D&D General Lamest D&D classes all time

[Retreater]

Monks and Assassins are both pretty awful, mostly because they don't fit in games very well, IME.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Is there a major difference??

Kits don't really have any mechanics built around them. They are almost all for fluff with only or two minor mechanical bits (like maybe a +1 to hit with ranged weapons for halfling slinger, etc). Kits are like 5e backgrounds, rather than actual classes.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Aren’t some of these kits instead of full blown classes? I seem to remember some of those from the Complete Books of Whatever.

There's no difference. They changed the mechanics of the base class (minor) and became their own class.

Where is the Jester?

Alas, it appears to be an NPC class.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I think it's telling that a lot of these were kits. So many ultra-niche variations.

I've certainly thought about playing a cleric or bard that doesn't fight, but works solely support. But the Pacifist Priest cleric kit, in exchange for being forbidden from causing harm and not even being able to wear armor, all they get is a +2 bonus to their charisma and a +2 bonus to their reaction score. Not exactly an even exchange, that.

I never came across the anchorite kit before, but that is an astonishingly strict limitation.

I would love to play a beggar, but the Stormbringer beggar class is probably my favorite iteration.

Now, of the actual classes, my vote would be for the 1e thief. The thief is in theory a great class, but they spend a large amount of their play time being terrible at the things they're supposed to be experts in. A 3rd level thief being sent down the hall to check for traps is probably being sent to their death if there is a trap. At most, a dwarven thief has a 45% chance to find and then a 45% chance to disarm the trap. Less than half the time, the PC with d6 HP will be successful at their job.

 

[aco175]

I seem to remember one player trying the ghetto fighter. He tried some lame jargon that ended up with some bad 'your mama' jokes. At least he was not trying ebonics.

 

[ccs]

He is probably talking about the AD&D 1e bard.

Go ahead, mess with a 1e Bard.....

 

[Sacrosanct]

There's no difference. They changed the mechanics of the base class (minor) and became their own class.

What? No. Kits didn't change any class mechanics, and they didn't become their own class. Some were OP, like the bladesinger and cavalier, and some were essentially just fluff. Most just gave a minor benefit, like the Myrmidion (get an extra weapon specialization and that's it).

 

[Gladius Legis]

The 4e Vampire should've been in this poll. It was a terrible concept to have the vampire as a class to begin with, and that it was extremely weak on the table didn't help, either.

Out of this poll, I have a special hate for the Factotum. Though these all sound pretty bad.

 

[atanakar]

Go ahead, mess with a 1e Bard.....

In our groups every time a player attempted to become an AD&D 1e Bard the campaign fizzled before he actually achieved the first level of Bard. The requirements were too high in my opinion. Taste vary.

 

[ccs]

In our groups every time a player attempted to become an AD&D 1e Bard the campaign fizzled before he actually achieved the first level of Bard. The requirements were too high in my opinion. Taste vary.

True. Few ever got to actually play a bard organically.
The 1e bard was just decades ahead of its time.
Now days (3x era +) the multiple classes of xyz lvs would fit right in as everyone expects a game to run long enough for their "build" to come on-line.