tylermalan
First Post
I think I already know how this is going to go... but what do you think are the worst classes in Pathfinder? You can draw from the Core Rulebook, APG, UM, or UC. Hate away!
The WORST Classes
- Thread starter tylermalan
- Start date
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
1. Monk
2. Rogue
3. Ninja
After that it's a sizable gap... next up would probably be Samurai, Cavalier, Fighter, and Barbarian, not sure what order. Then Bard. Then Inquisitor. Then probably Alchemist.
Ranger I'm honestly not sure where to place, possibly worst than bard but better than that gaggle of melee classes. Paladin's about the top of heap for full BAB classes.
2. Rogue
3. Ninja
After that it's a sizable gap... next up would probably be Samurai, Cavalier, Fighter, and Barbarian, not sure what order. Then Bard. Then Inquisitor. Then probably Alchemist.
Ranger I'm honestly not sure where to place, possibly worst than bard but better than that gaggle of melee classes. Paladin's about the top of heap for full BAB classes.
Last edited:
From a purely mechanical point of view...
1. Monk. They have tons of abilities, but none of them really help you until you get some levels under your belt. You're extremely mobile, yes, but your damage output isn't all that good and you're unarmored--not a good place to be in melee. Things get interesting once you hit fifth level or so, but the early levels are a challenge. A monk with the right skills (Climb, Perception, Stealth) can be an awesome scout if you're not terribly concerned about their ability to find and disarm traps. Evasion and improved evasion helps meliorate this somewhat, and multi-classing into rogue can be an attractive option for a monk.
2. Bard. The bard does several things, but none of them particularly well except for having scads of social skills. In an urban setting or intrigue-based campaign, a bard can be awesome, but in most campaigns, they vacillate between being subobtimal dabblers and just sheer dead weight. You have to really twink out a bard to have them be more than a supporting character in anything but social situations. I actually have a bard in my current campaign, and he's really surprised me by being as useful to the group as he is. I think the player understood the challenges of being a bard and made some good choices to beef up his performance.
3. Ninja. I don't mind the concept of a ninja class. I don't like the ninja presented in Ultimate Combat because it's basically better at being a rogue
that a rogue is. They get tons of cool ninja abilities like a ki pool, light steps, no trace... and they can select any rogue talent. The only thing that a rogue gets that a ninja doesn't is trapfinding--in every other way, the ninja is clearly superior.
The following are the worst from a roleplaying point of view. In all fairness, I don't think that the classes themselves are designed poorly or have any mechanical or narrative flaws--they just seem to attract the goobers for some reason.
1. Bard/paladin/sorcerer, or any other Charisma-based class with an emphasis on social skills. This isn't a phenomenon unique to the Pathfinder RPG, but there are people that want to play characters with strong Charisma scores and social skills as a means of forcing the party into doing what they want. From the bard that insists that she is the party leader "because I have the highest Charisma" to the sorcerer that casts charm person on anyone that disagrees with them... It's an odd paradox that people with no social skills try to gravitate toward social roles. Maybe I don't understand it, or maybe I understand it too well, I'm not sure which.
2. Magus. I think that the magus class is reasonably designed and interesting. It's a bit annoying, however, because there are a lot of people that want to play magi because they think that a magus can fight as well as a fighter and cast as well as a wizard. They get disappointed when the GM holds them to the class' limitations. The first game I saw with a magus, the player thought that the magus' spell combat class feature gave him an extra action every round--he kept trying to "cast, then move, then attack," despite the clearly-worded "full-round action" thing in the spell combat class feature. The last session I played with a magus, the player kept trying to talk the GM into letting their magus character cast spells without provoking attacks of opportunity, because otherwise, "the class is useless." He got a bit frustrated with the GM when the GM explained how casting defensively and concentration checks work and referred him to the Pathfinder RPG core rulebook about it.
1. Monk. They have tons of abilities, but none of them really help you until you get some levels under your belt. You're extremely mobile, yes, but your damage output isn't all that good and you're unarmored--not a good place to be in melee. Things get interesting once you hit fifth level or so, but the early levels are a challenge. A monk with the right skills (Climb, Perception, Stealth) can be an awesome scout if you're not terribly concerned about their ability to find and disarm traps. Evasion and improved evasion helps meliorate this somewhat, and multi-classing into rogue can be an attractive option for a monk.
2. Bard. The bard does several things, but none of them particularly well except for having scads of social skills. In an urban setting or intrigue-based campaign, a bard can be awesome, but in most campaigns, they vacillate between being subobtimal dabblers and just sheer dead weight. You have to really twink out a bard to have them be more than a supporting character in anything but social situations. I actually have a bard in my current campaign, and he's really surprised me by being as useful to the group as he is. I think the player understood the challenges of being a bard and made some good choices to beef up his performance.
3. Ninja. I don't mind the concept of a ninja class. I don't like the ninja presented in Ultimate Combat because it's basically better at being a rogue
that a rogue is. They get tons of cool ninja abilities like a ki pool, light steps, no trace... and they can select any rogue talent. The only thing that a rogue gets that a ninja doesn't is trapfinding--in every other way, the ninja is clearly superior.
The following are the worst from a roleplaying point of view. In all fairness, I don't think that the classes themselves are designed poorly or have any mechanical or narrative flaws--they just seem to attract the goobers for some reason.
1. Bard/paladin/sorcerer, or any other Charisma-based class with an emphasis on social skills. This isn't a phenomenon unique to the Pathfinder RPG, but there are people that want to play characters with strong Charisma scores and social skills as a means of forcing the party into doing what they want. From the bard that insists that she is the party leader "because I have the highest Charisma" to the sorcerer that casts charm person on anyone that disagrees with them... It's an odd paradox that people with no social skills try to gravitate toward social roles. Maybe I don't understand it, or maybe I understand it too well, I'm not sure which.
2. Magus. I think that the magus class is reasonably designed and interesting. It's a bit annoying, however, because there are a lot of people that want to play magi because they think that a magus can fight as well as a fighter and cast as well as a wizard. They get disappointed when the GM holds them to the class' limitations. The first game I saw with a magus, the player thought that the magus' spell combat class feature gave him an extra action every round--he kept trying to "cast, then move, then attack," despite the clearly-worded "full-round action" thing in the spell combat class feature. The last session I played with a magus, the player kept trying to talk the GM into letting their magus character cast spells without provoking attacks of opportunity, because otherwise, "the class is useless." He got a bit frustrated with the GM when the GM explained how casting defensively and concentration checks work and referred him to the Pathfinder RPG core rulebook about it.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
Now I'm confused. Is this thread about the mechanically weakest classes, or the classes we hate the most?
tylermalan
First Post
Well, either. I guess my main question is which are the worst from a mechanical point of view, but whatever. I'm assuming that you are asserting that Dykstrav's choices are from a personal hatred, and not a mechanical standpoint?
And actually, I've obviously seen some other threads on the topic, but I'm interested to see a concise post by you, Stream, on why you think the Rogue is bad, other than that their talents are garbage.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
They have the worst saves in the game.
They're tremendously MAD (only Monk and Ninja are worse).
They had almost every means of ranged SA taken away, and fell behind the other melee classes for melee damage/suvivability (just look at Fighter, Paladin, and even Barbarian and TWF Ranger compared to 3E). The medium BAB also severely crimps their melee ability.
The skill change BADLY destroyed much of their niche protection as being the "skill guy." Now thanks to their MAD, they're lucky to be the best at any skill at all, other than Disable Device (partly due to the trapfinding bonus, partly because no one else really would care enough to put ranks in it).
It's more a case of Rogue not being very good at anything at all. The game rewards specialization, being the second best in the party at most roles isn't really that useful. Bard has always had a similar problem, but at least gets solid buffing and decent spellcasting to compensate.
Now, I happen to really like rogues, and monks. So if this thread is about HATE, then my choice is Gunslinger, hands-down. It does pirouettes as it dances over a decade of broken rules precedents in its tango with its dance partner, "my power is limited only by DM fiat," gaining grit points while doing so.
They're tremendously MAD (only Monk and Ninja are worse).
They had almost every means of ranged SA taken away, and fell behind the other melee classes for melee damage/suvivability (just look at Fighter, Paladin, and even Barbarian and TWF Ranger compared to 3E). The medium BAB also severely crimps their melee ability.
The skill change BADLY destroyed much of their niche protection as being the "skill guy." Now thanks to their MAD, they're lucky to be the best at any skill at all, other than Disable Device (partly due to the trapfinding bonus, partly because no one else really would care enough to put ranks in it).
It's more a case of Rogue not being very good at anything at all. The game rewards specialization, being the second best in the party at most roles isn't really that useful. Bard has always had a similar problem, but at least gets solid buffing and decent spellcasting to compensate.
Now, I happen to really like rogues, and monks. So if this thread is about HATE, then my choice is Gunslinger, hands-down. It does pirouettes as it dances over a decade of broken rules precedents in its tango with its dance partner, "my power is limited only by DM fiat," gaining grit points while doing so.
Last edited:
Crothian
First Post
It all depends on how the game is played. The classes people see as best are the ones that do one thing great and as long as that character can do that one thing they will be. But that's boring. Every now and then the fighter has to fight without armor and weapons. The wizard gets in a situation with few spells and no chance to prepare more. It can be as simple as makign a situation where the Druid needs to become the face of the group and have to use socuial skills they are not good at. So, changing the way the game plays a little bit can really make a difference on what classes are the best.
GreyLord
Legend
Except for those who try to use some screwed up math to justify their reasoning...isn't it basically the same thing normally...
I suppose I should joke less on it...
This is true...but not seen very much.
Most times people are talking only about one factor of the game when they discuss which classes are best, and that's combat.
Many have their niche's which they prefer...with many calling any spellcaster the best...aka...Druid's, followed by Clerics...followed by Wizards or Sorcerer's...
In that I suppose the above are pretty much close to being the top of what they'd call the BEST classes, with Monks and Rogues being there with the WORST classes...many would say Fighters as well...
I say the worst class is the one that you don't want to play, the best one being the one you want to play. It stinks if you want to play the Wizard and have to play a Rogue, or a Fighter and have to play a Cleric...that's when you suddenly get a Rogue that seems to be focused on scrolls and casting all things that he can possibly qualify for...and Clerics that are selfish and only buff themselves then rush into combat after it's half over trying to kill everything and say they did it all by themselves...and then refuse to heal anyone telling everyone else it's their purpose to provide their own healing.
So, play what you WANT to play...and enjoy the game. Even if you want to play a Monk, play it and enjoy it. If you DON'T want to play a class, that's the worst class for you to play. Even if someone says you need to play such and such because it's the best class ever...if you don't want to play it and it won't be fun for you...then for YOU that's the worst class.
Just my two coppers...and that's not much considering how many have two gold to clink together instead.
Last edited:
Wiseblood
Adventurer
My number one choice for worst class is Druid.
A class that just irks me to no end. It had some style in older editions. Not enough to really bother playing. It could have been a hedge wizard casting spells both arcane and divine. Much like the druids I would envision from a pseudo medieval fantasy setting. Instead they have been co-opted by hippies. Barf.
How did it make number one? Over-inflate it with power (shape-shifting, full casting and the two best saves) just to make it a viable choice.(given the horrendous roleplaying opportunities) A splash of neutrality to aid players who are allergic to real alignments. Add in some stupid pet and bingo you have the worst class in the game.
The runner up is anything not found in the Core Rulebook.
I lack the ability to convey the vitriolic hatred I have for druids. It seethes in my guts like a nest of angry wasps.
A class that just irks me to no end. It had some style in older editions. Not enough to really bother playing. It could have been a hedge wizard casting spells both arcane and divine. Much like the druids I would envision from a pseudo medieval fantasy setting. Instead they have been co-opted by hippies. Barf.
How did it make number one? Over-inflate it with power (shape-shifting, full casting and the two best saves) just to make it a viable choice.(given the horrendous roleplaying opportunities) A splash of neutrality to aid players who are allergic to real alignments. Add in some stupid pet and bingo you have the worst class in the game.
The runner up is anything not found in the Core Rulebook.
I lack the ability to convey the vitriolic hatred I have for druids. It seethes in my guts like a nest of angry wasps.
Similar Threads
