars, and realized i needed a space themed sorcerer. I picked aberrant mind over lunar, because she can cast faerie fire without words (in case the dm gets rulish) to light herself and the minute meteors, enhancing the dance. It wasn’t until a few weeks later that i realized you get a silent Mind Sliver naturally too, and so i figured “i can just swap it out based on the needs of the group and campaign”. But otherwise, the character just needs a good reason to go from being a dancer and fire eater to having aberrant telepathic sorcery. I was thinking a placid lake which reflected another dimension, but it feels a bit odd. Definitely need narrative help. The real problems i have are these: i struggle to communicate when i get frustrated, it’s not mature to act like that, and secondly i’ve not had the chance to run on any dnd campaign, so i don’t know how good at roleplay i’d be, and i’m not getting any better. I got close but i got really mad playing MtG with one group with all the crazy cards i was new to. I did my best to apologize before we really stopped talking, so i feel like i was able to remedy what i could, but it was a tough lesson in patience. Been working patience for a while since, i might be ready to try again soon, i won’t grow or learn from my mistakes if i just quit after one failure. Basically i probably play like a bard but prefer sorcerer. I don’t need a short rest i have a crossbow for a reason. I just hope the party artificer mods my crossbow bolts to help him and the rogue get up the tower, and then with my 120ft of darkvision, i can telepath a warning to them if i see a guard. Or i can just pass my bolts off to someone else and whack people with a stick between spells, that sounds kinda funny
I often play games as the "stereotypically worst type" not because im that kind of person, but because unfortunately they're just cool. For example, i like paladins because i like a strong knight character with magical ability. What's cooler than a magical knight? I also like to main Reaper in SoT, because i like being a skeleton and a bad guy. But i also find i usually don't fit the stereotypes. Ive never been the lawful stupid type, and every campaign I've been in i was graciously welcomed. And as a reaper, i never ran from a fight or played scummy. Straight up normal ship battle. Im trying to reverse stereotypes one at a time lol
I had this campaign where I was DM and there was this cleric who would just attack every living being that came on theri path. He was like te main character and is player name was character as well. Based on my experience I would put cleric in at least A tier, maybe even S.
I main wizard and rogue and i fully agree, tho i tend to play rogue mechanically but reflavour it with my favorite being barbarian multiclass cause yelling "SNEAK ATTACK!" to get sneak attack is funny to me. And wizard players in my experience tend to either be very good or very bad
As a palidin, the rouge killed a party npc. I had to kill him for murder, then another player that attacked me, and i had to kill them. For the rest of the campaign, the other players kept joking that i would kill them if they misbehaved.
Honestly, i was surprised Ranger ended up in C tier instead of S or A. But then I remembered the Rogue exists. This post was created by the Wizard Gang
Ngl, I main Druid and often multiclass into Monk. (I’d play ranger if it was…. Better. My first one shot I did ranger and it wasn’t as fun to play.) I just really like the love of nature and the mixture of “wise man”. It also lends well to a backstory of why the character became a monk and when you mix with something like a spore Druid with their belief that undead are just as necessary to the “circle of life” it can make a really compelling character with a lot of useful tools for the dm to work with. With that said, I’m kind of the hippie in the group. So I feel like I am the type of person who IS the stereotype for those classes lol
As a sorcerer main I 100% agree. I hate the stereotype of "let me just throw the same three spells my entire playthrough." But as a beginner it could be incredibly complicated to play a caster; so I understand it if you're new. But after your first 3 months or so of playing try expanding out a little bit.
Stuff like Clerics and Wizards feel like there is a lot of required reading and planning going in, so i appreciate that sorcerer can be good for a more relaxed caster experience.
We did a one shot where each of us had to make 5 characters and there were different trials and our characters had to split up to handle them. I based my 5 off of LFG’s characters. Richard the Warlocl, Cale the Ranger, etc. When we faced the final boss and beat it, I was the only one left with all 5 characters still alive. A chest appeared and all the other players had their wounded and tired characters check it out. I had to shout over the group to get everyone’s attention. When they were finally listening I muttered 3 words that made the GM laugh. “Richard casts Fireball.”
my interpretation of the wizard is that they're the cool guys that have been playing the game the longest. they can be rule lawyers at times but are generally cool.
I think Druid should be higher, I think they are up there with paladin for the enforcing their ideals on others, whenever players want to do something that would kill an animal or hurt a forest they can get draw the same line that paladins draw when you want to steal from a shop
I'm breaking the rogue stereotype so hard every time when I play it as I somehow find my self the most reasonable person in the party, trying to keep everything going smoothly.
It's interesting that all the "good" classes by stereotype are the ones you'd most expect to find comfortable sitting around a fire in the wilderness, avoiding the drama and conflict of cities. A sample party could be a druid leader on some sort of broad long-term mission with their ranger companion, teamed up with a grizzled fighter who got sick of the army and, having worked and gotten along with the ranger in the past, was approached by them with an offer of employment as agreeable muscle. They encountered and healed a wounded barbarian who felt indebted and joined them for the time being, and later shared a fire with a wandering monk who, appreciating the druid's commitment to balance and the martial skills of the others, decided to accompany the party as a learning opportunity and exercise in personal growth. It could be a solid party, too - spellcasting and healing from the druid, a multitude of useful skills from the ranger (plus a potential animal companion), tanking or damage potential from the fighter, a heavy-hitter barbarian and then a potential DEX tank or additional melee heavy-hitter in the monk. Fun to play, capable of completing quests and solid in the RP department.
Heh. A group I DM for consists of a Paladin, a Rogue, a Sorcerer and a Warlock. Great! 2 S-tiers and 2 A-tiers! Winning combo! Luckily, my players are behaving like actual decent functioning adults, so it does work. Therefore, the Paladin - Oath of Protection from the GM Binder - is the party dad. The Rogue - Arcane Trickster - has a beautiful backstory of a Mafia Boss kid and wizard granddad and is super fun. The Sorcerer - Homebrew Feyborn - combines the Changeling stories with all the Fey unhingedness and is a damn chaos goblin, but manages to not steal the spotlight so much to be annoying and actually takes us for a ride, And the Warlock - Archfey Patron, played by my wife - is this "quiet and brooding" type, but - again - still enough of a team player to make the game work.
Paladins are not only the quintessential "that guy" characters, they are also targets for "that guy" DMs, who really want to force a fallen paladin plot.
I mostly agree with this, though i do think the idea of paladins sticking to their oath being bad is a bit unfair, they literally have to or they become an oath breaker, but i do understand that this is about how that can manifest negatively, and considering how i do hear about people who apply thier oaths too structly then yeah i get it What i dont get is getting on warlock for asking for short rests, like, that's an issue of their class basically not functioning unless they take a short rest after every combat, seems unfair to get onto them about wanting to be able to do more than cast eldritch blast, which is the big stereotype of warlocks, it's EB, the class
Personally I’ve usually had scribes wizards as “that guy”. Not sure if it’s just a theme but many players who are scribes wizards that I’ve played with have been stuck up snobs
I have been a that guy paladin in the past, but more for their ability detect evil. Was very absolutist on if you came up evil then thats it, you are my enemy and must die, if not now then when i get stronger.
with the games ive run, ive had the druid - has a habit of accidently finding novel ways around problems the wizard - accidently keeps insta-killing people with really good rolls the paladin - wants to be the muscle of the party but the dice gods keep saying no the artificer - prone to being a murder hobo
Ranger is definitely “That Guy” from my experience. Either trying to control the rest of the party, putting their animal companion’s needs above the party’s safety, or doing the most horrible things because “they just don’t care about the expectations of society”. Often worse than the rogue.
Honestly paladin and rogue are basically opposite sides of the same coin when it comes to roleplay which is why I try to play them way different then their stereotype. Which i find weird for rogue cause mechanically they are great for teamplay and I've basically decided i no longer play them as edgy assassin's creed and more like a party bro that wants to help his friends. feel like bard should be that guy too. They just make people feel awkward and force people to be part of their dating sim.
I am paladin main cuz I just want to protect my team, heal them etc I love bulky armors and healing and I am also charismatic so I just have to play the paladin.
Bard I would absolutely put in "That Guy" territory. As the Paladin, Rogue, and Bard make the unholy trifecta of Bad D&D Stereotypes associated with the classes. Paladin: Rules Lawyering and Lawful Stupid Rogue: Edgy Loner and Stealing From the Party Bard: Respecting Zero Boundaries and Sexual Harassment
I actually had a lot of fun playing a dragonborn paladin, our entire party was actually following the same god, but since there was a relatively small following of the god (as it was eventually revealed that worshipping them was stupid because they were planning to destroy the universe) they had quite loose restrictions on alignment, so there was a chaotic neuteral lich (I know it's weird but we went with it), but since I was lawful good with a vengeance oath, we were constantly beefing in game, but since neither of us took it seriously, we're still good friends now
I currently have an oath of vengeance blue Dragonborn paladin with a dip into fighter named Zantor and he’s so op. Him, a war mage, and a kobold rogue named kar tak(super well done dmpc) are pretty far into the dungeon of the mad mage. If u want some of his crazy stories I’m glad to share them
Sorcerers are fine… except for wild magic. Wild magic chaos goblin is totally that guy, but most are ok, could be worse. And as much as I like the good rank of barbarian as a barbarian main, it should be in the same tier as fighter: if there is a murder hobo in the party who kills the shop keeper it’s the barbarian. But most barbarian mains are chill, they just rolled up to slay some goblins in the most brutal way possible. And fighters main flaw is that as the “base” class all the inattentive don’t want to participate I have no bonus action so I duel wield players end up there.
Considering that the monk is the most underpowered class and the kensei gunk is the absolute best version of them, I think its fine to ask to be a gunk as long as your dm has guns in their setting.
@DiamondHD_ gunk is a portmanteau of gun and monk. Kensei gunk is a monk that uses guns that uses needs the kensei class features to work. It's probably the best pure martial build in the game. And it also has a very funny name.
@DiamondHD_ very cool. If your dm allows guns, play it immediately. It's super fun. It's about the closest thing to john wick that you can play in dnd.
Monk and barbarian both belong in “that guy slot” I’m not surprised how you casually dismissed them as a problem player. That’s a common tactic to hide red flags.
The real trouble with the stereotypical paladin and rogue comes when they're in the same party. The paladin feels duty-bound to stop the rogue from stealing all the things or randomly stabbing people. In earlier editions, they might be afraid that turning a blind eye to the rogue's shenanigans would be a violation of their oath. So when Lawful Stupid paladin and Chaotic Psycho rogue meet, the party goes down in flames.
i played barbarian in the previous campain i was playing and there where almost no combat moments so i was so bad it was all puzzel and charisma based so i couldnt do anything but beat up my friends for fun
Druid has always been my favorite class but I think that's just because I'm autistic as hell and just want to be Creature. I am probably not the best player because I am very spacey, there is absolutely nothing going on in my head at any given moment.
As a Paladin main, I agree that the Rogue is the problem. I also feel compelled to say that they hate us because they ain't us. I will never stop playing the good guy hero, for I have sworn an oath. Deception & stealth are for the weak & cowardly. I will smite all evildoers. Cleric mains don't listen to him crusadeing heretics is good. Also, i intend to unite all warlocks with their patrons.
Paladin + Rogue is the step before becoming a DM from Hell. Unless they're Oathbreaker, ironically. Then they're just going for MAXIMUM EDGE. Monk + Barbarian actually bumps up to C because of how the classes conflict with each other significantly, which combined with the Monk's complexity makes it a headache to work through. As a result, players who play this combination are either being super-fluffy and don't care about effectiveness, which is normally not a problem but in this case can cause their character to effectively be baggage, or they're relatively new to the game, don't understand why Monk+Barb doesn't generally work well, and are now stumbling through the campaign trying to simply figure out how to even make their character work. In the case of the newbie, though, I wouldn't be too hard on them, they're already on the receiving end of a crash course on why multiclassing beyond maybe two levels of fighter for Action Surge and access to better armor is generally a bad idea for newer players.
What's "that guy" about Paladin? Is it just that they keep the party from being murder hobos stealing from everyone? I'm new to DnD and love playing Paladin
Remember all of these are playing on the worst caricatures of a character in that class. The reason Paladin is put there is because, by default, a paladin character’s personality, role playing, backstory, and often combat style are heavily influenced by their oath, and the oaths are all extreme in nature. Oaths will come into conflict with the general party’s goals sometimes, and this could be a cool storytelling thing but could also be a pain in the ass for everyone else depending on the situation. I play a paladin too and I love it, but I am in constant communication with my dm about my character direction. My oath of redemption causes tension with some party members sometimes, and it’s very fun for me and them, but I also have to remind myself to make sure my character has a personality that goes outside his devotion.
For example: It would be a pain in the ass for everyone else if my paladin’s character development, personality, and story outshined and preceded other characters constantly because “I need to make sure he is devoted to his god before he is devoted to his friends” or “he refuses to do half the things the party does because he can’t. Just got to be flexible and work with other people.
They'll often use their oath to justify doing something selfish. Warlock and Cleric players will do this occasionally, but it happens with Paladin players often enough that they're notorious for being narcissists.
*cries in artificer main* Also, not sure how common this experience is, but the bard’s enchantment spells are very good at getting away with shit you have absolutely zero right getting away with.
barbarians are only ever played by people brand new to the game or so experienced with the game and know its rules so well they can even make the barbarian fun, no in between
As a Monk main, I just like being really fast and doing back flips.
Same here but backflips but making every attack kicks
Parkour!!!
You also do the anime yell when you activate flurry of blows
I love the concept of pairing Monk levels with Paladin levels, giving you A) the ability to dodge in heavy armor as a bonus action, B) Access to Find greater steed for a flying mount, and C) Access to Slow Fall negating an amount of fall damage equal to 5x your Monk level
So you can fly on your steed until you're over the enemy, drop off the steed taking no damage, and either dodge or use the bonus action on a Smite - I recommend Thunderous Smite so you can land with a big boom.
Essentially a major defensive unit that launches themselves like a missile behind/into enemy lines
I wanted to play monk just to imagine a Street Fighter fighting monsters. I had a half-ork that I based on Akuma.
Honestly, the paladin being the That Guy tier also fits considering how many of them play Lawful Good, misunderstand the context of their oath/god, and thus giving us the classific Lawful Stupid meme.
The "Lawful Stupid" meme also comes from the fact that in early editions Paladins could only be Lawful Good and would lose their abilities if they broke from that alignment, and when combined with a punishing DM which used to be the norm in the Gygaxian era it meant that you kinda had to roleplay the class as a moral absolutist nut, lest you give the DM even the slightest excuse to take away your abilities and turn you into a weaker version of a fighter.
I recently created an oath breaker lawful good paladin named grunduck. The reason behind his blind good nature is because he has 4 int and his race which is a very peaceful race. The reason he is an oath breaker is because he accidentally broke his oath without knowing it. He is currently level 4 and once he figures out he has undead related class features, he is going to do his absolute damndest to fix that. He punches things real good, and he tanks, thankfully he has a 16 wis so I don’t have to actually be stupid, he is a really long lived custom race so that is my reasoning behind his rather sometimes smart and correct statements, because he has seen it and experienced it before (he just doesn’t remember until he is experiencing it again lol) he currently has made the most gold in the party, having 450 gold at session 2, he proceeded to get a rad tattoo and now at session 5 has donated 350 gold to the nearest church which uses those funds to help the homeless and he still somehow had a 100 gold on him, until he bought an acid resistance potion because he is vulnerable to acid and we are fighting a acid wormling dragon. Our dm is adamant it is a TPK if we keep going but he doesn’t know the might of grunduck.
I always try to break the Lawful Good stereotype of the Paladin.
But it very hard not to fall into the pitfalls.
Oaths can be very restrictive
@@VestedUTuber If I remember correctly, the 1E version of the paladin was even more rigid, forbidding interaction with anyone even neutral aligned.
Just started playing an overzealous goblin paladin that's chaotic neutral, very fun
The paladin/rogue multiclass (former criminal that took an oath of redemption but still has their criminal skills):
"What? What did I do?"
Ngl I saw the thumbnail and thought it was going to be about multiclass stereotypes, with a 'paladin/rogue' at the top. And I was like... yeah, that makes sense.
This is funny af to me cause my character I’ve been playing for a few years now was a redemption paladin rogue multiclass before we switched to pathfinder mid campaign.
Warlock being short rest dependent, doesn’t make them that guy. It is a mechanical issue that is built into the class, and thus something that a group/dm with a warlock player should respect.
Finally, someone who shares my view on the matter.
Although I wouldn't call it an issue with the class, as martials have a similar problem. The problem really revolves around the traditional "adventuring day" format most player groups tend to do, and the perception of a short rest as literally taking a nap/meditating for races and classes that do that instead/otherwise doing absolutely nothing for an hour when RAW defines a short rest as simply non-strenuous activity.
@@VestedUTuber The problem is also a short rest taking one hour, it should have been 10 or 20 minutes.
@@HappyCatholicDane
Eh, in most cases the amount of time a short rest takes is of no actual significance, other than for roleplay purposes. You can really just fudge it in most situations.
The only scenario when it actually matters is when you're on a time limit.
@@VestedUTuber True, but the RP reasons aren’t inconsequential. It often feels wrong to short rest. But a good group will try to do it anyways, and a good dm will mostly allow it. However if the rules said 10 or 20 minutes, then it would be easier and more natural to do so.
From a roleplay perspective you should probably be taking at least one short rest per day that is most likely to be around midday while making a meal
Ehhh barbarians can also be dumbasses that look for fights, are quick to murderhobo their way through campaigns, and can rage like children when they don't get their way... probably c tier minimum.
Artificer love?
This tier list didn’t have it, but I’d say they are like a C tier. Usually it’s just a dude that wants to have gadgets. The only horror stories I hear is when they try to make every session an argument over physics.
I enjoy playing my artificer in a way of "what if steampunk/ modern tech, but extremely efficient through the use of magic?" An example would be a steam powered vehicle that runs duper efficiently through the use of order fire. My character is also working on using something like gust of wind to make an early form of an air compressor.
@lootgoblinmarketplace as an artificer main, I can confirm both these stereotypes.
@@lootgoblinmarketplaceloot goblin, more like cute goblin
Personally, I argue with a couple DMs to allow me to play the Alchemist subclass if they don't want to deal with gunpowder and magical bullshit that Artificers can do. No DM so far have disallowed the use of Alchemist, because it's the most fitting subclass for low magic settings. It's just someone making potions afterall.
I'm considering making a gnome druid/rogue, not actually a thief but just a rather small and quiet character who isn't noticed only because she doesn't leave much of an impression. More of a druid than a rogue, and uses her wild shape to turn into a mouse to scurry around and sneak most times, or escape bonds. I call her Dór, or Door Mouse, essentially a mouse themed character.
LOL. My 2 favorite classes are "That Guy." Maybe there's a reason I always end up GMing.... :D
You’ve become so powerful that you’ve hit the final form. The DM, if your party is in fear of you then it means you’re the ultimate that guy.
How can the bard not be #1? 🤣
I know its subjective, but for me horny bard is way more annoying then lawful stupid paladin. And id put rogue before paladin also because lawful stupid is less annoying the chaotic stupid, in my opinion. Also id switch fighter and barbarian, I don't know any bad stereotype for a fighter.
Ah yes, classic tier list structure, the worst at the top
Where is Artificer?
Artificer is probably B tier because they always want to build things or manipulate magic items and it's either something cool that helps the party in a fun creative way or they just want to build a nuke.
Banned by the DM
artificer isn't real
@@ataraxianAscendant Yes it is. It's in Tasha's Cauldron Of Everything
@@CoppermineTypeK DMs who do that either just suck at worldbuilding or suck at combat balancing. Artificers do not explicitly have to be technology related.
Personally, I feel like the wizard could be bumped up to A. "I didn't ask how big the room was, I said 'I CAST FIREBALL!'"
And the sorcerer follows up with twinned fireball just to be sure
That looks more like a sorcerer behaviour. Most of people don't play as an evocation blaster wizard. Most use a divination wizard with a lot of utility/support.
@@edersonnico Fair, but that doesn't change the fact that that behavior is more associated with wizards than sorcerers for some reason.
@@edersonnico and even then, evocation blasters don’t have to worry about anyone else, as their fireball doesn’t hurt the party.
@@Trapsarentgay133 fireball can't be twinned
As a Ranger main, I just like being split caster/martial and being the one to make sure the party doesn't get lost... again.
So, some of the stereotypes that might have not been mentioned here:
Barbarian: RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. A lot of Barbarian players are chill, but sometimes you see one that has taken the class to heart. It's rare enough that there's no change in tier, though.
Bard: "I roll to seduce the dragon", "I roll to seduce the guard", "I roll to seduce the door". Even if they're not the kind of Bard that SAs the other players, they can often still be VERY horny. It's blatantly obvious that this is the kind of player Balder's Gate 3 was designed for. No change IMO, as while this kind of bard can still be very annoying, if the group is fine with it it can sometimes lead to hilarious, if awkward, situations.
Cleric: I've seen a lot of people stereotype clerics as disengaged healbots, tierwhores or "only playing it because no one else will and we need a healer". The first one, the "disengaged healbot" is honestly a dead stereotype, I've seen more people go so out of their way to avoid the stereotype that they actually refuse to heal even when it would be beneficial. The second, "tierwhore", is a bit more difficult to shake because it's more of a perception than something the player actually does. Cleric is a very good class, I'd even argue they're THE best class from an objective, mechanical point of view. And some people play it because of that. And unfortunately, that kinda results in other people developing an association bias. Finally, going back to the "disengaged healbot" stereotype, that's also the cause of the third stereotype, "only playing it because no one wants to and we need a healer". First off, you don't _actually_ need a healer unless the DM is designing their encounters, loot and campaign around having one i.e. having really tough, grueling encounters, not giving healing items as loot and disincentivizing short rests. Secondly, even if you do, there are other classes that can do the job. Paladin and Celestial Warlock immediately come to mind. I think there might be a Monk subclass as well. Plus many classes have some sort of healing ability so you can always spread the healing duties around. IMO I'd bump it to A and attach a "stereotypes don't necessarily reflect reality" disclaimer to this placement.
Druid: Circle of the Moon has its own stereotype that I won't elaborate on for fear of extremely hateful replies. No change.
Fighter: Boring. No, I'm not saying your take is boring, the stereotype is that fighters are boring. Which is honestly VERY undeserved. However, the Champion subclass VERY MUCH deserves this. Every other fighter subclass gets all these awesome class features, and what does the Champion get? Improved crit rate. That's it. And that's all it gets until level 10 when it can take a second fighting style. And if the campaign goes long enough for the champion to reach level 15, they get an additional buff to their crit rate. It doesn't help that people who play fighter champion also typically end up giving their character the personality of cardboard. I'm not saying _every_ fighter champion is like that, but a lot are. But that's not the class's fault, that's the player's fault. No change.
Monk: I've actually not heard of the whole "they're either very restrictive or go out of their way to defy the stereotype" thing with Monks. What I see a lot of with monks is people trying to recreate various shonen protagonists. And to be fair, Monk does very heavily play into doing so. Heck, there is a Monk subclass that literally gives you a stand from Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. So really, the stereotype is "weeb". But this is another case where the class stereotype is the fault of the players, not the class. Sure, the class does kind of allow for anime-esque shenanigans but you can do that in a tasteful manner. But some people go too far with it. IMO this _would_ bump Monk to C tier but it's not the fault of the class, so no change.
Paladin: Yeah, Lawful Stupid is the main thing I can think of. Also "edgelord" and "tierwhore" for oathbreakers. No change.
Ranger: I'm surprised there's even any horror stories for this class, because few people play it. And sadly, that's because the base class and its subclasses are extremely situational and don't fit the typical adventure style and the alternate options are just mediocre. There are classes that do ranger things but better. Druid pretty much trivializes survival with Goodberry. Pact of the Chain Warlock and Circle of the Shepherd Druid both do the whole "minion master"/"Pokemon Trainer" thing better. IMO this class should be D tier, because even though it can occasionally cause problems those problems rarely have a chance to happen.
Rogue: ...yeeeahhhh. Seriously, when you have a horror story not involving SA, it's almost ALWAYS the rogue. And they're also almost always chaotic stupid. No change.
Sorcerer: Narcissists. Yeah, that's the stereotype I've seen with them. Although, in all honestly that's a case of people projecting the character's personality onto the player. There's also the typical charisma character stereotypes, which are most commonly seen with the Bard, but honestly I think you got the big one. No change.
Warlock: I'd love to go on and on about how the short rest issue is a symptom of a larger problem with the "adventuring day" format so many player groups insist on using and how it's not exclusive to warlocks, but this is about stereotypes so I'll stick to that. Anyway, the other big stereotype with Warlock is "edgelord", and especially a "devil worshiping nightmare edgelord who will inevitably betray the party". Honestly, out of all the stereotypes, this one is the worst in terms of how WRONG it is. Sure, you can _technically_ make a warlock like that. If you roleplay a Fiend Warlock to the letter of how it's described in the rulebook, without ANY reflavoring, you DO end up with a devil worshiping nightmare edgelord who will inevitably betray the party. But that's only one of many options. Your patron can be a celestial, the complete opposite. Your patron can be an archfey, who runs on "bacon and necktie" morality rather than black-and-white. Your patron can literally be Azathoth's grand uncle, who might not even know you exist or that you're tapping into their power. Your patron can be a sentient weapon, who's really just in it for the ride. And even if you _do_ go the fiend route, you don't have to make it a Faustian bargain. Heck, I've read a story of a Fiendlock who's patron was a succubus with a mommy kink, said patron ended up becoming the party's team mom. It was actually quite wholesome despite seeming a bit "magical realm"-y at first. No change.
Wizard: "I didn't ask how big the room is. I said I cast fireball!" Automatic S tier IMO, this is the only class who's worst stereotype is "has a very nasty tendency to TPK because of a stupid action". I know the sorcerer can do this too but it's always been associated with the wizard.
Obviously, the other wizard stereotype, even if it has nothing to do with the players is the "dies of 1d4 damage."
Cleric: I didn’t put Spirit guardians on this spell list but I might as well use it. Seriously though when the strongest concentration spells are put before the cleric and then given 10 minutes of uptime not using it is quite literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Moon Druid: I didn’t pick this subclass because it’s mechanically strong, I just want to transform into cool dinosaurs and treat my enemies as prey. No seriously that’s the only reason.
Wizard: I didn’t ask how big the room is, I cast Gravity Sinkhole.
To answer your cleric-monk question, the subclass is Way of Mercy. My friend plays it and he routinely uses his chiropractic medicine to heal us. He is also straight recreating Breaking Bad right now.
Ironic about the Wizard. The only class with the stereotype about the TPK because of a stupid action is one of TWO classes with INTELLIGENCE as its central stat.
Cleric is top tier, but not anywhere near best class
1 is Wizard without competition
2 is Druid
3 i'd say is where cleric falls
As a game master, the "That Guy" of my players was not the Rogue. The Rogue was a bit slimy and occasionally swindled the Barbarian by making him believe he was "managing his money", but that was more funny than annoying. No, "that guy" was the fighter. He min-maxed his character so much that he was sometimes one-shotting bosses, and was kind of a murder hobo, keeping the loot for himself, playing the rules lawyer etc... Funny to hear about the stereotypes ahah
so, your fighter played right, and you find that bad? weird
@@DellikkilleD the problem is not that his character was powerful. Depriving the group of a fun bossfight by one-tapping it is bad, but I had some ways to prevent it most of the time. But when a player is too try-hard and tries to screw over the rest of the group to keep ahead of the curve, and also wants to kill everything with a life bar for that sweet exp, it's obviously annoying
@@DellikkilleDare we supposed to give the fighters all the loot? I must've missed that in my D&D orientation.
I can sum up why I like fighter in just a meme:
You play fighter because you want to be the over the top military man, I play fighter because I enjoy being the completely normal guy in a world full of wizards, dragons, and literal demons. We are not the same.
In all seriousness though for me it's got that zero to hero appeal, being the normal dude who triumphs in the face of overwhelming adversity. It's way cooler to me to be the regular person who risks his life going toe to toe with deadly monsters than it is to be the Wizard who just goes "I cast Fireball" and vaporizes them.
I main Barbarian because I like taking down doors and then using saaid doors as a tower shield.
No, you have to throw your allies at the enemy 😢
as a barbarian and monk main, i just like being able taking a hit naked or thow hands
Very silly tier list, but I like it. Missed out on a class or two, but you covered the basics at least.
I mostly agree with the list. Your reasoning is sound. Any stories that disrupt this usually are the sex pests and weeb types.
No, these two aren't the same thing. They do go hand in hand at times. Mostly from people not seeing where a line is drawn.
7:30 yeah I see a lot of sorcerers get argumentative swearing up and down that they can use twin cast and quickened spell to cast 3 fireballs per turn instead of 1
May or may not have had that argument with my dm several times
@@Trapsarentgay133 XD. Did they set you straight? Is that where you got the username?
But can you just not cast 2 level spells in the same turn ?
@@Elias-ej6de well yeah that’s my point. But also not exactly. it is more complicated than that. It’s one of the most argued about rules and for good reason.
Technically, you cannot cast another leveled spell during the same turn that you cast a BONUS ACTION spell. (In fact, you couldn’t cast reaction cantrips if they get introduced either. Only action cantrips)
Additionally, twin spell does let you duplicate spells, but only single target spells.
The combination of these two rules are what make sorcerers only able to cast fireball once per turn, but I’ve encountered many sorcerers who refuse to acknowledge this and try to make 3 fireballs in one turn.
Interestingly, the spell limitation rule does not retrain you from casting multiple spells per turn if you don’t cast a bonus action spell. This means that reaction spells are fair game if you already cast an action spell, but not if you had cast a bonus action spell.
Another peculiarity is that the bonus action limitation on spells applies even if the bonus action spell was a cantrip like magic stone,
Amusingly, a spellcaster can take a two level dip in fighter for action surge to cast 2 action spells in the same turn, and of course use their reaction to cast a third spell like absorb elements or shield, to cast 3 spells in a turn. .
depends on the edition
3.5e, yeah you can in fact actually do that
5e, no you can't, and honestly I still don't get why twinned fire ball isn't allowed because holy shit let the sorcerer have the identity of being *the* blaster caster...which is still less useful than casting literally any other spell because guess what removing something from the fight from the get go is better than doing a lot of damage lol
but seriously every edition sorcerer is actually a straight up downgrade from wizard because the rule makers don't let it *and only it* play to it's own identity for one reason or another and it's so annoying. ...Though that's honestly probably why I play sorcerer the most of all casters, I see it as a strictly worse wizard, so I don't feel as bad when I minmax a concept to hell and back with one
I played a Dwarf Paladin, Oath of Glory. He was the opposite of that guy. He was the supportive Gym Bro. He worshipped Hanseath, the dwarf god of drinking and merriment. I had reflavored his Lay on Hands to be him offering his homebrew beer as healing.
Many great shenanigans were had with that paladin, and I would play that character again if offered the opportunity.
Fair play, good points.... Wonder if there is gonna be a part 2 with the other classes, like artificer, arcane trickster and the psionic ones...
I usually go for the Paladin because I love the concept of holy-knights but my favorite is the good ol' "PURGE THE HERETICS" War cry
I never been a "That's guy" type of guy, had some normal quarls here and there but they wrren't party-breaking or no longer friends types
I'm the Paladin at my table, and my DM has ironically called me out for being too *passive* as a Paladin. Even temporarily lost my powers for a few sessions because of it. I think it was an overcorrection on my end because I *never* wanted to be *that guy* when it comes to a fictional faith, or my real one.
You actually helped me realise I’m kind of being “that guy” with my rogue and now I can be a better player to hang around in my next session.
W self development
there is something about Charisma that attracts players who try to bogard the table
8:20 is it even possible to play a warlock with a non-evil deity? Like the basic patrons are fiend, great old one and archfey. Which is basically choosing between lawful evil, chaotic evil or chaotic neutral. And the whole idea of a pact is basically you being forced to complete tasks and serve your patron in exchange for the power (unlike a cleric or paladin who can just heed the morals). Unlike them they can be 'good' under an evil patron, so they don't need to be evil, but do 'serve' something evil.
When it comes to the Great Old Ones, the creature is usually so alien that it doesn’t know or care that someone has made a pact with it. Not all warlocks must serve the patron: Curwen drawing power from Yog-Sothoth in The Case of Charles Dexter Ward is one of these, and likely one of the things the class is based on anyway.
I'd have said if you either serve the whim of, or have pledged yourself to a powerful and 'good' being, they'd just call you a cleric or paladin
I always find it funny when people reduce sorcerer to a fireball machine when, as someone whose most played class is sorcerer, I find the class is more useful doing literally anything else. you have the spells known to never actually cast fireball. In fact, I genuinely can't remember the last time I casted any blast spell with the class that wasn't pathfinder's Snapdragon Fireworks for a silly combo that results in 10 turns of save or be stunned for the round
Maybe just a coincidence, but i notice that most of the high tiers are occupied by classes that need a decent to great charisma score. Maybe something about people having a warped idea of what having a social intelligence means and just believing it allows them to do anything they want free of consequence
As someone currently aying a Rogue.
I actually Agree. While aying as a rogue. You just want to be roguish. Or sarcastic, or cowardly. Or connoving.
I've settled for slightly cowardly and sarcastic. But ensured he has a backstory and goal revolving becoming an adventurer and giving back to the world out of regret for that which he previously stole.
i never played a Paladin and i have seen so many "That Guy" storys with Paladins, that I really wanna play as one, just to show of to these people, how this class can and should be played xD
I mostly play Paladin all the time and agree with this list. I'm kinda chill and tank damage while supporting my allies so they can do the cool stuff. If I play Sorcerer, I'm starting 2 levels in Paladin anyway so I don't die and can cast spells in full plate armor.
If I play Fighter, it's a Dexterity/Charisma based Battle Master with Rally/Riposte which has actually been the most fun character to play so far.
Worst person i ever had to play with wasn't playing a paladin, different system, but was totally sinking into that catagory. Declared their character would straight up refuse to work with... Not even a villainous character, more antihero type
I wish you would have gone over what you see the stereotypes of each class as being more. But great vid!!
I definitely should do a bigger breakdown of the RPG Horror Story cliches of every class!
My first character was a paladin and I thought it was the funest thing ever. Your held to a standard and that you must uphold. You aren’t meant to be some constant slayer of evil but just a really good and caring person :)
Luved it, I think more personal stuff goes better with the channel, take into account that i'm totally biased
In my current campaign, all of use despite none of us being rogues (sorc+barb+cleric) were joking about multiclassing to rogue with how much we hoard treasure and greed for items, especially the cleric.
i play kalashtar paladin, as the shield or tank of the party i ensure that the most vulnerable members are protected even if i die and gotta get another character sheet.
Is it bad that i try to rotate and try out various classes, but end up gravitating specifically to just about all of the A-S tier classes here and not many others?
It’s funny you say sorcerer and warlock are powergamers. Be ause i only realized my current character i wanna try playing with is a drow entertainer sorceress. Sorry, wall of text below.
I wanted a bit of a starry dancer, because dancing lights with the dark black/blue/grey skin (whichever i roll for lmao) would probably accent well, especially if i also casted Faerie fire, both of which a drow gets inherently. I figured i could add more variety to the starry dance routine, so I looked through conjuration spells and found melf’s minute meteors and crown of stars, and realized i needed a space themed sorcerer. I picked aberrant mind over lunar, because she can cast faerie fire without words (in case the dm gets rulish) to light herself and the minute meteors, enhancing the dance. It wasn’t until a few weeks later that i realized you get a silent Mind Sliver naturally too, and so i figured “i can just swap it out based on the needs of the group and campaign”. But otherwise, the character just needs a good reason to go from being a dancer and fire eater to having aberrant telepathic sorcery. I was thinking a placid lake which reflected another dimension, but it feels a bit odd. Definitely need narrative help.
The real problems i have are these: i struggle to communicate when i get frustrated, it’s not mature to act like that, and secondly i’ve not had the chance to run on any dnd campaign, so i don’t know how good at roleplay i’d be, and i’m not getting any better. I got close but i got really mad playing MtG with one group with all the crazy cards i was new to. I did my best to apologize before we really stopped talking, so i feel like i was able to remedy what i could, but it was a tough lesson in patience. Been working patience for a while since, i might be ready to try again soon, i won’t grow or learn from my mistakes if i just quit after one failure.
Basically i probably play like a bard but prefer sorcerer. I don’t need a short rest i have a crossbow for a reason. I just hope the party artificer mods my crossbow bolts to help him and the rogue get up the tower, and then with my 120ft of darkvision, i can telepath a warning to them if i see a guard. Or i can just pass my bolts off to someone else and whack people with a stick between spells, that sounds kinda funny
I often play games as the "stereotypically worst type" not because im that kind of person, but because unfortunately they're just cool. For example, i like paladins because i like a strong knight character with magical ability. What's cooler than a magical knight? I also like to main Reaper in SoT, because i like being a skeleton and a bad guy. But i also find i usually don't fit the stereotypes. Ive never been the lawful stupid type, and every campaign I've been in i was graciously welcomed. And as a reaper, i never ran from a fight or played scummy. Straight up normal ship battle. Im trying to reverse stereotypes one at a time lol
I had this campaign where I was DM and there was this cleric who would just attack every living being that came on theri path. He was like te main character and is player name was character as well. Based on my experience I would put cleric in at least A tier, maybe even S.
I main wizard and rogue and i fully agree, tho i tend to play rogue mechanically but reflavour it with my favorite being barbarian multiclass cause yelling "SNEAK ATTACK!" to get sneak attack is funny to me. And wizard players in my experience tend to either be very good or very bad
As a palidin, the rouge killed a party npc. I had to kill him for murder, then another player that attacked me, and i had to kill them. For the rest of the campaign, the other players kept joking that i would kill them if they misbehaved.
Honestly, i was surprised Ranger ended up in C tier instead of S or A. But then I remembered the Rogue exists.
This post was created by the Wizard Gang
Ngl, I main Druid and often multiclass into Monk.
(I’d play ranger if it was…. Better. My first one shot I did ranger and it wasn’t as fun to play.)
I just really like the love of nature and the mixture of “wise man”. It also lends well to a backstory of why the character became a monk and when you mix with something like a spore Druid with their belief that undead are just as necessary to the “circle of life” it can make a really compelling character with a lot of useful tools for the dm to work with.
With that said, I’m kind of the hippie in the group. So I feel like I am the type of person who IS the stereotype for those classes lol
As a sorcerer main I 100% agree.
I hate the stereotype of "let me just throw the same three spells my entire playthrough."
But as a beginner it could be incredibly complicated to play a caster; so I understand it if you're new. But after your first 3 months or so of playing try expanding out a little bit.
Stuff like Clerics and Wizards feel like there is a lot of required reading and planning going in, so i appreciate that sorcerer can be good for a more relaxed caster experience.
We did a one shot where each of us had to make 5 characters and there were different trials and our characters had to split up to handle them. I based my 5 off of LFG’s characters. Richard the Warlocl, Cale the Ranger, etc. When we faced the final boss and beat it, I was the only one left with all 5 characters still alive. A chest appeared and all the other players had their wounded and tired characters check it out. I had to shout over the group to get everyone’s attention. When they were finally listening I muttered 3 words that made the GM laugh.
“Richard casts Fireball.”
Lfg?
my interpretation of the wizard is that they're the cool guys that have been playing the game the longest. they can be rule lawyers at times but are generally cool.
I think Druid should be higher, I think they are up there with paladin for the enforcing their ideals on others, whenever players want to do something that would kill an animal or hurt a forest they can get draw the same line that paladins draw when you want to steal from a shop
This video makes me feel good that my favorite classes are druid ranger and monk 😌
I'm breaking the rogue stereotype so hard every time when I play it as I somehow find my self the most reasonable person in the party, trying to keep everything going smoothly.
It's interesting that all the "good" classes by stereotype are the ones you'd most expect to find comfortable sitting around a fire in the wilderness, avoiding the drama and conflict of cities. A sample party could be a druid leader on some sort of broad long-term mission with their ranger companion, teamed up with a grizzled fighter who got sick of the army and, having worked and gotten along with the ranger in the past, was approached by them with an offer of employment as agreeable muscle. They encountered and healed a wounded barbarian who felt indebted and joined them for the time being, and later shared a fire with a wandering monk who, appreciating the druid's commitment to balance and the martial skills of the others, decided to accompany the party as a learning opportunity and exercise in personal growth. It could be a solid party, too - spellcasting and healing from the druid, a multitude of useful skills from the ranger (plus a potential animal companion), tanking or damage potential from the fighter, a heavy-hitter barbarian and then a potential DEX tank or additional melee heavy-hitter in the monk. Fun to play, capable of completing quests and solid in the RP department.
Heh. A group I DM for consists of a Paladin, a Rogue, a Sorcerer and a Warlock. Great! 2 S-tiers and 2 A-tiers! Winning combo!
Luckily, my players are behaving like actual decent functioning adults, so it does work.
Therefore, the Paladin - Oath of Protection from the GM Binder - is the party dad.
The Rogue - Arcane Trickster - has a beautiful backstory of a Mafia Boss kid and wizard granddad and is super fun.
The Sorcerer - Homebrew Feyborn - combines the Changeling stories with all the Fey unhingedness and is a damn chaos goblin, but manages to not steal the spotlight so much to be annoying and actually takes us for a ride,
And the Warlock - Archfey Patron, played by my wife - is this "quiet and brooding" type, but - again - still enough of a team player to make the game work.
Paladins are not only the quintessential "that guy" characters, they are also targets for "that guy" DMs, who really want to force a fallen paladin plot.
I mostly agree with this, though i do think the idea of paladins sticking to their oath being bad is a bit unfair, they literally have to or they become an oath breaker, but i do understand that this is about how that can manifest negatively, and considering how i do hear about people who apply thier oaths too structly then yeah i get it
What i dont get is getting on warlock for asking for short rests, like, that's an issue of their class basically not functioning unless they take a short rest after every combat, seems unfair to get onto them about wanting to be able to do more than cast eldritch blast, which is the big stereotype of warlocks, it's EB, the class
Personally I’ve usually had scribes wizards as “that guy”. Not sure if it’s just a theme but many players who are scribes wizards that I’ve played with have been stuck up snobs
I have been a that guy paladin in the past, but more for their ability detect evil. Was very absolutist on if you came up evil then thats it, you are my enemy and must die, if not now then when i get stronger.
Currently in my party we have a Chaotic Good Fighter who is "That Guy".
What does it says about me that my 3 favourite classes are rogue (s), wizard (b) and barbarian (d)
When I play I am in order of preference Paladin, Rogue, Warlock.... Makes sense why I seem to be forever DM instead, I was the baddy all along.
Fighter: "Bonk?"
Barbarian: "Yes, yes bonk."
Both: "BONK!"
with the games ive run, ive had
the druid - has a habit of accidently finding novel ways around problems
the wizard - accidently keeps insta-killing people with really good rolls
the paladin - wants to be the muscle of the party but the dice gods keep saying no
the artificer - prone to being a murder hobo
My favourite class is Sorcerer and that's inaccurqte you put us next to Bard and Warlock. I think Sorc should be behind cleric even
Good video tho
Look, my paladin is only the center of drama because other people won't stop getting involved in his romance with the werewolf NPC we adopted.
Ranger is definitely “That Guy” from my experience. Either trying to control the rest of the party, putting their animal companion’s needs above the party’s safety, or doing the most horrible things because “they just don’t care about the expectations of society”. Often worse than the rogue.
Honestly paladin and rogue are basically opposite sides of the same coin when it comes to roleplay which is why I try to play them way different then their stereotype. Which i find weird for rogue cause mechanically they are great for teamplay and I've basically decided i no longer play them as edgy assassin's creed and more like a party bro that wants to help his friends. feel like bard should be that guy too. They just make people feel awkward and force people to be part of their dating sim.
I am paladin main cuz I just want to protect my team, heal them etc I love bulky armors and healing and I am also charismatic so I just have to play the paladin.
Me too, except for the charismatic part. I like to take care of my party.
Shit man my first character was a bard. Who I then followed up with both That Guy classes rolled into one
Bard I would absolutely put in "That Guy" territory. As the Paladin, Rogue, and Bard make the unholy trifecta of Bad D&D Stereotypes associated with the classes.
Paladin: Rules Lawyering and Lawful Stupid
Rogue: Edgy Loner and Stealing From the Party
Bard: Respecting Zero Boundaries and Sexual Harassment
As a paladin player myself... Fair.
I actually had a lot of fun playing a dragonborn paladin, our entire party was actually following the same god, but since there was a relatively small following of the god (as it was eventually revealed that worshipping them was stupid because they were planning to destroy the universe) they had quite loose restrictions on alignment, so there was a chaotic neuteral lich (I know it's weird but we went with it), but since I was lawful good with a vengeance oath, we were constantly beefing in game, but since neither of us took it seriously, we're still good friends now
HELL YEAH DRAFONBORN PALADINS!
I currently have an oath of vengeance blue Dragonborn paladin with a dip into fighter named Zantor and he’s so op. Him, a war mage, and a kobold rogue named kar tak(super well done dmpc) are pretty far into the dungeon of the mad mage. If u want some of his crazy stories I’m glad to share them
I feel like the stereotypical Bard is that guy. Flirting with everything and taking nothing seriously gets old so fast
I tend to play barbarian and monk, but have a weakness for bards and rogues so i'm the best of both worlds lmao
F is forgotten tier and that’s where the artificer is😂
True, you can throw gunslinger and blood hunter in there too!
I mean, they're not in the game. Mystic too. Arcana and HB are not the shit
As well as Rune Scribe
Sorcerers are fine… except for wild magic. Wild magic chaos goblin is totally that guy, but most are ok, could be worse. And as much as I like the good rank of barbarian as a barbarian main, it should be in the same tier as fighter: if there is a murder hobo in the party who kills the shop keeper it’s the barbarian. But most barbarian mains are chill, they just rolled up to slay some goblins in the most brutal way possible. And fighters main flaw is that as the “base” class all the inattentive don’t want to participate I have no bonus action so I duel wield players end up there.
Calling the Rogue a "That Guy" man I'd punch you if you had any healing potions left! ;)
He's not saying that Rogues are "That Guys", he's saying that _stereotypical_ Rogues are "That Guys".
Are you dim? Did you even listen to the video?
ranger, being the love child between druid and fighter, in the same tier as druid and fighter, is great lol
For me what ya said bout barbarian true, I main him course 3 reasons: easy, useful, not much RP needed.
Rogue/Ranger here. I'm nice, i promise! XD I end up being the comedic relief in my group.
Considering that the monk is the most underpowered class and the kensei gunk is the absolute best version of them, I think its fine to ask to be a gunk as long as your dm has guns in their setting.
Calling monks "gunks" is so funny. Please don't change it
@DiamondHD_ gunk is a portmanteau of gun and monk. Kensei gunk is a monk that uses guns that uses needs the kensei class features to work. It's probably the best pure martial build in the game. And it also has a very funny name.
@@mr.fufucudlypoops8207 ooh I have never heard of that, it sounds cool
@DiamondHD_ very cool. If your dm allows guns, play it immediately. It's super fun. It's about the closest thing to john wick that you can play in dnd.
Artificers are banned from my table 😂
Monk and barbarian both belong in “that guy slot”
I’m not surprised how you casually dismissed them as a problem player. That’s a common tactic to hide red flags.
Monster Hunter icons for DND classes is a great idea
The real trouble with the stereotypical paladin and rogue comes when they're in the same party.
The paladin feels duty-bound to stop the rogue from stealing all the things or randomly stabbing people. In earlier editions, they might be afraid that turning a blind eye to the rogue's shenanigans would be a violation of their oath. So when Lawful Stupid paladin and Chaotic Psycho rogue meet, the party goes down in flames.
Being a paladin and rogue player fighting for my life rn
i played barbarian in the previous campain i was playing and there where almost no combat moments so i was so bad it was all puzzel and charisma based so i couldnt do anything but beat up my friends for fun
Druid has always been my favorite class but I think that's just because I'm autistic as hell and just want to be Creature. I am probably not the best player because I am very spacey, there is absolutely nothing going on in my head at any given moment.
I think I would describe myself as a multiclass main, cause while I make roughly even use of all classes it’s almost never as a single class character
But have you ever made an Abserd Character? (misspelling is intentional if you're not familiar)
As a Paladin main, I agree that the Rogue is the problem. I also feel compelled to say that they hate us because they ain't us. I will never stop playing the good guy hero, for I have sworn an oath. Deception & stealth are for the weak & cowardly. I will smite all evildoers. Cleric mains don't listen to him crusadeing heretics is good. Also, i intend to unite all warlocks with their patrons.
When I first started out, The Monk class was sold to me as the class that let me be an DBZ character, lol.
What happens when you multiclass paladin and rogue or monk and barbarian?
Paladin + Rogue is the step before becoming a DM from Hell. Unless they're Oathbreaker, ironically. Then they're just going for MAXIMUM EDGE.
Monk + Barbarian actually bumps up to C because of how the classes conflict with each other significantly, which combined with the Monk's complexity makes it a headache to work through. As a result, players who play this combination are either being super-fluffy and don't care about effectiveness, which is normally not a problem but in this case can cause their character to effectively be baggage, or they're relatively new to the game, don't understand why Monk+Barb doesn't generally work well, and are now stumbling through the campaign trying to simply figure out how to even make their character work. In the case of the newbie, though, I wouldn't be too hard on them, they're already on the receiving end of a crash course on why multiclassing beyond maybe two levels of fighter for Action Surge and access to better armor is generally a bad idea for newer players.
@@VestedUTuber Yes but Tortle. Tortle makes barbarian/rogue potentially viable.
What's "that guy" about Paladin? Is it just that they keep the party from being murder hobos stealing from everyone?
I'm new to DnD and love playing Paladin
Remember all of these are playing on the worst caricatures of a character in that class. The reason Paladin is put there is because, by default, a paladin character’s personality, role playing, backstory, and often combat style are heavily influenced by their oath, and the oaths are all extreme in nature. Oaths will come into conflict with the general party’s goals sometimes, and this could be a cool storytelling thing but could also be a pain in the ass for everyone else depending on the situation.
I play a paladin too and I love it, but I am in constant communication with my dm about my character direction. My oath of redemption causes tension with some party members sometimes, and it’s very fun for me and them, but I also have to remind myself to make sure my character has a personality that goes outside his devotion.
For example: It would be a pain in the ass for everyone else if my paladin’s character development, personality, and story outshined and preceded other characters constantly because “I need to make sure he is devoted to his god before he is devoted to his friends” or “he refuses to do half the things the party does because he can’t. Just got to be flexible and work with other people.
They'll often use their oath to justify doing something selfish. Warlock and Cleric players will do this occasionally, but it happens with Paladin players often enough that they're notorious for being narcissists.
As a paladin I can attest…you are accurate
I’ll give you one reason why Warlock belongs on top of S tier. Hexblade.
*cries in artificer main*
Also, not sure how common this experience is, but the bard’s enchantment spells are very good at getting away with shit you have absolutely zero right getting away with.
I’m a wizard player. Talking to me about being prepared haha… hahaha… ha… oh boy…
barbarians are only ever played by people brand new to the game or so experienced with the game and know its rules so well they can even make the barbarian fun, no in between
As a rogue I completely agree with this ranking