History YMMV / DungeonsAndDragonsFifthEdition

** Monks -- ever since Rangers got some support through a smattering of alternative class features -- have ended up competing for the role of "weakest class in the edition" among much of the playerbase. Their biggest issue is that, even after having the number of stats they need to invest in pared down compared to previous editions, they're still a heavily multi-stat-dependent brawler class that can't really reach their full potential without them; although they [[MagikarpPower get better at higher levels as their martial arts dice power up and they unlock ever more potent uses for their qi]], and they can even be a potent DiscOneNuke if the player [[AwesomeButImpractical rolls well enough on their stats to get multiple 16s or 18s to start with]], they trade ''very'' badly compared to all the equipment-dependent classes like Dex-based Fighters or Rogues in a point-buy game or if the table's stat-generation system fails them. They also lack the sturdiness of their fellow stat-dependent brawler class, the Barbarians, who at least have the ability to strap on medium armor and d12 hit dice to fall back on if their stat-generation fails them; the only thing a Monk in that scenario has going for them is the ability to Dodge as a bonus action instead of actually leveraging their many extra attacks. The following subclasses only makes the class look worse:

** [[BirdPeople Kenku]], as far as playable races go, are one of the more polarizing ones released in an official work. This is because of their [[TheSpeechless inability to speak normally]], instead they mimic sounds in order to communicate. This has divided the community because of how one would play a kenku, and the issues that can potentially arise with one in a party. Some feel that the kenku are a fun and unique race due to this, citing that a good roleplay can find fun and unique ways to communicate with their party by associating phrases/sounds they hear to what they want to say or mean. Furthermore, the kenku as a race are fairly strong, making them powerful in the right setup, especially as Rangers or Rogues. On the other hand, some feel they are too gimmicky and difficult to work with since having to basically find ways of communicating can make playing one just not enjoyable. There also is issues with kenku being prime targets for a {{Griefer}} to play because their copy sounds mean they can harass or be annoying to players with random words or noises, or taking things out of context just to annoy people. Due to this, kenku are very difficult to discuss, and tend to be polarizing among the community. ''Monsters of the Multiverse'' would eventually ax this aspect of the race almost entirely, which at least gives some players the option of not having to deal with the issue that the vanilla version has to deal with.

** Monks -- ever since Rangers got some support through a smattering of alternative class features -- have ended up competing for the role of "weakest class in the edition" among much of the playerbase. Their biggest issue is that, even after having the number of stats they need to invest in pared down compared to previous editions, they're still a heavily stat-dependent class that depends on having multiple high stats to reach their full potential; although they [[MagikarpPower get better at higher levels as their martial arts dice power up and they unlock ever more potent uses for their qi]], and they can even be a potent DiscOneNuke if the player [[AwesomeButImpractical rolls well enough on their stats to get multiple 16s or 18s to start with]], they trade ''very'' badly compared to all the equipment-dependent classes like Dex-based Fighters or Rogues in a point-buy game or if the table's stat-generation system fails them. They also lack the sturdiness of their fellow stat-dependent brawler class, the Barbarians, who at least have the ability to strap on medium armor and d12 hit dice to fall back on if their stat-generation fails them; the only thing a Monk in that scenario has going for them is the ability to Dodge as a bonus action instead of actually leveraging their many extra attacks. The following subclasses only makes the class look worse:

** The idea that rolling a Nat 1 or 20 is an automatic fail or success on all dice rolls is a common assumption among people, but in truth it isn't the case, as it only applies to attack rolls and saves (something that has been true in all editions of the game). The assumption it applies to all roles can be chalked up to the nature of rolling either of them; if you roll a 1 on any roll, chances are unless you have crazy high modifiers that would boost the roll, a 1 is very likely a failure by how low the roll will be, while the opposite occurs for rolling a 20, since it means unless you have a large negative modifier to the dice roll, chances are you'll pass whatever you rolled.[[note]] Rolling either doesn't automatically mean a success or failure. For example: if a character rolled a natural 1 on a stealth check, but they have a high stealth bonus, magical effects augmenting it, feats, and/or class features that boost the roll, a character can still succeed due to the sheer numerical bonus they have. On the other side, a character getting a natural 20 on a strength check while having a negative modifier, and the check is meant to be really high, can fail to do so.[[/note]] The ''One D&D'' playtest briefly experimented with making this an official rule, but reverted the change within about a week.
** On a related note, it's commonly assumed that a Nat 1 means something bad has to happen to the person who rolled it. The rules don't outright say this though, instead saying the attack/roll fails. The negative connotation with rolling a 1 comes from the community house ruling 1's negative effects, such as an attack causing the user to drop their weapon or accidentally hit an ally. Since this is such a commonly accepted aspect of the game, people tend to assume it always works that way.
** Some often treat the Arcana proficiency as one's ability to sense/feel magic around them. In truth, Arcana is closer to just a History check, but for magic-related stuff, such as perhaps rolling to know if a character would know spells like something they see, or perhaps the name of magical locations. The ''Detect Magic'' spell is supposed to be used to detect magical effects in an area, which itself is a bit controversial since ''Pathfinder'' made it a cantrip but 5e both made it a first level spell and fairly weak (although usable as a ritual), and ''Identify'' to ID specific spells and magical effects on a person or object.
** Clerics and Paladins are sometimes viewed and treated by newer players as the same thing, but in truth, they operate differently from both a gameplay and class identity angle; Clerics are explicitly those who serve a god or divine-like being while Paladins are those who swear oaths or contracts to a cause or order of some kind. While many Paladins worship gods and some Clerics can serve orders through their god, both classes not only play differently, but both serve explicitly different roles from a story angle (Clerics are closer to war priests while Paladins are closer to knights and champions). The assumption mostly comes from both of the classes appearing similar to a newcomer, when in truth they are vastly different.

** If a Barbarian takes the Path of the Totem Warrior, it's going to be for the Bear Totem's first ability, which grants resistance to all damage except psychic while raging. In other words, if no enemy on the field can deal psychic damage -- and considering how uncommon psychic damage is, they probably won't -- the Bear Totem Barbarian effectively has double HP when they rage. And since Barbarians already have the highest natural health pools in the game, this will give the Barbarian around [[WebAnimation/JoCat a googolplex of hit points]]. Also, Barbarians have advantage on Dexterity saving throws against damage spells like Fireball and Disintegrate, so they get a cumulative chance to cut the damage they take even further. It's commonly thought that the mass infusions of psychic spells in ''Xanathar's Guide to Everything'' and monsters that deal psychic damage in ''Mordekainen's Tome of Foes'' were an attempt to "stealth nerf" the Bear Totem's ability. And that's just the starting ability; Totem Warrior Barbarians can take different primal paths for each one of their abilities, which can also give them the ability to fly for a short time, gain terrific eyesight up to a mile (which helps with Perception), and gain proficiency with some skill checks. With all that being said, a Bear Totem Barbarian is considered NighInvulnerable not because of any spells or builds, but because they simply have so much HP while raging that taking them down is a tall order.

*** The Twilight Domain is a borderline MasterOfAll with how much it grants; it gives the ability to use every weapon and armor, solid pseudo-healing in the form of temporary HP, the power to give anyone advantage on initiative rolls (which all but guarantees that ally will go first in combat), exploration utility via stupidly powerful Darkvision (which they can share), a great list of extra spells that poaches debuffs from Bard and buffs from Paladin, and even mobility thanks to the power to just straight up fly. Other domains have to get by with one or two benefits on par with that, but Twilight gets a laundry list. The only thing Twilight Clerics are missing is raw damage potential, but their weapon proficiencies and standard Cleric spell list choices still make a Twilight Cleric serviceable in this area.

** Monks -- ever since Rangers got some support through a smattering of alternative class features -- have ended up competing for the role of "weakest class in the edition" among much of the playerbase, with the simple reason being that of the damage-dealing classes, Monks just don't do much damage. Sure, Monks have some nifty options for personal utility and survivability, but their method of actually ''fighting'' [[DeathOfAThousandCuts is much more staggered and spread across many moves]] compared to the potential insane burst options of a Rogue or a Fighter, and situations where prolonged one-on-one duels are a better option than just dumping a truckload of damage all at once onto an important target are rare. The following subclasses only makes the class look worse:

*** Hunters are this to some extent compared to the newer Ranger subclasses introduced. They're not as bad as the vanilla Beast Master, but can feel like a bit of a MasterOfNone with no clearly defined identity.

** The Indomitable feature, the Fighter's only class feature that cannot be recharged on a short rest, is often derided for being weak; it's essentially a single saving throw re-roll per long rest. Worse, it shows up on a level where the Fighter gets no other benefits. Often seen as a blatant attempt to skew things in the caster's favor in the caster-martial dynamic, it's [[PopularGameVariant often reworked]] to either recharge on a short rest or to work like the similar Legendary Resistance ability and let the Fighter choose to succeed instead.

** As written, making a character specializing in thrown weapons was basically impossible for the vast majority of the game's lifespan because there were no mechanics to differentiate weapons designed to be thrown from any others besides the Thrown property. At ''best'' a character with the Two Weapon Fighting feat could draw two weapons at once once per turn and burn their action drawing two more; fighters get three attacks by level 10 and a lot of throwing weapons are also Light, meaning off-hand attacks were subtly encouraged. Ultimately, a Fighting Style was released to patch these issues (and it ''does'' also pack a nice damage boost), but it still requires players to burn a resource most characters only get one of just to make this specialization functional at the level the other Styles (or at least [[ComplacentGamingSyndrome the good ones]]) start at. Even worse, until the release of the Path of the Giant Barbarian subclass, there was no way to use thrown weapons efficiently past 6th level, which begins to expect the player to get and use magic weapons. Unless the player had a ''really'' kind DM who was willing to homebrew some kind of magical weapon akin to the old ''returning'' property, it would be incredibly difficult to find enough throwable magic items that thrown fighting styles would stay sustainable throughout an entire encounter - more likely, the player will have one magic dagger or throwing axe and then be stuck using nonmagical thrown weapons against creatures with resistance to nonmagical damage. This utterly stymied the potential of thrown weapons and made ranged builds just downright better, since a character only needs a single magical bow to do consistent magical damage with every otherwise-normal arrow it fires.

*** The Archfey Warlock doesn't see much use, and is often viewed as one of the worst-designed subclasses from the base selection, due to the awkward abilities that simply stop working as the game goes on. The subclass is based around using charms, illusions, and mind-effecting spells that are meant to help the player focus on confusion, making it easier for them to escape enemies, and manipulation effects. The issue is that after a certain point, enemies start getting ContractualBossImmunity to charms and/or fear, making the abilities completely useless when you would want it. To add insult to injury, their other abilities like Misty Escape can simply be covered by spells such as Misty Step while charm immunity can be easily compensated by other features (Elves for instance are resistant to charms; they get advantage on saving throws against them). So choosing an Archfey as their patron essentially gives the player abilities they almost never can use past a few levels, some of which the Warlock is already capable of doing through spells (and said spells can cover the "trickster" aspect better), and doesn't give enough supportive abilities that would offset the drawbacks, making playing as this subclass an active handicap in most situations.

** Monks -- ever since Rangers got some support through a smattering of alternative class features -- have ended up competing for the role of "weakest class in the edition" among much of the playerbase, with the simple reason being that of the damage-dealing classes, Monks just don't do much damage. Sure, Monks have some nifty options for personal utility and survivability, but their method of actually ''fighting'' [[DeathOfAThousandCuts is much more staggered and spread across many moves]] compared to the potential insane burst options of a Rogue or a Fighter, and situations where prolonged one-on-one duels are a better option than just dumping a truckload of damage all at once onto an important target are rare.

** Barbarians, like Monks, have ended up being looked upon as the weakest class in Fifth Edition due in large part to their basic class features not meshing well together. Barbarians are tank classes that can soak up a lot of hits but generally don't have any meaningful way to draw aggro outside of one dedicated subclass, making their position as tanks nigh-useless. This wouldn't be a problem if they were ''actually'' good at hurting enemies to force their foes to pay attention to them; Barbarians have almost no dedicated ranged options, which makes them anemic mid-game where most powerful monsters have a flying speed, and even when reaching the enemy isn't a problem, Barbarians simply don't have anything they can do to significantly hamper enemies. Mid-and-late-game features suggest the Barbarian is ''meant'' to fish for critical hits for their damage output, but there's nothing to support them actually scoring critical hits beyond their Reckless Attack feature, which ''still'' only gives a Barbarian 9.75% chance to land a critical blow per hit - ''very poor odds'' in a game where combats are supposed to last about two to four rounds at most. Like Monks, Barbarians have some powerful subclasses that make them worth using, but those are few and far between.

** Monks -- ever since Rangers got some support through a smattering of alternative class features -- have ended up competing for the role of "weakest class in the edition" among much of the playerbase with Barbarian, with the simple reason being that of the damage-dealing classes, Monks just don't do much damage. Sure, Monks have some nifty options for personal utility and survivability, but their method of actually ''fighting'' [[DeathOfAThousandCuts is much more staggered and spread across many moves]] compared to the potential insane burst options of a Rogue or a Fighter, and situations where prolonged one-on-one duels are a better option than just dumping a truckload of damage all at once onto an important target are rare. Monks also face several issues with longevity, as their d8 hit points just do not support their gameplay loop, especially once attacks of opportunity are factored in. A Monk ''needs'' to multiclass into Rogue to accommodate their hit-and-run playstyle, or else the Monk will run out the ki simply getting away from the enemies they attack. If the Monk ''stands and fights,'' their unique [=AC=] mechanic will do little to help them, especially when they top out at 20 late-game when monsters are routinely attacking at ''+16'' to-hit. Subclasses ''can'' mitigate their issues - Mercy and Long Death Monks are surprisingly durable, while Astral Self and Kensei can hit at a distance so the Monk doesn't need to invest Rogue levels or the Mobile feat into their build - but they typically just come out looking like frail, gimmicky Fighters.

** Barbarians, like Monks, have ended up being looked upon as the weakest class in fifth edition due in large part to the basic class features not meshing well together. Barbarians are tank classes that can soak up a lot of hits but generally don't have any meaningful way to draw aggro outside of one dedicated subclass, making their position as tanks nigh-useless. This wouldn't be a problem if they were ''actually'' good at hurting enemies to force their foes to pay attention to them; Barbarians have almost no dedicated ranged options, which makes them anemic mid-game where most powerful monsters have a flying speed, and even when reaching the enemy isn't a problem, Barbarians simply don't have anything they can do to significantly hamper enemies. Mid-and-late-game features suggest the Barbarian is ''meant'' to fish for critical hits for their damage output, but there's nothing to support them actually scoring critical hits beyond their Reckless Attack feature, which ''still'' only gives a Barbarian 9.75% chance to land a critical blow per hit - ''very poor odds'' in a game where combats are supposed to last about two to four rounds at most.

** Barbarian:

** Monks -- ever since Rangers got some support through a smattering of alternative class features -- have taken the role of "weakest class in the edition" among much of the playerbase, with the simple reason being that of the damage-dealing classes, Monks just don't do much damage. Sure, Monks have some nifty options for personal utility and survivability, but their method of actually ''fighting'' [[DeathOfAThousandCuts is much more staggered and spread across many moves]] compared to the potential insane burst options of a Rogue or a Fighter, and situations where prolonged one-on-one duels are a better option than just dumping a truckload of damage all at once onto an important target are rare.

** Monk:

** Rangers, without the optional class features and general buffs they get from ''Tasha's Cauldron of Everything'', are generally seen as the weakest ''Fifth Edition'' class; [[MasterOfNone there are very few things a Ranger can do in or out of combat that other classes can't do, and probably do better]]. In combat, they rely heavily on a very limited selection of spells, and stack up unfavorably against both Fighters and Paladins. Out of combat, many of the class's core features are only useful against specific prey or on specific terrain. It's telling when a Rogue ''subclass'' is considered to do a better job at being a Ranger than the actual Ranger; the ''very first feature'' the Scout Rogue gets completely overtakes anything the PHB Ranger has. Instead of expertise being dependent on one to three of nine types of terrain (and thus bloody useless in dungeons and cities, which Rangers ''can't'' choose) a Ranger can choose over their career, Scout Rogues just get expertise in Nature and Survival. Quick, easy, hardly game-breaking, and an immediate improvement over the Ranger's ''core'' feature.

** Factions in ''Fifth Edition'', a system where players could be members of one of five ''Forgotten Realms''-based international organizations. This was rarely used outside of the official Adventurer's League games, since not all character concepts fit neatly into them, and the Renown mechanic that influenced a player's standing in the faction was poorly designed and poorly explained. Despite this, early adventure books expected players to have a membership, providing plot hooks for each of them. This was fine in the ''TabletopGame/TyrannyOfDragons'' campaign, where it made sense for the factions to be involved with TheEndOfTheWorldAsWeKnowIt in play; part of that campaign is a political balancing act for maximum benefit. But it was pretty ridiculous in ''TabletopGame/CurseOfStrahd'', which mostly takes place in Barovia, an entirely separate ''plane of existence'' from the Forgotten Realms controlled by a vampire lord where the factions couldn't be expected to have any sort of influence. Since then, the adventures have toned this mechanic down heavily, and it now features only in adventures where the factions would be expected to appear anyway, such as ''TabletopGame/Waterdeep: Dragon Heist''. Even then, it's commonly house-ruled to be more straightforward or even outright ignored.

** Factions in ''Fifth Edition'', a system where players could be members of one of five ''Forgotten Realms''-based international organizations. This was rarely used outside of the official Adventurer's League games, since not all character concepts fit neatly into them, and the Renown mechanic that influenced a player's standing in the faction was poorly designed and poorly explained. Despite this, early adventure books expected players to have a membership, providing plot hooks for each of them. This was fine in the ''TabletopGame/TyrannyOfDragons'' campaign, where it made sense for the factions to be involved with TheEndOfTheWorldAsWeKnowIt in play; part of that campaign is a political balancing act for maximum benefit. But it was pretty ridiculous in ''TabletopGame/CurseOfStrahd'', which mostly takes place in Barovia, an entirely separate ''plane of existence'' from the Forgotten Realms controlled by a vampire lord where the factions couldn't be expected to have any sort of influence. Since then, the adventures have toned this mechanic down heavily, and it now features only in adventures where the factions would be expected to appear anyway, such as ''Waterdeep: Dragon Heist''. Even then, it's commonly house-ruled to be more straightforward or even outright ignored.

** Some often treat the Arcana proficiency as one's ability to sense/feel magic around them. In truth, Arcana is closer to just a History check, but for magic-related stuff, such as perhaps rolling to know if a character would know spells like something they see, or perhaps the name of magical locations. The Detect Magic spell is supposed to be used to detect magical effects in an area. Some tables just house rule Arcana to have the ability to feel magical energy nearby because Detect Magic isn't considered good enough to be worth using.

** The Wild Magic Sorcerer Bloodline divides opinion in 5e no less than any other edition. Fans love the wild and wooly chaotic weirdness that can result from the class's signature Wild Magic Surge, and argue that the chart is much less punishing than previous editions, with more straight-up beneficial effects and fewer punishing ones. Critics complain that said chart still has centering a ''Fireball'' on yourself on it, and that the mechanics surrounding it, at best, are generally poorly-designed, even the positive effects being too random or weird to feel justified playing it over safer options or, at worst, are purpose-built to enable stupid chaos-gremlin {{Griefing}}: great for making viewers laugh at the rest of the players' misery on a stream but agonizing for said players at the actual table.

* ItsTheSameSoItSucks: A common complaint leveled at ''5th Edition'', even by some fans who disliked ''4th Edition''. After the backlash of ''4E'', the writers of ''5E'' seem determined to go out of their way to return everything to the status quo, retconning even positively received changes in the last edition in order to maintain a more commonly viewed status quo. 1d4chan very aptly describes it as "the Coca-Cola classic to 4e's New Coke."

*** Assassin Rogues suffer from a bad case of CripplingOverspecialization. Since the subclass is designed around, well, [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin assassination]], the first subclass feature gives Rogues advantage on creatures that haven't acted in combat and advantage on all attacks... for the first round of combat. It has an additional clause that treats any attack as if it were a critical provided you surprise your target, however, it's difficult to pull off depending on the DM and general campaign setting. Its 9th and 13th level features also fall into similar trappings as Infiltration Expertise effectively promotes solo play due to the in-game time commitment of the feature and need to maintain the façade lest all that go to waste from a party member failing a check, while Imposter is ''heavily'' dependent on an RP-focused story as it serves almost no purpose in combat-focused ones. Its capstone feature, Death Strike, at least offers immense damage in conjunction with Assassinate's guaranteed critical but it requires the target to fail a Constitution saving throw, which in the late game is dodgy at best to fail as enemy Constitution is generally high by that point.

*** The Undying Warlock from the ''Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide''. All you get out of it is resistance to disease, an ability that makes it slightly harder for undead to attack you as long as you don't attack them first, a small collection of weak self-healing abilities, and a greatly enhanced lifespan. Undeniably a cool pact from a thematic point of view, but mechanically it's just ''really'' mediocre to the point of being useless, especially when the later released Undead patron basically does the thematic element better on top of better gameplay strengths.
*** The Pact of the Chain's benefit is very weak and fragile, never improves or scales up, and making use of their best ability means making sure it's right inside the range of any [=AoE=] spells an enemy wants to throw. Without the buffs it got from ''Tasha's Cauldron of Everything'', it's the weakest of the Pact Boon options.

** The Exhaustion mechanic is widely hated for how quickly it becomes debilitating and [[CycleOfHurting how difficult it is to be rid of it once it starts accumulating]]. Exhaustion levels are cumulative and go from disadvantage on all ability score checks (painful, but not debilitating), to halved Speed (debilitating), to disadvantage on all other d20 tests (debilitating bordering on crippling for classes like the Rogue that rely on Advantage), to a [[MaximumHPReduction halved HP maximum]] (crippling), to a speed of 0, to dead when Exhaustion hits six levels. It's notoriously difficult to remove too, with only a full long rest with adequate nutrition (capped at once every 24 hours to prevent the infamous "two hour workday" adventures) or a fairly high-level spell with a costly and non-renewable material component (''greater restoration'') stripping one level at a time. Intended as UnexpectedlyRealisticGameplay for characters in punishing survival situations like hostile climates, hypothermia, overwork, inadequate food, going without sleep, and/or other needs-based hardships, it was heavily restricted beyond that in the core books, save for a failure condition on the ''Tenser's transformation'' spell and the Berserker subclass's Frenzy ability (which is widely considered to have made the latter borderline unplayable). For most of the game's lifespan there was exactly one spell (''Sickening radience'') that could inflict it on a hostile creature. But eventually, when monsters were added who could outright inflict Exhaustion on PC in the twilight years of the game (one of them a CR 2 creature!), players began to realize en-masse just how poorly designed and inflexible the rules were when used for anything ''but'' the punishing survival situations they were intended for. Tellingly, Exhaustion was reworked several times in the ''One D&D'' playtest.

** Some subclasses from the initial launch are often disliked because they impose negative effects on the player for using some part of their skills. For example, the Berserker primal path for Barbarians is hated for the Frenzy ability, allowing a Barbarian to use a Bonus Action to attack again, at the cost of a level of Exhaustion, while the Wild Magic Sorcerer is hated for the Wild Magic Surge, which lets the DM roll on a table of random effects when the player uses specific parts of their subclass, but only when the DM remembers and even if they've been reduced since previous editions, said table still has many negative effects like ''Fireball''. In a somewhat telling move, almost every subclass released after the edition's launch did away with negative effects like that, due to negative feedback.
** The Underdark subraces (like Drow or Duergar) are not very popular in terms of gameplay usage due to the Sunlight Sensitivity racial feature, which imposes disadvantage on Perception checks, and attack rolls, if in sunlight. Considering how most modules have sunlight in them, unless one happens to be playing somewhere like the Underdark, very few players want to deal with being handicapped at all times by something they can't counter, especially considering their other racial features may not be enough to justify the downsides. While Drow are popular, and run in spite of this for EvilIsCool reasons, you'll never see other Underdark subraces played because it isn't worth such a drastic weakness.

** Infamously, there are many rules for this edition that seemed to not be made with awareness of other mechanics or rules, creating infamous causes of something that should not really work but does because of how the rules work. For example, Lycanthropes are immune to non-magical weapons that aren't silvered, but as written, this only applies to damage from weapons, which means that, according to the rules, pushing one off a cliff would not qualify as an attack when they hit the ground due to how falling damage works, meaning they would take normal fall damage[[labelnote:However...]]WordOfGod says [[https://twitter.com/ChrisPerkinsDnD/status/793670349946621952 it only applies to attacks]][[/labelnote]].

** Ranged attacks being at disadvantage against prone targets. The idea is that someone being shot at can throw themselves flat defensively and crawl, as is done to throw off ranged fire in real life, but in practice a lot of prone targets are that way because they've been ''smashed'' prone in a fight and this just arbitrarily makes it harder for allies to follow up and shoot them.[[note]]In fairness, in real life, you'd basically never shoot into a melee that contains friendly targets either, but while previous editions had some rules to simulate this, fifth edition bowed to the reality that players basically did everything in their power to circumvent them anyway and accepted ranged attacks against engaged melee targets as AcceptableBreaksFromReality, with at most the target getting cover if you're shooting through someone to get to them.[[/note]]

** The mechanics of spellcasting aren't ''that'' big an issue... unless you're a MagicKnight with two weapons or a shield. A character always needs a free hand or to be physically holding the object in question to manipulate their focus or components every time they cast a spell with a material component; this is trivial for most of the arcane full casters who only bother with one-handed weapons anyway if at all (and half the time their weapon ''is'' their focus anyway), but if anyone else isn't using a two-handed weapon (letting go with one hand to manipulate something on your person is free the first time each round) they'll have to drop or sheathe it first, since shields take an action to strip off. Half the reason for War Caster's popularity is simply ''not having to deal with these rules'' and being able to use the weapon already in your hand as a spellcasting focus.

*** The Champion from the ''Player's Handbook'' is a weird example in that it's widely hated not necessarily because it's terrible, but rather because it's '''boring'''. Champions get nothing but passive features, which can certainly be effective, but when you combine that with a class that doesn't have much versatility in what it can do beyond "I hit the enemy with my weapon", it makes the Champion into a bit of a PoorPredictableRock and doesn't lead to very interesting play patterns, leading the subclass to be dismissed by most seasoned fans as "[[SkillGateCharacters baby's first D&D character]]".