Which core class sucks the most?

[cignus_pfaccari]

The monk. It's so jack of all trades that it doesn't excel in any one thing, and your character advancement options consist of three OA prestige classes and one or two other classes across the various supplements and issues of Dragon. Sure, once you get to Mnk-13 you get SR, but getting there is just painful.

Brad

 

[Algolei]

My clerics need more feats! :wah:

Wizards get bonus feats so they can pick up Metamagic abilities. Yet clerics, who are expected to step up and fight in combat as well as cast spells, don't. I'm supposed to make a second-string fighter and pick up Metamagic feats solely with my one-every-three-levels feats? Yuck. My characters end up playing catch-up: "I'll take the combat-related feat this time, and the magic-related feat in three more levels, and then...uh...crap. Okay, I can make us those CLW potions, but it won't be until I'm 9th level."

 

[demiurge1138]

Sorcerer. Monks are odd, but I'm fond of them. And bards can be amazing when used the way they're supposed to be (that is, in social interactions). Sorcerers aren't different enough from the wizard to fill a truly different niche, and are less powerful to boot. Ergo, sorcerers suck.

Demiurge out.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Monks. They, simply put, suck.

As an aside, I like bards in 3E, but I detested them in 2E.

 

[Stalker0]

Paladin.

Other classes might be too strong or too weak, but from stories I've heard on these boards, no class seems to suck the fun out of a game for players faster than a paladin.

 

[Mercule]

I could have chosen Cleric, because they don't do "priest" particularly well and are, essentially, unaffected by their choice of god (oh noes! one variant spell/day). They're passible, though, so long as you're in a video game mentality.

I could have said Ranger because, well, it just isn't a Ranger. TWF still makes no sense. And I fail to see how a Ranger could have fewer hit dice than a Fighter. Ranger would take the #2 spot on my "Suck-o-meter".

I could have said Sorcerer because, while mechanically passible in the spells department, they are over all somewhat weak (fixed by a boost in HD or skill points). Flavor-wise, they are lacking and would be better done with an expanded Warlock. Also, each dragon-blooded feat or PrC makes me weep for the ignoble Sorcerer.

I could have said Monk because they always make me wonder: WTF? They have no flavor relation to the other core classes. And, they don't always do what they are supposed to do (kick ass with their bare hands) particularly well.

Ultimately, though, I went with Paladin. Why? It isn't the Pokemount (though that does suck). It's the fact that the Paladin is a near-perfect example of a Prestige Class concept. It should be in the DMG, just up the road from the Swashbuckler.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

Sorcerer. I agree with the prior poster -- the warlock is what the sorcerer should have been. My second choice is the bard -- it has lost its bite and its flavor, as opposed to 2e, though I do like bardic music in principle. Whoever put cure light wounds on its spell list needs to answer for himself.

 

[Tuzenbach]

The Knight?

 

[Greg K]

All of them suck for various reasons. However, the Barbarian and Rogue suck only slightly if you take into account the Barbarian Hunter, Martial Rogue and Wilderness Rogue variants from Unearthed Arcana- an official urban barbarian and alteranatives to the Rogue's trapsense/trapfinding would fix the sucking for these two classes.

Of course, the above just my opinion.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

The Bard. I actually had a player play a commoner in one of my games, i asked why, and he said it was the only class he hadnt played. I said he hadnt played a bard and he said no way they suck! That got the whole group laughing and the guy with the bard in the corner looking all sheepish, he spoke up and said " so what your all laughing about is that i picked the worst class in the game?" that got more laughs. A few hours into the game and the bard was as usual dead.