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

[rczarnec]

Right, I forgot about that little discrepancy between PHB and DMG. Not that it helps the Monk a whole lot; the Cleric matrix is typically only 1 or 2 points better than the Thief matrix at the same levels.


I was looking at the higher levels, where Monks take 500K XP past level 12 to gain new levels, while the Paladin only takes 350K to do the same at that level.

Also, Paladins can qualify for the 10% XP boost with high enough stats. Monks never get that.

Lets also not forget that the Monk requires more XP because past 7th level they don't get to just level when they get the requisite XP, they have to defeat the current Monk of that level hand to hand with no weapons or magic items. Losing doesn't just drop the Monk back to the previous level, all XP above the minimum for that level are lost. So losing what should basically be a 50-50 fight costs a level worth of XP.

1st ed Monks from the PHB were terrible. There was a Dragon article which broke down how that version failed and presented anew version that was at least playable.

 

[Shiroiken]

So I'm assuming this is ignoring the idiotic classes from The Dragon? Hell, they had one class called the Martyr that only had 1 level... because you couldn't survive to level 2! Oh, and in 1E the Barbarian needed the most XP per level... starting at 6,000 for level 2 (for comparison, the fighter was 1,500 IIRC) and raising at the same exponential rate as every other class.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

The thing about 1e illusionists people forget is their spell selection. Phantasmal killer at 7th level? Permanent illusions? yeah, on the surface they seem super weak compared to magic users, but when you look at some of the spells, it makes up for it.

Re: assassins, I think folks are forgetting that the assassin flat out had a % of immediately killing anyone they surprised in one hit.

And while paladins in 1e were mechanically really powerful, they had that strict role-play requirement going. Not just lawful good and needed a 17 CHA, but you had to act in strict adherence of your code or you became a fighter.

Kinda how like people forget that clerics had to focus on roleplaying their diety's desires or they lost spell casting abilities.


I think the useless classes in 1e were the ones in the dragon magazine: pacifist, jester, sage, etc.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

The OD&D thief wasn't great, but it was much better than the BXCMI thief.

At 15th level, they still had only a 75% chance to pick locks and a pitiful 58% chance to hide in shadows. At the same time, magic-users are creating death rays, charming giants, and summoning walls of iron.

 

[Azuresun]

I'm going to go with what might be a controversial pick (though I don't think so), the 3e rogue:

1. Sneak attack has way too many exclusions because the target had to be living and with discernable anatomy. Most notably undead; I feel very sorry for anyone who got stuck with a rogue in Age of Worms for example;

And it had a range limit, and it didn't work on targets with concealment.

The inability to hit undead in a vital spot makes sense, though--it's not as though vampires or zombies are particularly known in pop culture for having weak points, right?

2. The rogue's shtick was, for the most part, way too easy to duplicate with low level spells (which tended to do the job as well or better). Knock, for example, automatic success at opening doors for a 2nd level spell. Sure it's a limited resource but with 3e ready access to crafting magic items, that's not a problem - a wand of knock wasn't exactly a high ticket item. The reverse btw, was even worse! A wizard could Wizard Lock a door and a rogue could not pick it - until you got to the epic level handbook, the modifier was something like +25 or +50 to pick the lock (that's on a d20). A poster on this board mentioned, just to mess with him, the party wizard created a staff that could do just about everything he could - then named it after the character.

Oh, he was being merciful. Anyone remember the Kelvezu, a demon introduced in the MM2 or MM3 that had Evasion, Uncanny Dodge and +8d6 or so Sneak Attack? Now combine that with Shapechange, and you are now a level 18 Rogue.

 

[Mort]

And it had a range limit, and it didn't work on targets with concealment.

The inability to hit undead in a vital spot makes sense, though--it's not as though vampires or zombies are particularly known in pop culture for having weak points, right?

Sure, but only because that's the narrative the edition chose to go with.

They could just as easily have gone with a different flavor - in a world where undead and aberrations exist their weak points are studied and known - rogues know how to capitalize on them. Or heck, just keep it as a "sucker punch" mechanic, the rogue does more damage because he can maximize distraction, no further thought needed (works for 5e).

 

[Sacrosanct]

The OD&D thief wasn't great, but it was much better than the BXCMI thief.

At 15th level, they still had only a 75% chance to pick locks and a pitiful 58% chance to hide in shadows. At the same time, magic-users are creating death rays, charming giants, and summoning walls of iron.

I think the bad experiences with the thief was because DMs weren't playing correctly. Remember, Gygax D&D was anyone can try anything. Fighters and magic users could also hide. But ONLY when those situations were so difficult that it would be impossible to hide, that's when the thief roll came into play. That is, the thief table was for when they could succeed against impossible odds. However, DMs saw the table and thought that roll needed to be done every attempt. Which of course hurt the thief class a lot

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I think the bad experiences with the thief was because DMs weren't playing correctly. Remember, Gygax D&D was anyone can try anything. Fighters and magic users could also hide. But ONLY when those situations were so difficult that it would be impossible to hide, that's when the thief roll came into play. That is, the thief table was for when they could succeed against impossible odds. However, DMs saw the table and thought that roll needed to be done every attempt. Which of course hurt the thief class a lot

Yes. That's part of it. But also with BXCMI, the editor tried to stretch the thief percentile progression over 30 levels, as opposed to 14, like the original. The result is a sadistic form of suckage.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes. That's part of it. But also with BXCMI, the editor tried to stretch the thief percentile progression over 30 levels, as opposed to 14, like the original. The result is a sadistic form of suckage.

It's one of the reasons why when I say 1e is my favorite edition, I always add "with some 2e elements". One of those being, how 2e did thief skill progression, where you could choose which skills to front load and have a good chance of success. The others being the bard class and schools of magic.

 

[the Jester]

Re: assassins, I think folks are forgetting that the assassin flat out had a % of immediately killing anyone they surprised in one hit.

Also, in 1e, at the start of an encounter, each side rolled 1d6 and was surprised on a 1-2, so that was a third of the time. There were exceptions, but that was, as I recall anyway, the default.