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

[Stormonu]

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.

And the topper - when you hit 14th level as an illusionist you could (gasp!) cast first level wizard spells! Actual wizard spells, not mere illusions!.

So yeah, I never did play a 1E illusionist.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

Which then begs the question: Why not a Cleric, who can do all of that better and a whole lot more?

You have a class who is clearly inferior in combat to the Fighter and clearly inferior in both combat and utility to the Cleric. The 3.5 Paladin had no reason to exist.

The 3.x games are so infamously unbalanced in favor of the fullcasters to such a degree that it overshadows anything else you can say, i don't think they're a good point of comparison beyond acknowledging that. The real question in 3.x suck should be "if i take out the tier 1 and tier 2 classes, does it still suck?". And if the answer is yes, then it does indeed suck.

 

[Ashrym]

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).

That cost skill points taken away from skills the other class would typically use elsewhere (not necessarily a class skill either), lost that spamming potential, lost higher level songs, and delayed progression to higher level abilities.

Another class needs to match charisma focus and perform as a class skill to do it as well to pull it off as well part time at best.

Not an issue.

At level 10 you only need to roll an 8 or higher to make most saves.

MAD impacted saves keeping up with SAD caster stats against slow progression save bonuses. Paladins did have good saves but not much else going for them.

But even if you do compare the Paladin directly to other classes, can you honestly say that the Paladin is worse than the Bard, Ranger and Monk?

Bard songs and spell casting and better skill selection was easily better.

Paladins had diplomacy and sense motive as class skills with a generally high charisma and decent wisdom which meant they could generally be the party face as well as anybody.

They lacked skill points for the range of skills, however, and investment in CHA or WIS was not investment in STR.

 

[Voadam]

They lacked skill points for the range of skills, however, and investment in CHA or WIS was not investment in STR.

If you are going to max out solo a class skill in 3.5, diplomacy was a top choice to do so (spot, use magic device, and concentration were also good choices depending on class).

True, the paladin will not SAD Charisma like a sorcerer, but sorcerers did not have diplomacy as a class skill. Bards would generally be better by a couple points, but paladins have more class incentives to have decent Charisma than any other core class with diplomacy as a class skill (cleric, druid, monk, and rogue).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Aside from the one case of an early Vampire class that never saw publication, Vampire was a race or a race template. And it always worked better in D&D as a template, because it allowed flexibility in what a vampire could be. Some vampires in D&Ds other than 4e were fighters, others mages, and such.

In 4e there was a vampire race (the Vyrokola), a vampire multiclass feat, and a vampire class. Some vampires in 4e were fighters, others mages, others thieves, one of my favourite was a warforged vampire brawler fighter called Iron Maiden. The vampire class was for hammer horror vampires. 4e in that way had more not less versatile vampires than other versions of D&D because having one option doesn't prevent other options being present.

Vampire was more Tier 5. Here is the definition of Tier 5:

"Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. "

Fits the 4e Vampire to a tee, I'd say.

Here's the definition of Tier 4

Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength.

And "Capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining" is the textbook issue with the vampire. They're mediocre strikers but still contribute to combat. High CHA and utility powers that help charisma help them contribute to social situations. They're DEX based with a skill list that includes stealth and thievery - they can contribute to sneaking and exploration situations. They also can turn into bats and get a climb speed further enabling them to contribute to sneaking and exploration. Oh, and they can pull off ridiculous feats of strength once per encounter - and the feats of strength and the climb speed are in addition to rather than instead of normal encounter powers. While the ability to turn into a tiny bat every encounter is a far more versatile utility power than most classes get at level 6.

That's all three pillars they hit (social, exploration, and combat) so the Tier 5 "in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute" is arrant nonsense. There's just no area where they shine - but they can contribute in all the pillars, with intentional inherent synergy in all of them.

What they are is too weak to be effective strikers - their combat contribution lacks multiattacks. But they can outdamage most leaders; their contribution isn't nothing in combat. They just don't get to truly shine there.

The Vampire was split along both of those lines, actually. Most DEX powers were weapon-based and most CHA powers implement-based.

No it wasn't. I have Heroes of Shadow open in front of me and double checked every vampire Dex-based attack. You are simply wrong in your assertions.

Every single one of these classes had party compositions where they could be placed in without incident. Just as many AD&D parties with Paladins had them without incident as not. Same with the 2e Thief. 1e Barbarian was OK if nobody at the table was a Magic-User. And Templar was there for Dark Sun parties who wanted to be evil.

I wholly reject the premise that any of these classes belong on any worst list when they all had situations they could cooperate in well enough, and none of them were mechanically inept.

So a class that causes party tension unless you build the entire party around it is fine. Why then is a mechanically weak class that you can build the entire party to match a problem?

I'd argue the 3.0 Ranger and the 3.0 and 3.5 Paladin also mechanically did not work.

Nah. They just sucked.

3e Monk was pretty bad. But still better than the Ranger in 3.0 and the Paladin in both 3e revisions.

That's ... open to opinion on the Paladin. The tier system puts the Paladin alongside the Fighter on "Could easily be considered tier 4" and the Monk a very solid tier 5. For that matter given how useless the monk abilities are and that the ranger works up to 4th level spells the 3.0 ranger vs the 3.0 monk was open to question.

Thief skills were not situational. There was always a use for opening locks and disabling traps in evey AD&D game I've ever played.

Sure ... because the adventures were deliberately written that way. But you don't need disable traps to disable a trap. Also the 1e thief only hit 50% in find/remove traps at level 7.

3e Rogues had their issues with Sneak Attack-immune enemies but was still one of the better martials. And all martials were obsoleted by full casters, so the Rogue was in the same boat there.

The problem with the 3.X rogue was that sneak attack was such a binary thing and could be obsoleted by entire adventures because creatures of the same type tend to gather together. Going up against a necromancer and their undead minions? Guess the Rogue's just an overpaid Expert. Going up against a clockwork army? That should be a party for the rogue - but it isn't. Going up against Fangorn's Wood? Guess the rogue stays back in the town. Those oozes split and split again? The rogue's not helping.

 

[Weiley31]

one of my favourite was a warforged vampire brawler fighter called Iron Maiden.

Okay, that sounds wickedly awesome!

 

[Neonchameleon]

A Fighter with all its bonus feats could take the save-boosting feats that other classes wouldn't touch and match the Paladin in that category, while still able to grab all the combat feats it wanted.

I don't recall there actually being many will-boosting feats beyond Iron Will and arguably Bullheaded. Possibly if you want to dip into the Tome of Battle - but if you're doing that why on earth are you playing either a fighter or a paladin. You've actually good melee characters there.

3.5 Paladins didn't have much out-of-combat utility. Their narrow spell list didn't do much there. Marginally more than the Fighter, at best. Fighters also had more incentive to have a positive-modifier INT score so they usually had more skill points.

Zone of Truth, Undetectable Alignment, Discern Lies. It's a weak list - but spells beat skill points even before removing curses.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But even if you do compare the Paladin directly to other classes, can you honestly say that the Paladin is worse than the Bard, Ranger and Monk?

Are we talking 3.0 or 3.5 Bard and Ranger? 3.5 Ranger > 3.X Paladin > 3.0 Ranger

But the Bard had every bit as big an overhaul as the Ranger between 3.0 and 3.5, switching from "You'd be better multiclassing fighter and wizard" to a well designed class with a lot of strong themes and internal synergies and a couple of broken unique spells (notably Glibness) and some excellent abilities. And discounts on the level of spells like Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Otto's Irresistible Dance, Obscure Object, and Scrying. It's a very solid class without being broken the way the spellcasters with 9th level spells are and better than any of the non-casters or 4th level spell casters.

 

[Ashrym]

If you are going to max out solo a class skill in 3.5, diplomacy was a top choice to do so (spot, use magic device, and concentration were also good choices depending on class).

True, the paladin will not SAD Charisma like a sorcerer, but sorcerers did not have diplomacy as a class skill. Bards would generally be better by a couple points, but paladins have more class incentives to have decent Charisma than any other core class with diplomacy as a class skill (cleric, druid, monk, and rogue).

So is that paladin investing in enough INT for 3 skill points or giving up concentration for the diplomacy and sense motive mentioned?

They are already looking at STR, CHA, WIS, and CON. DEX and INT are low stats. Bard spell support was better plus the CHA gap increased to more than a few points looking for spell power.

It's possible on 3's random rolling to get lucky but the typical rolling results didn't allow for it and point buy alternatives generally dumpstated both.

 

[Gladius Legis]

So a class that causes party tension unless you build the entire party around it is fine. Why then is a mechanically weak class that you can build the entire party to match a problem?

Because the class that can create tension with certain parties can possibly still perform effectively in a party where there isn't that tension.

The mechanically weak class, OTOH, is always mechanically weak, regardless of what the rest of the party is.

I can make a strong case for playing an AD&D Paladin instead of an AD&D Fighter depending on what the rest of the party is. I can't make any sort of case for playing a 3.x Paladin over, well, anything.