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

[Imaculata]

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.

If they specialize in just AC perhaps, but that makes for a pretty useless wizard. Plus it can easily be dispelled. A paladin with an average to low dex (14), full plate and tower shield, already has AC 24. And that's not even factoring in magic items that boost AC. That is really good. At level 10, most monsters will struggle to hit an armor class that high. At higher levels (18 and higher), the Paladin will need an AC of roughly 30 to avoid most physical attacks, which is easy to do with magic items and feats.

I just tested this btw:

A CR 10 Rakshasa misses 90% of the time with its +8 to melee, although I had a few lucky rolls where the Rakshasa was able to hit AC 28 two times in a row. I would however assume that is rare. I blaim this on the weirdness of online dice rollers.

A CR 10 Clay Golem misses a paladin with AC 24 80% of the time with its +14 melee, and 95% of the time if the Paladin is wearing a ring of protection+2 on top of that. At best it barely hit AC 26 once or twice.

A CR 10 Juvenile Red Dragon does a lot better with its +16 melee, but then again, it is a dragon. They are supposed to hit hard.

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

Well then you are clearly rolling characters differently from the groups I play with. Our abilities are not through the roof by a longshot. Anything of a 16 or higher is a decent stat.

At level 1, we usually have one or two high stats (16 to 18), two or three moderate stats (12 to 14) and the rest bad stats (8 to 10). I think that is pretty common for most groups. Every 4 levels you can increase one of these by 1 point, so by the time you reach level 10 at best you may have one of your stats at 20, or equalized your other stats to not be at odd numbers (like turning that 13 dex into a 14 dex).

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

You haven't shown this to be true, and my personal experience with playing them also says the opposite. It is also not the first class people tend to think of when you say worst of the worst. That would be the monk, bard or ranger.

 

[Gladius Legis]

You haven't shown this to be true,

No, I totally have. You haven't shown it to be false.

and my personal experience with playing them also says the opposite.

Oh, anecdotal evidence now? Every 3.5 table that I've ever seen with a Paladin has left the Paladin player completely dissatisfied with the class. Said Paladin players switched to other classes and enjoyed the game much more.

It is also not the first class people tend to think of when you say worst of the worst. That would be the monk, bard or ranger.

Even if that were true, that would have absolutely nothing to do with the strength of those classes.

The 3.5 Bard was actually quite solid (not full caster good, but solid) and the 3.5 Ranger decent for a martial class in that game. The only 3.5 class that is anywhere close to the same league of suck as the Paladin is the Monk, and even the Monk has a couple of neat quasi-useful builds involving tripping and constrict, which is more than I could ever say about the Paladin.

FYI, here's the 3.5 tier list. Bard is Tier 3, Ranger Tier 4, and Paladin and Monk Tier 5.

 

[Imaculata]

Oh, anecdotal evidence now? Every 3.5 table that I've ever seen with a Paladin has left the Paladin player completely dissatisfied with the class. Said Paladin players switched to other classes and enjoyed the game much more.

I think actual play experience is far more useful than blind number crunching. Especially with some of the additional books, paladins are a fun class with plenty of options to improve their smiting, their tanking, and even with an option of swapping out that mount for something more useful (since you won't be bringing your horsy into the dungeon).

FYI, here's the 3.5 tier list. Bard is Tier 3, Ranger Tier 4, and Paladin and Monk Tier 5.

They put the Swashbuckler at tier 5 too? Oh come on. I highly question that list. See, this is why you shouldn't compare classes in a vacuum. They are part of a party. You can't judge them by just bare statistics, you have to also look how they function in a group. The paladin especially has a lot of party support that is very useful, and the swashbuckler is one of the more fun classes to play in 3.5, and easily holds her own.

The ranger seems statistically okay. But by character progression he is incredibly dull and weak, with little to nothing to contribute to the party. At least the bard can buff his allies, as can the paladin.

 

[Neonchameleon]

4e Vampire: First of all, vampire isn't something that should've been a class in the first place. Second of all, supposedly this class was supposed to fill the Striker role, which means dealing high levels of damage. And this class ... didn't. At all. It was outdamaged by every other existing Striker and even a number of non-Striker classes. And it had hardly any healing surges, and its way of keeping healed up to compensate for that fact, well, pardon the pun, but it really sucked. None of its powers were conducive to the Striker role, and on top of that, its powers were split between weapon and implement, making it even more difficult to build one to a satisfactory level of performance.

Going to argue this one on oh so many levels.

1. This is a splatbook class from the worst 4e splatbook. Compared exclusively to PHB classes. It's the worst 4e class - but far from the worst splatbook class.
2. Why shouldn't it be a class. Does it cover what it does thematically nicely and in a way nothing existing did? Yes. Does it add to the game? Yes. Could it be done without a class? No. This sort of thing is what classes in splatbooks should be for.
3. It was a tier 4 class in a Tier 3 world. That's all that was wrong with it - like the Four Elements Monk. It also had mobility and a damage bonus.
4. It had two healing surges - and could steal surges every encounter. It could keep going and regenerate. An interesting variation that worked better in some play styles than others. Interesting variations in splatbooks are fine.
5. I'm pretty sure you're misremembering and that it wasn't split between weapon and implement - but between Cha and Dex.

Is the Vampire the worst class 4e had to offer? Arguably yes and it was a tier 4 class in a tier 3 world. Does it belong on the worst classes of all time? Oh hell no.

The absolute worst classes were the AD&D Paladin, the 1e Barbarian, the 2e Thief, and the Dark Sun Templar - because all tese classes caused inter-party friction through their direct mechanics. The Paladin couldn't associate with evil characters, the Barbarian couldn't knowingly associate with wizards, and the Thief (through 2e having the worst XP rules) was incentivised to steal, including from the other party members and the Templar had to work for the bad guys. This "will cause table friction" goes beyond anything in the classes you've listed.

Then we can move on to the worst class in 3.X - the Truenamer. Which simply mechanically did not work. (If Heroes of Shadow is fair game, so is Complete Arcane).

Next we move on to the 3.0 Monk - which was an attempt to convert the AD&D 1e Monk into 3.0. It was a slight improvement in that it had a d8 for a hit dice rather than 2d4 at first level then 1d4 after that and didn't have to challenge people to level up. But it also lost in the transition - it uses thief attack bonuses, has no AC to speak of, and it's supposed to be mobile but can't be both mobile and make full round attacks. It's a grab-bag of non-synergystic abilities and incompetence at normal things. The 3.5 monk rewrite is a slight improvement but only a slight one.

Then we move on to the pre-4e Thieves and Rogues. All of them. (Except the 2e Bard). The Thief getting its situational thief skills but nothing very much. And the rogue getting 8+Int skill points per level to replace the 8 thief skills plus the Non Weapon Proficiencies. Oh, and the rogue's sneak attack not applying to Constructs, Undead, anything immune to crits, and from memory anything with concealment.

Moving out of the PHB we get the Soulknife. "My big class ability is ... a magic shortsword that at level 20 hits +5. To make up for this truly stunningly powerful ability I'm stuck on the cleric/rogue BAB chart and can only wear light armour". Give me the vampire every time. We also have the 3.5 Ninja (a worse rogue), the Complete Warrior Samurai (essentially a fighter forced to TWF with bastard sword + shortsword under 3.5 rules), the 3.5 Swashbuckler (essentially a light armour only fighter forced to spend feats on Finesse) and more. And that's without going into the 2e kits or Dragon magazine.

By the standards of the genuinely bad classes the only thing the 4e vampire sucked was blood. For that matter the 3.0/3.5 Paladin is also better than all the classes I've mentioned above except the Vampire and arguably the rogues.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

Depends on the enemies. A fundamental problem with the fighter was just how much of a chew toy its low Will save with no saving throw bonuses made it. The Paladin at least showed up to the party with Divine Grace and an actual use for having a decent Wisdom stat in spellcasting (admittedly because they were crazy-MAD) plus being immune to fear. And they had far more out of combat utility.

 

[Imaculata]

the 3.5 Swashbuckler (essentially a light armour only fighter forced to spend feats on Finesse) and more.

I would argue that the Swashbuckler had a lot of interesting options to make a pretty decent character out of it, that was also fun to play. It excels mostly on criticals though. Not great, but fun. And it was one of those classes that really calls for multiclassing.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Why shouldn't it be a class. Does it cover what it does thematically nicely and in a way nothing existing did? Yes. Does it add to the game? Yes. Could it be done without a class? No. This sort of thing is what classes in splatbooks should be for.

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.

It was a tier 4 class in a Tier 3 world. That's all that was wrong with it - like the Four Elements Monk. It also had mobility and a damage bonus.

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.

I'm pretty sure you're misremembering and that it wasn't split between weapon and implement - but between Cha and Dex.

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

The absolute worst classes were the AD&D Paladin, the 1e Barbarian, the 2e Thief, and the Dark Sun Templar - because all tese classes caused inter-party friction through their direct mechanics.

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.

Then we can move on to the worst class in 3.X - the Truenamer. Which simply mechanically did not work. (If Heroes of Shadow is fair game, so is Complete Arcane).

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

Next we move on to the 3.0 Monk - which was an attempt to convert the AD&D 1e Monk into 3.0. It was a slight improvement in that it had a d8 for a hit dice rather than 2d4 at first level then 1d4 after that and didn't have to challenge people to level up. But it also lost in the transition - it uses thief attack bonuses, has no AC to speak of, and it's supposed to be mobile but can't be both mobile and make full round attacks. It's a grab-bag of non-synergystic abilities and incompetence at normal things. The 3.5 monk rewrite is a slight improvement but only a slight one.

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

Then we move on to the pre-4e Thieves and Rogues. All of them. (Except the 2e Bard). The Thief getting its situational thief skills but nothing very much. And the rogue getting 8+Int skill points per level to replace the 8 thief skills plus the Non Weapon Proficiencies. Oh, and the rogue's sneak attack not applying to Constructs, Undead, anything immune to crits, and from memory anything with concealment.

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. 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.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Depends on the enemies. A fundamental problem with the fighter was just how much of a chew toy its low Will save with no saving throw bonuses made it. The Paladin at least showed up to the party with Divine Grace and an actual use for having a decent Wisdom stat in spellcasting (admittedly because they were crazy-MAD) plus being immune to fear. And they had far more out of combat utility.

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.

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.

 

[Voadam]

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.

They were significantly better than fighters for utility. Fighters could intimidate and do physical skills. Fighters also had less opportunity cost in spending a level feat on utility stuff. That's about it.

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.

Paladins could use cure light wound wands which meant they could heal the party full out of combat.

Paladins had detect evil and summon mount as class abilities.

 

[Gladius Legis]

They were significantly better than fighters for utility. Fighters could intimidate and do physical skills. Fighters also had less opportunity cost in spending a level feat on utility stuff. That's about it.

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.

Paladins could use cure light wound wands which meant they could heal the party full out of combat.

Paladins had detect evil and summon mount as class abilities.

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.