I voted Monk and am startled to see how little votes it has recieved.
My opinions are based both on my play as a DM and as a player.
Monk is basically a fighter class with no armor proficiencies, poor weapon selection, and cleric BAB progression. Monk is an extremely weak class for any creature that can't use the unarmed attack to augment its natural attacks (claws or whatever) and doesn't have natural armor. Among PC's, the survival rate of monks is lower than any class which I've DMed. When developing challenges for my players, I often will weaken the encounter by selecting monk as the opponents class.
Monk is a generalist class, much like Bard, and like Bard is ok at many things, but master of none. This is tradiationally a recipe for disaster in RPG's, where specialist almost always out perform generalists. Monks require many high attributes to perform well at anything. Bards actually tend to have a more useful role in a party than Monks, because at least the Bard can rely on his high charisma, and spells to support and 'buff' his party - albeit generally in a weaker fashion than a cleric with a non-combat charisma focus.
The majority of monk class abilities are of rather low value and can be virtually acquired quite easily by other classes using magic items - flight items, boots of striding and springing, rings of featherfall, etc. Assuming you don't mind holding a weapon, a fighter will quickly acquire more combat style feats than a monk. In this way, the monk is similar to a 2nd edition thief. The class is quite weak at low levels, and generally surpassed at high levels. Only an extremely low magic campaign could justify taking a class that turned ones own body into a magic weapon at the expense of other powers.
I'm sorta shocked to see how much derision the Ranger gets. I grant you that for much of its career it is a rather boring class and it is painfully front ended, but it is by no means a patheticly weak class. It has full fighter base attack bonus (unlike the monk). It is a divine spell caster (unlike the Bard), and so can buff itself and its comrades. It clearly outshines the fighter in useful skills, and lags only slightly behind in damage capacity and armor class. It is much less of a one trick pony than a Barbarian. Favored enemy becomes increasingly potent at higher and higher levels. At 20th level, you get bonuses to damage/skills vs. 5 different classes of creature. I'd say that the biggest problem the class has (and one which I've decided to change in my campaign world) is that it can't do bonus damage vs. favored enemies that are immune to critical hits. Aesthetically, the biggest problem is that it still has too much flavor text for a core class.
I'm much less shocked to see the Bard come under fire, as this would have been my 2nd choice. The basic problems here is lack of skill points in a class that survives by its wits, combined with arcane caster that needs to wear armor. A secondary problem is that limited uses for bardic singing.
Although I haven't first hand experience, Psion also seems to be a miserable class for the reasons many people outline. By first hand experience, Psychic Warrior is only slightly better, is extremely weak in the hands of an inexperienced player, and seems to be geared solely arround the creation of a few smackdowns.
Barbarian is a strong class (maybe too strong) burdened with too much flavor text for a core class. Druid and Paladin are moderately weak classes with the same problem, with Paladin suffering much of Ranger's problems with being front-ended and otherwise boring to develop though not quite to the same extent.
Wizard is a strong class but still is too easy to kill at low levels, and suffers horribly from the need to buy all of thier spells and to a lesser extent on the need to burn alot of thier XP on wands and scrolls. Wizards should be able to use the spell books of other wizards. It is rather ridiculous to me that they can't, so I let them and it seems to work fine.
Fighter is a strong class burdened by the lack of secondary professions in D&D. Allow characters to choose a secondary profession that improves thier 'class' skill list, and fighter stops being quite so boring. A secondary concern is the lack of interesting feats in the core rules and the tendancy to put all interesting new ideas into the framework of a PrC. Fighter tends to be the most dabbled in class, with virtually every other class taking 1-4 levels of fighter to load up on feats.
Sorcerer is a good class that shares many of the weaknesses of both fighters and wizards. They are too fragile at low levels and like fighters tend to be one dimensional.
Cleric and rogue are examples of 3rd editions tendancy to overcompensate for the weaknesses of previous editions. Like Barbarian, cleric and rogue may now actually be too strong. They are now in terms of flexibility, role playing potential, and sheer in game prowess probably the best classes in the game. Rogue is probably the second most dabbled in class, usually fighter types looking for some decent skills to fall back on. Cleric is probably the third most dabbled in class, with many fighters and barbarians in my campaigns taking a level to buff up will saves, gain access to all the front end goodness of domain powers, and the ability to use the all powerful wand of cure light wounds.
It baffles me that people would complain about clerics all being the same and sterotyped and so forth, and I'm inclined to chalk that up to a failure of imagination and not the game system. Clerics can be made to fit almost any role you desire of them, and are easily among the most interesting classes to play both as a PC and a DM. I think it is only PC clerics who tend to come out 'all the same' (and not all of them). I've played clerics that were so different they hardly seemed the same class (one came out more like a Paladin, another more like a Bard, and a third something like a Druid). In fact, if I had to complain about a cleric is that they can almost do every class better than that class can.
~
