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

[Gladius Legis]

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.

The Bard (Tier 3) is better at spellcasting, skills, social situations, and exploration. And combat, too.

The Ranger (Tier 4) is better at skills, exploration, and combat, and even arguably spellcasting.

The Rogue (Tier 4) is better at skills, social situations, and exploration, and even arguably combat.

Everything else in Tier 3 and below is still better at combat.

So the answer for the 3.5 Paladin is a resounding yes, it still sucks even with tiers 1 and 2 gone.

 

[Weiley31]

Just Tome of Battle Crusader it or use the Pathfinder 1E Paladin or the Warder from Dreamscarred Press.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

On the contrary the mechanically weak class in a party where everyone is in the same tier isn't mechanically weak.

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.

I can see a case for playing a 3.X Paladin over a 3.X Cleric in a game where "everyone else" is a fighter, a rogue, and a ranger. All T4/5 makes for a better balanced party.

 

[Gladius Legis]

On the contrary the mechanically weak class in a party where everyone is in the same tier isn't mechanically weak.

You're literally saying a class doesn't suck when everyone else in the party sucks. And you have no idea how utterly ridiculous that sounds.

I can see a case for playing a 3.X Paladin over a 3.X Cleric in a game where "everyone else" is a fighter, a rogue, and a ranger. All T4/5 makes for a better balanced party.

Again, a class becomes relevant only when everyone else is lower tier or sucks. You're really not making a good case here.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You're literally saying a class doesn't suck when everyone else in the party sucks. And you have no idea how utterly ridiculous that sounds.


Again, a class becomes relevant only when everyone else is lower tier or sucks. You're really not making a good case here.

I'm making exactly the same case you are for the 1e Barbarian, the AD&D Paladin, the 2e Thief. and the 2e Dark Sun Templar. The class only becomes other than a mountain of suck when you build round it. That you think this is a bad argument isn't something I disagree with - it's your argument that you are now saying sounds utterly ridiculous.

What makes the anti-social classes worse than merely weak classes is that class that is mechanically weak is only going to really suck for the player and they can change it. A class that encourages toxic behaviour at the table is going to suck for everyone else as well and turn the RP toxic.

And harming your own fun is far less serious than harming the fun of everyone at the table. So the anti-social classes are far worse than the merely mechanically weak ones. Your argument "you can build a party round it" is something that you yourself find ridiculous.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

I once tried out the battle cleric concept, just to see what the big deal was, and it was pretty disappointing. The Cleric was a flat-out worse fighter than any true martial class (as should be obvious), unless you have a chance to buff yourself immediately before a fight. If you waste a single round getting one buff in place, the combat is half over already. But if you walk around with all of your buffs up, then there's a good chance that they'll wear off before you need them, or you'll trip over some other effect that removes your spells. It's just not tenable. The theory doesn't hold up under real world conditions.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I'm making exactly the same case you are for the 1e Barbarian, the AD&D Paladin, the 2e Thief. and the 2e Dark Sun Templar.

No, you're not. You are being intellectually dishonest.

A class that encourages toxic behaviour at the table is going to suck for everyone else as well and turn the RP toxic.

And yet you casually ignore the many times I have put those "toxic" classes into parties where they are much less likely to be toxic.

And harming your own fun is far less serious than harming the fun of everyone at the table. So the anti-social classes are far worse than the merely mechanically weak ones. Your argument "you can build a party round it" is something that you yourself find ridiculous.

No. You strawmanned my argument. I argued that a "toxic" class, as you put it, can still be mechanically effective, while a mechanically weak class can never be anything but that, and no party composition can ever change that fact.

You are intellectually dishonest. Do not bother responding to this. I'm done with you.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I once tried out the battle cleric concept, just to see what the big deal was, and it was pretty disappointing. The Cleric was a flat-out worse fighter than any true martial class (as should be obvious), unless you have a chance to buff yourself immediately before a fight. If you waste a single round getting one buff in place, the combat is half over already. But if you walk around with all of your buffs up, then there's a good chance that they'll wear off before you need them, or you'll trip over some other effect that removes your spells. It's just not tenable. The theory doesn't hold up under real world conditions.

Good for you. That's your anecdotal evidence against everyone else's. Mine, and so many others', has the Cleric being in the worst case an able replacement for a martial and in the best case putting a martial to shame at its own game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No, you're not. You are being intellectually dishonest.

The dishonesty in this thread, intellectual and otherwise isn't coming from me. And neither is the strawmanning. There's no point in further discussion when you have doubled down on an obvious and clearly verifiable falsehood (vampires not being a weapon using class) when your facts were corrected and then accused me of intellectual dishonesty when I've pointed out your arguments are special pleading and that you won't accept your own arguments under other conditions.

At this point the only thing left to do is use the ignore button. Goodbye

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Good for you. That's your anecdotal evidence against everyone else's. Mine, and so many others', has the Cleric being in the worst case an able replacement for a martial and in the best case putting a martial to shame at its own game.

Your anecdote doesn't carry any more weight than my own, and cherry-picking your circumstances does not result in sound logic. The only justified conclusion is that a cleric is too different from a martial class to make any sort of reasonable comparison.