What is the Worst Class in D&D?

[Merlion]

Yea come to think of it the cleric is on my list to for many of those same reasons.
I'm looking forward to Arcana Unearthed were magic is magic...no Arcane/Divine no you cant create those kinds of effects

 

[rounser]

Worst designed is the druid, IMO:
* Assumes you'll have an animal companion, ties some of your power to that and doesn't give you a plausible in-character way to "upgrade".
* Arbitrary weapon restrictions for flavour, which isn't so bad in itself, just some of them are puzzling (scimitar?).
* Heals worse than a cleric for no particular reason (maintenance of the cleric's archetype?). Given that they're bribing people to be the healer in the cleric class, and that healing is arguably as much a nature thing as a divine thing, this makes no sense, and a druid who could heal as well as the cleric would be more useful in the dungeon.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

As of this time, 0 votes for Rogues. It's taken three years, but Rogues appeear to finally be getting the respect they deserve!

The rogue is in its own way overpowered. They just have way too many skill points and way too many class skills and evasion and all the sneak attack damage... Its too much. Add to that that one of the reasons that the bard is so unpopular is that it can be so well faked by a rogue...

I think that the rogue used to be the generalist class and since it was popular for that they just kept expanding it. But once other classes got skills and bards became core, they should have cut back and made it a little more focused instead of the "if you don't want a fighter or a magic user anything can be made with this" class.

(ugh, and please don't tell me about all the rogue archetypes that need perform or diplomacy or gather info. This is what multiclassing, making another class dishonest or just dealing are for - kinda like someone who wants a gladiator that plays to the crowd has to multiclass or pretend that the bard/rogue is a fighter or just deal by paying out of the measly skill points for cross class.)

Kahuna Burger

 

[Agamon]

Barbarian: One trick pony thanks to limited rage, all offense, no defense.

Bard: Jack of few skills, master of nothing. Poor at almost everything he does.

Cleric: Relies on heavy buffing to be useful. Domains too weak or too stong, based on deity.

Druid: Poor armor, stupid weapon restriction, situational spells, and confusing wildshape.

Fighter: boring at high levels, Charm bait thanks to poor saves.

Monk: Lots of weak or uninspiring class abilities. Poor fighter, poor scout, class abilities come too late (Ki strike). Poopy multi-class restriction.

Paladin: Three levels awesome, 17 levels boring. Poopy multi-class restriction.

Psion: Multiple stat dependency, powers that don't scale, much of his area of concern covered by cleric or wizard.

Psychic Warrior: Like a cleric, but he CAN'T HEAL!

Ranger: Poopy TWF, not enough skill points, too dependent on DM to make his class abilities useful.

Rogue: Sneak Atk too situational, poor offense and adequate defense. Easy to kill in melee.

Sorcerer: 45 spells, period. No useful skills or bonus feats like wizard, familiar a liability, slower spell progession.

Wizard: Spellbook and familiar liability, very dependent on magic items to say competitive, very fragile, weak to start, powerful at end.

I wanna change my vote, you're right, they all suck.

 

[Jemal]

This one is self-explanitory, which class is the worst designed in third edition (via the unrevised rules).

There is no 'worst class'. All of the classes are workable if you take the time to figure them out. Each is designed for its own purpose and all are fairly even in my eyes.

Barbarian: One trick pony thanks to limited rage, all offense, no defense.

Countered by lots of hit points, fast movement, and at higher levels GREATER rage and Damage Reduction.

Bard: Jack of few skills, master of nothing. Poor at almost everything he does.

But fairly good at almost everything. lots of skills, fair fighting ability, bit of spellcasting (Including healing).

Cleric: Relies on heavy buffing to be useful. Domains too weak or too stong, based on deity.

Yeah, cuz nobody likes having a spellcaster who can heal and substitute as a fighter with good weapons and armour, fair attack bonus, and greate will AND fort saves...

Druid: Poor armor, stupid weapon restriction, situational spells, and confusing wildshape.

Perhaps that's because the druid is made for very specific types... as in types that wouldn't want to be using greatswords and wearing scale mail.

Fighter: boring at high levels, Charm bait thanks to poor saves.

the best equiped to um.. FIGHT. if you want better saves, there's lots of feats _ magic items that'll help out.

Monk: Lots of weak or uninspiring class abilities. Poor fighter, poor scout, class abilities come too late (Ki strike). Poopy multi-class restriction.

*L* only if the person doesn't know how to use the monk.

Paladin: Three levels awesome, 17 levels boring. Poopy multi-class restriction.

They've got spells, Undead turning, Special mount, and awesome saves thanks to divine grace. There's also the cool roleplaying aspect of the 'holy warrior'

Psion: Multiple stat dependency, powers that don't scale, much of his area of concern covered by cleric or wizard.

Psychic Warrior: Like a cleric, but he CAN'T HEAL!

Don't know much about psionics so I'll leave these two alone.

Ranger: Poopy TWF, not enough skill points, too dependent on DM to make his class abilities useful.

Sure, if you're taking it just b/c you feel like being a ranger... If you want to play something else, play something else. The ranger's made for people who want to be very good while weilding two weaposn versus a specific foe.
Also I can't count the number of times Track has helped out PCs... and how many characters do you know that actually take it as a feat?

Rogue: Sneak Atk too situational, poor offense and adequate defense. Easy to kill in melee.

Which is why they usually SNEAK around, and don't charge into melee shouting.. Find a way to overcome the 'situational' sneak atttack... Heck, the Rogues in my games almost always get off their sneak attacks unless I specifically send them against something that they can't sneak attack (Undead, Constructs, dragons)

Sorcerer: 45 spells, period. No useful skills or bonus feats like wizard, familiar a liability, slower spell progession.

The Sorc is Made to specialize in a few spells, and do them over and over and over... 'bang bang bang you're dead from 10 fireballs and 40 magic missiles' kinda thing.

Wizard: Spellbook and familiar liability, very dependent on magic items to say competitive, very fragile, weak to start, powerful at end.

OK, fine, the one place I agree with you... The only thing I don't like about wizards is their dependancy on their spellbooks and having to memorize spells.. They're the only PHB class I've never used for a PC, and that's the reason.

 

[Angcuru]

Just use the Monte Cook ranger and you'll be fine.

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

How do you define "worst"?

Contributes the least to an average combat?

Contributes the least all around?

Most boring?

Most broken?

 

[Remathilis]

Jemal and Agamon

I listed all the complaints (from here and Wizard's boards) I've heard about classes, and since I was looking for the worst, I listed the worst traits. I realize that most of thier weaknesses are taken out of context of their strengths, each is a paraphrase of a specific arguement I've heard about a specific class.

I guess the question comes down to, is what you get for each class worth the listed losses? If not, than you have a candidate for worst designed class.

 

[Remathilis]

How do you define "worst"?

Contributes the least to an average combat?

Contributes the least all around?

Most boring?

Most broken?

All of the above.

The question was left vague to see what classes were people most disappointed with, why they were was for debate below.

Generally, the worst designed class in my opinion would be the one you have no fun playing, even if you like the archetype. Why you don't enjoy that class is up to you to decide.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Bard: Jack of few skills, master of nothing. Poor at almost everything he does.
But fairly good at almost everything. lots of skills, fair fighting ability, bit of spellcasting (Including healing).

Um, no. Choosing between a cleric and a bard is almost a no-brainer. You can even take the Trickery and Travel domains. The only thing you miss out on are skills.

Ranger: Poopy TWF, not enough skill points, too dependent on DM to make his class abilities useful.
Sure, if you're taking it just b/c you feel like being a ranger... If you want to play something else, play something else. The ranger's made for people who want to be very good while weilding two weaposn versus a specific foe.

Did you just admit that the 3.0 ranger isn't a ranger, but a foe hunter/tempest prestige class?