D&D General The Hall of Suck: Worst Classes in D&D History (Spoiler Alert: Nothing from 5e)

[Voadam]

I would go with OD&D-2e thief.

In concept a magic user who can do a few non attack utility spells at will with a huge percentage chance of flat out failure until higher levels, plus backstab and the ability to wear leather armor and use more weapons (while in OD&D and basic by default all weapons do 1d6). Their big draw, they take fewer xp to advance and in AD&D any race can be them for usually unlimited levels.

Cool concept, poor execution. I am much happier with them being well executed striker role skill monkeys in 4e.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Not sure if worst counts, but earlier this year did a poll for the "lamest" D&D classes of all time (excluding the NPC classes that were put into magazines and used by gamers).

TOP 3

1. Clown
2. (tie) Beggar & Pacifist

 

[billd91]

I have to vehemently disagree with your assessment of the 1e Monk. You have a few details wrong, but there's more to it.

<snip>

The stun feature is very effective and certainly not a mathematical improbability, you merely need to score a hit by a margin of five over your minimum target #, which happens fairly often - and the stun lasts d6 rounds with no save. A monk attacking an unarmoured enemy (hello enemy wizards!) is +4 to attack (if you're using weapon-type-vs-AC, which you should be) meaning a first level monk need only score an 11 or higher on a d20 (50%). Yes that number is reduced with better armoured enemies, but the average AC in 1st Ed hovers in the 5 range. So even a 1st level monk will usually score that stun on a 19 or 20 more often than not.

Oh, no. No. No. No. IF you are using the weapon type vs AC tables, the monk only sucks more. Against virtually anything in armor, they're stuck using weapons, most of which are pretty bad on that table (though not as bad as using fists) and the damage bonus isn't really enough to compensate. Conceptually, that table also has a major problem by offering a bonus on non-armored targets, period. That should have been the baseline with everything zeroed out.

It's true they get a version of evasion - but it's using the thief saving throw table which sucks. No dodging breath weapons for you, monk.

The monk was an example of bad class design - experimental at best - and ultimately, really feeble.

 

[billd91]

I was close to putting the 1e Thief on the list but decided against it because, while it has the flaws you said, its skills were at least useful once they got to that high level. Also, the 1e Thief levels up insanely fast all the way through.

They did level up fast, but if you were using training rules, they would hit points where they couldn't level because they couldn't pay for it (like that first level-up to 2nd).

 

[billd91]

It's mostly opinion so disagreement is inevitable!

Fair enough. Part of the fun is in the discussion, even reminiscing about past experiences and having that "Oh, yeah!" experience when you remember some weird quirk of the rules or play.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Serene Blade gave me access to miliary heavy blades, use WIS for AC when not in heavy armor, and a mess of tHP once a round

That was one of the subclass available in Dragon 404 with the Kora-tur stuff right? I also came with a bunch of feat and a nice paragon path that gave you flight and mobilty boost, IIRC. This one was really cool, indeed.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

My ideas for the worst subclasses, special blast from the past 1e design edition!

In the base AD&D game, PHB-only, there were two categories of classes that were worse just because of the design:

A. Bards. I'm not going to lie and say that I've ever liked Bards*, but the original conception of the Bard in The Strategic Review had them as an actual class. The PHB had them as the only "prestige class" and made you go through levels of fighter and thief before you started your bard career. It was a poorly-thought out idea that didn't fit in with the rest of the game.

B. Illusionist, Assassin. One weird thing about 1e is that you had subclasses that were "gated" off by having requirements of higher ability scores, but provided you increased power in exchange. Admittedly, that's a poor game design! But at least it explains the Ranger, and the Paladin, and (kinda) the Druid.

But the Assassin and the Illusionist, while they were cool in many ways, were underpowered compared to their base classes of Thief and Magic User, yet still had heightened requirements. It would be like having a minimum height requirement to get on a ride, but the ride sucked.




*How do you spell Bard? D. I. A. F.

 

[Alzrius]

B. Illusionist, Assassin. One weird thing about 1e is that you had subclasses that were "gated" off by having requirements of higher ability scores, but provided you increased power in exchange.

This reminds me of one of my favorite quirks about AD&D 1E. Each ability score had a notation that, if you had a 5 or lower in that particular score, you could only advance in one specific character class (which I suppose meant that if you had a 5 in two or more ability scores you were unfit to be a PC at all, which is kind of self-evident anyway). For Charisma, that was the assassin class. It was literally suggesting that you were so unlikable that your only career path was killing people for money!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This reminds me of one of my favorite quirks about AD&D 1E. Each ability score had a notation that, if you had a 5 or lower in that particular score, you could only advance in one specific character class (which I suppose meant that if you had a 5 in two or more ability scores you were unfit to be a PC at all, which is kind of self-evident anyway). For Charisma, that was the assassin class. It was literally suggesting that you were so unlikable that your only career path was killing people for money!

I didn't want to go too far down the historic rabbit hole, but there three interrelated points I was also thinking of-

1. Those minimums? The only two subclasses that they applied to were assassin (charisma) and illusionist (constitution)- the other four were the "core four." Which is more evidence regarding how odd those two subclasses were.

2. Half-orcs and assassins were like the peanut butter and jelly of AD&D.

3. Illusionists were required to have a 16 ... a 16 in dexterity. I can't remember anyone in the history of ever that was excited to have their high dexterity character become .... an illusionist. So very weird.

 

[Voadam]

3. Illusionists were required to have a 16 ... a 16 in dexterity. I can't remember anyone in the history of ever that was excited to have their high dexterity character become .... an illusionist. So very weird.

One house rule we used was if you want to play a specific class/race you can get minimums to qualify for them, so someone who was excited to play an illusionist or paladin could scrape by and do so.