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

[Bacon Bits]

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.

We did the same. You got 1 or 2 free stats that were the minimum, and then rolled the other 4 or 5 normally. Ability prerequisites that high were really silly. The alternative was that when you finally got stats high enough to be something cool, you were super paranoid about dying and losing your character. It just wasn't enjoyable. We bought the books to play the game, not pine after things we didn't roll high enough to do!

 

[rczarnec]

Monks in 1e were actually pretty powerful. Their natural AC was bonkers, they could zip all over the battlefield, attack more than anyone else, and their unarmed damage was one of the best at higher levels, better than most weapon attacks. Add that to their special abilities they also got (like falling, thief skills, etc), and they were only weak at low levels. Anyone going against Brother Milerjoi found out that monks weren't weak or sucky.

Yeah, that 6 AC at level 6 was just bonkers.

 

[GreyLord]

We did the same. You got 1 or 2 free stats that were the minimum, and then rolled the other 4 or 5 normally. Ability prerequisites that high were really silly. The alternative was that when you finally got stats high enough to be something cool, you were super paranoid about dying and losing your character. It just wasn't enjoyable. We bought the books to play the game, not pine after things we didn't roll high enough to do!

Well, in 1e it was defined that you needed to have at least two 15's for your ability scores or you rerolled. It flat out stated that PC's needed at least 2 scores of 15 to be viable.

 

[Ashrym]

2e bard, maybe it was 1e but you needed 5 levels in like 4 other class before you could become a bard that no player I know of ever became one.

The only part that really sucked was the thief levels because of dual class rules. Fighter delaying bard levels was annoying but being a fighter wasn't bad.

1e and 2e bards both had strong advantages.

3.0 Bard - While the songs per day were tied to the class level, their effect depended on ranks in performance.

That just meant they were down a skill point per level. They could still Jedi mind trick spam and got full caster level.

3.5 was better.

 

[Imaculata]

Bards in 3.5 were pretty good. I'm a little surprised that 3.5 Paladins are on the bad-list as well. Sure, the 3.0 paladin was bare bones, but in 3.5? Any time I've played a paladin in 3.5, it was an absolute beast; tanky, self sufficients, lots of damage, and so many immunities at higher levels. The spells a paladin got were never intended to be its strength, and its kind of weird to criticize the class for one of its minor abilities (spellcasting) not being one of its major abilities. They are just tools to further boost its damage or AC. The 3.5 Paladin's real strength was staying power due to its Lay on Hands (basically a full heal), and its Smite Ability, which dealt some serious damage. I didn't crunch any numbers on this, but in my personal experience the Paladin in 3.5 was always a bit mid-tier. Not top damage dealer, but certainly not bottom of the barrel either. And if you factor in the additional content from Complete Divine, the Paladin becomes an absolute killing machine (allowing you to swap out those turn undeads for destroy undeads).

The only core class that was truly garbage in 3.0 was the Ranger, due to the fact that the designers put NO effort into its level progression. Every other core class was fine. And I'm sure there are plenty of prestige classes that are bad too. To visualize this for our none-3E players, here is a handy visual aid:

Above is the level progression for the the ranger in 3.0. Pay attention to the block labeled "Special". These are the abilities the ranger gains per level in 3.0. For comparison, below is the monk in 3.0. I think the difference is obvious:

 

[Jadeite]

That just meant they were down a skill point per level. They could still Jedi mind trick spam and got full caster level.

3.5 was better.

It also meant that you could easily leave the class after a few levels while still advancing in its main class feature.

The 3.5 bard was one of the best designed classes of that edition (even though people tended to underestimate them).

 

[Alzrius]

And if you factor in the additional content from Complete Divine, the Paladin becomes an absolute killing machine (allowing you to swap out those turn undeads for destroy undeads).

Plus the Battle Blessing feat from Complete Champion. While as a feat it was completely optional, it was basically a rules patch in all but name, making a paladin's spellcasting a little more worthwhile (paladin spells that had a standard action casting time could now be cast as a swift action, and spells with a full-round action casting time could be cast as a standard action, all with no level adjustment or other cost besides simply having the feat).

 

[Gladius Legis]

I'm a little surprised that 3.5 Paladins are on the bad-list as well. Sure, the 3.0 paladin was bare bones, but in 3.5? Any time I've played a paladin in 3.5, it was an absolute beast; tanky, self sufficients, lots of damage, and so many immunities at higher levels.

There was nothing the 3.5 Paladin could do that a Cleric (especially) or even a Fighter (!) couldn't do infinitely better.

The spells a paladin got were never intended to be its strength, and its kind of weird to criticize the class for one of its minor abilities (spellcasting) not being one of its major abilities.

Spellcasting is the only significant thing the 3.x Paladin got that scaled with level. And even then, it scaled poorly, thanks to the Paladin's spellcasting level being only half its class level. (Again, half-casters got screwed in 3.5, and that is a big reason why.)

Spells were therefore pitched to the Paladin as the equivalent of the Fighter's bonus feats. And those spells just didn't measure up.

The 3.5 Paladin's real strength was staying power due to its Lay on Hands (basically a full heal),

Level x CHA mod never worked out as anything close to a full heal.

and its Smite Ability, which dealt some serious damage.

You sure you're not confusing 3.5 with Pathfinder 1? The 3.5 Paladin Smite damage was seriously bad. 1x Paladin level damage on only a single hit was absolutely pitiful.

By comparison, the PF1 Paladin is 2x Paladin level damage on all hits until the enemy is dead.

And if you factor in the additional content from Complete Divine, the Paladin becomes an absolute killing machine (allowing you to swap out those turn undeads for destroy undeads).

So, a "killing machine" against only one enemy type. Something the Cleric could handle just as easily and be a million times better at so many other things.

Yeah, you're not changing my mind on the 3.5 Paladin any time soon.

 

[Imaculata]

There was nothing the 3.5 Paladin could do that a Cleric (especially) or even a Fighter (!) couldn't do infinitely better.

Yes, but that doesn't make it bottom of the barrel. It could do a little bit of both quite well, making it an average class. But surely not the worst.

Spellcasting is the only significant thing the 3.x Paladin got that scaled with level. And even then, it scaled poorly, thanks to the Paladin's spellcasting level being only half its class level. (Again, half-casters got screwed in 3.5, and that is a big reason why.)

It remains a weird complaint. Spellcasting is not what the class is about.

Level x CHA mod never worked out as anything close to a full heal.

It's pretty close. Its a huge heal that you can pop in an instant. Very useful when tanking a tough opponent or supporting your allies.

You sure you're not confusing 3.5 with Pathfinder 1? The 3.5 Paladin Smite damage was seriously bad. 1x Paladin level damage on only a single hit was absolutely pitiful.

But the Paladin got multiple smites per day in 3.5. It was intended in my view for tough enemies, not all enemies. The Paladin is basically the one who deals with the boss, and saves all their smites for him.

So, a "killing machine" against only one enemy type. Something the Cleric could handle just as easily and be a million times better at so many other things.

Against any enemy that is evil (most of them are), and at higher levels specifically good at dealing with undead and demons (enemies that are abundant at high levels).

 

[see]

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,

The assassin just could use any weapon (while the thief was limited to the club, dagger, dart, sling, short sword, broad sword, or long sword), and could use shields, and had a death attack, and could use poison, and had a disguise ability, and kept getting actual hit dice for 15 levels instead of capping out at 10, and still had full backstab, all while still being able to do literally anything else a thief could (if, granted, at roughly -10 percentage points on skill).