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

[humble minion]

OK, let's compare the 3.5 Paladin to, in the same edition's PHB:

• Full caster classes: Ha. Ha. Ha ha ha. Next.
• Barbarian: Barbarian deals more damage with Rage, has full-time damage resistance, better mobility, better hit die. Paladin loses.
• Bard: Even though Bard only goes up to 6th-level spells, their caster level is still equal to full class level. Hence their spells last longer and don't get dispelled automatically. Paladin loses.
• Fighter: Fighters get bonus feats, which are much more valuable than anything the Paladin gets. Paladin loses.
• Monk: Probably the only other class who is anywhere near the bottom with the Paladin. Still, Monks had some neat trip builds and constrict builds that were quasi-competent in early levels of play. That's two better than Paladins could claim. Paladin loses.
• Ranger: 3.5 Ranger was actually OK for a non full-spellcaster. Had a good amount of skill points, its light armor-only bonus feats actually didn't suck this time, Favored Enemy scaled a lot better than 3.0, had some neat stealth-related features, got some better spells than it had in 3.0. Paladin loses.
• Rogue: Sneak Attack that outdamaged Smite Evil by a mile. And even if the Rogue ran into Sneak-immune enemies, it still had much more skills and more feats that made them better from a utility standpoint. Paladin loses.

So, yeah, there isn't a single PHB class the Paladin could claim to be better than in 3.5. They were ranked Tier 5 for a reason.

Divine Grace was the single biggest feature for 3.5 paladins. In an edition where every high-level PC was completely covered with magic items, a high-level paladin could reasonably rely on having a cha-boost item, and so probably in the order of +5 to +7 on all their saves (since they probably had a decent Cha in the first place), before any of the zillion layers of buff spells were applied. And that's on top of the regular save boost item they probably had as well. In an edition where save-or-die effects were ubiquitous at high level, and when there was a continually widening gap between strong and weak saves as you increased in level, having effectively no weak saves (and damn near untouchable strong saves) was a huge, huge deal.

Paladins were a long long way from a STRONG 3.5 class, and they did have damage output issues considering how rarely they could smite, but they had their pluses too.

 

[Gladius Legis]

But does that make them bottom of the barrel? They are a pretty good tank, pretty good damage dealer, and have pretty solid spike damage against a single foe with their smite, and staying power.

Except the 3.5 Paladin is not any of those things. They can't even get the AC of a well-feated Fighter usually, let alone that of a full caster, nor do they get the damage reduction of a Barbarian, so they're not good tanks. Their damage sucks, any Barbarian or Fighter with Power Attack is going to outdamage the Paladin by a mile, to say nothing of any Druid or Cleric. And the 3.5 Smite was pathetic, if you missed with it the Smite was wasted, and it only added +Paladin level to the damage on a single hit when it did connect. Again, any Barbarian or Fighter with Power Attack was putting that to shame.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Divine Grace was the single biggest feature for 3.5 paladins. In an edition where every high-level PC was completely covered with magic items, a high-level paladin could reasonably rely on having a cha-boost item, and so probably in the order of +5 to +7 on all their saves (since they probably had a decent Cha in the first place),

Any Paladin with a "decent" Charisma in 3.5 was not hitting a damn thing in combat because it was sacrificing Strength to get that "decent" Charisma, which would be putting it even further behind any other martial class than they already were. Also don't forget that 3.5 Paladins needed a 14 in Wisdom to cast all their spells, on top of their customary reliance on STR and CHA. They were the MAD-dest of the MAD.

Saves helped them ... stay alive to suck for a few more rounds. And even then, the 3.5 Paladin's saves weren't great other than their Fortitude, which was the only save they had the higher progression in. Reflex was usually trash because Dexterity was a dump stat, and they usually didn't have very high Will either. Divine Grace helped those saves to be OK, but nothing that an equal-level enemy spellcaster wasn't going to beat just as often as not.

before any of the zillion layers of buff spells were applied.

All of which got dispelled as soon as combat started, every single time, because a Paladin's caster level was only half its class level.

 

[Imaculata]

Except the 3.5 Paladin is not any of those things. They can't even get the AC of a well-feated Fighter usually

A paladin can wear heavy armor and take a feat to boost her AC further. That makes her well ahead of most other classes in terms of armor class.

nor do they get the damage reduction of a Barbarian, so they're not good tanks.

There is more to tanking than damage reduction. It helps, but being able to avoid all those save or die effects at higher levels is just as important. This makes the paladin a formidable Beholder and Demon slayer.

Their damage sucks, any Barbarian or Fighter with Power Attack is going to outdamage the Paladin by a mile

Nothing stops a paladin from also taking Power Attack. Plus you can combine Power Attack with Smite to deal some pretty decent spike damage that surpasses that of the barbarian and fighter. It is however limited to a number of uses. It should be noted however that most combat in 3.5 lasts only a few rounds. So while the barbarian and warrior are better damage dealers in the long run, the paladin shines in single target dps.

Like I said earlier, a decent mid-liner. Not great, but adequate.

And the 3.5 Smite was pathetic, if you missed with it the Smite was wasted, and it only added +Paladin level to the damage on a single hit when it did connect. Again, any Barbarian or Fighter with Power Attack was putting that to shame.

If it hits! You're conveniently leaving out that the 3.5 Smite also provides a bonus to your attack roll, making it more likely to hit, where as Power Attack imposes a penalty to your attack roll. This makes the paladin way better at dealing with single tough opponents.

Any Paladin with a "decent" Charisma in 3.5 was not hitting a damn thing in combat because it was sacrificing Strength to get that "decent" Charisma, which would be putting it even further behind any other martial class than they already were. Also don't forget that 3.5 Paladins needed a 14 in Wisdom to cast all their spells, on top of their customary reliance on STR and CHA. They were the MAD-dest of the MAD.

You can have a high charisma along with a decent strength and wisdom. They don't exclude one another.

Saves helped them ... stay alive to suck for a few more rounds.

Combat lasts only a few rounds. Often thats all you need, to stay alive.

And even then, the 3.5 Paladin's saves weren't great other than their Fortitude, which was the only save they had the higher progression in. Reflex was usually trash because Dexterity was a dump stat, and they usually didn't have very high Will either. Divine Grace helped those saves to be OK, but nothing that an equal-level enemy spellcaster wasn't going to beat just as often as not.

This is untrue. Paladins will make their saves most of the time, contrary to the rest of the party. You underestimate how bad it can be if the main damage dealer fails a crucial save early on in the fight. Case in point: Beholders. If that warrior doesn't make his save, the rest of the party better run for their lives. That is why high saves are so important, especially at higher levels. Plus, since a paladin can also heal herself, that allows her to stay in the fight longer than those melee classes that aren't able to self heal.

There are a truckload of spells and effects which can effectively shut down any melee class entirely, if they fail their save. To name a few:

Flesh to Stone, Blindness (unless you have the blind-fight feat), Desintegrate, Dominate (and can turn you against your party, oh no!), Hold Person, Entanglement, Banishment, Maze any Fear effect or spell (which Paladins are immune to)... etc.

All of which got dispelled as soon as combat started, every single time, because a Paladin's caster level was only half its class level.

Counter spell.

Look, I get that the paladin isn't the best of the best. But your claims that they are the worst is not supported by the facts.

 

[Gladius Legis]

A paladin can wear heavy armor and take a feat to boost her AC further. That makes her well ahead of most other classes in terms of armor class.

No more than a Fighter or Cleric, who can also wear heavy armor. Fighters could take more feats than the Paladin and Clerics had better spells to improve AC and a whole lot more.

There is more to tanking than damage reduction. It helps, but being able to avoid all those save or die effects at higher levels is just as important. This makes the paladin a formidable Beholder and Demon slayer.

Barbarian Rage also improved saves. And as I mentioned above, Paladin saves weren't actually all that great even with Divine Grace, because Reflex and Will were both the low progression.

Nothing stops a paladin from also taking Power Attack.

The Paladin is super-MAD, so likely won't have the Strength of a Barbarian or Fighter, which means it didn't hit nearly as often. Barbarians in Rage boosted their STR even more to hit more and harder. Fighters had access to advanced Weapon Focus tree feats like the Greater versions of those that, again, helped them hit more.

It is however limited to a number of uses.

Uses as in single hits. This was 3.5 again, not Pathfinder. +level on a few single hits per day just wasn't impressive. And those were wasted when the attack missed, so you weren't even guaranteed to get that damage.

If it hits! You're conveniently leaving out that the 3.5 Smite also provides a bonus to your attack roll, making it more likely to hit, where as Power Attack imposes a penalty to your attack roll.

A bonus that (a) at best makes up for the deficiency the Paladin had by default to hit anything when compared to Barbarians and Fighters, (b) only applied to single hits, and (c) was attached to an ability whose damage bonus was wasted when the attack missed.

Look, I get that the paladin isn't the best of the best. But your claims that they are the worst is not supported by the facts.

I'm providing facts that establish the 3.5 Paladin is the worst. You're just choosing not to acknowledge it.

 

[Gladius Legis]

You can have a high charisma along with a decent strength and wisdom. They don't exclude one another.

Actually, yeah, they do. Ability increases were only +1s and only came every 4 levels, so you had to choose whether to boost STR, CHA or WIS. There was a major opportunity cost, and it really hurt MAD classes like the Paladin.

This is untrue. Paladins will make their saves most of the time, contrary to the rest of the party.

Their Fortitude save, sure. Their other saves, absolutely not.

Plus, since a paladin can also heal herself

Poorly.

Counter spell.

Required a Spellcraft check, which was not a class skill for a Paladin and was keyed off Intelligence which was likely a Paladin's dump stat.

 

[Imaculata]

No more than a Fighter or Cleric, who can also wear heavy armor. Fighters could take more feats than the Paladin and Clerics had better spells to improve AC and a whole lot more.

So 2 classes have better AC than the Paladin. That still makes the paladin's AC better than all the other classes you left out.

Barbarian Rage also improved saves. And as I mentioned above, Paladin saves weren't actually all that great even with Divine Grace, because Reflex and Will were both the low progression.

You keep saying that, but assuming a paladin has high charisma, like lets say an 18 (without factoring in magic items), that means she gets a +4 to all saves. So that means that a level 10 paladin has these saves: Fort:+11, Ref:+7, Will:+7. This means that the paladin needs to roll an 8 or higher to make most saves (assuming a save is around 15 or less, which is common around level 10). That is an easy save to make.

The Paladin is super-MAD, so likely won't have the Strength of a Barbarian or Fighter

They may not have an 18 on their strength, but would most likely still have a 16. Which means only a +1 difference.

Fighters had access to advanced Weapon Focus tree feats like the Greater versions of those that, again, helped them hit more.

Sure. You've shown the 3.5 Fighter was a beast. You have not shown that the Paladin is any less than a decent mid-liner. You keep comparing the paladin to specific other classes, but you're not looking at the whole picture: How the paladin works in a mixed group of other classes. And among those, it is not the worst by a long shot.

Actually, yeah, they do. Ability increases were only +1s and only came every 4 levels, so you had to choose whether to boost STR, CHA or WIS. There was a major opportunity cost, and it really hurt MAD classes like the Paladin.

Why wouldn't you already have a 16 in strength upon character creation? Most of the time when I roll a character, I have atleast two abilities that are high, everything else is average or low.

Their Fortitude save, sure. Their other saves, absolutely not.

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

Required a Spellcraft check, which was not a class skill for a Paladin and was keyed off Intelligence which was likely a Paladin's dump stat.

You're not alone in the party. You will probably have a spellcaster in your party that can counter spell.

 

[Gladius Legis]

So 2 classes have better AC than the Paladin. That still makes the paladin's AC better than all the other classes you left out.

Well, other than the Druid who could cast Barkskin, the Wizard or Sorcerer who could cast Magic Armor and Shield, the Rogue with a good DEX along with their Uncanny Dodge class feature ...

You keep saying that, but assuming a paladin has high charisma, like lets say an 18 (without factoring in magic items), that means she gets a +4 to all saves. So that means that a level 10 paladin has these saves: Fort:+11, Ref:+7, Will:+7. This means that the paladin needs to roll an 8 or higher to make most saves (assuming a save is around 15 or less, which is common around level 10). That is an easy save to make.

A Paladin with an 18 CHA at Level 10 isn't going to hit anything in combat because that same Paladin ignored STR to get that 18 CHA. So, again, a better chance to make a save just to suck for a few more rounds.

They may not have an 18 on their strength, but would most likely still have a 16. Which means only a +1 difference.

At level 10, since that was your example, a 16 STR is pathetic.

Sure. You've shown the 3.5 Fighter was a beast.

Actually, it's not. Martials in general suffered in 3.5 systemically. But the Fighter is better than the Paladin, at least.

You have not shown that the Paladin is any less than a decent mid-liner.

No, I absolutely have. It's not my fault you're not acknowledging the evidence.

You're not alone in the party. You will probably have a spellcaster in your party that can counter spell.

So part of your argument for the Paladin's strength is that it can rely on another, definitely more capable, member of the party? Why should I just not play another class instead? You just undermined your pro-Paladin argument.

 

[Imaculata]

Well, other than the Druid who could cast Barkskin, the Wizard or Sorcerer who could cast Magic Armor and Shield, the Rogue with a good DEX along with their Uncanny Dodge class feature ...

They could stack all those spells and still not match the armor class of a Cleric, Warrior or Paladin.

At level 10, since that was your example, a 16 STR is pathetic.

Are you kidding? Any stat between 18 and 16 is a high stat for a normal player character in 3.5. Do you believe they need to be in the 20's or something? A 16 is a solid +3 on your melee attack and damage. That's pretty good.

Combine this with the spell Holy Sword, and you have a pretty high attack bonus.

So part of your argument for the Paladin's strength is that it can rely on another, definitely more capable, member of the party? Why should I just not play another class instead? You just undermined your pro-Paladin argument.

I'm trying to point out to you that classes do not function in a vacuum. It is not a solo game, it's a cooperative game. It is a falacy to only compare the Paladin directly to other classes without looking at how they function in a party. A well buffed Paladin is an absolute beast. And even if some of those buffs get dispelled, you're still left with a character with a high armorclass (due to platemail), high saves (due to Divine Grace) and immunity to diseases and fear effects. The paladin also provides very useful buffs to the party that cannot be dispelled or countered. This includes buffs to saves and possibly armorclass (with feats from other 3.5 books), which strongly benefit any other melee classes in the party.

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?

 

[Gladius Legis]

They could stack all those spells and still not match the armor class of a Cleric, Warrior or Paladin.

I don't have builds handy offhand, but I'm pretty sure I've seen Wizards routinely buff themselves to the highest ACs in the party.

Are you kidding? Any stat between 18 and 16 is a high stat for a normal player character in 3.5.

A level 1 character, sure. A Level 10 character? No.

I'm trying to point out to you that classes do not function in a vacuum. It is not a solo game, it's a cooperative game. It is a falacy to only compare the Paladin directly to other classes without looking at how they function in a party.

But other classes are clearly better at doing what the Paladin is supposed to be doing than the Paladin is.

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?

I absolutely can, vs. all three of those.