Which 3.5 class do you think is the weakest?

[Mr. Kaze]

I almost hit bard, but then I thought about what happens when you play a game set in the court of a king, and need someone to schmooze with the nobility...

Your high-society rogue (who also has the Bluff/Diplomacy/Sense Motive readily available, along with some of the necessary knowledge skills) will evade the evil vizier's fireball, dodge the assassin's knife, and wonder what became of the remains of the bard. (Bards are amusing, but I've yet to see one survive as well as pretty much any other character class. If they had evasion, they could survive more magical assaults; if they had UCD, they could survive more assassins; if they had Divine Grace, their saves would be more likely to survive either/both; if they had "add INT to Initiative", they'd be able to get the heck out of the way.)

The only one to die faster is the sorceror, whose nice quantity of spells per day is cut short when they lose the intiative roll to the evil wizard's empowered fireball -- sorceror being a level behind in spellcasting and all -- or can't see the assassin because they didn't use their latest spell to learn See Invisibility. (I'm trying a variant sorceror where they can specialize like a wizard to learn one more spell from a specific school at each spell level by dropping two other schools from their spell list. It's pretty powerful. Doesn't keep them any more alive against a huge earth elemental, but it's not supposed to.)

Most of the other classes are mostly balanced with clerics (self-buff spells), druids (animal growth) and monks (oodles of class features) coming into balance with the other classes at higher levels.

::Kaze (thinks Psions make standard Sorcerors utterly pointless)

 

[AIM-54]

Re: The Monk

I'm currently playing a monk at 12th level and it's interesting to see some of the comments here.

At lower levels they certainly do need to be careful...I spent a lot of combats unconscious having tried to play the up-front fighter too much. At the same time, I didn't really have much choice, as my skill list was...paltry...the result of a 6 intelligence (he's a half-orc). Really, what he's been good at is finishing off bad guys after the fighters have dealt out enough damage to bring them to that point.

Nevertheless, I've had a blast playing him, though magic items and a wicked high Wisdom are virtually required for self-preservation purposes. With more skill points, I can see where they would make an excellent addition to any scouting team, and their value as mage-killers has already been pointed out.

Otherwise, I'm inclined to say the bard is the weakest class...except we have a bard who's been ridiculously useful in various social situations. Glibness is a killer spell when there's a lie to be told (as much as I hate the concept of getting a +30 to a check on a d20....something about that strikes me as being wrong...).

As has been said above, as long as you recognize your classes niche and stay within it, you should be okay...but when your archer ranger tries a solo assault on the citadel...well, the results are rarely pretty.

 

[Laman Stahros]

Monks as the weakest class, Yeah right. Monks were a mistake in 1e (too weak at low levels - 7th & below, too powerful at higher levels - 8th & above), and are just way too powerful in 3e (why did they bring them back?). I voted sorcerers at least partly because they are so unfocused (I use BoEM2's variant sorcerer, d6 HP & 4 skill points/level).

 

[Derulbaskul]

IMO/IME: bard, sorcerer, monk.

I should add that I think the bard is quite good at lower levels when the bonuses from its singing can be the difference between a hit and a miss. However, at higher levels it really suffers. As NPCs or enemies the bard is even worse: I think you almost have to halve the bard's level to find its effective CR.

 

[mkletch]

I think the cleric gets this one hands down. All they are able to do is turn/rebuke undead. Yes, they can wear any armor and cast spells without any spell failure, but, they don't get any other special feats like the rogue or monk. They only get character level feats. That is one reason why I don't get alot of people playing clerics in my campaigns. I am going to change that in my campaign. Every four levels, the character gets another class feat.

I'll chime in with my cent and a half. Clerics are the most powerful, not the least because of their versatility, spellcasting in armor and domain powers. The decent combat ability and undead turning are just gravy.

I chose the druid as the weakest. I do have experience with powerful, interesting sorcerers and bards (the latter especially in a campaign that places importance on effective roleplay and social interaction). And monks, while poor specialists, are excellent generalists and rarely if ever die except by bad luck/die rolling. But druids get the smackdown all the time. Not because they are especially weak or powerful, but because they are neither, and not a good generalist either. They really aren't anything. That and the poor cleric wannabe ability of spontaneously casting summon nature's ally spells - it just adds insult to injury.

I have seen a good druid, but that was in a roleplay-heavy campaign, and in that camapaign, the druid was somewhat of a curiosity in-game. She died anyway, but that was more because of bad luck coinciding with a rough part the arc of the story, rather than inherent weakness.

Campaigns with an emphasis on roleplaying, and low magic campaigns - those are the great equalizers. Straight combat does nothing more than emphasize the weaknesses in non-optimizable classes.

-Fletch!

 

[[NO MA'AM]Jefferson]

Howdy All. I figured I'd toss my 2 cents in for the first time with this post. In my humble opinion, which class is weakest/most powerful varies greatly on the situation and circumstances you're talking about. For instance, in combat Fighters/Barbarians/Clerics/Wizards are usually pretty reliable across a range of situations and opponents. Rogues, Bards, Monks and such tend to be more specialized and how useful they are in combat depends mostly on the situation. Now outside of direct combat is a different matter entirely. Bards and Rogues in particular excel with social situations.

If you're talking about overall effectiveness and ability to gather power my personal favorite is of course the Rogue. Its amazing what a high charisma rogue with the right skillset (Diplomacy, Gather Information, Bluff, Intimidate, etc.) can accomplish. My characters tend to be big manipulators so they do very little front line fighting, but are so darned useful overall the other PC's don't seem to mind. After all, a Rogue with a few friends, lackeys, and unscrupulous contacts in the nearby town or city is a truly dangerous foe indeed. What "God of melee combat" Fighter, or "Fireball tossing" Wizard would want to mess with the guy who happens to be a good freind to the local Duke, has the Head of the city watch on his payroll, and who rarely adventures without his Half-Orc Barbarian Hirelings and an assortment of hidden daggers, vials of poison, and various magical trinkets "Acquired" over his career that focus on allowing him to survive any combat long enough to escape and plot revenge if things go sour?

 

[Mark]

Howdy All. I figured I'd toss my 2 cents in for the first time with this post.

Welcome, [NO MA'AM]Jefferson!



(...great name, btw...)

 

[der_kluge]

That'd be da Bard, Bob.

(ok, that's obscure)

Anyway, the bard is definitely the weakest, IMHO.

In general, I would expect any class that starts out as weak as a bard to end up being uber powerful. Consider the sorcerer. A 1st level sorcerer sucks, but you stack on about 19 levels to that sorcerer, and you've got yourself a force to be reckoned with. And while I consider a 1st level sorcerer to be about the weakest thing since sliced bread, a 1st level bard is EVEN MORE WEAK, and even less useful.

BUT, stack 19 levels onto a 1st level Bard, and you end up with a marginally interesting thing, but you're still no where near as powerful as said Sorcerer, or even just about anything else in the party.

A Bard just isn't useful for anything. It's no longer a jack-of-all-trades class, and is really just a crappy enchantment-based sorcerer, with fewer spells. The music ability is hokey, and doesn't really make up for the lack of spell power. The combat abilities are marginal, and no bard worth his salt has any right being on the front lines of any battle, what with d6 hit dice.

No two ways about it, the bard is just lame in every regard. I don't care what anyone else says.

I tried playing one, and I got so tired of her, when I got to 3rd level, the DM let me remake her as a rog1/sor2, and I instantly gained more spells, and tripled her skills, while still maintaining her bluff/perform abilities. So, she was still the enchantment/diplomacy/bluff queen, but was actually useful on top of that. Wacky.

 

[Sejs]

Sorcerer. Lack of versatility.

 

[Alhazred]

Since 3.0 hit the market, I've seen all classes (and races, for that matter) either dominate the party, or else quickly die. In my experience - mostly as a DM, but also as a player - the effectiveness of each class is largely determined by the mindset of the player and the style of the campaign. Good players know the limits of their chosen class, and either multiclass to reduce those limitations, or else work in tamdem with other party members to minimise weaknesses. As is probably obvious, I really don't think any class is significantly weaker than the others.

That being said, I wouldn't say no to better bardic songs.