D&D General Best Class per edition?

[GMforPowergamers]

In your opinion, what is the best class per edition and why?

odnd? fighting man
becmi? unknown
1st edition? assassin
2nd edition? Ranger
3rd edition? Druid
4th edition? Warlord
5th edition? Warlock

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Mostly paladins.

pre 4e I almost never saw them. I think I can count less then 5 and all were 3.5 none in 2e at all

 

[Tonguez]

BCMi Dwarf
2 Human Monk
3 Gnome Scorcerer
3.5 Ghoul Soulknife
4 -
5 Human Druid

 

[Shades of Eternity]

can't really comment on odnd

becmi - surprisingly fighters, especially after the dnd cyclopedia. just make sure you had your sword skills up to snuff.

1st adnd - a multiclass: Half-Orc Cleric/Assassin. I first found out about this combination from the tournament's handbook.

Failing that, 1st edition ranger. Rangers with mu spells...yay!

2nd adnd - Bards, just Bards. There is only one book that rivals the complete book of Bards, and whether it was the Blade, Jongler, Gnome Professor, I kept coming back to try new concepts and ideas.
hell, I even played a Halfling Whistler.

honorable mentions: Specialty priests. Between the FRA, or warriors and priests of the realms, the sheer breadth is amazing.

Also Thieves: The complete book of thieves is that rival. I love the wierd and bizarre equipment that they came up with and the kits. However the thief itself doesn't quite work until you got the right gear and skills. I really liked the kenzerco update for 3rd edition (Goods and Gear).

3rd dnd: Druids. Broken as hell and that's just using the PHB. I used to shapeshift into a dire ape with a appropirately size shillelagh as my default, and that was just the tip of the iceberg.

4th dnd: I loved pretty much all the classes. However, I will stan hard for the Warlord because it was lightning in a bottle and the sheer stubborness of wotc to not use it makes me even more a fan.

But man, Avenger, Artificer, Invoker, Sword Mage, Warden and that's just the greatest hits. I got a soft spot for the Ranger as well (the most robin hood of the rangers). double for the fey warlock.

5e dnd: Artificer hands down. I have been waiting for this since 3rd and while I've barely scratched the surface, it is probably the best designed of any of the editions. All the more impressive that it works without a proper magic item system.

 

[Undrave]

4th dnd: I loved pretty much all the classes. However, I will stan hard for the Warlord because it was lightning in a bottle and the sheer stubborness of wotc to not use it makes me even more a fan.

But man, Avenger, Artificer, Invoker, Sword Mage, Warden and that's just the greatest hits. I got a soft spot for the Ranger as well (the most robin hood of the rangers). double for the fey warlock.

So many fun classes just dropped to the way side... and the whole 'Buff an At-Will' system for the Psionic was neat!

I played a Dwarf Avenger. He fought shirtless with his god's symbol sculpted out of his chest hair It was a fun playstyle.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've barely played anything (even in clone form) prior to 2e, and 2e was only via CRPGs, so that's weak at best.

2e: Wizard, especially if you exploit the dual-/multi-classing rules. If the full range of kits is available, Cleric might edge it out.
3e: Druid. It's literally three full classes sutured together: pet-owner, full-caster, shapeshifter. The Aggressively Hegemonizing Ursine Swarm.
4e: Extremely difficult, but probably Fighter. Warlord gives it a run for its money, but Fighter got way more options/support.
5e: Long-term, Wizard, no contest. If limited to the first 8-10 levels (which many games are), it's either Paladin or Bard.

To be clear, this is focused on power/utility, not on preference. My preferences aren't at all reflected in the design of most D&D editions (4e being the main exception.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Also Thieves: The complete book of thieves is that rival. I love the wierd and bizarre equipment that they came up with and the kits. However the thief itself doesn't quite work until you got the right gear and skills.

Gosh I forgot about that book, that was excellent and genuinely did help Thieves.

The divergence in quality on "Complete X" class books in 2E was absolutely bananas. Complete Bard was obviously best, and I'm not just saying that because I like Bards, but because it profoundly and permanently changed how Bards were regarded by D&D and even other TTRPGs and I would argue, some CRPGs. Hell, some of the Bard subclasses in 5E only exist because of it (Valour, Lore, Blade at the least).

Then there were ones which were "mostly helpful" like the Fighter, Wizard, and Thief ones. Wizard was another big one - we still use some spells from that - Chromatic Orb and Ice Knife particularly - and it really helped fill out a lot of stuff about Wizards in a very cool way.

Ranger's was not great but not actively destructive.

But Priest's and Paladin's? Goddamn. It was like they were written by people who hated the classes (indeed the Priest one comes close to saying that), and the most of the kits are make Paladins either boring or wildly impractical, and those that change their mechanics take away vastly more than they give. The Paladin one is also particularly bizarre because despite being released in 1994, it's filled with explanations of how Paladins worked in 1E and suggestions that maybe you should use the 1E rules for them, to the point of even including attack progression and stuff from 1E!

 

[Weiley31]

Gosh I forgot about that book, that was excellent and genuinely did help Thieves.

The divergence in quality on "Complete X" class books in 2E was absolutely bananas. Complete Bard was obviously best, and I'm not just saying that because I like Bards, but because it profoundly and permanently changed how Bards were regarded by D&D and even other TTRPGs and I would argue, some CRPGs. Hell, some of the Bard subclasses in 5E only exist because of it (Valour, Lore, Blade at the least).

Then there were ones which were "mostly helpful" like the Fighter, Wizard, and Thief ones. Wizard was another big one - we still use some spells from that - Chromatic Orb and Ice Knife particularly - and it really helped fill out a lot of stuff about Wizards in a very cool way.

Ranger's was not great but not actively destructive.

But Priest's and Paladin's? Goddamn. It was like they were written by people who hated the classes (indeed the Priest one comes close to saying that), and the most of the kits are make Paladins either boring or wildly impractical, and those that change their mechanics take away vastly more than they give. The Paladin one is also particularly bizarre because despite being released in 1994, it's filled with explanations of how Paladins worked in 1E and suggestions that maybe you should use the 1E rules for them, to the point of even including attack progression and stuff from 1E!

Totally LOVED the Compete Book of Druids and Complete Book of Necromancers. Both offer GREAT lore material for explaining how druids and necromancers work in their society and types.

 

[TwoSix]

2e - Wizard, unless Spells and Magic is in play, than Cleric.
3e- Druid, Wizard and Archivist are the power trio for me, but my personal favorite was the Beguiler.
4e - Best would probably be any of the martial quartet (Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Warlord), but I have a huge soft spot for the Avenger, Runepriest, and Vampire.
5e - Cleric wins low levels, Wizard wins high levels, but I think Warlock is the overall best design.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

BECMI -- ELF

1e -- FIGHTER / MAGIC-USER MC

2e -- BARD

3e -- BARD

4e -- BARD

5e -- BARD

I have a preference.

I'd strike the bard from 3e. Otherwise this list is correct.
Or actually, no you are correct.

The list is perfect.