Which 3.5 class do you think is the weakest?

[Old Gumphrey]

The only one to die faster is the sorceror, whose nice quantity of spells per day is cut short when they lose the intiative roll to the evil wizard's empowered fireball<snip>

How's that any different from a wizard? Does that mean the wizard is weak too?

sorceror being a level behind in spellcasting and all

What the heck does that have to do with anything? Counterspelling, maybe? If he had fireball he could counter it, or if he had any evocation spells of 3rd level or higher and Improved Counterspell he could counter it.

or can't see the assassin because they didn't use their latest spell to learn See Invisibility.

Not a feature of the sorcerer, as this applies to wizards as well. Sorcerers are allowed to use scrolls, so their limited selection doesn't really apply if they plan ahead.

Monks as the weakest class, Yeah right.

Yes, I believe it is correct. Care to back up your stance with anything tangible other than "nu-uh"? The only thing I've seen them used for effectively is grappling mages to death and making all their saving throws as they do. They have good AC (with really high ability scores) and in games I've played in I find them getting scraped off of the ground more than any other class. The rogue and bard ranks up there as well in the dying factor but they add a host of great benefits to any party. Monks can basically wrestle weak opponents and really, aside from the low will save, a barbarian can do a much better job of smashing mages in a grapple.

 

[LondonReign]

>That'd be da Bard, Bob.

>(ok, that's obscure)

Newlyweds, right? :0

 

[fenrat]

I think the cleric gets this one hands down. All they are able to do is turn/rebuke undead. Yes, they can wear any armor and cast spells without any spell failure, but, they don't get any other special feats like the rogue or monk. They only get character level feats. That is one reason why I don't get alot of people playing clerics in my campaigns. I am going to change that in my campaign. Every four levels, the character gets another class feat.

Sorry Liquid, but I'd have to go with Breakdaddy on this one - maybe its the players you've had play the clerics. My players (all with 20+ years of gaming experience) have played several clerics and they have all been very powerful characters.

 

[der_kluge]

>That'd be da Bard, Bob.

>(ok, that's obscure)

Newlyweds, right? :0

I knew someone on ENWorld would get that reference. FWIW, that's not exactly what she said, but the popular interpretation of it.

 

[Psion]

It's hard to directly contrast classes with divergant focuses. But there is a pair of classes in which one clearly comes out the loser.

And that loser is sorcerer.

 

[Derulbaskul]

(snip) I chose the druid as the weakest. (snip) But druids get the smackdown all the time. Not because they are especially weak or powerful, but because they are neither, and not a good generalist either. They really aren't anything. That and the poor cleric wannabe ability of spontaneously casting summon nature's ally spells - it just adds insult to injury. (snip)

Sorry for snipping so much but I really --hate-- over-quoting.

I just wanted to express surprise at your choice of the druid. The druid's versatility, IMO/IME, doesn't come at the expense of its power. A druid that widlshapes into a dire ape even before buffing is a terror in combat (rending can be terrifying), the ability to cast cure spells is so useful and SNA is terrific: dire wolves using trip attacks and elementals, in particular. Transmute rock to mud and control winds are simply --awesome-- attack spells; I could simply go on and on.

IMC the other players have complained about how powerful the druid has been for so many levels, regularly dishing out more damage in melee combat that the fighter-types and having seemingly more effective magic than even the clerics and the wizards.

However, of course YMMV.

 

[LondonReign]

I knew someone on ENWorld would get that reference. FWIW, that's not exactly what she said, but the popular interpretation of it.

Yeah, and for those wondering...

BOB: Where is the most unusual place you've had sex?

CONTESTANT: That'd be da butt, Bob.

 

[Cyberhawk]

I chose the Bard in this one, but it's not becuase I dislike the class. I find it a lot of fun to play and I love the Bardic Lore ability. I think the Bard is a great class for highly social games (such as in the king's court).

The reason why I gave the vote to the Bard is that in every game I've run and/or played the Bard gets stomped in the combat scenes. Either they run and sing a song or they stand and get clobbered. So in a question of 'who's the weakest' the bards end up being my vote.

 

[milotha]

I voted sorcerer. There is really nothing keeping you from ditching the class for a prestige class after first level except your familiar, and most of the time familairs just sit on the sidelines and give you a small ability bump.

 

[Mista Collins]

I decided not to choose any of the options. I don't like to look at the way the classes are set up and think "What makes them weak" or "What makes them weaker than others?". A lot of the roleplaying I do doesn't even focus on class skills all that much. My players and myself have created some really weird characters. We have had a bard who focused on combat, we had a rogue who focused on magic. We don't let the limitations of classes get to us.

A lot of these comments I have seen focus on the combat side of the classes. I hate focusing on that part of the game. I enjoy the NPC/PC interaction (non-combat) part much more than the "he is bad, let's strike him down" part.

None of the classes are weaker than the others, none of them are stronger than the others, and none of them are balanced compared to the others. What are they then? They are what they are.

(Sorry about this little rant, I'll get off my soap box)